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.
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.
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?
Brett Kavanaugh Swearing-In by Justice Anthony Kennedy
Federal Judge Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed as the Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy – infamous for casting the wrong, but deciding votes in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (upholding an unlimited right to abortion), Obergefell v. Hodges (mandating homosexual marriage throughout the country) and United States v. Windsor (striking down the Defense of Marriage Act). Both conservatives and liberals know that Kavanaugh has tipped the court to the right and within two years a case will come before the court challenging Roe v. Wade. It is expected that Roe will be overturned. And then what?
The states will decide the question of abortion, and many are already preparing their constitutions and laws for the absence of Roe. I predict that the resulting patchwork of states banning abortion and those permitting (if not celebrating) it will lead to a mass migration of Americans to states that support with law their particular position on abortion. Thus, liberals (and liberal corporations) will leave conservative cities of states in the South and Midwest that will ban abortion, and conservatives will leave cities and rural areas of states in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and West that will permit it. Such a mass migration will not merely be undertaken for moral reasons, although many will relocate for matters of conscience. People will move because the concentrations of ideology will create general cultural and legislative environments unpalatable to citizens of a different point of view.
And so an opportunity will present itself. The opportunity for traditional Catholics to concentrate their population in one or more states. A Catholic evangelical and missionary outlook to save the souls of the liberals left behind should not prevent such a concentration – missions can always be established by brave souls willing to endure persecutions and attacks similar to the Franciscans and Jesuits that evangelized the Indians of North and South America. A concentration of faithful Catholics will permit the formation and development of such individuals and missionary orders. Having a home state that reflects in its laws and supports with its culture truth, beauty and goodness will be an essential component of an American revival that may take a century to mature, but will heal a nation conceived in liberty and searching from its very beginning for a soul.
Let us call such a state to which traditional Catholics may move “the Benedict State,” in a nod to The Benedict Option, a book by Rod Dreher in which he discusses the potential to preserve the Faith by concentrating believers into homogenous groups until such time as the culture is ready for re-assimilation. The preservation and concentration of traditional Catholicism in a way that integrates belief, culture and education is now essential in battling Modernism and embarking on the New Evangelization envisioned by Pope Saint John Paul II. Forming a Benedict State may be ambitious, but given the signs of the times, it may yet prove to be a propitious means to the salvation of a deeply divided America, and perhaps the Western world.
In Part II of this three-part series, I will discuss where a concentration of faithful Catholics may be most readily achieved in the United States. Part III will discuss how such a Benedict State may ultimately be useful in a reconquistaof a secular and Muslim Europe.
When I wrote Closing the Windows on July 3 in this blog, well before the McCarrick story broke in the press, and certainly before the publication last night of Archbishop Vigano’s letter implicating many cardinals, bishops and the pope in a vast homosexual network and coverup in the Church, some of my subscribers withdrew. This post may have a similar effect, but here goes.
The sickening and longstanding homosexual misdeeds of then-Cardinal McCarrick of the Archdiocese of Washington have repulsed many in the Church, even on the Left. That a Cardinal of the Church would use his position to prey upon young priests and seminarians for homosexual trysts, reportedly at his beach house near Washington, and then conduct sacrilegious “masses” immediately thereafter, shocks the conscience and scandalizes the world. That it was known by many and covered up by Cardinals, bishops and Vatican diplomats for over a decade, allowing McCarrick to continue to abuse innocent victims unchecked, is reprehensible. And that Pope Francis purposefully lifted the sanctions on McCarrick, imposed by Pope Benedict, allowing McCarrick once again back into the mainstream to find new victims is inexcusable and cries out for Pope Francis to resign immediately. But that is just the beginning.
It is time for the Holy Office of the Pope (a new pope) to conduct a long overdue inquisition into the presence of the Lavender Mafia within the Church and bring about a purging of homosexuals from the ranks of her clergy. The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind when one says “inquisition,” and that investigation has an undeserved bad name because Protestants controlled the narrative that made its way into US history texts and pagan men like Voltaire successfully satirized religious faith and the preservation of it with cunning humor. But the Spanish Inquisition had a legitimate goal in preserving the faith from dilution through half-believers and non-believers, and the Church should pay no heed to the predictable outraged cries of ignorant pagans that will follow the formal establishment of another public inquisition. The Church must return to her duty to preserve the deposit of Faith entrusted to her, and that includes inquiring into the presence of half-believers and non-believers masquerading as socially conscious priests and bishops, but who in reality are so affected by the scourge of Modernism they explain away the Church’s clear teachings and commit egregious homosexual misdeeds without compunction.
Although a new inquisition could (and likely should) focus specifically on purging Modernism from the Church (the Holy Office is tasked with addressing heresy), the “low-hanging fruit” in combatting Modernism is most readily found in practicing homosexuals that have infiltrated the Church, spread within and protected their network of lies, heinous practices and coverups. Only Modernism could explain how they reconcile such vile activities with a professed adherence to Church doctrine. So start by finding the practicing homosexuals and continue through the sympathizers and those other Modernists that look the other way because they can’t reconcile their half-belief with condemning homosexual practices. And once the offending, recalcitrant Modernists are identified, laicize them and turn them over to civil authorities to be prosecuted for their predations where appropriate.
I feel that at last the real springtime is coming for the Church. Let’s throw open the windows and shed some light on the clerical perverts hiding in the shadows under the Church’s beautiful mantle. That can only be done effectively with a formal inquisition focused, at least initially, on rooting out practicing homosexuals and their sympathizers and enablers within the Church’s hierarchy.
Fear of the … Internet? There seems to be a palpable fear among people who browse the Internet regularly that one day they will end up as a side-show story through some sad accident or random attack. The web is rife with such stories as Teen Trapped in Tree by Malicious Gator and Dancer Has Legs Amputated after Boating Accident. Most people wouldn’t want their humiliation or tragic story broadcast to the world. Oddly, that’s the same “fear” we should have of God. Fear of the Lord should train our will to avoid sinful actions that are always made known to God, and to our fellow men at the general judgment. The tragic story or random accident in our lives is bad enough, but unless they are the result of our personal immoral behavior, why not reserve our fear of publication to bad acts that have everlasting consequences?
Closing the Windows. Vatican II was celebrated as a time to “open the windows” and “let the fresh air into the Church.” What really happened, however, was an alley door was opened and homosexuals within the Church recruited others and began an infiltration of the hierarchy that lasts to this day. The result was, and is, the devastating abuse of teenage and younger boys. It is past time to acknowledge the problem as one of homosexuality, and to proactively and publicly laicize and remove homosexuals within the priesthood. But the window of opportunity to take this needed step without massive reprisals is closing fast. Homosexual activists have successfully bullied corporations, associations, governments and private individuals with swift and public attacks for even the slightest dissent against their agenda. Freedom of Religion still protects the Church, but for how long? Unfortunately, either the pontiff is oblivious to, or complicit with, the homosexual agenda – precisely at a time when a high-level and public witness must be made to stop the scandal wrought by looking the other way.
St. Joseph the Martyr. I wonder if St. Joseph, the foster father of Jesus, could be considered a martyr. After all, once Jesus began his public ministry, his father on earth would take on added significance. If St. Joseph was alive, the Pharisees could demand that he stop his son from preaching, putting pressure on him and possibly taking action against him (remember the man born blind whose parents were questioned?). And once Jesus was under assault by those seeking to kill him, a good father (unlike a mother) would be driven to take up arms to defend his innocent son. So St. Joseph likely had to die before Jesus’ public ministry began to avoid these and other conflicts that might impede the spreading of the Gospel. In this sense, St. Joseph might have died for the Faith as a martyr.
My family and I have been going to the traditional Latin Mass (“TLM”) for almost two years now and sometimes the differences between the TLM and the new Mass (the Novus Ordo) just sneak up on you. Then one day, it dawns on you how a subtle change contributes to an overall shift from a focus on Jesus in the Eucharist to a focus on the community gathering. And it makes you upset. One such change involves the Confiteor.
The Confiteor is the part of the Mass where the priest and those assisting him confess to God that they are sinful and ask for prayers, that they might be deemed worthy to receive our Lord in the Eucharist. The changes in the Confiteor are subtle, but the devil is in the details:
1. In the traditional Latin Mass (“TLM”), the priest recites the Confiteor personally, by himself, asking those assisting to pray for him. The server responds “May Almighty God have mercy on you, forgive you your sins and bring you to life everlasting.” This is not an absolution, of course, and it is similar in the Novus Ordo. But in the TLM, those assisting then recite the Confiteor, separate from the priest, and specifically ask the priest (… and you, Father) to pray for them. The priest then provides the same response, and adds a specific absolution: “May the Almighty and Merciful Lord grant us pardon, absolution and remission of our sins.” Thus, in the TLM you actually receive specific absolution from your venial sins at the beginning of Mass, that you might be as pure as possible before receiving the Eucharist. You do not receive this absolution in the Novus Ordo. Why not?
2. In the Confiteor of the TLM, the priest and those assisting him confess their sins to Almighty God and also to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saint Michael the Archangel, St. John the Baptist, Sts. Peter and Paul and all the saints. We then appeal to these specific saints in the Church Triumphant, in heaven, for prayers and petitions to overcome our faults and be worthy before our Lord. In the Novus Ordo, you confess to Almighty God and to “you my brothers and sisters.” And you then ask for prayers from St. Mary, all the angels and saints, and “you my brothers and sisters.” Frankly, I’d prefer to seek the help of St. Mary, Saint Michael, St. John, St. Peter and St. Paul, by name, over other people present at Mass (have you ever prayed for anyone there at the Confiteor of a Novus Ordo?). But the real effect of the change is to focus on the community present and it seems to me to be a slap to those saints who previously were named, but now passed over in favor of “you my brothers and sisters,” whose personal sanctity, let alone state of mind, are questionable.
3. In the TLM, the Confiteor is said twice. Once at the beginning of Mass and again by those assisting the priest (the faithful included) immediately before receiving communion. And once again this second time, the priest says the prayer of absolution to remit all venial sins you may have accumulated between the first time you said the Confiteor and your actual receipt of communion. How fitting that we should be thus purified, since we are not really fit to receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus at all. Removing the second Confiteor, with its second absolution, suggests that “we’re good enough” and “let’s not over do this groveling thing.” If they had to remove one (which they didn’t), why not keep the Confiteor closest to communion, with its associated absolution?
These types of changes in the Mass, along with more obvious ones, have contributed to a general decline in respect for the Real Presence. And the converse is true as well. By attending the TLM, without these changes, my respect for our Lord in the Eucharist has increased … making it harder to ever attend a Novus Ordo again.
A Servant’s Heart. Shows depicting the old British way of life with butlers, valets and maids for the wealthy upperclass might spark the American sentiment of indignation. After all, American’s might be tempted to ask “who would ever debase himself to become the servant of another?” Think Remains of the Day or Jeeves and Wooster. But working for Lord So-and-So or the Duke of Wherever most likely afforded the same type of cachet and name-dropping of which those who slave away for the likes of Google or Amazon are so proud. As a middle manager responsible for the Department of Whatever at Google, making merely a salary with no real wealth of your own, is there no indignation at your dependence? Well, at least you can say you work for Google – for whatever that’s worth.
Ignoramuses. The left can be ignored and they know it, that’s why they’re resorting to violent protests now. How many conservatives use Google? or Apple iPhones? or go to left-leaning universities? Millions. Sure, there can be occasional reprisals if you bother to expose their hypocrisies (like the recent incident involving an employee at Google), but if you don’t work there you can just simply ignore the leftist ideologies of these companies and institutions. You don’t have to watch the little Google videos and you can still use Google search. You don’t have to believe in so-called “climate change” and still use an iPhone. You don’t have to subscribe to gender bending theories and still go to Yale. See or hear something offensive from these places? Ignore it. What the left wants is acceptance – like children with emotional disorders. The violence from Black Lives Matter, antifa and other leftist groups is just the tantrum that follows being ignored. And how do you stop a tantrum? Administer a dispassionate spanking. A little jail time will stop the protestors – it’s not worth what George Soros is paying them. Soon the leftist fad will pass with the sunset of its spoiled progenitors. In the meantime, just ignore it.
Perfect Timing. The appearance of Jesus Christ in human history was perfectly timed by Almighty God. If Christ had come much sooner in time, there would be few if any written accounts of his actions and words. If he had come much later, there would be too many – imagine videos and photographs that could be altered or misconstrued, or a superabundance of commentary or “spin” that would certainly confuse many (as contemporary “news accounts” do today). As it happened, God’s timing was perfect and the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419) had a reasonably limited but complete set of accounts and writings to sort through to establish which were the inspired books of what is known today as the New Testament.
Something is off with the Catholic Church today but for many people it’s hard to nail down exactly what’s amiss. Is it the modern music? the rambling homilies? the smarmy glad-handing before communion? the chatting and general lack of reverence inside the church? Or is it something deeper like political liberalism within the hierarchy or a spineless approach to confronting disturbing social trends? These things are bad, but they are all symptoms of a much more grave reality – the scourge of modernism that is rotting the Church from within.
Pope St. Pius X identified the philosophical trend of modernism and its impact on theology and the humanities in the early 20th century. His encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, published in 1907, exposed the modernist heresy and warned the Church against its alluring ideas and wiley promoters. It was in Pascendi that he established the imprimatur and the nihil obstat as a means to provide the faithful with a safeguard against modernism in materials designed for their consumption. So what exactly is modernism, how has it affected the Church and how can we clear out the rot?
Money Matters. Have you ever noticed that the very poor don’t care about money … they buy cigarettes, alcohol, candy and anything else to provide some modicum of pleasure in a hard and difficult life. And the very rich don’t care about money … they buy art and vintage cars and 5th vacation homes for tens of millions of dollars. Why is the middle class so fixated on money?
John XXIII in Limbo. Pope Francis waived the second miracle requirement (what was the first miracle?) on BJXXIII. So what if he wasn’t in heaven? What happened to him? If he was not prepared to be in heaven but was moved there prematurely, did he suffer seeing the face of God when he wasn’t prepared? Is heaven now populated by a man that may not be disposed to fully love God because he wasn’t properly cleansed in purgatory? Did God complete the final cleansing himself so BJXXXIII could come to heaven when boosted there by PF? BJXXIII wasn’t the first to have a miracle waived, but better to just follow the rules deemed good enough for JPII and Mother Teresa, don’t you think?
Not for Nothing. I’m reading The Autobiography of a Hunted Priest, about a Jesuit priest who risked his life in 16th century England to serve the Catholic faithful struggilng under heinous persecution. Imprisonment, torture, starvation and execution were the most common ends of these heroic men. And countless other faithful Catholics met the same fate for refusal to participate in Protestant liturgies. The sad irony is that later iterations of those same Protestant liturgies bear an eerie resemblance to the Novus Ordo mass of today, including the priest facing versus populam, use of the vernacular, dropping the mantilla for women, a Protestant version of the Our Father and a misguided focus on the community instead of worship of the Divine. But the tide is turning against such an alien form of worship and the stories of priests like Father John Gerard, S.J. will inspire those seeking to revive traditional Catholicism today.
osexuality, and to proactively and publicly laicize and remove homosexuals within the priesthood. But the window of opportunity to take this needed step without massive reprisals is closing fast. Homosexual activists have successfully bullied corporations, associations, governments and private individuals with swift and public attacks for even the slightest dissent against their agenda. Freedom of Religion still protects the Church, but for how long? Unfortunately, either the pontiff is oblivious to, or complicit with, the homosexual agenda – precisely at a time when a high-level and public witness must be made to stop the scandal wrought by looking the other way.
significance. If St. Joseph was alive, the Pharisees could demand that he stop his son from preaching, putting pressure on him and possibly taking action against him (remember the man born blind whose parents were questioned?). And once Jesus was under assault by those seeking to kill him, a good father (unlike a mother) would be driven to take up arms to defend his innocent son. So St. Joseph likely had to die before Jesus’ public ministry began to avoid these and other conflicts that might impede the spreading of the Gospel. In this sense, St. Joseph might have died for the Faith as a martyr.