Restore the Church
blog*spot

Monday, February 09, 2004

Responum ad Shawnum ad infitium 

Responsum ad Tiernum

My good friend Shawn has contributed to the debate that never ends with his latest response. I am not one to disappoint, so here is my latest. The respones will be noted by KT2 as my previous post, SME2 as Shawn's latest, and KT3 as my rebuttal. One day Shawn will aggree to a system of formatting without coloring, as I hate colored posts honestly. :-)

KT1:While there were some instances where there was intregrism, our way or the high way, I find this problem is all too often overhyped, as a trick to demonize the past. The faithful simply didn't see all these dangerous problems(in general) until they were told such problems were there.

SME1:Maybe I need to get my friend Art in here to write on the manner of celebration of the liturgy in the 1950's and 1960's. There were many problems and they were hardly imperceptable. But Kevin does not seem to realize that his argument here can be turned on him because the same can be said for the parishoners in the churches where the Revised Missal is not celebrated with due respect. Most of the problems that those who pay more than token attention to would point out are not seen as such by the parishoners -or even in many cases by the priests themselves. But I digress.

KT2: Note Shawn, I did not say things were perfect.

SME3:Noted.

KT3: We shall honestly see if Shawn is noting this as we continue through the response, as I believe a few times, he was quick to jump the gun and go for the kill-shot. While that's an admirable trait in debate, at times it leaves you very open if you miss. I don't really think we need to debate if I think Shawn has hit or miss, as me and Shawn are debating too many topics as is. :-)

As far as your latest essay to Mr. Palm on Tradition being opposed to Novelty, I will admit I haven't read it yet. You have given this essay quite a bit of hype, therefore, I want to be able to actually give it a serious read when I do sit down and examine it. However Shawn, numerous times you have said the main issue behind the attendance drops were social concerns, and especially a loss of catechesis. I agree there has been a tremendous drop in the catechism department, yet does not one realize that the faithful's primary teacher was the liturgy? This was one of the main reasons Pius XI instituted the Feast of Christ the King in the liturgy, so people would continue to learn the doctrine, those who didn't read the encyclicals. Furthermore, this apostolate has listed many times prayers of the Novus Ordo, comparing them with the prayers of the Tridentine Mass.(Out of simple charity I will give this one to him.) In this comparison, those in the Novus Ordo have been found wanting in teaching with the clarity of the liturgy from before. Not surprising, those areas where the teaching isn't stressed in the liturgy, are those problematic areas where there is a catechical emergency today. This is something those of your persuasion continually and consistently forget Shawn.

KT2:The role that the changing of rites had in the plummeting attendance cannot be explained away, as much as Shawn valliantly tries to do so on some occasions.

SME2: Why then did seven out of every eight persons asked about the vernacular liturgy say they preferred it to the Latin liturgy around the time of the liturgical switch??? If over eighty percent of the faithful *preferred* the vernacular liturgy (and this was the case contra 'trad' historical revisionism to the contrary), then the theory that the changing of the liturgy was the cause of the decline receives a pretty fatal gunshot blow to the head.

KT3: Shawn believes he has landed quite a shot here. First, I'd request he re-produce the poll, and include all the variables, controls, and numerous others that you deal with in polling.

2.) Are these people still attending Church?(While the future would be tough to prove in followup, how about at the present time of polling.)
3.) Did they attend Church before the liturgy switch?
4.) What is meant by "prefer?" What about the liturgy is prefered?
5.) Are those who "prefer" the liturgy showing a correct understanding of the liturgy? (this will become more important as we continue)

Furthermore, Shawn knows polling is not the most reliable and accurate tool, and I could certainly recomend the book Mobacracy if he wants to put so much credence in polling. While polling is helpful, there can be a problem of relying too much upon it.

I would respond another way, in that if 7 out of 8 people prefer smoking crack, does that make it right or sound policy?

"KT2:So, if even from it's imposition, we see these disastarous results, Shawns call for "faithfulness and fidelity to how it was originally planned" are honestly very very hard to take seriously. It is putting a kiddie sized band-aid on a gaping flesh wound. From a distance, looks like it's ok, but a close look, and one finds there are serious dangers.

SME2:The decline preceded the so-called "Novus Ordo." The primary cause of the decline also preceded the "Novus Ordo." And there was a one percent drop in church attendence from 1965 to 1968. My point here is that there were deeper fundamental problems involved. I discussed this in in my essay response to David Palm. I also discussed another aspect of those problems at this link for those who are interested."

KT2: I must say the liturgical movement that St. Pius X launched, beame hijacked with the Novus Ordo, and now their fruits have been swept away to absolute disaster.

SME2:As I have already dealt with the premises that Kevin uses to undergird this assessment -and pointed how they do not withstand scrutiny- we have no reason to view his assessment as a sound one. Of course he has the right to his opinion on the matter. However, those who are looking for more than simply opinion will have to consider other options than the one he is offering on this point.

Ok, then simply show me where you've dealt with this Shawn. Don't make such statements without backing them up. I'm not asking you to produce a massive new treatise, just give me all the valid information you believe I need to have a discussion with the Soverign Thane of Rerum Novarum. :-)


KT3: Yes, a one percent drop. There were problems before the Novus Ordo, as I already granted. Notice my argument from before my friend, that with the Imposition of the Novus Ordo, this problem magnified expotentially, as it is not denied that this period and 10 years after saw a rapid expotential decline in Mass attendance, to where less than one-third of Catholics attend Mass. To consistently deny such a rapid and sudden change had anything to do with the decrease is honestly to avoid reality.

KT2:As far as the 1975 GIRM, again, Shawn misses the point. The rubrics of GIRM cause a scandal to those in the Church today!

SME2:How do these cause scandal??? (Referring to the rubrics where the priest receives communion before the faithful and alone breaks the bread.) What causes scandal is those who do *not* follow the GIRM and who do these things that Kevin points to. I presume that is what he must be intending to say here.

KT3: The fact that the Novus Ordo rubrics have become too "Conservative" for the majority of the Church today, something that was warned about time and time again before, and even prelates or other movers and shakers within the Church have stated the radical change left the impression anything could be changed. The fact that there are roughly 10 different ways to say one Mass(by doing the math of adding all the options of the propers, scripture readings where certain parts may be ommitted, etc.) what's not to stop the faithful that everything else can be legimately "reformed" to where these clear absues are indeed good ideas for reform, since in the past, that which was liturgical abuse became litrugical norm.

KT2: And let's note that even Paul VI's predeessor, John XXIII, thought it a dangerous idea to remove Latin and downplay it in favor of the vernacular.

SME2: As the language of the Church sure. This is probably the document you are thinking of:

Pope John XXIII: Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia (On the Promotion of the Study of Latin)

The use of Latin in the liturgy is barely touched on in the above text which is more concerned with the study of Latin in seminaries, etc. along with the retention of Latin by the Apostolic See. Latin did fall out of favour in the seminaries; however, the Apostolic See issues all of its documents in Latin as the primary text with few exceptions. As far as communication goes, all texts are drafted in Latin before translation to the vernacular and even the Revised Roman Missal itself was issued in Latin.

The problem is that the decline in the study of Latin was not as perceptible in the early 1960's as it was by the late 1960's. There were also plenty of people in the Curia who tried to pretend that things were not as bad in this area as they really were. I go over some of that in my essay Confusing Culture With 'Tradition' from almost three years ago and will not reiterate those points again here.

KT3: I was not limiting myself here to mere Latin in the liturgy, yet Latin in general. A downplay on it's study, and a thirst for novelty to promote the vernacular over what once was there, will eventually lead to the scenario where removing Latin from the liturgy would be a feasable idea.

KT2: We can appeal to the very man who opened Vatican II, and show that the mass vernacularization (or vulgurization) of so much in the Church today was not a wise idea, and indeed, John XXIII warned about such.

SME2: Since that Apostolic Constitution was concerned mostly with (i) preserving Latin usage by the Holy See in its documents (ii) preserving the use of Latin in the training of seminarians (iii) teaching the sacred sciences in Latin, I fail to see where Kevin really scores many points by bringing this up.

KT3: It has been an admitted problem for some time that permises two and three you list here Shawn are not being accomplished. Latin is a relic for most seminarians. So that was excactly why I mentioned things. I wasn't merely focusing on liturgy. Indeed, my claiming of the words "So much in the Church" would lead one to conclude we are talking about more than liturgy. I please request a more careful reading, and perhaps merely asking questions if you don't understand a position I'm staking, rather than attempting to go for the kill, and utterly stalling the dialogue.

KT2:It is up to Shawn to demonstrate:

1.) The definicies in prior methods
2.) Why the problems were so serious something new had to be established.
3.) What the new procedures meant to accomplish.
4.) Have the new procedures\approaches had substantial success, to the point where the change was justified to begin with?

SME2: I dealt with the first two points in my essay Confusing Culture With 'Tradition' three years ago. The fourth point I have dealt with in many message board posts and weblog entries. The third point is difficult to discern what Kevin is asking for. I am not an advocate for the western clergy being bereft of knowing Latin -indeed I think they all should know at least liturgical Latin. (Otherwise it is difficult to sing the ordinary part of the mass in Latin.) I wish that I knew Latin a lot better than I do and I also have nothing against those who want to promote the study of Latin. The end is laudable; however the means leave a lot to be desired at times.

KT3: As far as point 3 Shawn, show me where you dealt with the issue. Just point me to a few links here in an e-mail, comment box, whatever, and we'll work from there. My third point was merely asking, take communion in the hand for example, what was the point of changing back to communion in the hand. If it was simply because it's old that's antiquarianism, which was condemned by Pius XII, and if I remember, you became quite offended beforehand when I accused you of it. For a case study, we can take the switching of discplines from communion on the tounge to communion in the hand. Note I'm not saying one is a sacrelige and one is not, but that the change in discpline in the reform was justified as sound policy or not. Furthermore, nowadays these are both legit options, so let's compare the two. This is the same thing we have been doing with the prayers of the Novus Ordo vs. the Tridentine Masses. The Church gives us options, so let's compare those options. Yet those on the opposite side of the fence, seem to be advancing true integrism, as they won't even allow a comparison of the prayers, as this "fosters disobedience" to the liturgical reforms of Vatican II. Poppycock I say.

KT2: Now as far as the "way mass was celebrated" in the 50's and 60's, if there is truth to Shawn's statement(which there certainly is, but I believe he wants to overhype as to bolster his case) legitimate liturgical reform curbed these abuses, and if he were to believe the Traditional Mass is celebrated reverently(in general, there are of course notable exceptions) today, well, that's what authentic liturgical reform does. Can't have it both ways old friend.

SME2:Nice try my friend but there is only one small problem with this thesis: historical facts do not sustain it.

KT3: Historical Facts do not sustain what Shawn? Your statement that "Celebrate it as it was in the '50s and '60s and see how few people come a flocking Kevin." Again, we've already noted there is a steady trickilng of those towards the Indult or other traditionalist movements, to where it is notifiable, to where it obviously ISN'T celebrated "the way it was in the 50's and 60's." If this is so, then we have an aspect of authentic liturgical reform. As far as your response to Mr. Culbreath, I don't see where it has relevance to what we're talking about Shawn. The closest I see is where you mention the Society and the Missal of John XXIII, or that there were problems in prayer and liturgy before Vatican II. Though as Jeff Culbreath said Shawn, you need to stop painting every traditionalist as some imaginary SSPX idiot you once thought you went to Church with. I agree there were problems, I agree liturgy needed reform(as there has always been a liturgical reform movement in the 20th century.) I just take the position that the liturgical reform has not succeeded since the change in approach with the Novus Ordo, and that, paraphrasing Klaus Gamber, had the Council Fathers who voted on Sacrosanctum Concillium known the Novus Ordo would be the end product, they would've rejected the Constitution. So Shawn, tell me what about your response to El Camino real has any relevance to this discussion.

Now over to Shawn's Response on my "turning back the clock" post.

SME:I never said of course that the "Novus Ordo" was not without its problems. But replacing one irreverently celebrated liturgy with another irreverently celebrated one...well...we already did that. And considering that at least the Revised Roman Missal has areas of significant improvement to it -and yes I will continue to assert it- it is not true progress to try to restore the older liturgy indescriminately. Rather, as I have argued at Rerum Novarum what is needed is restoring to the Revised Roman Missal some of the Gallican elements that were inadvisably removed. The intention was to cut down on unnecessary and useless repetition (ala 25 signs of the cross during the canon of the mass) but this became a case of simplification ad extremis unfortunately.

Here we agree that there is a problem of irreverence, in any liturgy. Now we get to the true point of liturgical reform, it's primary emphasis is not changing what is there in the rites, but giving people a deeper understanding of what is currently there. You do not get a deeper understanding of A by changing it to B.

I don't have much to say about this post, as there wasn't much to respond to, since I didn't write much, but I think this point is the hinge upon whence any future discussion in these areas will turn.










Thursday, January 29, 2004

Captain Obvious under fire 

Cardinal's linking of the majority of homosexuality to perversion draws lawsuits

Don't these leftist lawyers have anything better to do? They seemed shocked the cardinal wouldn't back down from his statements, and (gasp) repeated them elsewhere! Oh the humanity!

What I find further interesting is that the bishops conference says it is "unable to reprimand him because he is answerable to the Vatican directly." The appearance is if that it were their call, he would be reprimanded for saying the majority of homosexual cases are mere perversion, and not a genetic inclination to homosexuality(if one is indeed there.) Yet of course, a la Shawn McElhinney, traditionalism finds it good in the Church. Traditionalism is far more than the traditional liturgy, but also about traditional morality. Yet to this bishops conference, that traditional morality seems to be something that they take offense to, or are so afraid of the leftist assault they cave in ambigious statements.

Wednesday, January 28, 2004

"Turning Back the Clock" 

This has been a thought I've been musing on lately, and I hate to say it, but Neo-Catholics have a point when it comes to certain traditionalist thought. The idea that we just need to turn back the clock to the 1962 Missal or earlier, and the problem of the liturgy will be solved(or at least essentially solved.) I don't neccessarily believe this is true.

Whenever Traditionalists engage in polemics on the liturgical deformation, we readily acknowledge that there were certain problems with the Traditional Mass and it's way of celebration before the Novus Ordo. A simple "return to the way things were before" will simply leave us with those problems.

When the liturgical movement started to take a radical shift during the times of Pius XII(as they worked, many times under his nose) the work of liturgical reform was never truly finished. I think we traditionalists need to focus on this, to engage in authentic liturgical reform, without running the dangers of giving us another Novus Ordo.

Some of this I think has already occured, in the way many of the Traditional Mass are celebrated today. Shawn McElhinney tells us that if the Tridentine Mass were celebrated today like in the 50's and 60's, noone would attend. I heavily dispute this fact, but let's give him enough rope to hang himself. If indeed the way the mass is celebrated has changed to more reverence, and people are attending it because of that, then we have just shown an area of authentic liturgical reform, versus the now without a doubt defunct reform that gave us the Novus Ordo.

Just some random thoughts.

Tuesday, January 20, 2004

Short Response to Shawn 

I'd first like to say with good thanks that Shawn has given some praise to this group weblog, for looking to uphold honesty. I thankfully accept his praise, and give my sincerest thanks. Here at Restore the Church, we make no bones about partiality, but we make a huge issue out of objectivity. Despite today's warnings from the secular culture, one can be partial, yet objective. There were a few things that Shawn has commented on at this weblog, so I felt the need to issue a few brief words.

KT1:While there were some instances where there was
intregrism, our way or the high way, I find this problem is all too often overhyped, as a trick to demonize the past. The faithful simply didn't see all these dangerous problems(in general) until they were told such problems were there.

SME1:Maybe I need to get my friend Art in here to write on the manner of celebration of the liturgy in the 1950's and 1960's. There were many problems and they were hardly imperceptable. But Kevin does not seem to realize that his argument here can be turned on him because the same can be said for the parishoners in the churches where the Revised Missal is not celebrated with due respect. Most of the problems that those who pay more than token attention to would point out are not seen as such by the parishoners -or even in many cases by the priests themselves. But I digress.

KT2: Note Shawn, I did not say things were perfect. And surely you can always find some problems, we are fallible men dealing with the worship of an infallible God. Furthermore, the problems with the Novus Ordo essentially began from the beginning. If we're going to have the most revernt of services, chances are we'd see them most faithful when they started. Yet we didn't see a huge jump in attendance around this time, or even after this time, as the Novus Ordo became the normative liturgy of the Church. Instead, we saw an expotential decline, whereas before the Novus Ordo, there simply was not one. The role that the changing of rites had in the plummeting attendance cannot be explained away, as much as Shawn valliantly tries to do so on some occasions. In the end, there are those far more qualified than myself and him will ever dream to be, who have concluded that even though they agreed with validity of the Novus Ordo, it's imposition ran not a few out of the Church.

So, if even from it's imposition, we see these disastarous results, Shawns call for "faithfulness and fidelity to how it was originally planned" are honestly very very hard to take seriously. It is putting a kiddie sized band-aid on a gaping flesh wound. From a distance, looks like it's ok, but a close look, and one finds there are serious dangers. Furthermore, if we haven't figured out just excactly what the Novus Ordo is supposed to be after 40 years, with now a reform of the original Reform coming along(where the perfectly logical missal of 1962 being there,m with perhaps an indult for the vernacular, perhaps), I must say the liturgical movement that St. Pius X launched, beame hijacked with the Novus Ordo, and now their fruits have been swept away to absolute disaster.

KMT1: In other words, celebrating Mass by the rubrics of the NOVUS ORDO causes this kind of difficulty(that a priest receive communion first, that he alone break the bread, etc), how can one say with a straight face that those who adhere to the Pre-Vatican II Traditions have it so good in the Church today?

SME1: I will not at this time go into the difference between the apparent confusion here of Tradition and tradition -as I have written on it many times before. As far as breaking of the bread goes, the 1975 GIRM is reasonably clear on this.

KMT2: I'm not stating these things are Apostolic traditions, as if they must be held by the faithful. I'm saying, sound tradition renders it not wise to depart from it. As far as the 1975 GIRM, again, Shawn misses the point. The rubrics of GIRM cause a scandal to those in the Church today! So how can those who hold to the Pre-Vatican II Liturgical Traditions, practices, and such be honestly said to be in great position in the Church today? If a revernt Novus Ordo is such a cause of controversey, what about the Traditional Latin Mass? Sadly, Shawn missed the entire point of what I was saying. Hopefully I am making myself a bit more clear in this response. I also went into detail on this in my third round of responses to Shawn McElhinney, which I am unaware of a rejoinder, so perhaps me and Shawn are talking past each other on some points.

SME1: There is no merit whatsoever to the claim that celebrating the Revised Missal by its prescribed rubrics leads to the problems that Kevin and his associates assert. As far as "have it so good" I wish I could acquire a wayback machine and take Kevin back to the 1980's and 1970's. If he thinks it is bad now, he has no idea. The liturgy is celebrated a lot better now than it was in the 1980's or the 1970's. That however does not mean that it is where it needs to be though but then again: I was unaware that anyone said that it was.

KT2: Of course my friend, should we really just settle for "relax, it could be worse." Is it really sound political argumentation for one to say "Don't worry about Bush's destructive policies, it could've been Bush, or could be Dean!" Is the lesser of two evils always a route one should take?

SME1: What is this "every pope before John XXIII" stuff??? Latin was reasonably understood by people in countries with romance languages even after it was no longer the west's vernacular tongue.

KT1: And let's note that even Paul VI's predeessor, John XXIII, thought it a dangerous idea to remove Latin and downplay it in favor of the vernacular. This is something I find many in the attack traditionalist mode seem to forget. We can appeal to the very man who opened Vatican II, and show that the mass vernacularization(or vulgurization) of so much in the Church today was not a wise idea, and indeed, John XXIII warned about such.

Furthermore, the emphasis was not one what language, but speaking to "modern man." In essence, modern man is no more intelligent than an Aquinas or such. Furthermore, he still has the same spiritual needs, and at times, yes, new pastoral approaches to those spiritual needs must be undertaken. But this is not a mere validity argument. It is up to Shawn to demonstrate:

1.) The definicies in prior methods
2.) Why the problems were so serious something new had to be established.
3.) What the new procedures meant to accomplish.
4.) Have the new procedures\approaches had substantial success, to the point where the change was justified to begin with?

So Shawn, let us please read my remarks in their proper context, as you know quite well there's more to the idea of "The Church now speaks to modern man" than changes in mere languages. Does that say the Church failed to speak to mankind before this time period? That is a slap in the face to those who come before us, for being so ignorant of the world around them.

SME1:Celebrate it as it was in the '50s and '60s and see how few people come a flocking Kevin. Likewise, celebrate the Revised Missal as prescribed and see how few people even care about the Tridentine movement. Until either of these happen, it will have some degree of popularity -particularly with the very elderly and the very young. (The former for nostalgia reasons in part and the latter because of the illusion of liturgical sanity.)

KT1: When did Mass attendance skyrocket with the imposition of Missale Romanum Shawn? Which time period did it expotentially increase, as to justify the reforms made? Being those of your persuasion are so used to arguing mere validity(i.e. a Pope says this, a Constitution says this, which is quite true) we are asking once again that such a change was indeed warranted, and that your ends(the reforms) truly do justify the means. Which I of course, do not think they do.

Now as far as the "way mass was celebrated" in the 50's and 60's, if there is truth to Shawn's statement(which there certainly is, but I believe he wants to overhype as to bolster his case) legitimate liturgical reform curbed these abuses, and if he were to believe the Traditional Mass is celebrated reverently(in general, there are of course notable exceptions) today, well, that's what authentic liturgical reform does. Can't have it both ways old friend.

SME1:And of course the article Kevin quotes refers to A steady trickle of newcomers in their 20s, 30s and early 40s. Let us see if any of these churches maintain that level of attendance long-term -meaning a couple of years or more after the Indult is at these churches. For if it cannot, then the thesis that the "youth" are "beginning to flock" to it will be set aside as unviable.

KT2: Unlike Shawn and the Neo-Catholicism that is promoted many times at that weblog, I have no problem agreeing to these standards. By all means, test away, and if it isn't solid, let's look at how to make it solid. You don't make a giraffe better by changing it into a cow though.

SME1:As far as what the media says about Cardinal Danieels' position in terms of political terminology and the principle of "double-effect", I remind him of McElhinney's Media Dictum above. As far as JP II being "conservative" or "not-conservative", I remind Kevin that political terms cannot adequately convey theological positions.

Pope John Paul II is a very complex man -easily the most brilliant pope in recent memory. I think Andrew Greeley got it right when he said that Wojtyla "never in his adult life has had an unnuanced thought." For this reason, the media are the last people to be trusted to properly convey his philosophical paradigm as per said Dictum above.

KT2: I would certainly agree that the current Pontiff is a complex man, and depending on what you mean by recent memory, perhaps I could agree with that statement(one cannot forget Pius XII). I don't neccessarily view "conservative" or "liberal" as mere political labels, but indeed, worldviews in and of themselves, I have written on the numerous blogs quite a few times about this, and in the very thing Shawn references I make a few general points about it when we talked about what is and isn't conservative.

"The Definition of a Conservative

By that definition, the pope as well as myself are properly understood as being "conservative" since the term is synonymous with ressourcement. I humbly request that Kevin review that thread and in the future try to avoid political labelling when discussing theological subjects. (Or if he must do so then qualify the terms used properly please.)"

Part of me would laugh Shawn, that yes you are conservative, because your own definition says so.

That is all for today, it truly does become sad when "short" responses between the two of us are indeed novels for everyone else, but, in the often used words of my colleague, I digress.




Monday, January 19, 2004

De Profundis 

The Marketing of Evil, Part 1
The Marketing of Evil, Part 2

One of the arguments traditional Catholics make about the myriad of changes in the Church is the influence that the worldly, and truly pagan culture we live in today, has on belief: The whole lex orandi, lex credendi bit. We're often accused of living in the 19th century or wanting to return, of hating all things modern, of being neo-Monarchists. Many of those accusations are quite justified. Everything modern is not bad, though you often have to sort through all the bad to find the good, like a pearl at the bottom of a muddy bog.

David Kupelian is one of the few writing apart from the traditional Catholic movement to condemn the MTV-generation that is the majority of my peers. His series details a lot of things that I did not even realize about how seedy and corrupt modern culture has become.

Kupelian writes:

The fact is, what has risen "out of the pit" in today's world bears a striking resemblance to the ageless spirit of defiant paganism, a spirit now inhabiting millions of people "freed" by trauma (drugs, illicit sex, bodily mutilation, etc.) from the pain of their own conscience – which is to say, freed from God and the divine law written deep down in every person's heart. Why? Same reason as always: so they can be their own gods and make up their own rules.

Of course, in a very real sense they are also victims – they've been set up for all this. For not only has today's popular culture – from its astonishing gender confusion to its perverse and powerful musical expression – become toxic virtually without precedent in modern history, but also, most parents have not protected their own kids from it.

In past eras, if parents were very imperfect or even corrupt, their children still had a reasonable chance of "growing up straight," since the rest of society still more or less reflected Judeo-Christian values. The youngster could bond to a teacher, minister, mentor or organization that could provide some healthy direction and stability.

But today, because of the near-ubiquitous corruption "out there," if parents fail to properly guide and protect their children, the kids get swallowed whole by the child-molesting monster we call culture.


The second Vatican Council was seen as the Church trying to conform herself to modern culture, and today we have a pope, cardinals and bishops who are dead-set on applying these cultural molds to reform the Church.

My only question: With the modern culture so anti-Chrstian, so relativistic, so "free from God," why would we ever want our Church to adapt to that mold?

At least we are finally starting to put the blame where it belongs. The Church has devolved so much, because Catholics were too concerned about the false notion of "obedience" over "Faith" or too indifferent to stand up to the desecration of the Church. The modern world is returning to the darkness of paganism, I would argue as a result of that desecration.

For years, not everyone was Catholic, and the culture was hardly Catholic, but it was tolerable to Catholicism, and the Church served as the watchdog for society. Among other things movies would and did fail, because of the condemnation of bishops.

This is why I tire of the technicalities. I am made weary by the innundation of logical arguments for the traditional Faith, by lots of elaborate, carefully-chosen words which in the end are no more than slogans for the New Order: Muddy PC-filled waters, and not the clarity of the truth.

Our society and our Church is in a crisis, and anyone who would deny that is a blind as the NCAA runner-ups would claim the refs were. It's a simple case of Occum's Razor: All other things being equal the most simple explaination is probably correct.

The Church started Her auto-destruction in the early 1960s, and suprisingly the culture looks to have done about the same. Priestly vocations started dropping about the same time. Mass attendance dove off a cliff right about then too. Illicit narcotics began to explode. Abortion became more prevalent and very soon after legal. Billion-dollar entertainment corporation began to aquire every type of business under the sun, permitting today the horizontal and widespread marketing of evil by these corporations in a quest for more profits. This list is hardly exhaustive.

It's time to start sticking our necks out to clean up the trainwreck of Vatican II and the Chernobyl meltdown of our culture. It's time to start fighting for a Catholic culture and the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church and Her immutable truths and traditions. Those necks may get cut off, but that's the price of our parent's indifference.

Wednesday, January 14, 2004

Ecumenical Jihad against the culture of death 

Kevin Tierney and Apolonio Latar launch new group weblog

Be sure to check out the latest project of Tierney, inc.(My friends used to jokingly call all my projects that, since I've launched so many.) In today's liberalized, secularized, culture of death, there needs to be a voice always combatting it. That voice is, and always will be, the Catholic Church. At this new weblog you will find the writings of the Pontiffs on Social Issues, and also an analysis, and advancment of those social issues in the face today's culture of death.

Tuesday, January 13, 2004

WOW 

Cardinal Danneels favors use of condoms

Well where do we start children. Us Traditionalists are told we worry too much, that a conservative Pope will be the next Pope, and everything will be ok. The idea that many princes of the Church are openly working against the Deposit of faith simply doesn't exist. Well, sad to say, these won't go away.

First in this article is the myth that Cardinal Danneels is a moderate during a quarter century of conservative rule. This Cardinal is, and has been, a rank liberal. John Paul II is no conservative. He certainly would not view himself as one. He is conservative on moral issues, and that's about it. He is conservative in the sense he doesn't dissent from any dogma of the Catholic faith. On everything else, he ranges from moderate to the most liberal a Pope has been on a given issue.

Next Danneels says that those who have aids and decide not to use condoms are committing a grave sin. Nevermind the fact that since chances are they are outside of marriage, or are engaged in the sin of Soddom(the fact that many of Aids victims are homosexuals CANNOT be denied) the Cardinal should remind them they shouldn't be having sex anyway!

Next, Danneels seems to believe that the Churches ban on contraception(which has always been in force) is up for modification due to "Circumstancial situation." In other words, let's worship God, but if we are threatened and we have to, let's just burn incense to Ceaser. It's the same rationale of arguing. Always test an argument by appealing to it's most absurd, but most logical conclusion.

We must also realize that we've been through the "have sex, but safe sex" arguments for decades now, and the Aids Problem hasn't gotten any better. Probably because there is strong evidence condoms aren't as effective as once thought. Furthermore, condoms CANNOT stop the spread of numerous other types of Sexually Transmitted Diseases.

In short, let's openly dissent from teaching of the Church. Yet I thought Humanae Vitate solved the question?

Monday, January 12, 2004

A political peice with relevance for Restoring the Church 

Came across this a long time ago, but well worth it.

Originally came across this right around it's publication in 2002, thanks mainly to townhall.com who promoted it. It had some interesting conclusions, but admittedly, at that time, this was not really an area of interest. So I shrugged, and forgot about it.

Shawn McElhinney over at rerum-novarum(a blog where I mainly agree with what is on there, yes miracles never cease) mentioned a colleague showed this essay, and he viewed it vital to see. So I came across it, and now I decided to blog about it.

There are indeed some interesting similarities, primarily being the fact that both agree a King cannot rule at his own whim, and if he does, his rule becomes illegitimate.

So what does this matter for nowadays. As Catholics, we are to find ways to promote Christ's Kingship in this government. Many have automatically concluded the American Republic is irreconciliable with Catholic teaching, and we shouldn't even try.(Most of the people claiming this are simply the Neo-Monarchists, who are monarchy or death.) On the other way, are those Americanists, who want secular western values to conquer that of Catholicism. In the middle, those Catholics who are clinging to Tradition, realize that the Church mandates no specific government form to rule, only that it gives general guidelines. A republic technically could do such. Many view Locke's political views as the ones that shaped this republic. If there are connections between them, and a solid Catholic political theorist and theologian, well, this would be one way for us to argue the case for what the Catholic Church has to offer a confused post-Christian America.

Attacks For No Reason 

Novus Ordo Watch slams Pope for calling for legitimate recourse to ending the terrorism problem

Those who have read this weblog know that I have had my doubts about the way the Vatican handled itself in the Iraq episode, and even still today, with the strong belief that many in the Vatican will argue Saddam Hussein does not deserve to be executed. These are legitimate concerns, and hopefully some good can come out of such discussions.

Some concerns are simply illegitimate. I used to link to Novus Ordo watch before, until the simple sheer amount of journalistic errors and retractions became so numerous, I felt the need to discontinue linking to them. Originally, they had a good idea, chronicle(with links) stories about controversies in the Church today. This idea was never realized.

Some of my colleagues I battled with were correct that the organization simply seemed like Pope-bashing. There's a fine difference between legitimate criticism of the Pope, and simply not being able to wait to attack him. I feel this happened with the latest link. I honestly don't see anything terribly wrong with this story about what the Pope said.

The Pope said the motives in combatting terrorism cannot be based entirely on revenge, hatred, and other issues. I agree. Doing so presents far too much danger, and we end up worse than the terrorists. I do believe so far America has conducted itself quite nicely, given the fact the POW's get better treatment in prisoner camps than they ever got under those terrorist regimes. I think that says something.

The Pope realizes that in the end, you have to get to the real root of terrorism. To do this, he calls for greater education and political involvment against this menace. While I believe also aggresively seeking out the terrorists, bringing the fight to their home court is also neccessary, one need not discount these two actions the Pontiff outlines, as they are invaluable.

Perhaps NOW's biggest criticism was the Pontiff stating that in the end, the "great religions" of the world need to take an active role in condemning terrorism, specifically that of Christian, Jewish, and Islamic religions. He should note first the Pontiff is speaking of great as in size, not of salvific value. Second, if he's actually studied the area, this has to happen. A cursory read of Dr. Daniel Pipes' fascinating work Militant Islam reaches america concludes that the only way terrorism can be defeated is if Islam reforms itself away from the radicalism of Wahabbism, and becomes more moderate. As many moderate muslim scholars have indeed shown, the attacks on America were illegal by the Koran. They are definetly doing a service to stop terrorism.(Islam is not a religion of peace in my view, but there are certain guidelines these men must follow in carrying out attacks.) Furthermore, since Israelis are locked in a struggle with the Palestinians, Jewish leaders must also speak out strongly, and I would also argue, stop the terrorism they themselves committ by bulldozing homes.(Terrorism does not defeat terrorism.)

So in the end, I really don't see what NOW's beef is on the issue. If anything, I would say on this particular area, the Pontiff's analysis is dead on.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?