The Persecution of Fr. Guarnizo Intensifies

I trust that Dymphna will not mind my borrowing this image from her excellent blog: it is a good reminder that faithful priests can expect no easier fate than that which befell Him Whose representatives on earth they are.  And now, one faithful priest who has been suffering before the world on account of his love of the Eucharist, has been given a new and heavier cross to bear.

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo, who denied Holy Communion to an open lesbian (who, by the way, is also an activist and practicing Buddhist) has now been placed on administrative leave, and prohibited from exercising any priestly ministry in the Archdiocese of Washington.  Dr. Peters expounds on what this development means and what it doesn't mean from a canonical point of view.

The March 9th letter from auxiliary Bishop Barry Knestout cites "credible allegations that Father Guarnizo has engaged in intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry."  These allegations are not specified but are described as being of a "grave nature."

I have never been to Gaithersburg, Maryland, and neither I nor anybody I know personally am familiar with the particular ins and outs of the parish where Fr. Guarnizo was stationed.  I must confess to not knowing what exactly gave rise to the allegations that have led to Fr. Guarnizo being put on administrative leave.  However, a few general observations spring to mind.  

-- Firstly, it is interesting that it has taken until now, when he has become embroiled in controversy, to discover the "intimidation" tactics of a priest who has been in the parish since March, 2011.  Even if there are legitimate grounds to place Fr. Guarnizo on leave, the timing of this new action against him stinks.  It looks like the lesbian activist has won.  That the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Washington, D.C. appears to be caving to a lobby of public sinners ought to be a matter of concern to the cardinal archbishop. 

-- Secondly, it has long been my experience that it is the support staff who wield the real power in many organizations -- parishes included -- because very often only they know how to keep them running on a day-to-day basis.  In an age when parish priests are frequently and routinely transferred, and laity are "empowered" pursuant to the "spirit of Vatican II," it seems to me that the parish staff, who are often the only real constants in the parish office over the long term, enjoy an accumulation of influence and thus a certain security not shared by the priests that they see coming and going down the years.  

-- Thirdly, Fr. Guarnizo appears, by all accounts, to be, overall, a man of sense.  It is ridiculous to suppose that a sensible priest who has only been in the parish for a year, is not the pastor, and is, moreover, incardinated in another diocese, should try to "intimidate" the parish staff who are higher on the totem pole than he is.  That he should do so at a time when his own influence is at its lowest ebb, and he knows he does not enjoy the backing of the archbishop, is absurd.  That parish staff should actually feel "intimidated" by a priest in such a tenuous position -- even if the lesbian-Communion imbroglio had not taken place -- simply strains all credibility.

I continue to stand by my previous analysis of this business.  In the light of all that has emerged so far regarding this ugly affair, I am perfectly prepared to believe that someone has been deploying intimidation tactics; but I am not prepared to believe that that someone is Fr. Marcel Guarnizo.    Pray for him and for all embattled priests.

The Persecution of Fr. Guarnizo

In re the campaign to destroy Fr. Marcel Guarnizo in Gaithersburg, Maryland, a few observations:

-- The whole business smells like a set-up. It appears that Fr. Guarnizo has a reputation as a faithful and orthodox priest.  It appears further that the complaining party in this ugly affair is not a reliable source of information regarding what actually happened. Good priests can expect more of this sort of thing.  Bishops need to be fathers to their priests and defend them against unjust attacks.   Catholics in the pews need to pray harder for their shepherds. 

-- Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law provides:

Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

It would seem that if any part of this canon applied in this case, it would be the language about "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin."  Not being a canonist, and not being familiar with canon law evidentiary standards, I hesitate to undertake a legal analysis.  I do note that at least one prominent canonist, Dr. Ed Peters, is of the opinion that Fr. Guarnizo erred, and his opinion appears to derive from the conclusion that the requirement of manifestness is not satisfied in this case.  Dr. Peters says:

Unless a substantial majority of the community in question (I’m assuming them to be adults, reasonably aware of Catholic life around them, etc.) knows at the time why a given individual is being denied holy Communion, that’s a pretty good sign that Canon 915 has not been satisfied, and that Canon 912 (and some others norms) has been violated.

However, Peters pursues his analysis as though this incident took place at an ordinary Sunday Mass, whereas it took place at a funeral.  The woman who was denied Communion was not just another face in the crowd, but the daughter of the deceased -- a prominent figure among those assembled.  It is not unreasonable to suppose that those gathered for the funeral were family and friends, and thus knew about this woman's living arrangements.  What I would like to see a canonist address is whether these factors change the Canon 915 analysis, and if not, why not.

-- Even if the priest erred, the punishment sought by the putative injured party is out of all proportion to the offense.  The high-tech lynching Fr. Guarnizo is currently undergoing is also out of all proportion to his alleged offense, and stands as stark proof that charity has gone cold in the world.  His apparent abandonment by the archdiocese is shameful.  If Fr. Guarnizo did indeed err, then, as Dr. Peters says in one of his posts linked above, it is correction rather than punishment that is called for.

-- Canonists and clergy who opine that Fr. Guarnizo did the wrong thing in this case should not be surprised by the fact that so many laymen are anxious to justify his actions, even on erroneous grounds -- even regardless of what canon law provides.  Such a reaction is the natural and inevitable product of decades of anger at the spectacle of hired hands allowing the wolves to ravage the fold with impunity while putting the smackdown on holy priests.  Monumental injustices continue unabated: national pro-abortion figures continue to be admitted to Holy Communion; certain parishes continue to be homosexualist playgrounds; gross liturgical abuses are still the order of the day in many places, and not a peep out of those charged with the responsibility of putting a stop to all this.  Naturally, the lay faithful are outraged to see the hierarchy straining out the gnat of a priest denying Holy Communion to a lesbian (if indeed this can be characterized as a "gnat") while swallowing all these camels.

-- In my judgment, the person most deserving of sympathy and support in this situation is not the lesbian who rushed into print with a sensational account of this business, but Fr. Marcel Guarnizo.  He, not she, is the real target of hatred in this whole affair.  It must have made him feel sick to be placed in such an awful position -- a situation every faithful priest must dread.  Whether he was right or wrong, he surely did the best he could in very trying circumstances.

Pray for Fr. Marcel Guarnizo, and for all our priests and bishops.

The Devil Wants Us to "Fast" from Holy Water

I am happy to be able to report that it has been a couple of years since I last saw in my area the reprehensible practice of depriving the faithful of holy water during Lent.  This is a no-no which every faithful Catholic ought to be prepared to remedy on sight.  No permission is needed, nor should it be asked.

Over the years, I have noticed a curious pattern with certain liberals on the subject of penance.  Those liberals who actually give thought to the question of penance are not fans of the old-style, stricter disciplines that once prevailed before the Second Vatican Council; but they are very fond of the curious idea of "fasting" from holy things.  One hears about this particularly in the context of "fasting" from Holy Communion, in connection with the (self-inflicted) priest shortage.  Apparently, some people think we ought also to "fast" from the use of sacramentals, and particularly holy water, during Lent.

Common sense will admit of only one response to this quack theology: the devil wants us to "fast" from sacraments and sacramentals.   

The devil wants us to make our children "fast" from Baptism and Confirmation, so that they can "decide for themselves what religion they want to be."  The devil wants persons in a state of mortal sin to "fast" from Confession.  The devil wants young couples to shack up and "fast" from Matrimony.  The devil wants young men called to the priesthood to "fast" from Holy Orders.  The devil wants souls to "fast" from the Bread of Life, the medicine of immortality and the antidote to the poison of sin that is Holy Communion.  The devil wants souls in death's shadow to "fast" from the Anointing of the Sick so they can be overtaken by the agony of their last struggle in a state of abject weakness.  The devil wants us to march weaponless and defenseless into warfare by "fasting" from the use of sacramentals, like holy water.

Lent is a time of intensified spiritual combat in a world already swarming with the armies of darkness.   Bring out the St. Benedict medals; bring out the Miraculous Medals; bring out the rosaries and the scapulars and the Sacred Heart badges and the crucifixes.  Away with the sand and the twigs and the cactus and other similar debris in stoups; let a 55-gallon drum of holy water (blessed, of course, according to the hell-whipping 1962 Rituale Romanum formula) be stationed at every entrance to every church.

Make a Holy Hour of Reparation for Our Country

After finding one of these at one of the perpetual adoration chapels I frequent (there are actually three in my area), I decided I had to have one of my own.  This booklet was first published during World War II and is still in print.  The Holy Hour of Reparation is meant to be made and recited aloud by a group, but there is no reason it cannot be made silently by a single person.  The booklet costs about $3.00, so even a bunch of them is easily affordable.

The prayers that make up this Holy Hour are refreshing in their straightforwardness, their lack of political correctness and effete pop psychological vocabulary, and their unabashed Catholicity.  Some of them refer to the world war, but they are no less pertinent today, and in the United States.  This one, recited after the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary, is among my favorites:

To the Queen of the Holy Rosary

O Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, in these times of brazen impiety, show again thy power, with the signs which accompanied thy victories of old, and from the throne where thou art seated, dispensing pardon and grace, in pity watch over the Church of thy Son, His Vicar, and every order of the clergy and laity, suffering in grievous warfare.  Hasten, O most powerful destroyer of heresy, hasten the hour of mercy, seeing that the hour of judgment is daily challenged by innumerable offenses.  Obtain for me, the lowest of men, kneeling suppliant in thy presence, the grace which may enable me to live a just life on earth, and reign with the just in heaven, whilst with the faithful throughout the world, O Queen of the most holy Rosary, I salute thee and cry out: Queen of the most holy Rosary, pray for us!

Make a point of making a regular Holy Hour of Reparation for our country, especially during this critical election year, and encourage others to do the same.     

The Bishop of Boise Speaks Out

The Bishop of the Diocese of Boise, +Michael Driscoll, has spoken out against the Obama administration's frontal assault on the Catholic Church and the First Amendment.  A letter from the bishop to the Catholics of Idaho was read from the pulpit on Sunday.

The bishop's letter starts out by stating the problem succinctly and forcefully (emphasis in original):

On January 20th, the United States Department of Health and Human Services issued a rule mandating that contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization be included at no cost to the insured in all health care plans.  This means that health insurers will be forced to include these immoral "services" in their health plans and that every employer, including Catholic parishes, schools, hospitals, charitable organizations, and and social service agencies, will be forced to provide and pay for this coverage that is a clear violation of Catholic teaching.

The bishop urges us to contact our legislators and ask them to work for the reversal of the mandate.  For the record, here is a list of Idaho's congressional delegates and how to reach them at both their D.C. and local offices (for an email form, click here):

Senator Mike Crapo (R)
U.S. Senate
239 Dirksen Senate Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-6142

251 East Front Street, Suite 205
Boise, ID 83702
(208) 334-1776

Senator James E. Risch (R)
U.S. Senate
483 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-2752

350 North 9th Street, Suite 302
Boise, ID 83702
(208) 342-7985

Congressman Raul Labrador (R)
1st Congressional District
U.S. House of Representatives
1523 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-6611

33 Broadway Ave., Ste. 251
Meridian, ID 83642
(208) 888-3188

Congressman Mike Simpson (R)
2nd Congressional District
U.S. House of Representatives
2312 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-5531

802 W. Bannock, Suite 600
Boise, ID 83702
(208) 334-1953

In his last paragraph, Bishop Driscoll states:

As Americans and as Catholics, we are blessed with religious liberty which safeguards our right to live our principles and moral convictions.  Our civil laws should fully recognize and protect our right, obligation, and opportunities to participate in society without being forced to abandon or ignore the central moral convictions of our Catholic faith.

This is why we have the First Amendment, folks: not to shield the delicate eyes and ears of atheists from crosses, creches, or Christian utterances, but to protect the province of religion against government invasions like this mandate.  The time has come -- indeed, it is long overdue -- for us to fight for our faith.

Pray for the bishop and the priests of the Diocese of Boise, and for all bishops and priests, who are in the front lines in this war.    

This Is Why Mary Gave Us the Fatima Prayer

O my Jesus, forgive us our sins.  Save us from the fires of hell.  Lead all souls to heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy. 

Stephanie at Digital Hair Shirt took this picture of a pro-abortion protester who was demonstrating outside the Basilica after Mass on the day of the March for Life in D.C.  Her behavior showed that she was deeply disturbed, yet she claimed that the abortion she had 26 years ago was the best thing she had ever done.  The woman apparently worked hard to make this convincing -- especially to herself.  But her eyes tell a different story.  She looks like a damned soul experiencing its first few seconds in hell. 

There is a certain amount of disagreement within the pro-life movement about the propriety of using gruesome images of aborted babies to convince people of the evils of abortion.  I myself am undecided on the issue.  But the more I look at this image of a haunted woman, the more I think maybe we should use it instead.

This Is War

A week or so ago, I was asked to consider responding to an article by the purblind Doug Kmiec arguing that the Obama administration is not, in fact, at war with the Catholic Church.  At this point, I don't see the need.  As reported in the Washington Times, the administration itself has provided a decisive refutation of Kmiec's little delusion in the form of the new Health and Human Services mandate giving church-affiliated institutions one year to comply with the Obamacare requirement to provide free contraceptive coverage to employees.

What is the purpose of this HHS mandate?  To force employers to provide free contraceptives (including sterilization and the chemical abortion known as the "morning after" pill) to employees.  What is the one institution on earth that is known and ridiculed, even from within, for its consistent and unswerving opposition to contraceptives?  The Catholic Church.   How, then, can this blatantly unconstitutional mandate be understood except as a frontal assault on the Catholic Church?  We can only regard the lawless administration from which this outrage emanates as an implacable foe of the Church.

Once again, we see how Orwellian is the name "liberal" as applied to the pragmatic utilitarians to whom we have handed over our national affairs.  Tolerance and diversity are the last things "liberals" are for.  Once liberals achieve power, they ruthlessly persecute anyone who disagrees with them.  It is not enough for liberals that persons be free to harbor some vice; society must also tolerate it.  Then it will not be enough that society tolerate the vice; it must go on to accept it as a normal and perfectly viable alternative to traditional moral values.  Then it will not be enough that society accept the vice as normal; it must go on to condone it, promote it, and reject and deride the opposing virtue.  Then even this will not be enough, as long as the vice is not compulsory, and one single shred of opposition to it remains.

It does not end even here.  Having gotten the country to swallow the bar-bell-sized poison pill of one vice, the liberals proceed to force-feed another, and then another, and then another, each one more horrendous than the last.  This is all not only possible but inevitable in a world where Catholics are ignorant of their Faith, lead disordered lives and buy into the spirit of the age.  For the last half-century, we have been doing just that.  We have been lamps under bushel-baskets, and flavorless salt that is good for nothing except to be thrown down and trampled underfoot.  More than half the Catholics in the United States voted for a man who is probably the most pro-death, anti-Catholic President in the history of this nation.  Plenty of fallen Catholics -- including the one who heads the Department responsible for the abominable regulation in question -- have accepted accolades and high posts in his administration.  It is no wonder that this administration thinks itself secure enough to enter into open hostilities against the Church.

We need to take up our faith and start living it again if we are not to be engulfed.  The Washington Times reports that "the new regulation does not require coverage of abortions."  Under the Obama administration, that is a sentence that should end in the word "yet."

Purification

The clergy sex abuse scandal seems always ready to vomit forth fresh headlines.  Today we have the news that Bishop Gabino Zavala, auxiliary of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, has resigned, a month after admitting to having fathered two children.  Bishop Zavala is known for espousing liberal-leftist causes and presiding over liturgical travesties.  The Church is once again humiliated, but the good news is that an unfaithful shepherd has been dismissed from service. 

Pope Benedict is on record as saying that the Church needs purification, and that it must be attained by penance and suffering.  Not unconnected with the Holy Father's thoughts on this subject is a passage from St. John Eudes' 17th-century work published under the title The Priest, His Dignity and Obligations.  A part of this passage appeared in this space eleven months ago:

The most evident mark of God's anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clergy who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds.  Instead of nourishing those committed to their care, they rend and devour them brutally.  Instead of leading their people to God, they drag Christian souls into hell in their train.  Instead of being the salt of the earth and the light of the world, they are its innocuous poison and its murky darkness....

When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is visiting His most dreadful anger upon them.  That is why He cries unceasingly to Christians, "Return, O ye revolting children...and I will give you pastors according to my own heart" (Jer. 3:14-15).  Thus, irregularities in the lives of priests constitute a scourge visited upon the people in consequence of sin.

We have certainly suffered this scourge of bad shepherds, and all the shame and degradation that comes with them.  The tide is turning, but we still have a long way to go.  If we want good and faithful shepherds, then we ourselves need to straighten up and fly right.  

December 28th: Feast of the Holy Innocents

Salvete Flores Martyrum, Haydn. Thanks to Msgr. Charles Pope for the following transcription and translation of this hymn, and also for his Dangerous Reflection on the Feast of the Holy Innocents (via Fr. Philip Neri Powell): 

Salvete flores martyrum, – Hail Martyr Flowers
quos lucis ipso in limine – On the very threshold of the dawn (of life)
Christi insecutor sustulit – Christ’s persecutor destroyed (you)
ceu turbo nascentes rosas. – like the whirlwind does the budding roses.

Vos prima Christi victima, – You, Christ’s first fruits
grex immolatorum tener, – A flock of tender sacrificial victims
aram sub ipsam simplices – right up by the very altar
palma et coronis luditis. – now play with your palms and crowns.

Iesu, tibi sit gloria, – Jesus to you be glory
qui natus es de Virgine, – who were born of the Virgin
cum Patre et almo Spiritu, – with the Father and loving Spirit
in sempiterna saecula. Amen. – unto to eternal ages. Amen.

Needed: Translators without Agendas

After reading the news that Hildegard of Bingen is to be raised to the altar and declared a Doctor of the Church, I ordered a copy of an English translation of her mystical work Scivias.  I have a CD with some of her musical compositions -- which are very beautiful -- but I had never read any of her works.

And after cracking this translation of Scivias, I fear I still haven't read any of her works.

I ordered this book with some trepidation, as all the English translations I could find date back to within the last 30 years.  When it comes to spiritual reading, I generally look for what one might describe as "antediluvian": works or translations of works that predate the flood of arrant nonsense and outright heresy that swept over the earth in the wake of the Second Vatican Council.  The particular volume I ended up selecting -- the Bruce Hozeski translation from the Critical Latin Edition published by Bear & Company, Santa Fe, New Mexico in 1986 -- looked the most innocuous, so I paid the three dollars and change plus shipping and waited.

And soon discovered it was three dollars and change plus shipping too much.  Not that I have any complaints with the merchant I bought the book from: indeed, it was sent very promptly and arrived a lot more quickly than I expected.  But when I saw that it contained a forward by Matthew Fox, the ex-Dominican-priest-turned-Episcopalian-synchretist who was expelled from the Order of Preachers, my heart sank.  This forward certainly represents the absolute zero in human goofiness: Fox tries to shoe-horn Hildegard's thought into his own kooky ideology, all while reducing her mystical experiences to the physiological effects of migraines brought on by being stuck in the impossible situation of having to fight against a sexist, male-dominated Church.  But the content of the book, purportedly by Hildegard herself -- in which I must confess to not having found myself able to plow very far -- did nothing to lift the heart out of its Foxian doldrums.  

The Editor's Note at the beginning is full of dire portent.  It makes clear that the editors cut out anything that they considered "irrelevant or difficult to comprehend today."  They adopted a particular chopping methodology -- getting rid of whole sections rather than parts of sections --  ostensibly to "avoid distortion as much as possible," apparently oblivious to the fact that they were distorting the work precisely by filtering it through their lenses of relevance and difficulty.  Besides which: who were these editors to save me from deciding for myself what is irrelevant or too difficult?  Given some of the people associated with this project, and the era of its provenance, I can't help thinking the "irrelevant" or "difficult" stuff must be anything that fails to support some particular brand of heterodoxy.  

Then there was the deliberate decision to edit out Hildegard's citations to authority:

Hildegard was an astonishingly brilliant woman during an age when such talent and sensitivity were suppressed.  Many Hildegard admirers, myself included, feel that Hildegard expressed herself very powerfully and individually, and then attempted to justify her thought by presenting supportive ideas from other sources -- such as the Gospels, patriarchs, and prophets, or by citing the Church opinion of her day.  We found the elimination of much of this supportive and repetitive text caused a clearer and more visionary text to emerge.

In other words, Hildegard shrank from putting herself forward as her own authority, so We, the Great and Wise Editors, are going to do it for her.  It is just not on for a prophet to set forth her prophecies within the framework of Authority, even though it is the Authority of Christ Himself through His Church.  Thus are English readers of Scivias to be deprived of Hildegard's insights into Scripture and the Fathers and the Magisterium.  Thus also do the editors suppress the evidence of Hildegard's great scholarship and intellect in their quest for "a clearer and more visionary text."

I can't say I feel sure what a "visionary text" is exactly, as these guys mean it.  But I do have a fair idea what constitutes a "clearer text," and it is obvious that this was not what we got when the editors of this translation decided to use "inclusive language."  As a woman, I find "inclusive language" as patronizing and insulting as it is annoying; as a serious reader, I suspect it really excludes not only all things male but also the true sense of the original text.  "Inclusive language" also proves that its proponents have no sense of humor, since they do not perceive the hopelessly idiotic grammatical contortions to which their stubborn refusal to use masculine pronouns drives them.  Witness the following choice example from page 14:

But Lucifer, who had been cast down from heavenly glory because of pride, at first stood special and great because Lucifer did not yet know of Lucifer's weakness in grace and strength.  Indeed, when Lucifer thought about grace and the power of self-strength, Lucifer became proud.  This caused Lucifer to expect that Lucifer might attempt whatever Lucifer wished, because Lucifer had previously been able to finish whatever Lucifer started.  Seeing a place where Lucifer thought that a stand could be made, and wishing to show grace and self-strength there, Lucifer said to God: "I wish to shine here in that manner and there in that manner."  Every idea of Lucifer's agreed with this, and Lucifer said: whatever you wish, we also wish this too.  And when Lucifer was puffed up with pride and wanted to do what Lucifer had just thought about, the zeal of God -- extending itself -- threw Lucifer and the entire company into the burning blackness, so that they seethed against the brightness and clearness which they had had and they were blackened.

I almost feel as though I am looking at this paragraph with a set of compound eyes that sees not one Lucifer, but thousands.  It is the literary-mystical equivalent of Larry, his brother Darryl, and his other brother Darryl: Lucifer, his brother Lucifer, and his other brother Lucifer, and his other brother Lucifer, ad nauseam.  The true sense of the original is obscured behind this wretchedly composed paragraph, like a magnificent landscape behind a filthy, grimy window.  What a stupid and unnecessary distraction.

From the howling desert of the mid-'80s, the heyday of modernist theologians of the Matthew Fox vintage, we seem to have crawled into the edge of an oasis.  The sandstorm that has lashed us for decades is beginning to give way; the heritage that we had lost for so many years is back in sight, still dim, yet unmistakable.  Among other signs of the restoration, the new English translation of the Mass, faithful to the original Latin text, is now in use, and the translators' next project is said to be the Liturgy of the Hours.  Since this seems to be the era of dumping lousy translations, I hereby nominate the 1986 Hozeski inclusive-language translation of Scivias for inclusion in the ash-heap of history.  And since Hildegard of Bingen is to be a new saint and Doctor of the Church, I hope some intrepid and gifted translator feels called upon to give the English-speaking world a complete, faithful and artistically rendered translation of her works.

P.S. I wish somebody would get on the stick and also translate some more of St. Albert the Great's writings into English.     

The Real Discrimination

Jesus, Parent 1, and Parent 2 most kind,
Bless us now and in death's agony.

It has been announced that henceforth applicants for British passports will not give the names of their mothers and fathers, but instead will be asked about "Parent 1" and "Parent 2."  This is in response to pressure from the homosexual lobby, which complains of "discrimination" against the children of same-sex "parents."

I think the best response to this so far comes from Fr. John Boyle of Caritas in Veritate, who says:

When you enter the world of political correctness you end up discriminating against those who have natural rights, the right of a father and a mother to be recognised as such, not simply as a parent. "Parent" is a term that includes both father and mother but does not distinguish between them. Each has a right to be recognised. Feminists should protest about the lack of recognition of the woman as mother. In this sense, all distinction between the sexes is denied, which is of course one of the fruits of the denial of the purpose of sex: the generation of offspring. This denial begins at contraception.

In our rush to acquire "rights" to things we have no business pursuing, we chuck our legitimate rights out the window.  Then one fine day we will wake up and find ourselves chained up from head to toe, and wonder why.

The Battle Lines are Being Drawn

Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services, U.S.A. may smile as he marches into battle against the enemies of natural law, but he has probably never been more serious in his life.   

Now that the Obama Regime has given the green light to military chaplains to perform same-sex "marriages" in states where such purports to be legal, the question arises: will West Point's Chapel of the Most Holy Trinity host same-sex "marriages"?

Ixnay on that, says the Military Archdiocese.  Says Archbishop Broglio's spokesman, Taylor Henry:  "Holy Trinity is an actual Catholic parish, unlike the non-denominational chapels that are found on other military installations, and the only services held there are Catholic services. The Catholic Church does not perform the sacrament of matrimony for same-sex couples....[N]o Catholic chaplain is authorized to perform a same-sex marriage under any circumstances."

End of subject.  Not a lot of wiggle room there.  What more can be added?  

The archbishop finds himself having to guide his flock through territory more dangerous than the physical battlefields on which they risk their earthly lives -- and he has to do it with fewer than 300 priests.  Archbishop Broglio has a record of plain speaking on the Obama Regime's assaults on Christian civilization (see, for example, his statement in June of last year regarding the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell", and his statements last month on forced coverage of sterilization and contraceptives and in defense of the Defense of Marriage Act).  It is well that the shepherd of our soldiers is so bold and forthright, because the time swiftly approaches -- and let us not kid ourselves on this -- when Catholic chaplains will be ordered to witness same-sex "marriages."

May Servant of God Fr. Vincent Cappodanno, Servant of God Fr. Emil Kapuan, Servant of God Fr. Willie Doyle, St. Lawrence of Brindisi, and all holy military chaplains intercede for Archbishop Broglio and his priests, under siege by their own government.

Not All that Gets Thrown Out Is Trash

In his 1907 encyclical Pascendi Domini gregis, Pope St. Pius X identified and condemned modernism, which he dubbed the "synthesis of all heresies."  Seeing the ground that the modernists continued to gain, St. Pius issued the motu proprio Sacrorum Antistitum in 1910, in which he ordered all clergy, seminary professors, preachers, religious superiors, holders of eccelsiastical office, etc., to swear an oath against modernism.  This order held until after the Second Vatican Council, when the oath ceased to be required.  

Now that the oath is no longer sworn, the question arises: what could any orthodox priest, bishop or religious superior find objectionable in it?  Who gained by not having to swear it anymore?  By the time the oath was discarded, modernism had gained more ground than ever in the Church.  The oath clearly sets forth what it is that must be rejected, so no one could plausibly argue that he had to take it in a state of ignorance.  The inevitable conclusion, then, is that some of those who were required to take the oath swore falsely.  One shudders to think of newly-ordained priests beginning their ministry with an act of perjury.

Today, the tide is turning, but modernism is still woven closely into the fabric of Church life.  How many of us, even at this late date, have not heard the old modernist chestnut that the Feeding of the Five Thousand was merely a "miracle of sharing"?  Or that Jesus did not know He was God?  Or that the Blessed Virgin made the Visitation to her cousin Elizabeth in order to escape lynching because she was unmarried and pregnant?  (Yes, I actually heard that one from the pulpit.)  And how many of us still have to attend Masses that look more like Broadway musicals or night club acts than the unbloody re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary?

Today, picking up a cue from Fr. Z., Fr. Ray Blake posts the Oath against Modernism, signs it, and asks others who have blogs to pass it on.  Well, I have a blog, so here is the Oath against Modernism, much needed today in spite of -- perhaps because of -- having been tossed aside.

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God.

So Much for "Choice"

What was the comment attributed to Henry Ford about the Model-T: you can have it in any color you like, as long as it's black.  Under the current leftist regime, health care is to be the new Model-T: we can have it in any color we like, as long as it clashes with natural law and Church doctrine.  Archbishop John C. Nienstedt of the Archdiocese of Minneapolis & St. Paul is drawing our attention to how the new Model-T threatens to run over our freedom to practice our Catholic faith.  An excerpt:

Under HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (a[n alleged] Catholic), the department is imposing a "preventative services" mandate requiring all private health plans — including ones administered by the church and its agents — to provide coverage for surgical sterilizations, prescription contraceptives approved by the FDA, and "education and counseling" for "all women of reproductive capacity."

...

Unfortunately, this is the logical result of a seismic change in this administration's approach to religious groups involved in providing social services to, among others, the poor, the homeless, the sick, the immigrant.

It began when President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton started using the term "freedom of worship" as distinct from what we have always known as "freedom of religion."

Under the concept of "freedom of worship," church agencies are restricted to hiring employees only from their own denomination and providing services for clients only from their own denomination.

Such a concept restricts Christian believers in their charitable outreach to society and, in effect, encloses them within their own sanctuaries.

This is radical secularism at its epitome. It is an affront to the centuries of Christian service offered by churches to clients of all backgrounds, color or creed. And, it is the slippery slope to a completely secularized state wherein people of religious conviction will be required to privatize their beliefs and in doing so, at least for Catholics, render their faith meaningless.

The archbishop urges Catholics to make their voices heard on this issue and write letters of opposition to Kathleen Sibelius and our elected representatives, and also to write to our representatives in Congress to support the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179, S. 1467).  

Catholics have been lying down on the job for decades, ever since we stopped listening to the Magisterium and started listening to the world.  The acceptance of contraceptives led to the acceptance of abortion on demand, as surely as night follows sundown; and more and greater evils continue to flow from this capitulation.  Time for us to clean up our own acts, and take back the lost ground.

H/T Fr. Z.

Ten September 11ths Ago

Funny how we always remember exactly where we were and what we were doing the moment some earth-shattering event takes place.

On September 11, 2001, I was working in the public defender's office in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.  I was pretty self-absorbed that morning.  I did not turn the TV on while getting ready for work (I had TV then) and in the car I listened to a station that played '80s music.  At one point, as I was getting close to the office, the DJ said he would do his best to continue with the 8 straight hits (or whatever it was), but he was pretty shaken by what had just happened, as he was sure we all were.  I wondered what he was talking about, but it didn't occur to me to switch to talk radio to find out.  I pulled into the parking lot, got out of the car, and let myself in through the back door.  Just outside the door to my office, a bunch of the support staff were huddled around the desk of my secretary, Lori, listening to the radio. 

"What's happened?" I said.

"The World Trade Center is gone," Lori said.

My mind went immediately to the first attack on the Towers in 1993.  I'm pretty sure the first thing I thought actually came out of my mouth: "So they've finished the job" -- "they" being the bunch responsible for the 1993 attack, or their compatriots.  Despite the rumors that began immediately about domestic terrorists (the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was still fresh in our memories), the first instinct was to prove correct, as it usually does.  A thing like this could only be an act of war.

By the time I learned what was happening, about two and a quarter hours had passed since the first plane crashed into the Towers.  It was almost an hour and a half since the third plane crashed into the Pentagon.  The plane crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania had just taken place an hour before.  It seemed likely at that moment that as many as 50,000 people might have perished in just the Towers alone -- more than 20 times the number of people who died in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that had taken place almost exactly 60 years earlier, and to which parallels were being instantly drawn.  Although -- thankfully -- the number of slain on 9/11 proved to be only a fraction of that 50,000, it was still a grievous total that greatly surpassed Pearl Harbor.

Of course our first instinct was to glue ourselves to the news and try to take in these stupefying events.  But we had court that day, and clients to see, and business to transact, and hearings to prepare for, and life had to carry on.  But every minute we weren't in hearings or attending to our work, we were talking about the attacks, and what they meant, and what would happen next.  It is a thing that cannot be understood except by those who lived through it: the outrage -- not only over the attacks themselves, but over the footage of Arabs dancing in the streets in celebration at the murders of thousands of innocent people -- the uncertainty; the realization that we ourselves might die in this new war -- for it was clearly war -- our impotence as individuals and littleness in the face of malign forces beyond our imagining; our attitude of defiance in the face of that impotence and our clinging to God and to each other in our littleness.  

The world utterly changed on that bright September morning.  Though it would be more accurate to say that the change in the world was manifest only on that morning: the change really came the day an extra-national, fanatical movement conceived the idea of using passenger jets as missiles to attack our military and commercial and government centers.  On that day, a new fruit from hell, long in the growing, became ripe for the picking.  That was the real day the world changed; only we who stood outside the tiny circle of conspirators could not know it.  Perhaps the world has changed yet again without our knowing it.  Are we ready to face it?

9/11 was a shot across our bow.  Thankfully, nothing like it has happened again to us in the intervening 10 years, thanks to the brave men and women who defend this country.  It galvanized us and woke us up; but sadly, we have gone back to sleep.  Even the triple catastrophe of New York, Washington and Shanksville has failed to make us straighten up and fly right.  We have proven ourselves more willing than ever to surrender our liberty to the government.  Our moral confusion and cultural degeneracy have increased.  Who, on September 11, 2001, could have imagined that by the tenth anniversary of that dreadful day, we would have submitted ourselves to the government of the enemies of all that this country has ever stood for?

On this 10th anniversary of 9/11, we should pray for the dead and their families; for the safety of our armed forces; and for our repentance and conversion as a nation.

A Better Way to Commemorate 9/11

Against all odds: the Battle of Lepanto, 1571

A few weeks ago, I commented in this space about how America's quest for law, order and security has ceased to reflect a civilized order.  Now, ten years after the Islamist outrage that has provided Big Government with a convenient excuse to balloon out to ever vaster proportions, one woman is fighting back.

On March 31, 2011, a blogger named Amy Alkon refused to go through the naked scanner at the airport.  She decided not to submit quietly to the obligatory body grope that was her only alternative to the scanner, but instead to protest by sobbing loudly at being searched and bereft of her dignity without probable cause or even reasonable, articulable suspicion.  When the searching fingers of the TSA goon-ette got rather too searching and too rough -- repeatedly -- Amy took her name down and consulted a lawyer.  And also blogged about it.  Enter attorney Vicki Roberts, who sent Amy a letter on behalf of the goon-ette demanding half a million dollars for slander, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Amy's own lawyer, Marc Randazza, fired off a response that ought to be required reading for anyone about to board a plane in the post-9/11 era.  A choice excerpt:

After the 9/11 attacks, America wallowed in fear, and ignoble politicians took advantage of that national temporary psychosis. In doing so, they foisted an intrusive security apparatus upon us, but one that was never effective at making us safer. It was, however, effective at rolling back our rights under the Fourth Amendment. We may have killed Osama Bin Laden this year, but he actually defeated the American way of life ten years ago.  On September. 11, 2001, America went from "the land of the free and the home of the brave" to a nation of mewling cowards, eager to give up their liberties for perceived "safety." One of the worst symptoms of this transformation is the TSA and its minions of blue-shirted "officers." As numerous investigations of these checkpoints' efficacy reveal, anyone with a marginal IQ and the desire to evade them can and will do so. 

While the TSA fails miserably in providing security, it excels in undermining our protections under the Bill of Rights. This petty army has done its best not only to grind the Fourth Amendment into dust, but to strip us of our dignity as human beings. The Internet is replete with videos of travelers being groped by the TSA in a way that would result in sexual assault prosecutions for people other than TSA agents, all while the victims cry, protest, and express their horror. Your client may feel that she is in no way culpable for these wrongs, but her continued employment by the TSA and her actions against Ms. Alkon are an integral and inseparable part of the TSA’s abuse of all Americans. Fortunately for all of us, people like my client take the position that TSA agents cannot simply do whatever they want – not without dissent.

Kudos to Amy Alkon for not just bending over for the enemies of liberty.  While Mayor Bloomberg purges the official 9/11 commemorations of clergy and first responders, others have found a more appropriate way to cherish the memories of those who died on that bright September morning ten years ago because our enemies hate freedom.

Throwing Your Heart in the Trash

He who is sated loathes honey, but to one who is hungry everything bitter is sweet.  

Proverbs 27:7

Now that the feminists have made the world safe for neanderthals by clearing away all the rules and taboos and social norms that once kept boorish behavior in check, and put the kibosh on the sexual exploitation of women, all sorts of things are acceptable that should not be.  And now that the unacceptable is not only acceptable but respectable, many women seem unable any longer to distinguish between a good catch and a loser.  It is at once amazing, frustrating and heartbreaking to see what members of my sex are prepared to put up with in the name of Not Being Alone.  In our oversexed world, full of promiscuity, fatherless families and irreligion, we have been trained to view ourselves as nothing.

This is a depressing tide that I cannot stem alone.  But I still want to do my poor bit to shed some light into this overwhelming darkness.  So, for all the ladies out there who are in a bad situation or teetering on the brink of one:

Your Boyfriend Is Probably a Loser If:

...He Is Violent and/or Emotionally Abusive.  Yes, this should be obvious, but sadly, for many, it is not.  Where there is true love, there is peace and trust.  Real love wants nothing but the best for the beloved; in fact, the ultimate goal of real love is the salvation of the other person as well as oneself.  No one who truly loves you is going to use physical force on you.  Period.  No one who truly loves you is going to terrorize you, or keep you in a constant state of frenzy, or belittle you or manipulate you.  Such behavior is repugnant to true love.  True love would rather die than treat the beloved that way.  If that is the treatment you are getting, run, and don't look back. 

...He Is Chronically Unemployed.  Bad times hit us all.  I have been out of work in my life, and I know exactly how harrowing it is to have bills mounting and no money coming in.  But if your boyfriend is out of work, what's he doing about it?  Is he out pounding the pavement?  Is he at the unemployment office coming the classifieds, sending out resumes, making phone calls, visiting potential jobsites, signing up with temp agencies?  Is he taking anything and everything that comes along, no matter how grueling or humiliating, until he finds a good job?  Sending out an application a day is not looking for work.  Devoting ten minutes a day to job hunting and spending the remaining 23 hours and 50 minutes to sleeping and playing video games is not looking for work.  Waiting to be named ambassador to the Court of St. James is not looking for work.  Is your boyfriend capable of holding a job for more than two weeks at a stretch, or has he had six jobs in the last six weeks?  Does he show up on time to work, and do his job diligently?  Or does he party all night and then sleep until 3:00 p.m.?  Is his mother paying his bills?  Are you?  If a guy is not serious about work, how can he be serious about a relationship?

...You Are Taking Care of His Financial Obligations to the Criminal Justice System.  First off, if your boyfriend has constant entanglements with the criminal justice system, don't walk, but run for the nearest exit.  He's not in all that trouble because the cops are out to get him: the common denominator in all his woes is him.  Secondly, if you are constantly bonding his ass out of jail, or paying his fines, or paying for his court-ordered domestic violence treatment that he has to do because he beat you up, that should tell you everything you need to know about what he thinks is your mission in life.

...You Are Constantly Accompanying Him to Court.  This might be your turkey's idea of a date, but it should not be that of any woman in her senses.  Add another three strikes if the reason you're accompanying him is because his driver's license is suspended and you are his ride.

...He Does Drugs or Abuses Alcohol.  A guy who does drugs is not taking care of business.  He is, however, wasting a lot of time and money on his habit.  Habitual drug use does impair your mental faculties over time, and it does stunt your emotional growth -- and yes, this includes marijuana.  Also, if the guy does illegal drugs in your home, or uses your car for his illegal drug activity, you could end up having your property forfeited out from under you.  Plus, people do steal in order to nourish their habit.  A guy who abuses alcohol will be a source of endless domestic misery even if he can hold down a steady job.  Marrying an addict will not cure the addiction.     

...He Asks You for Sex.  Startling -- in this day and age -- but true.  Sex is not merely recreational.  It is the deepest expression of love and commitment possible between two human beings.  It is a total self-giving.  It leads to the creation of life.  It calls for reverence.  That is why it is only for marriage.  Anything outside of marriage is a mockery.  A man who wants to bed a woman down without any sort of commitment is only using her.   Every good father understands this: that is why good fathers are the natural enemies of boys who want to bed down their daughters.  It is a shame that so many girls grow up in fatherless families, and therefore never learn this.  But if you have a good father, or know one, think about this: run from any man who wants to do anything with you that that father would protect his daughter from.

...He Wants You to Shack Up.  Remember this, ladies: shack-up relationships are made to be walked away from.  What else could possibly be the point of playing house without a marriage license?  Moving in with him will not make him marry you.  Repeat: moving in with him will not make him marry you.  All you are doing is providing this jerk with a housekeeper, an economic advantage (is he even working?) and commitment-free sex into the bargain.  And by the way, you will not hang on to the bum by getting pregnant by him, either.  If he really loved you and any future kids, why would he be afraid to enter into a legally binding commitment with you?

Ladies: it is perfectly okay to be alone.  In fact, that may well be your vocation.  It is far, far better to be alone than to live in the captivity of an emotional slave-driver.  If your man is a bum, he doesn't just need the love of a good woman.  If he is a bum, he is incapable of appreciating you or your love, except to the extent you serve his purposes for the moment; you cannot fix him.  If he is a criminal, it is beyond your poor power to reform him.  You will not succeed where the criminal justice system, with all its money and coercive police power and shrinks and probation officers, have failed.  The cube of sugar he tosses you now and then is not worth the gallons of bile you get the rest of the time. 

A man is not a unique fixer-upper opportunity.  If you can't cure a decent man of annoying little habits like leaving the seat up, or throwing his socks on the floor, or filling the bathroom sink with his whiskers, how much less can you expect to succeed in making Sir Galahad out of Al Capone.  

The Front Widens in the War on Children

I have previously reflected in this space on our society's hatred of children under a veneer of sentimentality.  Until now, nothing made this more clear than the twin scourges of contraception and abortion, jealously guarded and cherished as "rights," coupled with the spectacle of western governments attacking the seal of the confessional in the name of "protecting" the innocence of children.

As the much-reviled Ann Coulter correctly points out in her book Guilty, marriage has been effectively destroyed as an institution that protects children.  We have grown complacent in the face of wave after wave of assaults on marriage, and therefore children: the promotion of licentiousness under the guise of freedom; the divorce of the sex act from procreation; the wide acceptance of concubinage and fatherless families; the movement for "sex education" for younger and younger children, together with the distribution of contraceptives to children; and, most recently, the increasing legal recognition of "marriages" between people of the same sex.

Now that we are so nonchalant about promiscuity, and homosexuality has come out of the closet, is it any wonder that aficionados of other forms of perversion are feeling a little bolder? Now the pedophiles are lobbying to have their twisted predilections removed from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).  At a symposium hosted by a child-molester advocacy group called B4U-ACT, Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins University gave the keynote address, expressing his support for the destigmatization of sexual attraction to children.  It is claimed, among other things, that "children are not inherently unable to consent" to sex with adults; that pedophiles "have feelings of love and romance for children" indistinguishable from romantic feelings between adults; and that "the DSM should 'focus on the needs' of the pedophile, and should have 'a minimal focus on social control,' rather than obsessing about the 'need to protect children.'"  There is now even a euphemism with its own acronym for pervs: "minor-attracted people" or "MAPs."

There can be no doubt that ours is an age in which the unthinkable quickly morphs into the commonplace.  A hundred years ago, who could have imagined that by 2008, 41% of all children born in this country would be born out of wedlock?  Fifty years ago, who could have imagined that by 2011, the number of abortions performed in this country since 1973 would approach the total number of those killed during World War II?  Thirty years ago, how many people seriously believed that by 2011, ten countries and six of the United States (not to mention D.C.) would legalize gay "marriage"?

So perhaps we should not be so quick to dismiss the disgusting pretensions of the cho-mo lobby.  It is now a crime in some countries to publicly ventilate views consistent with the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality; we may very well live to see a day when it will be a crime for parents to keep their children out of the reach of degenerates.

H/T The Digital Hairshirt.

To Save Bruised Reeds and Smoldering Wicks

I have been thinking lately about an occasion on which a friend in the Charismatic movement decried the rules and conditions attached to novenas, the gaining of indulgences, the practice of pious disciplines, etc., and the alleged tendency on the part of many people to get so caught up in these rules as to deprive themselves of peace of mind and freedom of spirit.  Some relief was expressed over the fact that many of these rules have been abandoned over recent decades.

Naturally, I objected, and registered my protest.  I admit to being of a legalistic bent -- it is no accident that I became a lawyer.  But although I have previously decried, in this space, the tyranny of petty rules and regulations, the question of religious disciplines and devotions does not come under the category of petty rules.  Rules that help us in the primary business of our lives on earth -- gaining heaven -- cannot possibly be thought of as petty.  In fact, I submit that Catholics who would like to do away with rules and disciplines in the Church come dangerously close to courting a parsimonious, judgmental spirit that may one day lead them out of the Church altogether.

It would be wonderful if we were all so mature in our faith as to be able to fly straight to God like an eagle flying up to the sun, instead of needing signposts and guides and road markings and other things that assure us that we are on the right path.  But Jesus knew better when He instituted the Church, and gave her the power to make rules in His name.  These rules are not bludgeons against charity; they are the product of charity.  They are tutors.  They help us to love God in the way He wants to be loved.  They help us to persevere in prayer.  For some, they help to make up for a lack of childhood formation.  They make it clear whether or not we have attained some spiritual goal for which we have striven, such as the gaining of an indulgence.  (Some Catholics, by the way, are in the unexamined habit of conceding that Martin Luther was right about indulgences, forgetting -- if they ever knew -- that he opposed not merely the sale of indulgences but indulgences themselves, which violates the teaching of the Church.)  In short, the rules are teachers, helpers and supports.  They are a means by which God not only meets us halfway, but actually stoops all the way down to us in our littleness.

There are those who think that obedience to rules is a bad reason for ever doing anything for God's sake, and that if we are going to pray or attend Mass or use the Sacraments, it is worthless unless we do so in a spirit and with a feeling of joyful generosity.  The ultimate end of such thinking is the belief that it is wrong to require Catholics to attend Mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation, or to receive Holy Communion or go to confession at least once a year.  I submit that this view is not only foolhardy but opposed to generosity.  The inescapable facts are that we still suffer the effects of original sin, and therefore most of us will not do what we ought to do unless we are required to.  For proof, one need look no farther than the effective abolition of Friday penances.  If we have the choice whether to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year, then most of us will not do it.  I did not do it until I entered the Order of Preachers, in which year-round Friday abstention is still practiced.  Nor can the case be made that the world is a better place for the failure of Catholics to observe disciplines.  This is probably one of the reasons why the bishops of England and Wales are bringing back mandatory abstention on every Friday of the year.

But those who don't like obedience are overlooking one very important thing: God does like obedience.  Ask any faithful priest or religious, in whose lives obedience is central.  St. Faustina teaches that the tiniest acts stamped with the seal of obedience are of immense value in God's eyes.  And most of us ought to know from experience that most of the time, God wants us to labor in obedience in order to train us up in the will to do His will.  Good feelings about doing things for His sake are a pure gratuity that He grants or withholds at His good pleasure, and so it is a mistake to judge the quality of good acts based on their presence or absence.  Merit lies, not in our feelings, but in our will.  And our will, tainted by the effects of original sin, needs training.  Hence rules.

Rules consistent with the Gospel and made in charity uphold the weak.  For some people -- maybe many or even most people -- obedience to rules is all they have to keep them on the straight and narrow.  Far be it from anyone to judge the quality of their love for God, or to take away their only support during hard times.  To abolish the rules is not freedom.  It is not mercy.  It is in fact an act of brutality.  It is the breaking off of bruised reeds, and the quenching of smoldering wicks.  God save us from those who want to "save" us from rules.