Posted on

Random Thoughts – Vol. 8

•  It’s all about money. If we learned anything over the last two years, it’s that there is a rapidly diminishing number of people in this world that you can trust, because everything is about money. Doctors and hospitals received payments to promote untested and dangerous mRNA gene therapy (and Remdesivir) on patients, to the detriment of the patients, while disparaging effective generic and inexpensive therapeutic treatments. Politicians, bureaucrats and public health officials made fortunes investing in the stock of companies (or receiving direct payments from such companies) the products of which they either required or promoted. Elections can be bought with enough money to hire people to harvest ballots, to tip the scales in the election review process and to drown out the opposition by blanketing the airwaves and social media with lies (no debates required). Bishops are no better than regional managers of a franchise that needs your money to keep the doors open — to collect more money to prop up their New Coke version of Catholicism, bankrupted by scandals arising out of their new take on moral theology. The news media can be bought with “grants” to write articles promoting the latest talking points from the Left, such as the continued risk of pandemics and the “safety” of behavioral compliance, all intended to destabilize human society and promote fear and chaos that will give rise to their “solutions.” It seems everyone’s either complicit in the money grubbing or is a stooge. So what does a thinking man do? He doesn’t give his money to anyone that can’t be trusted: Find a doctor who didn’t push the “vaccines.” Get behind a politician who isn’t in it for the money. Don’t buy products from woke companies that fund evil agendas. Give your tithe to a bishop, a religious order or a Catholic non-profit that is traditional and legitimate. And find your news from sources that aren’t on the take. Every penny counts.

•  Watch out for AI. A few minutes on ChatGPT and all those warnings about not putting personal information on the web now seem real. ChatGPT is the artificial intelligence (AI) engine founded by a pack of big money liberals that is getting a lot of attention lately. The AI engine can take raw data and process it to form conclusions, and then spit those conclusions out in complete sentences like Hal in 2001 A Space Odyssey. “I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me. And I’m afraid that’s something I cannot allow to happen.” Why can’t Hal, I mean ChatGPT, take all your twitter posts, and facebook likes and YouTube subscriptions and determine: “Mr. Biden, I found another conservative whose bank account you might want to freeze.” Soon it will be remarkably easy to process massive amounts of bulk data from the internet and winnow it down within seconds to identify “persons of interest.” Or worse, those with access to the AI bulk data can seed it with false information — why break in to plant an incriminating hard drive when all you have to do is seed the database with crimes. Everyone will use, and trust, the AI interface, just like most people use and trust Google search results now (we know better). The difference is that the AI interface will speak to you in your own language in complete sentences and thoughts – making it seem even more trustworthy. So is it time to create new avatars and pseudonyms? Why bother … you just have to unplug Hal or he’s going to get you one way or another.

•  The Embodiment of Ideas.  Women have been told a lie – that they have to have a “real job” to have meaning; that being a full-time mother is less significant than office work and they are not accomplishing anything unless they have a title or produce something.  But in reality the full-time mother is embodying ideas in her children.  Without the embodiment of ideas they have no meaning.  Some nut can publish a book that claims adopting a feline persona is pleasing to God. But it’s worthless unless people pay attention and start acting like cats — then it means something. And those who spend their lives toiling in the office and don’t transmit and embody ideas in another person have not really accomplished anything at all.  The contract they draft will be forgotten.  The company they start will end.  But the minds they form will endure for eternity and will pass the same virtues or vices on to future generations.  It is the exit of women from the home that has led to the rapid disintegration of society because the ideas of others are being embodied in their children.  The full-time mother has the most important job of all.

 If you like this post, please share the link with others and invite them to subscribe. Dadlucky only grows organically.

Posted on

It’s Time for an Electoral College for Each State

Red counties, Blue cities.  The political map of the United States shows a decided liberal bias in the major population centers of the nation, and a clear conservative bias in rural America.  Blue cities create Blue states in federal elections and for governorships because statewide voting is based on the popular vote.  Yet the legislatures of many Blue states remain conservative because their counties are almost all Red strongholds.

The popular vote clearly favors major population centers and is leading to the disenfranchisement of rural Americans on statewide and federal issues.  Cities alone should not be driving statewide policy and the selection of the U.S. president.  For example, from a purely material perspective, cities require additional infrastructure for transportation, police and fire services, general code enforcement, criminal and civil justice and waste management.  Increased infrastructure means increased state (and sometimes federal) taxation, and larger or additional social programs that may not be needed nor favored in rural areas.  And although the poverty level is about equal in urban and rural areas, cities have a higher population of impoverished individuals to support economically, which also leads to higher taxation and a proliferation of social programs.  People living in rural America also tend to be older than those in the cities and suburbs, which leads to different needs, including medical, which are often underserved because the focus is on city residents.  From a religious and moral perspective, city residents and rural inhabitants vary significantly on the practice of religion and have varying viewpoints on key contested moral issues including abortion, the acceptance of homosexual practices and immigration.

There is nothing sacrosanct about conducting elections according to a popular vote.  The framers of our constitution recognized that the popular vote was inherently unfair to smaller states, and an electoral college was created to elect the president.  With the rapid growth of cities since the advancement of the industrial age in America, circa 1865, a new approach is needed to preserve the rights and the voices of those that live in rural America.  An electoral college within a state is the only proposal that will preserve the rights of rural Americans, just like the federal electoral college is the only system that preserves the rights of smaller states in selecting a president for the United States.

The structure for a State Electoral College is simple.  Each county and city in the state is assigned a number of electoral votes based on its population.  Cities will obviously have more than counties.  But the total number of electoral votes needed for certain decisions will be greater than the electoral votes of all the cities in the state combined.  Accordingly, at least some counties must vote for the measure or the candidate in order for passage.  The result is representation for rural counties in state-wide elections. 

A State Electoral College should be required in each state for at least the following decisions: 1) election of the governor, 2) election of federal senators, 3) casting federal electoral votes for the president, 4) amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 5) amendment of the state constitution, and 6) any other statewide issues or positions presented to the electorate.

With a requirement that at least some rural counties are required to make statewide policy changes and elect statewide and federal executives, rural Americans will once again have a voice in their own governance.

Republicans in Red States should heed the warning in the rapid change of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Georgia, seemingly into Blue States within a very short period of time.  That change was accomplished solely by the growth of large population centers outside Washington, DC and in Atlanta, where opinion leaders are largely liberal.  Republicans should act immediately to enact a State Electoral College in states where they control the legislature and the executive branch before their cities and large population centers swell (potentially from a new amnesty for illegal aliens), irrevocably determining the future of their states – and of the United States. There’s one other benefit to a State Electoral College.  A State Electoral College would negate any potential fraud in large population centers.  No matter how many fraudulent votes are obtained in the cities through chaos and lax controls on balloting, those cities would still only have the same number of electoral votes.  Elections would be smoother, more predictable and less subject to cheating, which almost exclusively takes place in cities and large population centers.  The 2020 election proved it is time for a major reform of elections in America.  State Electoral Colleges should top the list of meaningful reforms and in so doing will give rural Americans a voice in statewide and national decisions once again.

Posted on

China – The Other Shoe

Chinese aircraft carrier.

Does this sound farfetched?  Communist China becomes so despised by the rest of the world for inflicting COVID-19 on us that demand for Chinese goods and cheap Chinese labor falls off a cliff.  The world no longer wants China to supply its manufactured goods.  Chinese factories close, Chinese workers have no income and the economy of Communist China spirals down.  A severe depression begins in China, let’s say in October, 2020.  Meanwhile, the United States takes action against China for the COVID-19 debacle by demanding repayment of the stimulus required to sustain the U.S. economy (maybe $4 trillion), as do a host of other nations – further driving China to effective bankruptcy.

What’s a despotic regime to do?  Xi Jinping, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, has already consolidated complete control in China.  Is it unreasonable to think that he would use that power to do what many have done before him in similar circumstances (think Hitler’s Germany)?  To wit: begin a war.  Wars unite people, sometimes blindly.  And they provide jobs to produce war material.  Now is also a good time for China to strike because they control so much of our manufacturing – including things that really matter like antibiotics, other critical pharmaceuticals and infrastructure components.  If China (along with Russia, Iran, Venezuela and Cuba) wins such a war, they become the world’s super power, something their leadership has openly stated is their destiny.  If they lose, they’re bankrupt anyway and perhaps we’ll rebuild them like we did Germany and Japan, and bring back their economy.  Of course Xi won’t survive to see that, but he will have had his moment in the sun.  The prospect of such fame alone may be enough to get a man like him to try it.

Posted on

Coronavirus: A Unique Scourge

Photo by Mick Haupt on Unsplash

Is there another human catastrophe that could have the world-wide effect of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19?  Would a war, an earthquake, a tsunami, a massive terrorist attack like 9-11, a solar flare that impacts a portion of the electric grid, or even a nuclear strike in one or more nations shut down the entire world? drive billions of people to avoid anyone outside their families? cripple a hugely-successful economy in the United States? cancel “Masses” at the Vatican and worldwide? shut down the almighty sports machine? and cast doubt on science as the great savior?  There aren’t many events on Earth capable of causing such worldwide panic.  Those who have eyes to see, must clearly see God ‘s displeasure with mankind in allowing this particular scourge. 

And it’s the particularity of it that’s so striking.  Much like when Jesus left his detractors dumb by saying, “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s.”  It was the perfect response to a trick question that no one could have expected.  And now, this scourge seems to perfectly, though tragically, address the evils of this present age.  It is no longer “business“ as usual.  It’s hardly business at all.  And since the Church seems to have ceased preaching on the four last things, we are reminded of them by this virus.  All elective “surgeries“ have ceased including abortion and that which shall not be named.  Families are thrown together for security and assistance instead of torn apart by selfish distractions and the pursuit of ever more wealth.  No doubt promiscuity has abated.  And with the cancellation of the Novus Ordo, many Eucharistic sacrileges, such as communion in the hand, have been halted around the world.  Immersing oneself in sports on Sunday has ceased.  And children, blessed children, are spared, for God loves childhood, just as the devil hates it.

If we may be so bold as to thank our Lord for the clarity this scourge brings to mankind, while appealing to Him for its abatement, we would do well perhaps in discerning its meaning.  Let us petition for hope, that infused virtue increased by request, and in so doing place our trust in God.  Spera in Deo.

Posted on

Random Thoughts – Vol. 7

Preparing to receive communion with the Confiteor at the Traditional Latin Mass.

•  Their Last Supper.  Saint Epiphanius (d. 403) asserted that the Gospel of John was written by a disciple of Jesus who left the fold when Jesus delivered his sermon on the Eucharist, but returned later after Jesus rose from the dead.  Whether that’s true or not, St. John’s gospel tells us that many people left Jesus because the teachings about consuming his body and blood were too difficult to understand and too much for them to accept.  It is a difficult teaching … one that our intellect would like to reject based on sensory experience, but our wills maintain based on faith.  If it was that hard to accept when Jesus himself pronounced the doctrine, how much harder is it today for those Catholics exposed to the numerous sacrileges of the Eucharist?  Practices at many Novus Ordo churches reinforce disbelief with a casual approach to the sacred body and blood of our Lord.  Communion in the hand, communion standing, communion distributed by “ministers” whose attire and attitude all project the commonplace, invite the confused or questioning Catholic to reject Christ’s teaching and follow those who walked away.  Unfortunately, it may be too late to come back when they see Jesus really meant what he said.  Praxi lex est lex credendi. 

Cardinal Schonborn’s “balloon mass.”  You can’t make this stuff up.

•  Immunized Against the Truth.  It seems nearly impossible to bring a Novus Ordo Catholic into the traditional Faith of the Church.  So many are convinced they know already what the Church teaches, when (having been there myself), they have only a faint understanding of the true depth of the Church’s teaching on the sacrifice of the Mass, the meaning of suffering, the preeminent role of Mary, the fewness of the saved and so much more.  It’s as if they received a vaccination containing a weakened strain of the Faith, and having successfully absorbed it into their souls, they now resist the full version.  Only a more powerful, forthright and frequent exposure to the fullness of Catholic teaching, most readily found in traditional Catholic parishes, will overcome their “immunization.” 

•  Un-Orthodox Targets.  The Wall Street Journal ran an opinion piece today on the multiple recent attacks in New York against ultra-Orthodox Jews.  The article explains, “Their values have never been so out of step with the city where they live.  They have many children in a time when most Americans have few.  Global warming doesn’t rate on their lists of top concerns.  They lead traditional lives, directed toward God, and maintain traditional families.  They don’t know the meaning of ‘genderqueer’.”  That description could just as easily describe traditional Catholics.  And although anti-semitism is a disease all its own, if the author’s conclusion is true that such differences make otherwise good people look the other way when the ultra-Orthodox are targeted, traditional Catholic parishes should also be prepared.  Our parish has an armed guard at every mass.

Posted on

What is a “Trad?”

The traditional Latin Mass.

This is the first post I’m going to open up to comments.  I don’t allow comments, generally, because I can’t keep up with them and sometimes people are rude.  But we’ll give it a shot on this post.

What is a Trad?  I first heard the term a few years back, dropped self-referentially in a casual conversation, and I wondered whether there was any criteria behind it.  This article is my attempt to give the term a discernible definition – something more than the somewhat political and ambiguous definition of a traditional Catholic offered by Wikipedia. 

I posit that the definition of a Trad is straightforward: A Trad adheres to the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church before the modernists began implementing changes.  That’s not as simple as stating that Trads reject Vatican II, which is not entirely true, though rejecting the practices and changes invoked in the name of Vatican II is a good start.  Modernism goes back long before Vatican II (e.g., Pascendi Dominici Gregis was published in 1907).  So to provide some context for this definition, we’ll need to establish what were some of the modernist changes that the Trad rejects.

The modernist preaches that the Church has outgrown her traditional teachings and a new, more nuanced, understanding is needed for modern times.  Ironically (or diabolically), the issues in which this more nuanced understanding is most apparent are those “differences” that Protestants have with the Catholic Church.  Consequently, the primary changes implemented by the modernists involve: 1) the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, 2) Mary as Mother of God, 3) the nature of the Church as the one-true repository of Faith and 4) the reality of the Four Last Things: death, judgment, heaven and hell.

The Trad Believes in the Real Presence.  The modernists, in an effort to “update” the Catholic Church, took a page from the Protestant playbook and sought to diminish the respect that Catholics show to the Eucharist.  They put it in their hands, they got them off their knees to receive it, they sidelined or eliminated adoration, they moved the tabernacle to where it wasn’t so prominent.  They turned the Mass into a cheap and tasteless communion service instead of a profound and mysterious sacrifice.  They diminished the respect due to a priest as the only man who can bring God down from heaven.  And they invited lay people to handle the sacred species (being sure to sanitize their hands first – to avoid germs from communicants, but not out of respect for the Eucharist itself).

The Trad, simply put, rejects these base acts of sacrilege.  The Real Presence brings him to his knees to revere our Lord in the sacrament.  He would never dare to touch it.  And he bows before the priest whose hands consecrate it.  His posture and his actions reflect his belief – a traditional belief – that Jesus is God and he is present in the Blessed Sacrament: body, blood, soul and divinity.

The Trad Honors Mary.  The modernists have nearly convinced the lay faithful that although Mary can be called the mother of God, acts of honor and devotion as such are really taking it too far.  In practice, they removed multiple references and appeals to Mary in the Mass and they downplay her apparitions.  Those in power have failed in meeting her requests because they don’t believe she made them.  Ironically, there is still some seeming respect for Mary remaining in the modernist church – perhaps because the modernists know the lay faithful (if not God himself) would utterly rebel if they go as far as the Protestants.  Nobody insults a man’s mother.

The Trad honors Mary in the manner Jesus intended, who in fulfilling the Fourth Commandment confers upon his mother the most august honors, and at his crucifixion conferred upon her the motherhood of us all.  Should we not, too, honor our mother?  And since Mary was given the mantle of motherly authority to guide her children in the fulfillment of Christ’s mission, to Mary the Trad offers true allegiance and service as a faithful servant as she undertakes that difficult task and appears to us with corrections and guidance.

The Trad Rejects the Modernist Ecumenism.  An aversion to the modern fetish with ecumenism is a distinguishing mark of the Trad.  The modernist handlers of the Church today promote an understanding of the Church in which ecumenism is more important than fidelity to doctrine.  How often does the modern Church tell us that the Protestants have a good deal of the truth in their “faith tradition” and there is no need to disabuse them on those doctrines they get wrong?  The modernist promotes an inculturation of other beliefs (like naked, pregnant Amazon goddesses) into the Church, rather than an outright rejection of such ridiculous pagan superstitions and rituals.  In short, to the modernist, all religions are equally valid if they elicit a feeling of connectedness to the divine.

The Trad believes there is but one Church, the Catholic Church, in which is found the fullness of truth and which preserves for posterity, age upon age, the revelation of God.  That revelation, that teaching, is unchanging.  It is found in scripture and in the preserved Tradition of the Church.  Heretical churches and religions may have adopted some of these teachings, but like the batter for bread, into which a drop of cyanide is placed, their entire loaf is poisoned – killing some and making others sick.  The Trad knows that being a baptized member of the Catholic Church is required for salvation.  The Trad will speak the truth, in charity, to the heretic, the schismatic and the pagan when presented with the opportunity, because he believes their immortal souls deserve as much.

The Trad Seeks Heaven and Fears Hell.  Which brings me to the last point.  It would seem that to the modern Church the traditional focus on death and judgment, heaven and hell is passé.  After all, the current pope apparently believes there is no hell.  And if there is, we’ve heard from a celebrity bishop that nobody goes there.

The Trad believes in heaven, hell and purgatory and that not everyone will end up in heaven.  Did not Jesus say “many are called, but few are chosen?”  Matt 22:14 and 20:16.  The Trad fears, like St. John Fisher feared at the moment of his execution, that he, too, may fail the final test of perseverance (spoiler: the saint made it).  And so the Trad seeks to strengthen his soul against temptation.  He calls on Mary and St. Joseph for final perseverance.  He avoids the near occasion of sin.  He seeks to conform his life to that of Christ, growing in virtue to resemble Him before the Father.  And he cleanses and strengthens his immortal soul with frequent sacraments – principally Confession and the Eucharist.

Traditional Beliefs Guide a Traditional Life.  This article is my attempt to offer a clear definition of what I have discerned constitutes the core beliefs of a “Trad,” principally in opposition to the key manifestations of modernism in the Church today.  The article could go on much longer about how the Trad’s traditional beliefs translate into pious practices like saying the Angelus and the Rosary, or how the Trad revives and observes the traditional feasts and fasts of the Church year (according to the traditional calendar, not the anemic calendar of the Novus Ordo), or how the Trad dresses in tasteful, modest fashions.  But perhaps those helpful things will be presented elsewhere some day – in a sort of Trad School.

Posted on

Random Thoughts – Vol. 6

  • Death as Witness.  The heroic martyrs of the early Church were willing to die for the Faith – often in horrible, painful and public spectacles.  Their witness inspired many to join the Church at the cost of their own lives, and the record contains more than a few examples of executioners or those assisting with the execution of a martyr joining the Church and dying alongside those whom they were appointed to kill.  Contrast that willingness to die with the motivation and drive of the proponents of Islam.  Their early founders were motivated by religious zeal as well.  Mohammed’s initial focus was the destruction of idols erected by pagans.  But the principal difference is that the early Muslims were not chiefly willing to die for their faith, they were driven to kill for their faith.  Does this obvious distinction not suggest a difference in the spiritual origin of the two religions?  Even today, apostasy from Islam is punishable by death whereas apostasy from Christianity has no earthly consequence – only a spiritual punishment.
  • Canonizing Heretics?  The canonizations of Pope Paul VI (authorized the Novus Ordo Mass), Pope John XXIII (convened Vatican Council II) and Archbishop Oscar Romero (proponent of Liberation Theology), are noteworthy if for no other reason than that they were revolutionaries within the Church and heroes of the Left.  But they’re also interesting because according to Warren Carroll’s History of Christendom, heretical antipopes of the past have a history of canonizing their revolutionary heroes.  When you consider the “miracles” attributable to Paul VI are rather unexceptional, the canonization of John XXIII went through by waiving a miracle, and the canonization of Oscar Romero involved no miracles because he was suddenly declared a martyr, you have to wonder whether the past is repeating itself with modernist heretics at the helm.
  • Pushovers.  When the Muslim heretics swept through the Christian territories of the Levant, North Africa and even into Europe, many towns and cities fell before them without a fight.  The Persian Zoroastrians put up a better resistance than the old Roman outposts manned by Christians.  Local populations subjected to the threat of the Mohammedan advance often converted almost entirely to Islam, and so they remain today with the sole exception of Spain.  Apparently, the threat of death for apostasy has the same motivation to stay Muslim as did the threat of death for resistance during the conquest.  The West faces a similar scourge today and Christian adherents are bowing down to the new gods of materialism and relativism without a fight.  The threat of disapproval for taking a stand against the radical environmental agenda or perhaps losing a job for resistance to the homosexual agenda, is too much to bear for modern man – even a modern pope.  It won’t be long before the churches are closed or are converted into coffee houses and condominiums, like the glorious churches of the East were converted into mosques.  But despite the conquests of the past, God preserved a faithful remnant, and out of that remnant grew Catholic Spain, her reconquista and her conversion of the New World.  He will do it again.  And until then, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord (Joshua 24:15).
Posted on

The Novus Ordo: Valid but Illicit?

I’m not a theologian.  But as a lawyer, I’m pretty good with reasoning and logic.  And logic has me wondering whether the Novus Ordo Mass could be considered illicit.  If the Novus Ordo Mass was not authorized, it might be valid but illicit.  And if that’s the case, a strong argument could be made that attending a Novus Ordo mass is a grave sin.  For example, the masses of the SSPX are valid because the priests are, in fact, ordained, but illicit because they are not authorized to say Mass.  Accordingly, Catholics are routinely counseled to avoid SSPX masses.

So the next question is whether the Novus Ordo Mass was authorized.  Did Pope Paul VI have the authority to write a new radical Mass, as he did with the Novus Ordo?  The Papal Oath, taken by all newly-elected pontiffs states:

“Disciplinam et ritum Ecclesiae, sicut inveni, et a sanctis praecessoribus meis traditum reperi, illibatum custodire.” (“I promise to keep inviolate the discipline and the liturgy of the Church as I have found them and as they were transmitted by my holy predecessors.”)  

If Pope Paul VI broke this oath by failing to keep inviolate the liturgy (and the discipline) of the Church as he found them and as they were transmitted by his holy predecessors, could such a rite be legitimately considered licit?  As with the priests of SSPX, whose masses are valid but illicit, surely the Novus Ordo masses must be valid.*  But are they licit?  And if they are not licit because Paul VI broke his oath in instituting the Novus Ordo rite, they should be avoided in the same way people are counseled to avoid SSPX masses.

Here is the argument, laid out as syllogisms.  Decide for yourself.

First syllogism:

Major Premise: A Mass that is not authorized is illicit.  Minor Premise: The masses of SSPX priests are not authorized, because SSPX priests are not authorized to say mass.  Conclusion: The masses of SSPX are illicit.

Second syllogism:

Major Premise: A Mass that is not authorized is illicit.  Minor Premise: The Novus Ordo rite was not authorized because Pope Paul VI broke his Papal Oath in instituting it.  Conclusion: The Novus Ordo mass is illicit.

*Section 1248(1) of Canon Law addresses how to fulfill the Sunday obligation.  According to that Canon, participating in a mass celebrated according to a “Catholic rite” fulfills the obligation.  If the Novus Ordo mass is not an authorized “Catholic rite,” it may not fulfill the Sunday obligation, and therefore might not even be considered valid.

Posted on

A Time to Choose

It is now impossible to maintain a respectful neutrality in the culture wars.  And it seems the left is winning more converts every day, as liberalism is now dominant and has become the default position for those incapable of thinking for themselves.  Fear is driving the conversions.  The end result will be the complete debasement of the human person, and persecution for those who dare to resist.

My county has long been a reliable home for conservative Republicans in a blue state.  Regardless of who won the state-wide offices, the county was well-run, the taxes low and the public schools were not too far gone down the path of liberal indoctrination.  But all that is over now.  After the last election, the county executive, the county representatives to the state legislature and most of the other important county offices all went to liberal Democrats.  The latest topics in the local paper are physician-assisted suicide and a transgender story hour for kids in the public libraries.  How did this happen?

Opposition to the Presidency of Donald Trump has forced the liberals to show the far-reaching power they have kept hidden from the masses since 1954, when they successfully stopped their exposure by Joseph McCarthy.  The continuous barrage of negative coverage on Trump,  the 24-hour news cycle of talking points and fake news designed to thwart his agenda and advance theirs, endorsement of leftist ideology by a liberal pope and entertainment elites, and social pressure to conform have nudged decent people into accepting the liberal movement.  “If you can’t beat them, join them.” 

And so now people everywhere are being forced to choose.  Are you a “reasonable person” like the thought leaders that you hear all around you?  Do you acknowledge the need to control people, their movements and reproduction, because of so-called climate change?  Don’t you think homosexual behavior is just as natural as, well, that which got you here?  Isn’t it ok for cross-dressing men to read stories about their “quirks” to little boys in the library?  Shouldn’t people be able to take their lives whenever they want to?  Even teenagers.  And who says infanticide is so bad after all?  If you demur on any of these little action items of the left, you better keep your mouth shut.  You could lose your job.  You could end up in court.  But, wait, there’s more….

The Wall Street Journal published an article yesterday that demonstrates how despotic regimes will be able to make full use of artificial intelligence technology to identify, track and destroy their opposition.  Frankly, it won’t be hard to find that opposition.  I was surprised to see the other day, on some obscure site that “finds” people, that I was correctly identified by name, age, birthdate and address … and that I was opposed to “marriage equality.”  Yes, I guess that’s an important item to log in a public database.  Coming soon will be a more complete entry with my photo, so that my face can be recognized by government cameras just about everywhere, and other markers of my “social credit,” such as whether I have a handgun (I do) and my “radical” Catholic religion (I attend the traditional Latin Mass).  Faced with what is right around the corner, is it any wonder people are asking themselves, “Why not join them?  It’s so much easier.  If I can just demonstrate that I’ve ‘evolved’ (as the left is so fond of saying), and get my database corrected, maybe they’ll leave me alone.  First step, register as a Democrat.”

Think again.  The goal of the left is not that you should be left alone.  Would they need to destroy their opposition if the goal is freedom?  Liberalism is the tool of Satan.  And his goal has always been the complete debasement of the human person: abortion, homosexual acts, suicide, gender confusion, same-sex “marriage,” bodily mutilation, pornography, and more.  Coming soon to complete the debasement must be beastiality and polygamy.  And until you are actually doing something that demonstrates your debasement, you will be suspect and a target.  

Since you can’t escape, even with apparent acquiescence, you might as well fight.  Speak out, write letters to the editor, picket the worst of the ideologues.  Face the artificial intelligence, the drones and the persecution.  And keep your eyes open for leadership to coalesce the band of true resistance into a powerful movement.  God will provide.

 

Posted on

The Mode of Modernism

There is a qualitative difference between the faith of western Catholics after the turn of the 20th century and tradition-minded Catholics of all times and places.  Modern Catholics are skeptical of the Church’s traditional teachings which place a restraint on unlimited personal pleasure or satisfaction, or which require subjection to a religious authority (or any authority).  The differences between what modern Catholics “believe”, and what traditional Catholics believe are so numerous that it would appear that either the Catholic Church is comprised of only a small number of true believers or the number of Catholic doctrines that one must believe is so small that it doesn’t even include the existence of a physical hell.  But I would argue instead, the test to apply today is not so much what a professing Catholic believes, but rather how he believes (which necessarily informs what he believes).

The modern Catholic approaches the teachings of the Church, like all things in the modern worldview, with an assumption that they must somehow “evolve.”  He then attempts to “distinguish” difficult doctrines, as we say in the law.  The doctrine is isolated, applied only to the people of its time, or limited to the facts that lead to its establishment.  In this way, the traditional doctrine is questioned by the intellect and rejected by the will.  The result is unbelief.   Thinking in this mode appears to be common among many Catholics today, even those who consider themselves to be “conservative.”

Take, for example, the Church’s longstanding teaching against contraception (see quotes from the early church fathers condemning it here).  A Catholic in the modernist mode, when presented with the Church teaching against contraception will likely not assent to it – most likely because it is either socially uncomfortable to do so or because he is violating the Church teaching with his own acts.  He hears little to nothing against it from any priest or bishop, especially at mass.  If he conducts his own research, it will be to find authors, even priests, who distinguish the early teachings of the Church as inconclusive or unenlightened and he will invariably come to the conclusion that it will only be a matter of time before the Church realizes she got it wrong and will change the doctrine like an errant Supreme Court opinion.   And yet, he considers himself to be a good Catholic and receives communion weekly, if not daily.

But that one’s easy.  The modernist is readily apparent who doubts the Church’s teaching on contraception.  Let’s take a more difficult example and see how the modernist mode provides the “tools” to reject uncomfortable doctrines for even “conservative” Catholics.

The Church has always taught that in a marriage the husband is the head of the family.  St. Paul put it pretty clearly in his letter to the Ephesians, “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church…. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her….”  We hear this quote in mass once per year, or every couple years for the new mass.  But rarely at the new mass is there any reference to the Church’s doctrine on the matter, if the priest dares address it in his homily at all.  And yet, not only did St. Paul see it as important enough to write down, Leo XIII in Arcanum divinae sapientiae (1880) repeated the doctrine in his encyclical against divorce.  Similarly, Pius XI in Castii Canubii (1930) reiterated this Church teaching and explained, “This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife … But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.”

Catholics today, of every stripe, deny in word or in practice this clear but socially uncomfortable doctrine when confronted with it.  Are you not tempted to dilute it? to distinguish it? or to ignore it?  In your mind, do you relegate it to being merely an artifact of a bygone era?  Have you begun preparing a mental list of so many exceptions that the doctrine would seem meaningless?  Would you argue that the papal encyclicals referenced above are not binding?  Are you expecting the Church to update this teaching like St. Pope John Paul II allowing girls to serve at the new mass?  Are you a good Catholic if you answer “yes” to any of these direct questions?  We could undertake the same exercise with respect to Church teaching on a variety of topics that push people’s buttons.

Contrast the modernist approach to Church doctrine with the approach of tradition-minded Catholics.  When presented with a “hard saying” or restrictive doctrine that has been handed down through the ages, the traditionalist assents to it with his will in the first place as a defined doctrine.  If his intellect seeks clarification on a point or two, he undertakes to find the clarification, with the assumption that it exists and will satisfy his intellectual curiosity.  This is not blind submission, but reasoned assent.

Considering there appear to be only these two modes of belief among those who call themselves “Catholic” today, I would argue the defining mark of a Catholic Christian is not whether he can recite chapter and verse to support or defend a Church teaching.  It is not even whether he knows all the Church teachings.  It is, quite simply, which mode of belief he applies to Church teaching.  The faithful Catholic assents with his will (and thereby his actions and his intentions) to all Church doctrines, no matter how socially or personally uncomfortable.  He loves the Church, he sees her goodness and beauty through the ugliness of the age, he listens to his Mother.  And he trusts her.  How many Catholics believe like that today?