Cardinal Marx's Gorbachev Moment

On December 7, 1988, Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev delivered a momentous address to the U.N. General Assembly on the reforms being considered by the Politburo in its attempt to plot a new course for the Soviet Union. While the text of the entire address is too long to reprint here, the following selection is worth noting:

...There emerges before us today a different world, for which it is necessary to seek different roads toward the future, to seek - relying, of course, on accumulated experience - but also seeing the radical differences between that which was yesterday and that which is taking place today. The newness of the tasks, and at the same time their difficulty, are not limited to this. Today we have entered an era when progress will be based on the interests of all mankind. Consciousness of this requires that world policy, too, should be determined by the priority of the values of all mankind. [...] We are more than fully confident. We have both the theory, the policy and the vanguard force of restructuring a party which is also restructuring itself in accordance with the new tasks and the radical changes throughout society. And the most important thing: all peoples and all generations of citizens in our great country are in favor of restructuring. [...] No one intends to underestimate the serious nature of the disagreements, and the difficulties of the problems which have not been settled. However, we have already graduated from the primary school of instruction in mutual understanding and in searching for solutions in our and in the common interests.

Three years later, the Soviet Union completely disintegrated.

In a recent interview with the French magazine Etudes (reported at Vatican Insider), Cardinal Reinhard Marx spoke about the reforms he sees as necessary in order to plot a new course for the Catholic Church in Europe. Speaking of the concept of the "new evangelization," the German Cardinal said:

It [the "new evangelization"] could be mistaken for a model for a spiritual reconquest, as if the aim was to regain lost ground. It is not, however, about restoring or repeating what existed in the past, but rather: a new start, a new approach, a new situation. [...] In actual fact, this is the process followed by the entire history of the Church. The Gospel is always new, Ecclesia semper iuvenescens, the Church's youth is constantly being renewed as the Church Fathers used to say. I remember something Cardinal Lustiger used to say: "The European Church is at its beginning; it has a long way ahead." In many discussion on the 'new evangelisation,' I get the impression a lot of people think that most of Christianity's history is behind us and what lies ahead is an uncertain and distressing future. That is not the way to evangelise. [...] This is precisely why there needs to be an open spiritual battle between us regarding the future of the Church in relation to these existential questions that affect all humans and all believers. Of course, care needs to be taken so as not to turn this process into a political and tactical one. I don't know if we managed to avoid this. Openness is essential, as is mutual trust in order to find the right path to take, together. In terms of the magisterium, too, the Church develops without renouncing its beliefs. But throughout its history, Church dogma has unfolded further and it has been elaborated on further. This also applies to marriage and the family. There is no finish line in the search for the truth. From this point of view, an 'open society' means progress for the Church, too. The question, therefore, is not whether the majority shares our ideas, but whether, with our lifestyle and our way of thinking, we have something to say and can manage to persuade many, even within a pluralistic society, to follow the path of the Gospel in the visible community that is the Church.

While three years would be far too soon, three decades seems just about right.

On Archbishop Cordileone and Postponing the Inevitable

It's not uncommon to hear people say, "I was born Catholic." A century ago, such a phrase was intended as an obvious and not infrequently humorous hyperbole, a way to stress the strictness of the Catholic observance of one's own family and upbringing. It was hyperbolic because everyone knew that it was not to be taken literally, as, properly speaking, no one is born Catholic.

Today, when people say "I was born Catholic," many mean it more or less literally, as though it is part of their genetic inheritance - like Grampa Luigi's crooked nose or Aunt Sally's wide hips. It's simply part of who they are, and they accept it without much consideration or reflection. Their Catholicism has everything to do with personal and collective identity and nothing to do with whether they go to Mass on Sundays, whether they keep the Lenten fast, or whether they believe what the Catholic Church teaches. If Nana demands that everyone shows up for Easter Mass, then everyone shows up for Easter Mass. After all, why not? Maybe somebody from the old St. Albans gang will be there. What's it been, 10 years? And what ever happened to Sister Mary Ignatius? Oh, man, I still have nightmares about her....

Sam Singer, the media relations heavyweight brought in by parents and teachers fighting Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone's recent proposal on moral guidelines for teachers in Catholic schools in San Francisco, knows this to be the case and has already made it clear that he knows how to use it to his advantage. As he stated in an interview to SF Weekly, "I'm half Catholic, half Jewish." A ridiculous but nonetheless well-calculated statement on Singer's part, as it not only endears him to the people he represents while simultaneously insulating him from the potential charge of being anti-Catholic, but it also serves to confirm the false assumption upon which this entire conflict is ultimately based: that Catholicism is primarily and essentially an ethno-cultural phenomenon, and not a religious one.

This assumption is the hidden dynamo at the center of numerous "progressive" movements in the western Church today: regardless of whether it's women's ordination or divorce and remarriage or gay marriage or contraception, such movements generally attract people who view their own Catholicism as an unassailable given. If there's a conflict with so-called "official" Church teaching, so what? We are the Church. If there's a dispute with the Vatican, that just proves that the Vatican is outdated and needs to change. Who are they to tell us what is and what isn't Catholic? How dare they question us Catholics?

While I generally take poll results cum grano salis, the 2008 study conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University revealed what everyone already knew: while 77% of those surveyed agreed with the statement, "I am proud to be Catholic," only 18% strongly agreed with the statement, "In deciding what is morally acceptable, I look to the teachings of the Catholic Church to form my conscience." Any way you cut it, that's a huge number of self-identifying Catholics who simply don't care what the Magisterium of the Church has to say.

And this, in your humble writer's opinion, is precisely where Archbishop Cordileone - as well as the faithful prelature of the entire western hemisphere - needs to place the archimedean lever in order to dislodge the many forces within the Church which oppose Church teaching. However, while I have nothing but the utmost respect for the good Archbishop, I am also a realist. Indeed, we have seen some courageous prelates publicly defend the teachings of the faith in the face of sometimes fierce criticism, and Archbishop Cordileone is one of them. But what we haven't seen - and what desperately needs to happen - is for such prelates to draw the necessary conclusion and confront those who oppose them with a clear choice: either you accept Church teaching, or you're not Catholic. Full stop.

The problem is not that people are confused or don't know what the Catholic Church teaches. The problem is that they simply don't care. While some of the blame for this miserable situation can be laid at the feet of wayward bishops and priests, it's unfair to make them collectively responsible for all of it. At some point, everyone needs to recognize that the people these good bishops are so paternally trying to reach are fully grown adults who carry the responsibility for their free choices. It's time for Church leaders to stop coddling them and get down to brass tacks: either stand with Christ's Church, or leave.

And lest someone over at Crux accuse me of waxing "jeremaic": I'm not saying that the Church is doomed and that the world is coming to an end. I'm saying we should man up, cut off the ballast and get on the course plotted by Professor Joseph Ratzinger in his 1969 work, Faith and the Future:

The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes [...] she will lose many of her social privileges. [...] As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members. [...] It will be hard-going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. [...] The process will be long and wearisome as was the road from the false progressivism on the eve of the French Revolution - when a bishop might be thought smart if he made fun of dogmas and even insinuated that the existence of God was by no means certain. [...] But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church.

It's austere, but it's a plan with promise. It's time we acted on it.

Noli me tangere!

While in the process of writing an article on the practice of receiving the Most Blessed Sacrament in the hand, I was simply overwhelmed by the beauty and abundance of images inspired by Our Lord's short, simple instruction. Therefore, I'll let Him explain my opinion on the matter (be sure to click on the images to view them in a larger format):

Noli me tangere
Antonio da Correggio (1489-1535)

Noli me tangere
Tatian (1490-1576)

Noli me tangere
Ciro Ferri (1634-1689)

Noli me tangere
Anton Raphael Mengs (1728-1779)

Noli me tangere
Anton Raphael Mengs (1728-1779)

Appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection
Alexander Ivanov (1806-1858)

The Eucharist: A Foretaste of Heaven

Tenth and Last in a Series on the Reasons of the Eucharist

by
Fr. Albert Tesniére, S.S.S.

Dominus Est!

THESIS

The Eucharist is the Pledge and the Foretaste of Heaven.

ADORATION

Adore, behind the cloud of the sacred species, as in a heaven which has drawn nearer to earth, and where He wills to reside that He may be more accessible to us, the King of angels, the Sovereign who reigns radiant and triumphant in the heaven of His glory.

He is the same here in the sweet light of the Eucharistic cloud, so well suited to the weakness of our eyes, as in the splendor of His throne in the highest heaven. He is here to give us the pledge and the foretaste of what we shall possess in the heaven of His glory.

He is the pledge, that is to say, the promise, the assurance, the agreement to give us His Paradise. Has He not in fact said: "He who eats My flesh has eternal life;" "I am the Bread of heaven, he who believes in Me shall not die"? He has therefore taken an engagement upon Himself; the Eucharist guarantees the truth of His word; it publishes it everywhere, and keeps in violable its integrity.

Besides, having given Himself, as He does in the Eucharist, He gives Himself necessarily afterwards in heaven. What is heaven? The possession of Jesus, the perpetual and assured possession of Jesus, a mysterious reception of Jesus, without reserve and without end; He in us perfectly, we completely in Him behold heaven! But what is the Eucharist? The possession of Jesus, the permanent presence of Jesus; the sacramental reception of Jesus. The mode differs, it is true; here Jesus is veiled, and we are powerless to possess Him perfectly, and to be ever present with Him; and even in the eating, faith alone enjoys Him, whilst the senses remain outside His contact, often incommoding faith, clouding its glance, and impairing its flight. But, nevertheless, the foundation is the same, and Jesus gives Himself here as He does there, really.

Have we any reason then to be astonished that the Eucharist should be the pledge of heaven? Having bestowed on us this first gift, cannot the Saviour afterwards give Himself in heaven? Appreciate this truth, and adore Him who wills to engage Himself as irrevocably to us as we are inconstant to Him.

The foretaste - it is more than a pledge; it is an anticipated participation in the blessing promised and repeated; it is already a beginning of enjoyment of all of which the full possession is reserved for us. What is heaven from this point of view? The perfect possession of all good things. Do not the Scriptures call the Eucharist "the Bread which contains all delights"? And does not Jesus also say that it is the "Bread of heaven"? Cannot then the divine beatitude allow itself to be tasted in the Bread of God, seraphic joys in the Bread of Angels, something, finally, of what it is in heaven in the Bread of heaven?

Ah, it is not this food that is to blame for so much misery in this valley of tears, but only ourselves, whose faith allows itself to be obscured by the fascinations of earthly treasures, whose heart so soon becomes too much weakened by material pleasures, to be able to enjoy the pure delights of future blessings.

Adore, then, with gratitude, admiration, and confusion the "living Bread come down from heaven in order to make of this our earth the threshold of Paradise."

THANKSGIVING

How great is the goodness of God, how earnest His love, how impatient He is to heap His mercy upon us! In truth, it might have seemed to be sufficient in order to prove to us more of love than we shall ever merit, to have promised us heaven as a recompense for our labors and our struggles, and to wait in order to give it until the measure of our merits should be filled.

No! The Saviour who acquired for us a right to heaven by His death, who delivers up to us the price of it in His blood, which all the Sacraments diffuse in us; who has taught us the path by His saving words, who has opened the gate of it by entering therein first Himself, and who is occupied in preparing our place for us in it, - this infinitely kind Saviour, this Jesus wills to come back to us to lead us there by the hand, as it were; He wills to give Himself up beforehand for us that He may guarantee the access to it for us; He wills to make us experience some of the delights which await us there in order to attach us to it forever, by separating us victoriously from the temporary but seductive good things of this world.

Oh God, what wouldst Thou not have done to bring me at last to heaven? And if I do not go there, how just and deserved will be my chastisement! Will it ever equal the love Thou hast shown to make me avoid it?

REPARATION

Oh Lord, my God, beauty without stain, sovereign goodness, life without end, substance of all happiness and of all good, how great is my shame when I recall to mind Thy promises, Thy calls, the pledge and the foretaste of heaven which Thou procures! for me by this heavenly Sacrament!

The fact is, that I hardly ever think of heaven except when I am unhappy and deprived of the joys which I had ardently sought after upon earth. Heaven then appears to me desirable only in proportion to what I suffer. But let human happiness shine upon me only a little, let me have the enjoyments which my heart and my senses call for, then immediately my eyes cease to be raised towards Thee; and if I think of heaven it is to supplicate Thee, alas! not to call me thither until I have completely emptied the cup which inebriates me.

Divine Sacrament of heaven, it is into this earthly, obscure, and filthy soul that Thou hast cast Thyself; I understand but too clearly that Thou art but little appredated therein, and that Thou remainest inert, powerless to excite the production of the holy desires, the sweet joys, the ardent impatience, the lofty aspirations of the Saints towards the heavenly country and towards Thee, who art all the treasure of it.

PRAYER

Let us make, at the foot of the Sacrament of heaven, the most urgent resolutions relative to the great duty of hope; let us make our daily prayers and frequent communion rest upon them; but let it be upon one condition: that we recall them to mind in each one of our thanksgivings, to examine if we are faithful to them.

There is no doubt but that this practice will disengage us from the ties of the flesh, will raise us above the frivolities of this world, will make us despise them and love eternity; it is then that we shall feel in the depths of our heart the assurance of heaven. It is then that we shall really experience how truly the Bread of life contains the foretaste of its eternal delights.

PRACTICE

Ask at each Communion for final perseverance, and the desire for heaven. Each time, make a sacrifice of one of the things which might retard the possession of it for us.

The First Christians and the Organization of the Early Church

Reading N°5 in the History of the Catholic Church

by

Fr. Fernand Mourret, S.S.

As soon as the Apostles were released by the Sanhedrin after the Miracle of the Beautiful Gate, they returned to their brethren and related to them what the chief priests and the ancients had said. 

Who having heard it, with one accord lifted up their voice to God and said: "Lord, Thou art He that didst make heaven and earth, the sea and all things that are in them. Who, by the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of our father David, Thy servant, hast said: 'Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people meditate vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes assembled together against the Lord and His Christ.' [...] And now, Lord, behold their threatenings, and grant unto Thy servants that with all confidence they may speak Thy word, by stretching forth Thy hand to cures and signs and wonders to be done by the name of Thy holy Son Jesus." And when they had prayed, the place was moved wherein they were assembled; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spoke the word of God with confidence. 

And the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but all things were common unto them. And, with great power did the Apostles give testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord. And great grace was in them all. For neither was there anyone needy among them. For as many as were owners of lands or houses, sold them and brought the price of the things sold, and laid it down before the feet of the Apostles. And distribution was made to everyone, according as he had need.^[1]

In these few lines, the Acts of the Apostles sketches the first Christian community. Let us attempt to complete the picture with the help of various documents furnished by archeology, tradition, sacred and profane history.

Saint Peter
Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640)

It is plainly to be seen that the little society has a head. This head is the one who, after the Ascension, presided at the choosing of Matthias to replace Judas, so as to fill up the number of the Twelve. He is also the one who, on Pentecost, spoke to the crowd in the name of the Apostolic College. And it is he who defended the rights of Christian preaching before the Sanhedrin. It is Simon, son of Jona, to whom Jesus gave the power of binding and loosing, that is, of governing His Church; it is Peter, to whom were given the keys of the kingdom and who was commissioned to "confirm his brethren" in the faith.

The Galilean fisherman's burning faith, the promptness of his zeal, the clear-sighted intuition of his soul, which led him first of all to proclaim his belief in Christ the Son of the living God, and the thrice repeated avowal of his love for Jesus, may have prepared him for this office; in fact, he received it by the free choice of his Master. And this headship was religiously recognized and accepted by all. The Pauline tradition, represented by St. Luke,^[2] and the Johannine tradition, represented by the Fourth Gospel,^[3] as also the Palestinian tradition, echoed in St. Matthew,^[4] and the Roman tradition, expressed in St. Mark, agree in representing Simon Peter as the head of the infant Church.

At the same time, another authority seems to hover over the community of Christ's disciples: it is the authority of the Holy Ghost. Nothing in the Acts of the Apostles is more remarkable than the frequency with which that book mentions the Holy Ghost. Every important event in the infant Church^[5] is attributed to His inspiration.

The name of the Holy Ghost is one of the first words on Peter's lips when, for the first time, he addresses the disciples, gathered together to choose a successor for Judas the traitor.^[6] From the Holy Ghost the Apostles receive the gift of tongues.^[7] To the Holy Ghost Peter attributes all the supernatural manifestations on Pentecost.^[8] The Apostle charges Ananias with having lied to the Holy Ghost,^[9] and Saphira with having tempted the Spirit of the Lord.^[10] Stephen, the first martyr, is spoken of as a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,^[11] as one by whose mouth the Spirit of God speaks.^[12] Later on, we note that the Holy Ghost sets apart Paul and Barnabas,^[13] and prevents Paul and Silas from passing into Asia.^[14]

And this Spirit is represented as a Spirit of peace, of charity, and of joy.^[15] Under His influence, and under the paternal authority of the head of the Apostles, the young community is organized and develops as a united family. A superficial outsider might have observed in them only a group of pious Jews, or a community of cenobites like the Essenes and Therapeutae.^[16] They still kept the Mosaic observances, prayed at the appointed hours,^[17] and showed themselves scrupulously faithful to the Law. They were liked by the people because of their simple, pious, and gentle life.^[18] This the chief priests had seen at the time of the arrest of Peter and John. From the little group there radiated a fragrance of kindliness, uprightness, and wholesome joy. Among them labor was held in honor, in their midst the destitute found the charm of an enlarged family which generously opened for them all its treasures of affection and its material resources. The members of the community called one another brother, to show the tender charity that united them. The Temple porches, the galleries that formed part of that edifice, were their usual meeting-place during the day.^[19] There were to be found the memories of their Master's most endearing words and discourses. In the evening they returned to their lodgings and, in small groups,^[20] took part in a mysterious meal that still more intimately recalled to their mind the last hours of Jesus. The people called their meeting by the Hebrew word Kahal, which was applied to gatherings of this sort; but they themselves used the Greek word Ekklesia (Church), by which the old Hellenic cities designated the meeting of the people for deliberation on matters of state.

Let us examine the inner life of this Church more closely. There we shall discover an autonomous organization, capable of sustaining its life independently.

St. Peter Healing with His Shadow
Masaccio (1401-1428)

The Apostles exercised an undisputed authority over the faithful. They had been the Savior's confidants, specially chosen by Him to accompany Him and aid Him. Hence, in the mind of the new converts, they are the authentic witnesses of the departed Master. To them one turns for an authorized account of His discourses, promises, blessings, and examples. The mystery of Pentecost, by designating them as in a very special manner filled with the Holy Ghost, and the gift of miracles, which is more particularly reserved to them,^[21] vests them with an altogether exceptional authority. When Peter passes by, the sick are carried out and put on beds or cots, so that his shadow may fall upon them.^[22] Such privileges made their authority absolute and their teaching infallible.^[23] Moreover, Christ had in a positive manner confided to them the power of teaching,^[24] and, subject to Peter's authority, the power of governing the faithful.^[25]

It is possible that, under the Apostles, the community had for a short time only the ministry of prophets directly inspired by the Holy Ghost. But if this embryonic state ever existed, it lasted only a very short time.^[26] The Apostles soon instituted a governing authority, which was frequently entrusted to those who were favored with these mystical communications. A council of elders (presbyteri, priests) and a college of seven deacons later completed the organization.

Saint James the Lesser
Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640)

After the other Apostles dispersed, James "the brother of the Lord" took their place at Jerusalem and filled the office of head of the local Church. At his death (A.D. 61), a successor was appointed; he was likewise a relative of the Lord, Simeon, who lived until about the year 110. This Jerusalem hierarchy presents exactly the grades of rank which, later on, became universal.^[27]

A close examination of the early Church at Jerusalem shows that, besides the exercises of devotion in the Temple, which the disciples of Jesus attended along with their Jewish brethren, they had their own special services in private houses, where their meetings were held. There the Master's life and discourses were repeated. "These various accounts, a thousand times retold, finally led to a uniform oral version, which was a sort of traditional catechism. The Gospel thus assumed its first authentic and authorized form. We have no need to look for any other cause for the identity of expressions and turns of phrase that characterize the three synoptic Gospels."^[28] More precisely, this early preaching took two forms, which it borrowed from the traditions of the synagogue: the agada, a kind of historical narrative or discourse, and the alaka, a form of dogmatic or moral teaching.^[29] The synoptic Gospels are related to the agada; the Apostolic epistles belong rather to the form of the alaka, and the Gospel of St. John to both.

Footnotes

[1] Acts 4:23-35.

[2] Luke 22:31.

[3] John 21:15-17.

[4] Matt. 16:18.

[5] Lebreton, Histoire du dogme de la Trinité, I, 284-288.

[6] Acts 1:16.

[7] Acts 2:2 ff.

[8] Acts 2:17.

[9] Acts 5:3.

[10] Acts 5:9.

[11] Acts 6:5.

[12] Acts 6:10.

[13] Acts 13:2, 4.

[14] Acts 16:6. The Acts of the Apostles has been called the "Gospel of the Holy Ghost." Cf. Lebreton, op. cit., I, 285.

[15] Acts 13:52.

[16] On the religious societies of Essenes and Therapeutae, see Hergenröther-Kirsch, Kirchengeschichte, vol. I, bk. I, chap. 2. Cf. Philo, On the Contemplative Life; also Massebiau, "Le Traité de la vie contemplative et la question des thérapeutes," in the Revue de l'histoire des religions, 1887, pp. 170, 284.

[17] Acts 3:1.

[18] Acts 2:47; 4:33; 5:13, 26.

[19] Acts 2:46; 5:12.

[20] Acts 2:46.

[21] Acts 5:12.

[22] Acts 5:15.

[23] Bainvel, art. "Apôtres," in Vacant's Dict. de théol.

[24] Matt. 28:18 ff.; Mark 16:15.

[25] Matt. 18:17 f.; Ephes. 4:1-13. Cf- 1 Cor. 12:28; 1 Pet. 5:2; Acts 20:28.

[26] Prat, art. "Evêque," in the Dict. de théol., IV, 1657.

[27] Duchesne, Early History of the Christian Church, I, p. 63. The author supposes James, "the brother of the Lord," to be distinct from James the Apostle, the son of Alpheus. This distinction, though held by a number of modern scholars, does not seem to be well founded. (See Ermoni, art. "Jacques," in the Dict. de la Bible.)

[28] Le Camus, L'Œuvre des apôtres, I, 41.

[29] Vigouroux, Manuel biblique, I, 338.

***

Join the discussion at:

On PewSitter, Priests and Catholic Divisiveness

The PewSitter Logo

Readers who frequent this blog may have noticed that, of the few sites to which I provide a permanent link, PewSitter is at the top of my list (see sidebar right). It is a fantastic resource for any Catholic looking for a one-stop aggregation of everything happening on the Catholic internet and beyond. The folks behind it put in what must be a huge amount of work to provide a very useful service to their fellow Catholics free of charge. If you want to know what's going on, PewSitter is one of the best places to start looking, and I recommend it to all my readers.

This morning, while browsing PewSitter (!), I noticed that Crux magazine had run what amounts to a hit piece on the website. Having taken offense at an editorial headline, Fr. Dwight Longenecker decided PewSitter needed to be verbally flogged, with choice phrases such as "sarcastic mock enthusiasm," "steady current of right-wing political bias" and "sleazy editing" thrown in for good measure. In the attempt to give the article some semblance of objectivity - rather than letting it be the direct assault on PewSitter it essentially is - Fr. Longenecker managed to squeeze in two sentences deriding "progressive Catholics" and bring it together into a rather belabored but nonetheless palpable point. I quote:

Re-grouping into Catholic tribalism of the right or the left does huge damage to the Church. When we are in need of a strong, clear message and a united witness to the world, we descend instead into partisan bickering, mutual accusation, and self-righteous posturing. Retreating into a self-made religious ghetto is also indicative of the worst religious psychology: that of the sectarian Pharisee.

In short: PewSitter is harming the Catholic faithful by being divisive and promoting divisiveness.

Let us overlook that, in the very act of castigating Catholics for being polarized into a 'right' and a 'left', Fr. Longenecker displays every sign of jockeying for the politically advantageous position of 'moderate'. Whether or not this was intentional is unclear, so we'll call it 'potentially ironic' and leave it at that.

Let us also overlook the fact that our current Pope has, more than any other in living memory, used his speaking engagements as an opportunity to set Catholic against Catholic. In this war of words, the Pope himself has emerged as one of if not the most prolific supplier of weapons of verbal mass destruction: from "self-absorbed, Promethean Neo-Pelagian" to "liquid Christians" to "slaves of superficiality," the Holy Father seems to have a certain penchant for forging tools with which Catholics can hack each other to pieces.

Let us instead use this as an opportunity to examine the merits of the basic argument. We needn't get caught up in the terms 'left' and 'right' at this point - I'm willing to assume that both Fr. Longenecker and you, gentle reader, realize their various shortcomings. But there is an issue here which we would do well to examine more closely: the conflict between the apparently diametrically opposed forces in the Church. Before doing so, however, allow me to wax pedantic for a moment.

It is a simple and incontrovertible fact of life that people who are intent on preserving and developing something are at an inherent disadvantage to those who are trying to change or destroy it. It takes years of dedicated, loving service and self-sacrifice to raise a human child to morally-responsible adulthood. To end that precious life, a momentary fit of rage and a $0.03 bullet will suffice. A house takes months or even years of strenuous labor to build, but a wrecking-ball can reduce it to rubble in a matter of minutes. Regardless of whether we're talking about physical things, like trees and airplanes, or spiritual ones, like faith and innocence, the lesson is the same: It takes far less energy to destroy a thing than it did to make it.

The Adversary knows this all too well. He didn't need to get Eve to reject God completely. He needed only for her to doubt - if only for a moment - God's loving providence:

Did God really say you were not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?

Take careful notice of the subtle rhetoric being employed here, gentle reader, for you will find the very same at play in the words of many 'progressive' clerics. To note an example from recent memory, take the following question from Fr. Thomas Rosica, C.S.B., directed to Michael Voris in regards to people in "irregular situations":

Could the diabolical inspiration behind such a question be more blatantly apparent? Let there be no doubt: Just as the Holy Spirit used his prophets to proclaim the word of God, so does the Father of Lies inspire his children to spread doubt and incite rebellion against God's law. And, as the above example amply demonstrates, his tactics have changed very little.

Yet, am I not, myself, sowing seeds of doubt and inciting dissent? Am I not openly questioning the fidelity of one of God's holy priests? Have I not, in the past, questioned the motives of the current Pope? Perhaps I'm exactly the kind of Catholic Fr. Longenecker is talking about: a polarizing, sectarian Pharisee! 

It's a fair question. That this blog is not littered with entries on "10 ways to spice up your Lent," "5 things you need to know about St. Patrick," and "10 people you never knew were Catholic" could very well be an indicator that your humble author suffers from an aversion to the vapid fluff which is regularly touted by those giants of the Catholic Internet as orthodox fare suitable for the masses. Why should you listen to me? What can I offer in my defense?

But I do not ask that you listen to me at all, being the wretched sinner that I am. I ask that you listen to the Church's authentic Magisterium and her faithful defenders. Furthermore, I ask you to examine those who would position themselves as 'moderates' occupying that supposedly safe space between two 'dangerous extremes' and inquire as to their defense of the hard truths of the Catholic Faith, viz.:

• The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ.
• The Catholic Church is an external visible commonwealth.
• There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.
• God desires that all men enter the Catholic Church.
• Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.
• Souls who depart this life in the state of mortal sin suffer the torments of hell.
• A valid marriage is indissoluble.
• Adultery is a mortal sin.
• Sodomy is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.
• The Pope does not have the power to change doctrine or to introduce any novelty.
• The state has an obligation to recognize, support and promote the Catholic Church.
• ...

The list could be extended considerably, but these are the teachings currently under attack, and these are the ones needing vigorous and wholehearted defense. To defend them is not to place one on 'the right' of a political spectrum; it is to defend the Catholic faith itself. By the same token, to ignore or consciously object to them is not to be on 'the left'; it is to object to the Catholic faith itself and put oneself outside the Church.

And at this point, we can return to Fr. Longenecker's objection, but hopefully with a new insight:

The reason why the terms 'left' and 'right' are to be rejected as applying to groups within the Catholic Church is the very same reason why those who defend the Catholic faith must take such a clear and uncompromising position. There is a spectrum of political positions, but there is no spectrum of truth. A proposition is either true or false, a conclusion either correct or incorrect. Either you accept it or you do not. If Fr. Longenecker can't see that the motivation of faithful Catholics is comprised of something far nobler than "tribalism" or "partisan bickering," I'm afraid he's missed the point entirely. We do not take this position simply to counteract the progressive forces in the Church. We take this position because our faith and our fidelity to Christ's Church demand it.

I can agree with Fr. Longenecker without reservation in that we need "a strong, clear message and a united witness to the world," but that message must be the authentic faith as we have received it, not as it is being reformulated according to the whims and predilections of faithless subverters of the same. What unites us today must be the very thing which unites us with our forefathers in the faith: our timeless Tradition.

Believing and Doing

First in a Series on Catholic Morals

by
Fr. John H. Stapleton

Morals pertain to right living, to the things we do, in relation to God and His law, as opposed to right thinking, to what we believe, to dogma. Dogma directs our faith or belief; morals shape our lives. By faith we know God, by moral living we serve Him; and this double homage, of our mind and our works, is the worship we owe our Creator and Master and the necessary condition of our salvation.

Faith alone will save no man. It may be convenient for the easy-going to deny this, and take an opposite view of the matter; but convenience is not always a safe counselor. It may be that the just man liveth by faith; but he lives not by faith alone. Or, if he does, it is faith of a different sort from what we define here as faith, viz., a firm assent of the mind to truths revealed. We have the testimony of Holy Writ, again and again reiterated, that faith, even were it capable of moving mountains, without good works is of no avail. The Catholic Church is convinced that this doctrine is genuine and reliable enough to make it her own; and sensible enough, too. For faith does not make a man impeccable; he may believe rightly, and live badly. His knowledge of what God expects of him will not prevent him from doing just the contrary; sin is as easy to a believer as to an unbeliever. And he who pretends to have found religion, holiness, the Holy Ghost, or whatever else he may call it, and can therefore no longer prevaricate against the law, is, to common-sense people, nothing but a sanctified humbug or a pious idiot.

Nor are good works alone sufficient. Men of emancipated intelligence and becoming breadth of mind, are often heard to proclaim with a greater flourish of verbosity than of reason and argument, that the golden rule is religion enough for them, without the trappings of creeds and dogmas; they respect themselves and respect their neighbors, at least they say they do, and this, according to them, is the fulfillment of the law. We submit that this sort of worship was in vogue a good many centuries before the God-Man came down upon earth; and if it fills the bill now, as it did in those days, it is difficult to see the utility of Christ's coming, of His giving of a law of belief and of His founding of a Church. It is beyond human comprehension that He should have come for naught, labored for naught and died for naught. And such must be the case, if the observance of the natural law is a sufficient worship of the Creator. What reasons Christ may have had for imposing this or that truth upon our belief is beside the question; it is enough that He did reveal truths, the acceptance of which glorifies Him in the mind of the believer, in order that the mere keeping of the commandments appear forthwith an insufficient mode of worship.

Besides, morals are based on dogma, or they have no basis at all; knowledge of the manner of serving God can only proceed from knowledge of who and what He is; right living is the fruit of right thinking. Not that all who believe rightly are righteous and walk in the path of salvation: losing themselves, these are lost in spite of the truths they know and profess; nor that they who cling to an erroneous belief and a false creed can perform no deed of true moral worth and are doomed; they may be righteous in spite of the errors they profess, thanks alone to the truths in their creeds that are not wholly corrupted. But the natural order of things demands that our works partake of the nature of our convictions, that truth or error in mind beget truth or error correspondingly in deed and that no amount of self-confidence in a man can make a course right when it is wrong, can make a man's actions good when they are materially bad. This is the principle of the tree and its fruit and it is too old-fashioned to be easily denied. True morals spring from true faith and true dogma; a false creed cannot teach correct morality, unless accidentally, as the result of a sprinkling of truth through the mass of false teaching. The only accredited moral instructor is the true Church. Where there is no dogma, there can logically be no morals, save such as human instinct and reason devise; but this is an absurd morality, since there is no recognition of an authority, of a legislator, to make the moral law binding and to give it a sanction. He who says he is a law unto himself chooses thus to veil his proclaiming freedom from all law. His golden rule is a thing too easily twistable to be of any assured benefit to others than himself; his moral sense, that is, his sense of right and wrong, is very likely where his faith is - nowhere.

It goes without saying that the requirements of good morals are a heavy burden for the natural man, that is, for man left, in the midst of seductions and allurements, to the purely human resources of his own unaided wit and strength; so heavy a burden is this, in fact, that according to Catholic doctrine, it cannot be borne without assistance from on high, the which assistance we call grace. This supernatural aid we believe essential to the shaping of a good moral life; for man, being destined, in preference to all the rest of animal creation, to a supernatural end, is thereby raised from the natural to a supernatural order. The requirements of this order are therefore above and beyond his native powers and can only be met with the help of a force above his own. It is labor lost for us to strive to climb the clouds on a ladder of our own make; the ladder must be let down from above. Human air-ships are a futile invention and cannot be made to steer straight or to soar high in the atmosphere of the supernatural. One-half of those who fail in moral matters are those who trust altogether, or too much, in their own strength, and reckon without the power that said "Without Me you can do nothing."

The other half go to the other extreme. They imagine that the Almighty should not only direct and aid them, but also that He should come down and drag them along in spite of themselves; and they complain when He does not, excuse and justify themselves on the ground that He does not, and blame Him for their failure to walk straight in the narrow path. They expect Him to pull them from the clutches of temptation into which they have deliberately walked. The drunkard expects Him to knock the glass out of his hand: the imprudent, the inquisitive and the vicious would have it so that they might play with fire, yea, even put in their hand, and not be scorched or burnt. 'Tis a miracle they want, a miracle at every turn, a suspension of the laws of nature to save them from the effects of their voluntary perverseness. Too lazy to employ the means at their command, they thrust the whole burden on the Maker. God helps those who help themselves. A supernatural state does not dispense us from the obligation of practicing natural virtue. You can build a supernatural life only on the foundations of a natural life. To do away with the latter is to build in the air; the structure will not stay up, it will and must come down at the first blast of temptation.

Catholic morals therefore require faith in revealed truths, of which they are but deductions, logical conclusions; they presuppose, in their observance, the grace of God; and call for a certain strenuosity of life without which nothing meritorious can be effected. We must be convinced of the right God has to trace a line of conduct for us; we must be as earnest in enlisting His assistance as if all depended on Him; and then go to work as if it all depended on ourselves.