On the Proper Treatment of Ambiguities

If Jesuits made doors....

In moment of refreshing candor, Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ made the following statement on the widely reported differences of opinion - even among Synod Fathers themselves - regarding the meaning of the Synod's Relatio Finalis  for the issue of the Communion of the so-called "divorced and remarried" (emphasis mine):

So what does it mean? A conservative might interpret it as closed to Communion because it was not mentioned in the text. A liberal might interpret it as including Communion since it is not explicitly excluded in the text. I think that the truth is that Communion was not mentioned because that was the only way the paragraphs could get a two-thirds majority. Like the Second Vatican Council, the synod achieved consensus through ambiguity.

If there remain any doubts about the status of the Benedictine Hermeneutic of Continuity, let them be put to rest: The proponents of the Hermeneutic of Rupture have the reigns of power firmly in their grip, and are so assured of their control that they are no longer ashamed to admit how they came to it, i.e. by way of ambiguity.

I suppose I remain somewhat naive insofar as the notion of a Catholic priest approving the use of intentional ambiguity as a tool of subversion never fails to cause in me a certain sadness. I just can't get my head around how a man who has dedicated his life to the One who is Truth shows no qualms in twisting the same to achieve his ends. It seems to be a deeply ingrained characteristic of mine, for I am no stranger to the history of the Catholic Church. But why, then, does the present situation cause in me such consternation, while the tales of the Arian Crisis merely tickle my intellectual curiosity? Perhaps it is because, unlike those heretics of old, who have long since gone on to their eternal reward, these souls still hang in the balance.

Be that as it may, we may nonetheless draw useful lessons from the past. In particular, this talk of synodal ambiguity calls to mind the 1786 Synod of Pistoia and the Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei, written by Pope Pius VI in 1794, which condemned it. The whole document is worth studying, but the following passage seems especially pertinent (emphasis mine):

We have determined, in order to meet this probable calumny, to make use of the wise counsel, duly and cautiously applied, which several of our most holy predecessors along with highly esteemed bishops and even general councils had left attested and recommended with notable examples when they had cause to restrain the rise of dangerous or harmful novelties of this sort. 

They knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error. 

Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual - such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it. [...]

In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.

Indeed, it is as Solomon said:

What is it that hath been? The same thing that shall be. What is it that hath been done? The same that shall be done. Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us. (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10)

The Silver Lining in the Cloud that is Synod 2015

The good folks over at OnePeterFive were kind enough to publish an article I wrote on the creative potential contained in the fallout of the 2015 Synod. You can read it by clicking on the link below:

Rise Thou That Sleepest

Archbishop Coleridge: A New Language Free of Jots and Tittles

Archbishop Mark Coleridge

In yesterday's press briefing, Archbishop Mark Coleridge attempted to pass off as Catholic pastoral theology what can only be described as situational ethics in action:

In the case of the divorced and remarried, we're always dealing with sin. There's no news in saying that, so that's just taken for granted. The Church has traditionally spoken of the second union as adulterous, and I understand why, and I understand the teaching and what lies behind it, including the biblical background. But at the same same time, not every case is the same, and that's where a pastoral approach needs to take account of the difference from situation to situation. For instance, just to say that every second marriage or second union - whatever you want to call it - is adulterous is perhaps too sweeping. For instance, a second marriage that is enduring and stable and loving, and where there are children who are cared for is not the same as a couple skulking off to a hotel room for a wicked weekend. So, the rubrik "audultery" in one sense is important, but in another sense it doesn't say enough. And I think what a pastoral approach requires is that we actually enter into what the Synod is calling a "genuine pastoral dialogue of discernment" with these couples. And the start of that is for people like me to actually listen to their story, and not just swamp them with doctrine or Church teaching. That's crucial, obviously, as the overall framework of any kind of dialoge of discernment.

Just in case anyone stands in need of a refresher, let's review the words of Our Lord:

Whosoever [Latin: Quicumque] shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her. (Mark 10:11)

Could the flat contradiction between the words of Our Lord and those spoken by this successor to the Holy Apostles be any clearer? Quicumque doesn't leave any pharisaical loophole for permitting some objectively adulterous relationships, even if they appear to be enduring, stable, loving, and fruitful. Our Lord was very specific and very clear: whosoever, i.e. irrespective of all other considerations. Adultery is an objective sin of a particularly grave sort, as it violates both the Commandment of God and a Holy Sacrament of His Church. No amount of "pastoral attentiveness" can plaster over that incontrovertible fact.

When asked what the Archbishop hoped would result from the Synod, he said:

My hope is that we will move towards, without actually accomplishing it this Synod, a genuinely new pastoral approach. Now, at the heart of this, I think there has to be a whole new language. And here, I think of what's been said about Vatican II: that it was primarily a language event. That it was, therefore, something that was far from cosmetic. And I have in mind what the Bible says, that words create worlds. In other words, a new language that can open new doors that we might not even see at the moment, and can create new possibilities.

This matter of a "new language" is one which deserves more careful attention - particularly in light of the above comments from Archbishop Coleridge. We have been led to believe that the substance of Church teaching is not under attack at the Synod, and will not be changed; that all that is being sought after is simply a new mode of expression. But that is not at all what the Archbishop is describing here. His comment that "words create worlds" is a clear allusion, not only to the first chapter of Genesis, where God literally speaks the substance of the universe into existence, but also to the Word of God, through whom all was created. He is speaking of changing language in order to bring about a substantial change. He even tells us that the change being sought after is "far from cosmetic". He is talking - quite plainly, in fact - of preaching a new Word.

Accordingly, the faithful Catholics of Twitter gave the Archbishop the internet equivalent of a sound thrashing. I confess that I, too, joined in the fray with a few cutting remarks of my own. And I don't regret it one bit.

Today, Archbishop Coleridge took to the diocesan blog in defense of his comments:

The big surprise for me has been the ferocious reaction in some quarters to what I regard as my quite moderate remarks. Twitter has been frothing with invective, which shows what's out there - by which I mean the fear, even the panic this Synod seems to have provoked in some. That sort of thing doesn't look like the Holy Spirit to me - red-eyed joylessness cannot be of God. The impression is that, if you touch the slightest jot or tittle not so much of what the Church teaches but of what her pastoral practice has been or how her truth has been expressed, then the whole edifice built up over 2000 years will come tumbling down. If I believed that, I’d be panicking too and hurling lemon-lipped diatribes this way and that. But I don’t believe it and therefore find myself trusting in the path that’s opening before us, with the abuse rolling like water off a duck's back. Voices of fear, even panic, have also been heard in the Synod Hall and the small groups, but what's clearer to me now is that those voices within have strong links to similar voices without. It's also clear that those voices, clinging desperately to some imagined or ideologised past, cannot point the way into the future. History will have its way, however much we try to cling to illusions of timelessness.

Jot or tittle. Where have I heard that before?

On Feminism, Homofascism, and the Errors of Russia: A Video Crash-Course

This post will be short on text, but rich in ideas. I present to you three videos, each one longer and of wider scope than the one preceeding it. It's a kind of intellectual journey into the heart of darkness, but one which will leave you with a much better understanding of what's actually going on in the Church and the world today.

The first is quite short - ca. 4 minutes - and offers a profile of the Minnesota chapter of the subversive "Catholic" group Call to Action. While there is plenty of interesting information to be found online regarding this group - including this blurb on its history - the video offers viewers some insight into how the people involved in the group translate their particular ideology into action. While watching the video, be sure to note how the views espoused by the members of Call to Action are shared by numerous bishops and cardinals currently attending the Synod on the Family, as can be gathered from the statements being issued almost daily from the Holy See Press Office. (A shout out to my #RosicaBlockParty compatriots.)

The second video is somewhat longer - ca. 20 minutes - and provides a brief yet very informative history of the concept of Political Correctness as a tool of social change, how it was introduced into the American educational system, and what it intends to bring about (H/T to Ann Barnhardt for the link). As should become apparent while watching the presentation, Call to Action and similar groups claiming to represent the "oppressed" within the Catholic Church were born from the ideology of the people discussed here.

The third video is considerably longer - ca. 100 minutes - but well worth your time, especially if you watch it to the very end. I discussed this video in some detail back in June of this year, but I consider its content to be so vital in understanding the course of western social politics in the post-Cold War era that I do not hesitate to remind readers of its existence. It contains the testimony of one Yuri Bezmenov, a.k.a. Tomas D. Schuman, an ex-KGB agent who defected to the West in the 1970's, on the topic of socio-political subversion. Mr. Bezmenov's presentation puts the ideology of the Frankfurter School of Marxism, discussed in the previous video, into its larger strategic context, which has as its goal nothing other than the subjugation of the human spirit and the acquisition of totalitarian power.

This, gentle reader, is what Our Lady of Fatima referred to as "the errors of Russia," and they are running rampant in the halls of the Vatican today.

Please share this material with your family, friends and loved ones - particularly with young people attending high school, university or college. It could well save them a life-time of intellectual slavery and an eternity of spiritual suffering.

I leave you with a brief but insightful excerpt from an article written by the recently deceased Solange Hertz (RIP), a true daughter of Holy Mother Church:

How do you get a cat to eat hot pepper? This question, a classic in Marxist training manuals, opens an exercise in revolutionary technique. The answer, to which the student is led by logic and common experience, explains how Communism has been able to take over a third of the world without serious opposition. 

How does one get a cat to eat pepper, a condiment as unpalatable to him as Marxist doctrine is to healthy human nature? The first answer to present itself, says the primer, is obvious: Force open the cat’s jaws and cram the pepper in.

Wrong, the student is told, because the cat’s willing cooperation is lacking. The second answer - to conceal the pepper in a tasty fish - is equally inadequate, because as soon as the cat detects the pepper he simply regurgitates it. 

The correct answer: Sprinkle the pepper all over the cat’s mat. When he lies on it, the pepper will cling to his fur and sting, so that he will soon be licking himself to get it off. This method assures perfect assimilation because (1) the cat is actually ingesting, (2) entirely on his own initiative, (3) and a completely conditioned initiative at that, (4) pepper, which he hates.

On Bishop Peter Doyle and the Queering of Theology

Vatican Radio just released an audio recording of an interview conducted by Philippa Hitchen with Bishop Peter Doyle of Northampton, England. While you can listen to the whole recording here, I'd like to focus your attention to a two-minute section of the interview which dealt with so-called "LGBT" issues. The following is a transcript of that section (emphasis mine):

***

Bishop Peter Doyle of Northampton

Vatican Radio (VR): I know that you received correspondence from the LGBT Catholic community in England and Wales sharing their hopes for this Synod with you. What kind of response do you think you can take back to that group?

Bishop Peter Doyle (BD): I have to confess, I'm a little concerned that we don't seem - in the Synod - to have faced up to those issues. So, I'm very concerned for people in that group. It would seem to be that the majority of Synod Fathers are not regarding that as the main issue in their own situation, and the issues have been raised occassionally, but I've been surprised that they've been put into a siding.

VR: Is that because they're too difficult?

BD: I think it's a combination of it being too difficult and also the basic, I suppose, theological anthropology - what I mean by that is that our understanding, from the Scripture, of man and woman... there is no room at the moment for a same-sex relationship. And so, I think they've sort of said - well, they haven't actually said this, but in my heart I wonder if they're saying - "We don't know what to do." Now, that's not going to be very helpful for these good people, and maybe something will come out unexpectedly, but at the moment, it seems to be being parked to one side.

VR: So, a strong sense of denial?

BD: I'm not sure that there's a denial. There may be a denial in some parts of the world, or maybe it's just that they haven't got to that point. I don't think there's a denial in Europe, among the European Bishops or North America, but I just don't think people know what to do or how to respond at the moment.

VR: Would you be wanting to encourage greater theological exploration, as you say, of the anthropology?

BD: Well, I think that has got to happen, hasn't it? I think we can't leave people dangling in the air, and in limbo, and the Lord loves us all, so somehow we've got to find a way of embracing everybody. But it's a real challenge at the moment, and I just don't think we've really begun to deal with it in any serious manner. That would almost need a Synod all it's own, I think. I think it would be really difficult to embrace all these issues that have been brought to us at this Synod now.

***

If that last bit about an "LGTB"-Synod struck you as far-fetched, gentle reader, recall that Bishop Doyle's musings follow immediately upon the heels of Pope Francis' statement that "the journey of synodality is the journey that God wants from his Church in the third millennium" - as if the last 2,000 years of meticulously preserved and vigorously defended orthodoxy were just a warm-up for the heretical free-for-all currently unfolding before us. If they don't get what they want this time around, there's always next year's Synod. It could be a Synod on Technology, and Cardinal Marx & Co. would call for an examination of how advances in medical technology have "deepened" our understanding of the "flexibility" of human sexual identity. A Synod on Geography, you say? Simply unthinkable without discussing the complex tapestry of sexual spaces around the globe. (Think I just made that up? Think again.)

What troubles me most about the Bishop's comments, however, is his openness to a "theological exploration" of an "anthropology" which would "embrace" those in "same-sex relationships". This is Modernist-lingo for "finding a loophole to circumvent the plain and obvious meaning of Sacred Scripture." I suppose we can take some comfort in the fact that they don't feel confident enough to claim outright that Sacred Scripture supports sodomy. But give them time. Can there be any doubt that there is a team of Jesuits working overtime to produce just such a theological abomination?

On Archbishop Myers and Reductio ad Absurdum

As many of you might have read by now, Newark Archbishop John J. Myers recently instructed via official memorandum the Catholics of his diocese to refrain from seeking Communion if they publicly reject Church teaching and from attending events or supporting individuals in opposition to the same. The letter, distributed to priests last Friday, reads as follows:

Archbishop John J. Myers

Principles to Aid in Preserving and Protecting the Catholic Faith in the Midst of an Increasingly Secular Culture

I. The Church will continue to cherish and welcome her members and invite them to participate in her life to the degree that their personal situation permits them honestly to do so. Catholics must be in a marriage recognized as valid by the Church to receive Holy Communion or the other Sacraments. Non-Catholics and any Catholics who publicly reject Church teaching or discipline, either by public statements or by joining or supporting organizations which do so, are not to receive the Sacraments. They are asked to be honest to themselves and to the Church community.

II. Parishes and other institutions of the Archdiocese should allow use of facilities only to persons and organizations which agree with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and its canonical legislation or, at least, not oppose them.

III. Catholics, especially ministers and others who represent the Church, should not participate in or be present at public religious events or events intended to endorse or support those who reject or ignore Church teaching and Canon Law.

September 22, 2015

+Most Reverend John J. Myers

Metropolitan Archbishop of Newark

You can view a copy of the original document here.

Now, much ink is waiting to spilled over this letter - and spilled it will be, rest assured - but I shall leave this to actual journalists better equipped at dealing with the matter in a more fitting and erudite manner. I wish here only to focus on one reaction I ran across while browsing the interwebs: that of Charles Reid, Professor of Canon Law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis. In a North Jersey newsletter, he is reported to have said:

If Catholics followed the new document to the letter, even a football coach who loudly swears after a close loss or a parent who attends their gay son's wedding would be barred from seeking Communion. And the faithful would have to steer clear of rallies for presidential candidates who disagree with Catholic social doctrine - which includes many Demo­crats, who support abortion rights, and some Republicans, including Governor Christie, a Catholic who supports the death penalty and use of contraception.

In case you missed it, gentle reader, this is supposed to be an example of what's called a reductio ad absurdum or "reduction to absurdity," which is usually accomplished by demonstrating that adopting a given premise would lead - ceteris paribus - to patently absurd results.

Now, if you're like me - and I like to think that you are - chances are good that you find absolutely nothing absurd in the results mentioned by Professor Reid. In fact, they seem like good sense - if not common, then at least possessed of a healthy sensus Catholicus. If you commit a sin, you go to Confession to receive absolution before you go up for Holy Communion. My 8-year-old has this down pat.

The only absurd thing here - besides the fact that Professor Reid has the faculties to teach canon law at a Catholic university bearing the name of St. Thomas Aquinas - is that the good professor finds the idea of barring Catholics, including those who promote contraception and support abortion legislation, from the reception of Holy Communion unthinkable. So unthinkable that he actually uses it do demonstrate a reductio ad absurdum.

Let's review the teaching of the Council of Trent on the subject of receiving Holy Communion worthily:

If any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a Sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated. (Council of Trent, Session 13, Canon 11)

Ouch! A professor of canon law one minute, an excommunicated heretic the next. That's gotta hurt.

Of course, I jest. I don't have the power to declare anyone excommunicated, nor to I wish to see the good professor's immortal soul put into such a deplorable state. But it did get me to thinking....

Perhaps one reason why the progressives always seem to have the upper hand is that the Hegelian dialectic is set up to grind conservative resistance into dust. If the only directional force being exerted is leftward, why be surprised at the continual leftward drift? So, what would happen if we changed things up by proposing something radically conservative - restorationist, even? For example, what would happen if a Cardinal or Bishop at the Synod started proposing that we require penitents to declare their mortal sins publicly before the entire congregation, kneel in the back during the Mass of the Catechumens, and then leave the Church before the start of the Mass of the Faithful? This was a common practice during the early medieval period, after all. If it was good enough for St. Theophilus, it's good enough for us, right? Maybe then the Church's present practice would reveal it's true character: as merciful as possible without overtly condoning sin. Or, conversely, maybe the cilice would make a comeback....

Mercy in its Biblical Context

Frankly, I'm fed up with people complaining about how "harsh," "judgmental" and "merciless" the Church is towards people living in objectively sinful situations, e.g. fornicators, adulterers, sodomites, etc.

Let's view the issue in its proper biblical context.

In the time of the Prophets, adultery was a capital crime punishable with death (cf. Leviticus 20:10), as was sodomy (Leviticus 20:13). If we still lived under the Law, millions around the world would be on death row right now. And they would deserve it, because they have committed nothing less than an abomination in the eyes of God. That is God's justice in action.

Under Christ, her Head, the Church requires that one guilty of adultery confess his sin, discontinue the objectively sinful behavior and make a firm purpose of amendment. The same goes for sodomites. That is God's mercy in action.

I'll repeat it, just so it sinks in: Adulterers and sodomites still deserve the death penalty according to the Law. It is only by the mercy of Christ that they are given the chance to repent and mend their ways. If they repent, the Lord will forgive all their transgressions, and welcome them into His Father's house. But if they don't, if they continue in the way of sin without repenting, the Good Lord will most certainly cast them into a lake of everlasting fire - because that is the just punishment for their sin.

The day of God's mercy has already dawned. If you can't see it, it's because you've chosen to remain in the dark.

What Should Our Bishops Do?

Boniface over at Unam Sanctam Catholicam has just published a very good piece on the subject of the general failure of the conservative - one should rather simply say orthodox - forces in the Church to defend the same from the attacks of the progressives. While I recommend that you read the whole article, I'd like to highlight the counter-strategies he proposes, as I think they deserve a wide readership - particularly among our Priests and Bishops:

• Vigorously punish heresy in their own dioceses. Keep strict watch on the activities of certain priests and suspend, dismiss or defrock those who clearly dissent from Church teaching.
• Preach the truth boldly, including explicit condemnations of particular groups or ideologies, even condemning heterodox teachers or priests by name when necessary. Go beyond the typical non-offensive, wishy-washy bishop-speak.
• Use the resources of a diocese to publish actual informative and instructional materials, not the sort of nonsense most dioceses put out.
• Actually issue liturgical directives to promote tradition. The contemporary Church documents offer considerable leeway in how liturgy can be done; the upside of this is that the bishop is given the final call on all of these options. A bishop could easily say, "No guitars and drums at any diocesan Mass", or mandate sacred chant, or compel every parish to offer at least a monthly Traditional Latin Mass. Novus Ordo Masses must at least incorporate Latin and be said ad orientam.
• Dismiss lay persons or members of subversive religious orders from their diocesan committees.
• Actually use the tool of excommunication against dissident theologians and dissenting Catholic politicians.
• Use resources of the diocese for meaningful (I stress meaningful) social activism. Example: One priest told me there used to be a scummy motel near his parish that was frequented by prostitutes. He raised some money, bought the motel, and had it torn down. What if the millions raised by our diocesan appeals were used for such uses?
• Organize at the regional level and use their weight to push through appointments within the USCCB or elsewhere that were favorable to them while simultaneously using their influence to keep out liberal appointments.
• Host guest-speakers friendly to tradition and forbid those who are not.
• Forbid Catholic schools and hospitals from engaging in activities harmful to the Catholic faith and actually back up these directives with the appropriate force.
• Fire all Catholic school teachers who are in immoral relationships.
• Actually celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass and require all seminarians to know it and be comfortable with Latin.
• Publicly censure books and films hostile or dangerous to the Catholic faith.
• Mandate traditional arrangements in the architecture of sanctuaries and churches; stipulate that no parish has the right to undertake any renovations unless personally approved by him.
• Promote priests who cooperate with this agenda and punish those who don't.
• In short, never, never miss an opportunity to promote tradition and actively punish and repress liberalism. Speak the truth boldly but also use the weight of the office to silence, retard, dismiss or dispirit the liberal opposition.

Of course, actions such as these can only be carried out by those with the actual power to effect positive change, i.e. Priests and Bishops. Nonetheless, Catholic journalists and bloggers could accomplish a great deal if they were to focus more of their energies on helping inform their readership as to problematic areas requiring concrete action, and by encouraging and coordinating lay action and directing the same towards those responsible for bringing about the changes that need to happen. At the very least, we should not cease in heaping praise upon those Priests, Bishops and Cardinals with the guts to stand up for the Catholic Faith in the public square.

His Excellence Salvatore Bishop Cordileone

German Bishop Bode: Let's Keep Things Ambiguous

Bishop Franz-Josef Hermann Bode

On Moday, Bishop Franz-Josef Hermann Bode of Osnabrück, Germany - one of the members of the Circulus Germanicus at the 2015 Synod - expressed his hope that the final document, expected from Pope Francis some time after the conclusion of the Synod in three weeks time, would retain the ambiguous and even duplicitous character of the Instrumentum Laboris by "simply letting things remain juxtaposed." Making things clear - speaking in "black and white" terms, as Bishop Bode described it - would be counterproductive, as it would fail to allow a sufficient degree of differentiation in each individual case.

Readers will recall the bombshell admission by Cardinal Walter Kasper two years ago (L'Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013) regarding the intentional ambiguities left in the documents of Vatican II:

In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction.

Bishop Bode justified his hope for a continuation of this policy of ambiguity by doling out progressive catchphrases such as "unity in diversity" and appealing to what he termed "asynchronicities" (Ungleichzeitigkeiten) between various cultures, a rather transparent attempt at whitewashing the widening gulf between faithful Catholics around the world and the general apostasy in the West as the product of differing levels of cultural "development." He finished by offering the most strained of theological foundations:

Our God is not a monad; therefore, our community cannot be monolithic in the sense of a unified party.

Goodbye, Unity of Faith and Morals. Hello, Rainbow of Diversity.

On the Raison d'Être of Modernism

[Note: This post was born out of a recent discussion on the always thoughtful and engaging OnePeterFive with fellow Catholic Murray. As my response grew too long to post in the discussion thread, I decided to place it here rather than clog up the board over there. -RC]

St. Pius X's Pascendi Dominici Gregis diagnoses Modernism as resting upon a two-sided foundation: Agnosticism and Vitalism. The first teaches that "human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that are perceptible to the senses, and in the manner in which they are perceptible" and that, as a consequence, "it has no right and no power to transgress these limits;" the second teaches that "faith, which is the basis and the foundation of all religion, consists in a sentiment which originates from a need of the divine."

Everything in St. Pius' treatment of Modernism follows necessarily from this two-sided foundation, as he very ably demonstrates. The only deficiency I would ascribe to the great Saint's work - a lack which has not been supplied in the intervening century, as far as I can tell - is that of failing to make a sufficient inquiry into the motivation behind the adoption of that foundation on the part of the Modernists.

I contend that the adoption of that foundation was ultimately driven by the desire to insulate religious faith from the attacks of post-Enlightenment science. Before I am lambasted for sympathizing with the Modernists, let me explain:

Even a cursory examination of Kant, for example, reveals that the driving force in his huge body of work is the desire to make the core claims of religion and ethics as he understood them impervious to the attacks of the new science. His deep forays into epistemology and metaphysics, while they do represent attacks on Scholasticism, were actually the by-products of his searching for a more resilient foundation for religion, and to correctly understand the three Critiques one has to read them in reverse order. His true goal was to produce a rational proof for the existence of God and an objective foundation for morality which would be impervious to the attacks which had been launched against the classical-scholastic proofs since the days of Descartes. He pursued this goal relentlessly, and was willing to sacrifice anything in order to accomplish it - including that most fundamental and natural of all presuppositions, Epistemological Realism, i.e. the belief in the ability of man to know the world as it really is. Once he had loosed himself from this foundation, he was able to go about the work of setting up a new foundation which would lead inescapably to the end he desired.

I mention this because the failure of Catholic intellectuals to successfully combat German Idealism stemmed in large part from their failure to identify the motivation at work. Kant, for his part, was cast in the role of 'enemy of traditional metaphysics' - which he was, but by circumstance, not by design. As I said, his opposition to Scholasticism was not the product of animosity towards God or even the Schoolmen, but rather of the desire to circumvent what he saw as its weaknesses in defending a reasonable faith in God and the objective moral order. Attacking Kant as an infidel metaphysicist, which was the common reaction in Catholic circles, missed the point Kant was making: advances in science - both those made in his own day as well as those which he could see just over the horizon - possessed enough explosive force to threaten the very foundations of traditional Natural Theology and Morality, and if drastic measures were not taken, the whole edifice could come crashing down. The tragic irony here is, of course, that he himself became instrumental in the tearing down of the very edifice he sought to reinforce.

I see old-school Modernists - I do not refer to the present generation of apostates usually subsumed under that name, who are true revolutionaries - in much the same way, i.e. as men seeking to insulate their badly shaken faith by resorting to means which ultimately destroy more than they preserve. What is the Agnosticism of which St. Pius speaks if not the attempt to place the object of religious knowledge, e.g. God and His Revelation, beyond the destructive reach of science? Regarding this Agnosticism, he writes: "From this it is inferred that God can never be the direct object of science, and that, as regards history, He must not be considered as an historical subject." Indeed; but removing God from the field of scientific inquiry was not by design, but rather by apparent necessity: the Modernists let themselves become convinced that faith in God cannot be confirmed by science, and that the impartial study of history will conclude any investigation by finding no place for Him. As Laplace remarked to Napoleon, God had become "an unnecessary hypothesis." If, in order to accomplish this feat, the Modernist must deny man's ability to know objective reality, so be it. This leaves the field of subjective experience, upon which ground science has precious little authority, and the doctrine of Vital Immanence as the positive foundation for religion and morality is born.

I take no exception to St. Pius X's reaction to the Modernist threat of his day: the house was on fire and a heavy hand was needed to smother the flames. But he was unsuccessful in putting out the embers, which flared up again no later than with the reign of Pius XII, because nothing substantial had been done to transcend the now open antagonism between modern science and Sacred Scripture. As I discussed in a previous article (On the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture, or The Fissue of Pope Paul VI), the Popes from Pius IX to Benedict XV had undertaken dramatic measures to shore up the defences of traditional biblical exegesis against the attacks of modern science - all of which, however, was undone with the fateful publication of Divino Afflante Spiritu in 1943, which opened the crack through which the smoke of Satan, in the form of the previously condemned historical-critical method, entered the sanctuary and fanned the embers of Modernism into the raging inferno otherwise known as Vatican II. While new priests were swearing the famously defunct Oath Against Modernism, they were at the very same time eating away at the substance of the faith in God's Revelation - namely, the claim to objective reality - like "ecclesiastical termites," to borrow an arrow from Christopher Ferrara's quiver. Once the historical-critical method caught aflame, the Church Militant found itself theologically gutted.

And we have yet to transcend - I use the term judiciously - the conflict which has been raging for the better part of 500 years. The reason the defenders of scriptural authority have languished as they have is because they have failed to appreciate not merely the effect the Enlightenment has had on the thinking of modern man (for example, that he has been rendered effectively blind to what physicist and philosopher Wolfgang Smith refers to as "vertical causation", so crucial to a correct understanding of both theology and nature), but also the motivation behind those who have succumbed to its allure: the desire to defend their own faith - warped though it is - in God, Man and the Natural World. Any attempt to engage with Neo-Modernists of a more 'classical' bent - and they are everywhere today - must start from this position.

What's Really Going On In Syria? In Eight Images

Image N°1

This is the South Pars / North Field Natural Gas-Condensate Field, located in the Persian Gulf. As can be seen from this image, it's positively gigantic, covering ca. 9,700 square kilometers, and has been ranked by the International Energy Agency as the world's largest known gas field, comprising roughly 51 trillion cubic meters of gas in addition to some 50 billion barrels (7.9 billion cubic meters) of natural gas condensate. Unfortunately - for reasons which will become apparent shortly - the field straddles the imaginary line running down the Persian Gulf separating the territorial waters of Iran (in green) and Qatar (in yellow).

Image N°2

This is a map showing the relative distribution of the two largest sects of Islam in the Middle East: Shia (green) and Sunni (blue). Note that, whereas Iran is ca. 90% Shiite, Qatar is ca. 90% Sunni.

Image N°3

This is a map of two competitive pipeline plans which propose to bring the South Pars /North Field natural gas to market, i.e. Europe: The Islamic Pipeline (red), and the Qatar-Turkey Pipeline (pink). It should not be surprising to learn that the two have been called the Shia Pipeline and the Sunni Pipeline, respectively. The important thing to note in this image, however, is where the two pipelines meet: Syria.

Image N°4

This is an image of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, an Alawite (Shia) Muslim. In 2009, he was approached by representatives of Qatar and Saudi Arabia with a proposal to build the Qatar-Turkey Pipeline - a proposal in which Syria represents a key stretch of real estate. Assad, a long-time ally of Russia, obstinately refused, and instead struck a deal with fellow Shias in Iraq and Iran to build the competing Islamic Pipeline. Within two years, there would be an uprising which, with weapons and training from the U.S., would escalate into an armed insurgency with the aim of toppling his regime.

Image N°5

This is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). He rose to power in 2010 and restructured the largely fragmented AQI (al-Qaeda in Iraq), forging it into a rigidly organized and well-equipped fighting force with its sights set on conquering most of Sryia and the oil-rich wasteland of western Iraq.

Image N°6

This is a map of the approximate territory held by ISIS. Notice the inconvenience the presence of ISIS represents for the completion of the Islamic Pipeline.

Image N°7

This is an image of U.S. Secretary of State and former Presidential Candidate John Kerry gabbing delightfully with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. On September 11, 2014, the two men met at the King's royal palace to forge an agreement in which Saudi Arabia would provide support for U.S. airstrikes in Syria against ISIS if the U.S. would support Saudi Arabia's plans to topple Assad and complete the highly lucrative Qatar-Turkey Pipeline. By September 22, the U.S. had switched from sending small arms and supplies to Syrian rebels to running bombing raids.

Image N°8

This is Russian President Vladimir Putin. As Russia is currently the largest single provider of oil and natural gas to Europe, he has no interest in either pipeline ever being built, yet every interest in retaining control of a Russian naval facility in Tartus, Syria, which gives his military direct access to the Mediterranean.

***

If this brief summary has whet your appetite for more information, do yourself a favor and read the following article by U.S. Army Major Rob Taylor, which appeared in Armed Forces Journal (March 21, 2014):

• Pipeline Politics in Syria: You Can't Understand the Conflict Without Talking About Natural Gas

Come Out, Demon of Sodom!

Fr. Krzyztof Charamsa

Make no mistake: this man is the plaything of the Demon of Sodom. To his credit, he has finally dropped the mask and revealed his true intentions, which is nothing less than bringing about the corruption of the moral doctrine of the Church. He's even published a list of demands, a "New Manifesto of Liberation", which details the extent of the corruption he desires. While you condemn his efforts in the harshest of terms - and you should spare nothing in this regard, gentle reader - do not forget to pray for his poor soul, that he may be released from the clutches of this most unclean spirit.

With that being said:

How about the rest of them? Now that this very public proclamation has been made, any sodomite prelates, as well as those sympathetic to their unholy cause, who continue to hide their own perversion while secretly agitating for its acceptance must be called out. It is absolutely imperative that we compel the feculent servants of the Demon of Sodom to emerge from their dens of sin and nail their sullied colors to the mast.

With Fr. Charamsa having just been sacked from his position at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the iron is white-hot. If we ever wanted to draw the Lavender Mafia out from its hiding place and into the light, now is the time.

**UPDATE**

(via Toronto Catholic Witness) Bishop Ryszard Kasyna of Peplin (Gdansk, Poland) has issued a formal canonical warning to Fr. Charamsa: "return to the way of Christ's priesthood." This is generally the first step on the road to dismissal from the clerical state.

**UPDATE**

(via Toronto Catholic Witness) Fr. Dariusz Oko, the priest who wrote the explosive With the Pope against the Homoheresy (2012), which exposed the Homoheresy undermining the Benedictine Papacy, has conducted an interview with Polish news outlet Super Express Poland (se.pl) on the issue of Fr. Krzyztof Charamsa's attempt to pressure the 2015 Synod by "outing" himself as a flaming sodomite in an active homosexual relationship. As to how, exactly, such a priest could not merely finish seminary, but be promoted to such an important position in the Vatican, Fr. Oko had the following to say:

This is, unfortunately, the dark side of the Church. I myself wrote about the homolobby. There were in the Church people like Archbishops Juliusz Paetz and Jozef Wesolowski. It would seem that people of their kind have provided a career for Fr. Charamsa. Those people are very supportive; it is the so-called 'Lavender Mafia'. This sick part of the Church has always existed. Judas among the twelve apostles constituted 8.5 percent. If you convert that to the 30,000 priests in Poland, it turns out that more than 2,500 priests are living badly, like Judases. Charamsa belongs to this group of Judases, of Cains. Betraying the Church, the person places himself above the bishops, theologians, popes, one can even say: above God. Pope Benedict XVI said that genderism is worse than Marxism. Pope Francis said it is like a tsunami, demonic, satanic. Jesus spoke of 'whitewashed tombs', a 'brood of vipers', 'murderers of the prophets'. According to Fr. Charamsa, these words are unacceptable; our language should instead purr sweetly. If someone thinks he knows better than God on how to speak of this, it indicates a madness or possession.

My sentiments exactly.

**UPDATE**

(via El Periódico) Krysztof Charamsa has been officially suspended from priestly ministry. As was to be expected, Charamsa reacted to the dismissal by playing the victim of unfair treatment, saying that he was suspended not for being in an active sodomite relationship, but rather simply for being "gay."

Vortex of Plagiarism?

Yesterday, Church Militant's Michael Voris produced a Vortex episode entitled Schismatic Before God treating the issue of the canonical status of the SSPX. It's the second installment in a series focused on the SSPX, and Church Militant's coverage of the matter is scheduled to climax with the release of an in-depth, investigative journalism-style exposé this Friday. Why, exactly, Michael Voris has chosen to write "SSPX♥SCHISM" upon Church Militant's banner is anyone's guess. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I suppose he is concerned with exposing what he sees as a real danger to souls. It's a bit like lecturing on the importance of hand-washing while a chainsaw-wielding lunatic is on the loose, but ... whatever.

As a matter of editorial policy, I try to refrain from publicly engaging the thorny issue of the canonical status of the SSPX on this blog, as my work here is focused on presenting orthodox Catholic educational material from before Second Vatican Council and all the ugliness which transpired in its wake. I try to put into practice what Mr. Michael Matt of The Remnant has been pleading in favor of for some time now: bringing together traditionally-minded Catholics of various stripes for the advance of authentic Catholicism. And judging by the diverse backgrounds of the individuals who have reached out to me in private communication to express their support for what I do here, it's an effective policy.

Nonetheless, here I am, talking about Michael Voris and the SSPX. *sigh*

I will not comment in any way upon the factual accuracy of Mr. Voris' presentation. I really don't want to get into any of that. Why bring it up at all, then? For a completely different reason:

Like any Catholic with his wits about him, I really enjoy listening to the sermons hosted by AudioSancto, as well as its inheritors, Romans10Seventeen, Regina Prophetarum and Luke1128. I like them so much, in fact, that I've listened to many of them several times. They're often so dense that they warrant a second or even a third listening. One such sermon is entitled End Times, and was delivered in two installments towards the end of November 2014. I must have listened to that sermon at least four times now. It's a good one.

Michael Voris must have thought so, too.

Roughly six contiguous paragraphs of Mr. Voris' presentation from yesterday appear to have been lifted - nearly verbatim - from the second installment of that sermon, delivered on 30.11.2014. As far as I can see, no mention is made of this rather extensive and direct borrowing; the transcript lists only Michael Voris, S.T.B. as its author, and there is no indication that Mr. Voris is quoting someone else.

The sizable portion of the text in question is presented below. The audio file containing the original sermon can be found here. The lifted portion begins at 25:20 and runs to about 28:22.

Let's look at two sources. First, St. Augustine, then St. Alphonsus, before looking specifically at Canon 751. 

It is a manifest rule that one ought in no wise secede from the Catholic communion, that is from the body of Christians throughout the world, by the establishment of a separate communion, even on the admission of evil and sacrilegious men. 

Saint Augustine makes perfectly clear that even with evil and sacrilegious men present in the Church - and we certainly have an abundance of those now - we cannot and must not under any circumstances separate ourselves from the unity of the Church. Notice that St. Augustine is not citing canon law, and the reason for this is that schism is essentially a question of moral theology, not a legal question. Schism is not something that comes into being by a legal declaration. 

When speaking of heresy, St. Alphonsus speaks of "heretics before God" - in other words, of someone who is a heretic but has not been legally declared so by a solemn judgment of the Church. The idea here is that the sin of heresy precedes the judgment of the Church that the man actually is a heretic. And even if the Church never got around in a particular case of judging some man, he would still be a heretic before God - and how God views it is all that matters at the end of the day. 

The situation with schism is analogous. We could speak of "schismatics before God" - in other words, of people who are schismatic but have not been legally declared so by a solemn judgment of the Church. The sin of schism precedes the judgment of the Church, just as the evil of murder precedes the judgment of a court. 

If a group or even an individual, while keeping the True Faith, nevertheless voluntarily, knowingly and deliberately separated himself from the unity of the Church by refusing to submit to the authority of the Pope and/or to remain in communion with those who are subject to him, he or they would still be schismatic even if the Church never got around to making a solemn declaration; they would be schismatics before God.  

So schism at its heart, principally and essentially, is a question of moral theology, not of canon law. One notable aspect of the particular evil spirit behind the sin of schism is that it gives the adherents of this sin an impression, which is really an illusion, of purity and piety. It helps them feel holy and good about maintaining doctrinal and moral purity, and at the same time to feel justified in separating themselves from obedience to the Pope or communion with other Catholics, as if they might somehow become tainted by these sort of associations. This is exactly how the schismatic churches of the Orthodox community feel about Rome, for example.

Even a cursory comparison of the text of the transcript provided by Michael Voris and the text spoken on the sermon recording reveals that the two are nearly identical. And yet there is nothing in Mr. Voris' text to indicate that he has borrowed - rather extensively - from someone else's work.

I realize that to suggest that a journalist has committed an act of gross plagiarism is serious business. I do not want to unfairly damage the man's reputation. It is certainly possible that this was an honest oversight on the part of Michael Voris. In fact, given his extensive experience in the field of professional journalism, one is almost bound to assume that the plagiarism was inadvertent rather than gross, and that there was no real intent to deceive. And it might not be his work at all; it is conceivable that the script was prepared by one of the other reporters on the Church Militant staff, and Mr. Voris just read it off the teleprompter. It happens.

Regardless of how it happened, however, the situation needs rectifying. It is, after all, only fitting that the good and holy priests behind projects such as AudioSancto get at least some recognition for their hard work.

*** UPDATE ***

I just received notification from Church Militant that the following has now been added to the transcript in question:

Portions of this script were taken with permission from this sermon.

I understand that changing the actual video recording of the transcript to reflect the fact that a sizable chunk of it was taken from another source would represent some technical difficulty, so I suppose a disclaimer is as good a rectification as we can hope to see.

Crisis: Where Will the Synod Lead Us?

There's nothing like a strong cup of coffee and an equally strong shot of Catholic doctrine to wake you up in the morning. I just enjoyed both simultaneously.

Portal PCh24.pl released a video yesterday entitled Crisis: Where Will the Synod Lead Us? (Original: Kryzys: Dokąd zaprowadzi nas synod?) which contains strong words from three prominent prelates - Cardinal Raymond Burke, Archbishop Jan Lenga and Bishop Athanasius Schneider - on the issues surrounding the upcoming 2015 Synod. It's well worth your time, so pour yourself a cup and enjoy:

You might think - as do I, gentle reader - that the real coup d'état has already taken place in the recently released marriage annulment reform (can there remain any doubt as to why Cardinal Burke was removed from his post as Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura?), and that the Synod, while it will offer certain factions the opportunity to push for the approval of their perverted views on human sexuality, has been orchestrated to divert attention away from the structural and legal reforms currently being undertaken and to ultimately result in a widespread sigh of relief to the tune of "Crisis averted!" So, seeing as it speaks to eventualities which, in all likelihood, will never materialize, why draw your attention to this video?

To remind you to thank God for the holy priests and bishops who have demonstrated the courage and conviction to stand up for the teachings of Our Lord, Jesus Christ (miserere nobis), in the face of a pernicious heresy, the threat of schism and even apostasy. To remind you that the battle is not lost, and that the situation is not hopeless. To remind you that, come what may, Christ has not and will never abandon His Church.

Of course, you know these things. But it doesn't hurt to be reminded of them now and again.

Swiss Bishop to be Charged with Public Incitement of Violence

His Excellence Vitus Bishop Huonder
(Photo: Bistum Chur)

On Friday, 31. July, Bishop Vitus Huonder of Chur (Switzerland) delivered a speech to a group of faithful German Catholics (yes, they do exist) on the topic of marriage, sexuality and family entitled "Marriage: Gift, Sacrament and Commission" (Original: Die Ehe: Geschenk, Sakrament und Auftrag). In that speech, the good Bishop quoted several relevant passages from Sacred Scripture, including the following:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

"If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

Bishop Huonder went on to describe the passages as continuing to exert influence upon the Christian understanding of sexual morality. He said:

These two passages, taken together with several others in Sacred Scripture - particularly in the Book of Leviticus - demonstrate the divine order which governs our understanding of sexuality. In the present case, same-sex practices are dealt with. The quoted passages alone would be enough to answer the question of homosexuality from the perspective of our Faith. Their import thus has meaning for the definition of marriage and the family. There is no plurality of models for marriage and family. To even speak of such is already an attack on the Creator, as well as on the Savior and Sanctifier, that is, on the trinitarian God. Pastoral care must orient itself according to the divine order. It's mission, undertaken in awareness of the salvation of souls, that is, in pastoral love - and in contradistinction to pure Humanism -  is to free mankind from the condition of a fallen nature and raise it to life as children of light (Eph. 5:8). The Faith is to everyone, even to those with homophile tendencies, a source of comfort and can lead to a redirection of such an orientation, to a governing of sexual urges, and to a ordering of one's own life according to the divine command.

As was to be expected, the progressive elements in the Church were not pleased with Bishop Huonder's statement. Almost on cue, Twitter exploded with horrified denouncements. Theologians felt obliged to respond. Bishop Markus Büchel of St. Gallen even felt the need to demonstrate to the world how pleased he is to see sodomites in stable relationships, arguing that "our present knowledge of homosexuality as a trait and not as a freely chosen sexual orientation was unknown in biblical times." All par for the course, really.

However, now things have been taken to a new level. The Swiss pro-sodomy activism group Pink Cross has announced that it will be filing criminal charges against Bishop Huonder on Monday. Apparently, they plan to charge the good Bishop with a violation of Swiss Penal Code Article 259: Public incitement to commit a felony or act of violence. In other words, by quoting Leviticus, Bishop Huonder was approving of the killing of homosexuals, and indirectly encouraging others to do so. If found guilty, the good Bishop could face up to three years in prison.

The case is, of course, frivolous and without legal merit. But even if this case fails, we can already imagine the day when quoting certain parts of Sacred Scripture will be classified as hate speech.

Persecution is coming, folks. Get prepared.

On the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture, or The Fissure of Pope Paul VI

[Note: The following article, which treats the crisis of biblical exegesis in the century preceding Vatican II, is something I originally posted over a year ago on Louie Verrecchio's blog - on April 11, 2014 to be precise, just a few months before I decided to start The Radical Catholic. I hesitated to re-publish it here, mainly because I wanted to undertake a more comprehensive treatment of the subject at some point. I still do. In fact, I've since collected enough raw material for a medium-sized book. But the circumstances of my off-line life have changed recently, and I don't know when I'll be able to get back to working on that project. In the meantime, I present to you, gentle reader, the original unedited article for your consideration. - RC]

***

It is often claimed that the changes made to the Sacred Liturgy in the wake of Vatican II have had a devastating effect on the life of the Church. That these two things - the liturgical changes and the devastation - were historically concomitant is clear enough. But are the two things connected as a cause to its effect? Or are they both rather effects of some other cause?

For those who have spent any time researching the matter, it is clear that trouble was brewing long before the opening of Vatican II. Many point to Pope St. Pius X’s 1907 encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis as a key document in the Church’s war against Modernism, and rightly so. But that work is often treated in a way which removes it from its historical context.

Even a superficial examination of the reign of Pope St. Pius X reveals a man fighting a veritable hydra of heresy. It is clear that the matter weighed heavily on him, and he devoted a tremendous amount of energy to combating it. But the focal point of his energy is often overlooked: biblical exegesis.

Pascendi has to be read in light of the documents with which it appeared. Of central importance here is the 1907 syllabus of errors, Lamentabili Sane Exitu, nearly all of which treat errors pertaining to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Of equal importance are the documents Praestantia Scripturae (1907), which bound all Catholics to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission, and Vinea Electa (1909), which established the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Taken together, these documents reveal that Pope St. Pius X clearly recognized biblical exegesis as the crack through which Modernism was attempting to enter the sanctuary of the Church.

Pope St. Pius X was not the first to recognize that biblical exegesis was to be the Modernist’s chosen point of entry in their campaign to "reform" the Church from within. Under Blessed Pope Pius IX, the First Vatican Council promulgated Dei Filius, which forcefully restated the Church’s position on Sacred Scripture. This, however, seems only to have emboldened the Modernists. As a counter-measure, Pope Leo XIII delivered his encyclical Providentissimus Deus in 1893, which deals extensively with the study and interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

Providentissimus, while laudable in its treatment of the potential errors in regards to biblical exegesis, appeared to leave just enough wiggle-room for Modernists to continue spreading their errors. In 1902, Leo XIII delivered Vigilantiae Studiique, which officially instituted the Pontifical Commission for Biblical Studies. This Commission, it was hoped, would close the crack and thwart any future advances of the Modernists in the field of biblical exegesis. As it set about its work, however, one thing became perfectly clear: the extent of the errors promulgated by "Catholic" exegetes had been grossly underestimated. The very foundation of the faith was under full assault, and the Church was doing little to nothing to combat it. This recognition is what prompted Pope St. Pius X to issue Lamentabili Sane Exitu in 1907 and found the Pontifical Biblical Institute in 1909. For the time being, the Church closed ranks behind its leader. It would also prove to be the last time.

The period of superficial calm ended with the death of St. Pius X in 1914, and the Modernists returned to their work with renewed vigor under Pope Benedict XV. Taking advantage of the occasionally vague language of Leo XIII’s Providentissimus, the Modernists pushed ahead with their advocacy of the methods of historical criticism. This prompted Benedict XV to deliver the encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus in 1920, which set about to give an official clarification of the intent behind Leo XIII’s encyclical. Benedict roundly condemned once again the errors of modernist biblical exegesis, but the warnings fell on deaf ears. The modernists held so many key positions in institutions of higher learning that dissent from Rome on this point had become commonplace.

The ultimate turning point in the battle is marked by Pope Pius XII’s 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This document essentially removed every defensive measure the previous Popes had put in place to safeguard Sacred Scripture from the attacks of modernist criticism. It was, by and large, drafted by Cardinal Bea, who served as Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute from 1930 to 1949 and was later to become instrumental in the drafting of several key documents of Vatican II, including Nostra Aetate and - most significantly - Dei Verbum, the Council’s "Dogmatic Constitution on Sacred Scripture". It is questionable whether Pius XII had much to do with the Divino at all prior to putting his signature on it. Of course, the person of Cardinal Bea needs little in the way of further introduction. He was Pope John XXIII’s closest adviser, and was appointed as the first President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Cardinal Bea was, indeed, one of the major players in the tragedy of Vatican II.

If there is one central fact which could be used to illumine all of the events leading up to and transpiring after Vatican II, it is this: the members of the Church, clerics and laity alike, have, by and large, lost all sense of supernatural faith in Sacred Scripture. Even among the most staunch supporters of Tradition and the time-honored form of the Divine Liturgy, there are exceedingly few who would maintain anything resembling a traditional interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Countless are those who run to St. Augustine or - incomparably worse - Origen, hoping to find something there which will allow them to read a big bang, billions of years, evolution, and any other modern scientific theory into Sacred Scripture. Little do they realize that, in doing so, they have already capitulated to modernism inasmuch as they grant the underlying thesis that modern science and Sacred Scripture are telling the same story. They are not.

When we give up the plain historical sense of Genesis - the same sense taught by Our Blessed Lord - we open up the very real threat of giving up the plain historical sense of the Gospel. Without a historical Adam, without a historical Eden, without a historical Fall, there is no New Adam, no New Jerusalem, no Eternal Salvation. There’s just a Jewish carpenter’s son preaching social justice in the countryside of Judea 2,000 years ago.

Already now, theologians are working feverishly to remove the biblical foundation of traditional soteriology and eschatology. For example, Benedict XVI made no secret of his desire to rehabilitate the work of the heretic evolutionist Teilhard de Chardin. For anyone familiar with the work of the latter and capable of thinking the system through to its logical consequence, the prospect is horrifying. For the uninformed, let it suffice to say that this is most emphatically not the faith of the Apostles.

So, my question is this: How can the call to traditional liturgy be made without an equally forceful call to traditional exegesis?