St. Joseph Catholic Church, Macon, Georgia

The attached photos were taken by my wife. She was driving through Macon last year, and having heard about the recent renovations, I asked her to stop in the church and take some photos. Many of the renovations are beautiful, however, how shameful that they demolished the altar rail.

Luke 23: 34 And Jesus said: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Deconstructing Deconstructionism

By Robert Locke
As published in FrontPageMagazine.com, November 28, 2001

“The students at Tianamen Square have Deng XiaoPing to deconstruct their statue of liberty. They do not need Western intellectuals to do it for them." - Allan Bloom

ONE OF THE GREAT ASSETS of the academic left is its ability to invent and teach a synthesis, a systematic distillation of leftism into a convenient package. Once mastered, this synthesis can be relied upon to give the adherent a leftwing analysis of anything from Strategic Missile Defense to poetry. Marxism once fulfilled this role for a great many, but for the past 15 years or so, the ascendant school of sophistry has been deconstructionism. So it’s worth getting a grip on how this philosophical congame works and why it’s false.

Deconstructionism originally came from France in the ‘70s. It is also known as poststructuralism, but don’t ask what structuralism was, as it was no better. It is based on the proposition that the apparently real world is in fact a vast social construct and that the way to knowledge lies in taking apart in one’s mind this thing society has built. Taken to its logical conclusion, it supposes that there is at the end of the day no actual reality, just a series of appearances stitched together by social constructs into what we all agree to call reality. But not agree voluntarily, for society has (this is the leftist bit) an oppressive structure, so we are pressured to agree to that version of reality which pleases the people in charge. (If you specialize in studying this pressure, you are a member of the Michel Foucault school of deconstructionism.)

One of the clearest signs that deconstructionism is a con is that it is invariably expressed in the most complicated possible language, not the clearest, a sure sign that the writer is trying to sound clever rather than convey information. The summary I have just given would take months to extract from the average deconstructionist. The effort required to glean the actual meaning from their spaghetti tangles of run on sentences, larded with a standard repertoire of tortured constructions and verbal tics, is a kind of hazing ritual required for initiation into the deconstructionist illuminati.

They have a number of these standard verbal tics by which they can be recognized. Gratuitous plurals are one, as in "homosexualities," a favorite term intended to convey the great insight that not all homosexuals are alike. But not even Jerry Falwell thinks this! When I saw the home decorating section of the New York Times Sunday Magazine headlined "domesticities" a few months ago, I knew for sure that some deconstructionist young pup had finally made it to the editorial chair.

The deconstructionist account differs from the Marxist one in that, while Marx believed that what we think is a product of our role in the economic system, deconstructionism prides itself on recognizing that there are lots of other systems besides economics forcing us to think this way and that. But in practice, it is very easy to write deconstructionist analysis that just harps on the economic angle, so much of deconstructionism is just cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism (what Tom Wolfe calls Rococo Marxism) is to be distinguished from ordinary Marxism, which is about revolutions and socialism and boring things like that. Cultural Marxism is way too cool for that. It is popular with hip young academics who have read Solzhenitsyn, seen the Berlin Wall come down, like shopping at Crate & Barrel, but still want a philosophy that will distance them from bourgeois society and all those tasteless squares. (The sight of Marxists worrying about tastelessness would have reduced Lenin to a fit of giggles, but that’s another issue.) Cultural Marxism enables one to simultaneously sneer at popular culture, satisfying one’s elitist impulses, while taking a populist attitude towards it, because pop culture isn’t the fault of the populace but of the Big Bad Bourgeoisie, or in a more sophisticated formulation, of the system of which the BBB is the leading element. So Marxism tends to be a toy that deconstructionists pick up and put down at will. (If you emphasize the way in which the system has a mind of its own that is bigger than the BBB who run it, you are a member of the Hardt Negri school, as epitomized by their wildly popular new book Empire.)

You may wonder how leftwing all this is, if these people are busy critiquing our consciousness of reality rather than trying to overthrow the state or achieve equality. In fact, some deconstructionists are apolitical, and serious leftists have been known to complain about this. They accuse the deconstructionists of playing abstract intellectual games while there is revolutionary work to be done. Intelligent leftists like Alan Sokal, a card carrying Sandalista physicist at New York University, have belligerently attacked deconstructionism because it leads, if taken seriously, to the conclusion that leftism is just another social construct to be deconstructed. It seems leftist to start with, but it eventually devours itself. The deconstructionists ran afoul of him by straying into what can only be described as the literary criticism of physics, an endeavor which ended up making physics as much a rat’s nest of opinion as the most gaseous poetry criticism. He got a parody of deconstructionist analysis, "The Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," published in a deconstructionist magazine, Social Text, without telling them it was a parody just to prove how stupid this all is.

Deconstructionism is obsessed with finding contradictions in our socially constructed picture of reality. It takes these contradictions as proving that reality is a social construct, because if our picture were actually true, it wouldn’t contradict. (Marxists say that contradictions in the organization of our economic system produce these contradictions in our thinking and that the process of working out these economic contradictions will eventually work out the intellectual ones.) Deconstructionists who devote themselves to ferreting out how deeply these philosophical wrinkles are embedded in the structures of thought belong to the Jacques Derrida school. Martin Heidegger (a Nazi party member and author of books with titles like What is a Thing?) makes his appearance here as the grandmaster of ferreting out deep metaphysical contradictions in our structures of thought.

All this make you dizzy? It’s supposed to. Deconstructionists believe in something called the decentered subject, which is basically what you get when you treat the human self as just another social construct. Try thinking about yourself this way. See what I mean?

Deconstructionists think that they are the first people in the history of the world to see things correctly. But they aren’t even the first people to see things the way they see them. The Greek sophists that Plato jousted with 2,500 years ago held essentially their views; see Plato’s dialogue Gorgias. Michel Foucault (the bald Frenchman who died of AIDS) thought he was the first person to figure out that social order is maintained not just through "hard" coercion like the police but through an intricate web of "soft" coercions that make us behave through the pressures of conformity and culture. But does any precocious eighth grader not grasp this intuitively?

The central trick, the key sleight-of-hand, which makes deconstructionism plausible enough to fool people into believing it is this: gather up all the attributes of reality that are confusing, uncertain, controversial, or paradoxical, and claim that all of reality is this way. But the existence of gray areas does not refute the existence of black and white. Most of reality is very solid, even if there are margins that are not.

Deconstructionism’s love of social constructionism creates a disdain for nature. Deconstructionists have a notoriously nerdy (this is really what it is, sorry) view of sex because they are obliged to insist that all social differences are social conventions with no basis in nature. I have heard them come dangerously close, when verbally barreling on so fast they don’t have time to stop, to saying that physical sexual differences are a social construct.

Deconstructionism is notorious for lynching philosophical straw men. They love to pounce on other thinkers and say, "Aha! There you have an Enlightenment Assumption," meaning a dubious idea from the eighteenth century. But the Enlightenment was 200 years ago, and I have yet to see any dubious idea thus pilloried that people actually believe today, except for those that are baldly true.

One of the ironies of deconstructionism is that while it is obsessed with the idea of social constructs, it knows very little about actual construction of anything. I cannot help observing that the Empire State Building is manifestly a social construct, in that it was constructed by a society. This does not seem to result in its being any less real. Does it not follow, if the world is a social construct, that what we have constructed, exists?

One of the sad things about deconstructionism as a philosophy is that, to their credit, America’s actual philosophy departments in the universities aren’t very interested in it and tend not to teach it. Deconstructionism is big in English, anthropology, and anything else that studies culture, but not in philosophy itself. (You can verify this in the online course catalogue of your local college.) The reason, of course, is that if one is fully explicit about it as a philosophy, its problems very quickly come to the surface and it looks stupid. You have to expound it bit by bit, never getting down to brass tacks or showing the whole thing at once, for it to seem plausible. Only in the subjective thickets of the English department can it thrive, much as Marxism lives on there after having died in the Economics departments. Someone needs to tell the English departments of America to butt out of other people’s disciplines that they don’t understand.

One of the most comical things one can do with deconstructionism is apply it to itself. For example, one favorite deconstructionist idea is that, to put it bluntly, words have no meaning. (They call this the infinite play of the signifier.) I like to ask them whether they think this applies to tenure contracts, specifically theirs. Or to the writing on their paycheck. If you are in college or know someone who is, try asking this question, or try having it asked, to a professor who believes in this stuff. I am collecting responses to be published in a future article.

It has been said that Deconstructionism is the opiate of an obsolete intellectual class. Non-technical intellectuals, having deliberately rejected their natural role of inculcating our cultural heritage into the next generation, have nothing to do and are frustrated at seeing that all the rewards for intellectual activity in our society flow to the technical intelligentsia and the producers of mass culture. Since they don’t value our heritage as heritage, they have only two sources of satisfaction left: corrupting the young and feeling smarter than everyone else. Deconstructionism is perfect for corrupting the young because it is the ideal way to systematize the general cynicism and disrespect for authority that are the natural condition of contemporary college youth. It raises to the level of a philosophical system the intuition that everything grownups do is a fraud. It is the metaphysics of Holden Caulfield. It enables the practitioner to tell himself that he is among the privileged group of insiders who know that the Wizard of Oz is behind the curtain.

This is wonderful stuff to contemplate in a café in Berkeley or Cambridge with a cup of cappuccino in one hand. It suggests a whole philosophy of life, a certain attitude, even a lifestyle. It was once remarked that deconstructionist women all seem to wear no makeup and their hair tightly pulled back to embody the astringent zeal of deconstructionism and its refusal to be taken in by the surface prettiness of culture. I’m not sure this is true, but deconstructionists’ apartments tend to be decorated with a lot of ironically vulgar things, like corny advertisements, suggesting that this object could only be here because, although worthless in its own right, its owner enjoys knowing the secret mechanism that produces it and laughs at the peasants who fall for this stuff naively. It could be my imagination, but I think I perceive the biggest vogue for deconstructionism among people who have moved to the great centers of culture from the, to them, hopeless heartland and whose desire to be members of the culture club is greatest. The sort of people who actually find it thrilling, rather than oddly without point, to find concepts of nosebleed levels of esotericism littering ordinary comic novels like David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest. It’s a wonder they haven’t perfected a secret handshake.

Deconstructionism is essential to the Left because the proposition that there is no real world is the only remaining way to save the manifold absurdities of liberalism. Forests have been leveled and careers spent in mastering this cult; their investment in it is enormous and they can ill afford its discrediting. Conservatives must become more philosophic and undertake deliberate acts of intellectual aggression on the abstract plane. We are being attacked there, for heaven’s sake, so it’s time to fight back, particularly since our own philosophic heritage is more than strong enough to beat it. We must constantly reiterate that the intellectually advanced opposition does not believe in a real world and that they teach this nonsense to impressionable young people. We must deprive them of the intellectual prestige of being sophisticated and of the credibility with this public that this produces. We must deprive liberal academics of their status as privileged arbiters of our culture. This really is a battle we can win if we will but make it an issue.

Note: Deconstructionism has attracted the favorable attention of some evangelical Christians for the weak reason that it deconstructs a few modern shibboleths they despise. If this is a trend, it must stop right now. I can imagine no more certain way to guarantee the intellectual suicide of Christianity in this country than to infect it with this nonsense. Under deconstructionist assumptions, Christianity is just another social construct, not the revealed truth. No amount of intellectual squirming can evade this conclusion, which is entailed by the fundamental principles of this philosophy. If sin and salvation are social constructs, God has nothing to do with them. If God is a social construct, there is no reason to worship Him.

Tridentine Manifesto

Our English version of the "Socci Manifesto" (from the Italian original):

I wish to launch an appeal to the world of culture.

In support of a decision of Benedict XVI.

The announcement was given by Cardinal Arturo Medina Estevez, a member of the Ecclesia Dei commission which met to discuss the liberalization of the Latin Mass. The prelate said, "The publication of the Motu Proprio by the Pope which will liberalize the celebration of the Latin Mass according to the Missal of Saint Pius V is close." It is an extraordinarily important event for the Church and even for the culture and history of our civilization. Historically, lay intellectuals were actually those to realize more and better the disaster, the actual cultural destruction, represented by the "prohibition" of the liturgy of Saint Pius V and the disappearance of Latin as sacred language of the Catholic Church.

When, 40 years ago -- in contravention to the documents of the Council -- the prohibition of the ancient liturgy of the Church (that which had been celebrated even during the Council) was imposed, there was a great and meritorious protest by very important intellectuals who considered this decision as an attack on the roots of our Christian Civilization (the liturgy has always been a center and a fountain of the most sublime art). Two appeals were published in defense of the Mass of Saint Pius V, in 1966 and 1971. These are some of the names which undersigned them: Jorge Luís Borges, Giorgio De Chirico, Elena Croce, W. H. Auden, the directors Bresson and Dreyer, Augusto Del Noce, Julien Green, Jacques Maritain (who indeed was the favorite intellectual of Paul VI, the one to whom the Pope had given the letter to intellectuals at the end of the Council), Eugenio Montale, Cristina Campo, François Mauriac, Salvatore Quasimodo, Evelyn Waugh, Maria Zambrano, Elémire Zolla, Gabriel Marcel, Salvador De Madariaga, Gianfranco Contini, Giacomo Devoto, Giovanni Macchia, Massimo Pallottino, Ettore Paratore, Giorgio Bassani, Mario Luzi, Guido Piovene, Andrés Segovia, Harold Acton, Agatha Christie, Graham Greene, and many others, incuding the editor of the “Times”, William Rees-Mogg.

They are largely lay intellectuals because the cultural and spiritual value of the ancient Latin liturgy is a legacy of all, as is the Sistine Chapel, as is the Gregorian [chant], as the great cathedrals, Gothic sculpture, the Basilica of Saint Peter also are. Even more so today, when our entire European Civilization risks to cut off and deny its own roots.

Curiously, even "progressive Catholics", which made the dialogue with the world and with modern culture their banner, did not give any regard and fought for forty years to keep this incredible prohibition. An unprecedented arbitrariness. In April 2005, at the eve of the election of Benedict XVI, it was a lay writer, Guido Ceronetti, who writes, in La Repubblica, an open letter to the new Pope, in which he asked "that the sinister suffocating gag on the Latin voice of the Mass be removed". When he was a cardinal, Ratzinger declared that the prohibition of the Mass of Saint Pius V was unprecedented: "throughout her history, has never abolished nor forbidden orthodox liturgical forms, which would be quite alien to the very spirit of the Church". In one of his books, he retold dramatically how he had viewed the publication of the missal of Paul VI: "I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, since nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy. The impression was even given that what was happening was quite normal," but, Ratzinger wrote, "the prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic ... the old building was demolished, and another was built."

The effects were disastrous. The road to incredible abuses in the liturgy was opened. Ratzinger writes, "I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not He speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the world-wide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence?"

That same Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, who prepares to cancel the prohibition, will find opposition even inside the Church (already pre-announced by the French bishops) and he deserves an answer from the world of culture which, forty years ago, made its voice heard. I ask intellectuals and whomever may wish to do so to sign this synthetc manifesto:

"We express our praise for the decision of Benedict XVI to cancel the prohibition of the ancient Mass in Latin according to the Missal of Saint Pius V, a great legacy of our culture, which must be saved and rediscovered."

From RORATE CÆLI
posted by New Catholic
Thursday, November 09, 2006

The French People speak...

In his speech today to the Plenary Assembly of the French Episcopal Conference, Cardinal Ricard, again, claims to be speaking on behalf of the lay faithful who are supposedely distraught by any Petrine overture towards Traditionalists. The Church is not a democracy, quite right. Yet, since His Eminence and many other French Bishops have been claiming to speak for the laity, maybe they should check out the latest polls.

The pollsters at the CSA Institute, one of the most prestigious in France, were hired by the association Paix Liturgique to ask some questions reagrding the Traditional rites of the Roman Church (CSA interviewed 1,007 people throughout the nation, 55% of which identified themselves as Catholics, on November 8, 2006; the results reflect the opinion of those who identified themselves as Catholics).

1) Do you believe it is desirable that Catholics may have the choice to, according to their sensibility, go to either the Traditional Mass in Latin with Gregorian chant or to the Modern Mass in French?

Yes: 65%
No: 13%
Do not care: 22%


2) If you had the occasion to occasionally go to a Mass in Latin with Gregorian [chant], what would you say?

I would go: 60%
I would not go: 39%
No answer: 1%


3) In your opinion, the fact that various kinds of celebrations of the Mass, one Traditional, in Latin and with Gregorian [chant], and the other modern in French, may be recognised by the Church would be...?

A good thing, because it allows for some diversity within the Church: 65%
A bad thing, because it risks provoking divisions within the Church: 31%
No answer: 4%


4) If a Mass in its Traditional form were celebrated, in Latin and with the permission of the Pope, close to your home, you would say...

I would go there frequently: 6%
I would go there occasionally: 31%
I do not know if I would got there or not: 12%
I would rarely go there: 29%
I would never go there: 22%

(Source: Paix Liturgique à Reims)

87% of all the French Catholic faithful, according to the poll, either want liturgical freedom or are completely indifferent to it (see first question). Well, if they do not share the opinion of the Pope, nor the opinion of the French laity, whom do the recalcitrant French bishops represent, except their own disastrous leadership, their dismal presence in the French society at large (as it happened with their inaction regarding the approval of the Loi Veil, on the liberation of abortions, 30 years ago), and bankrupt theological concepts?

Smoke in the Temple of God

We believed that after the [Second Vatican] Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness ... And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil. … It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the Temple of God.

--Pope Paul VI, Address, June 29, 1972, On the Occasion of the Ninth Anniversary of His Election.

Pope Felix III

"Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it. And indeed to neglect to confound evil men when we can do it is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
-- Pope Felix III

Emperor Charlemagne by Albrecht Durer

Communion-in-the-Hand: An Historical View

Great Article from St. Catherine Review

Cuba: Submarine of the Left

A Great Article from our friends at TFP.

http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/TFPCommentary/cuba.htm
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Second Council of Nicaea

"Those therefore who after the manner of wicked heretics dare to set aside Ecclesiastical Traditions, and to invent any kind of novelty, or to reject any of those things entrusted to the Church, or who wrongfully and outrageously devise the destruction of any of those Traditions enshrined in the Catholic Church, are to be punished thus:

IF THEY ARE BISHOPS, WE ORDER THEM TO BE DEPOSED; BUT IF THEY ARE MONKS OR LAY PERSONS, WE COMMAND THEM TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COMMUNITY."

--Decree of the Second Council of Nicaea 787 A.D.

When Everyone Was Homeschooled

by Matthew M. Anger
(Reprinted with permission)

My son, keep the commandments of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother. Bind them in thy heart continually, and put them about thy neck. When thou walkest, let them go with thee: when thou sleepest, let them keep thee, and when thou awakest, talk with them (Prov. 6:20-22).

A reviewer of Steve Kellmeyer's recent book, Deception: Catholic Education in America, makes an important but seldom acknowledged point:

Once upon a time in America, parents taught their children at home. They might use governesses, tutors or family members; whoever they used to teach their children, parents were given and took responsibility for their children's education (Mary Gildersleeve, Homiletic & Pastoral Review, November 2005).

It is a fact worth repeating because it has implications not just within the context of the immediate homeschool vs. public school debate. It is relevant to Christian education and parenting as a whole.

In the past forty years of Church crisis, conservatives have consistently emphasized the achievement of Catholic educational establishments prior to the 1960s. Understandably so. But if Catholic education was as perfect as it seemed to be in the 1950s, how did the moral and intellectual meltdown of the next decade take place? And have newer traditionalist establishments been entirely free of the scandals that pervade our society? While this does not negate the validity of outside-the-home instruction, it does raise some good questions.

Rise and Fall of Parochial Schools
In solving any problem one needs to look beyond proximate cause and effect. Otherwise we fail to see the more remote, yet ultimately fundamental, issues. This is often the case in discussions on religion within the American context, because our response is ambiguously framed by individuals (perhaps well-meaning) who are already two or three times removed from a valid source of orthodoxy. The issue of "parochial schools" appears to fit this paradigm. As Mary Gildersleeve reminds us:

Compulsory education laws, passed in the United States during the 1800s, took [catechetical] responsibility away from all parents. Catholic parents lost the opportunity to teach their children at home, to teach their children the Faith. American bishops acted to protect their own. As public schools blossomed, many with a Protestant agenda, the bishops encouraged (and later demanded) the establishment of parochial schools in every diocese in America. Further, the bishops strongly encouraged the American Catholics to send their children to diocesan schools.

Parochial schools initially performed well. So long as they were staffed by devoted religious and priests, Catholic children were taught their faith. But with the Vatican II-era and concomitant collapse of religious teaching orders, a secular agenda took over. Nor did it help that the influx of salaried lay teachers caused costs to skyrocket making the parochial alternative difficult on material as well as spiritual grounds.

Return to Normalcy
While the establishment of formal Catholic schooling met many needs, it was not a panacea. Moreover, it was a reaction to another problem — unfair competition by state backed schools. Seen in that light, the shift back to homeschooling is not so much an emergency "stop gap" as a return to normalcy.

It is Steve Kellmeyer's contention that the parents remain the primary catechists. Homeschoolers, in particular, have a big advantage, since they have already undertaken other aspects of their children's education. Looked at from a classical ethical perspective — which goes back to Aristotle's critique of communism — ownership engenders responsibility. Take away that direct ownership and involvement, not only on an economic, but on a social and instructional level, and you have problems. When parents fob off their kids on schools and teachers, they are less likely to take a serious interest in their formation.

Working in the Aristotelian tradition, classic economists like Milton and Rose Friedman (Free to Choose) offer a calm but withering analysis of public schools. As with other statist monopolies, the biggest problem with government controlled education is that parents have no real "buy in" in their child's instruction. For all the hype about PTA and parent involvement, it can only foster a climate of moral neglect. On their own initiative, however, parents have responded through homeschooling or through private institutions (and the promotion of vouchers).

The Friedmans give every encouragement to educational alternatives, thus echoing the view of Hilaire Belloc in the 1920s: "The right of the parent over the child is prior to the right of the State." Of course, reform cannot happen without a change in moral attitudes. Most parents seem happy enough letting the tax-funded "village" raise their child. Sadly, the widespread relinquishment of family responsibility is part of a larger pattern within Catholic culture. We see it, for example, in the tendency to equate social teaching with trade union politics. Such ideological dependence — growing out of the 19th century invasive secularism — views lobbying and "activism" rather than personal accountability as the answer to everything.

The Totalitarian Classroom
In terms of the American experience, less than 200 of the past 400 years involved state-run education. All of the Founding Fathers were instructed by parents and tutors, and even after the rise of public schooling, prominent Americans like Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Orville Wright and Wilbur Wright, and George Washington Carver received their education at home.

In the overall Western experience, state controlled education is the exception. In ancient times that exception was Sparta. It was also an early precedent for anti-family ideology. As classical scholar E. B. Castle says: "In Sparta and Athens... we are confronted with two highly contrasted educational ideals which can be easily recognized in educational practice today" (Ancient Education and Today). To put this in context, consider what the Greek chronicler Plutarch tells about the Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus (c. 800 BC).

Lycurgus was of a persuasion that children were not so much the property of their parents as of the whole commonwealth.... [N]or was it lawful, indeed, for the father himself to breed up the children after his own fancy; but as soon as they were seven years old they were to be enrolled in certain companies and classes, where they all lived under the same order and discipline, doing their exercises and taking their play together.

Lycurgus wanted to control education so strictly as to regulate marriage. Children were subject to harsh discipline and exercise. Eugenics (and homosexuality) was even more arduously pursued in Sparta than the rest of pagan Greece. Spartan women were scorned by other nations for their aggressive, unfeminine behavior, while boys learned to be deceitful and ruthless to outsiders, even as they displayed automaton-like loyalty to their own. Presaging militaristic Prussia and Hitler's Reich, Spartans lived only for the state which, in turn, existed only for war. In key respects, the structure of Sparta's totalitarian education is indistinguishable from the aims of the left-liberal establishment.

More Lessons from History
By contrast with the Spartans, the Athenians, who reached the greatest heights of intellectual and artistic achievement in ancient times, relied consistently on private institutions. In republican Rome, the family was the school. Speaking of the Romans, Plutarch relates Cato's loving instruction of his son, which included everything from writing and history to boxing and military science. Elsewhere, he mentions Tiberius Gracchus' widow Cornelia, who took "upon herself all the care of the household and the education of her children," thus proving herself "so discreet a matron, so affectionate a mother, and so constant and noble-spirited."

E. B. Castle says that in this "closely knit family life the boys and the girls of early Roman times received their education as much from the mother as from the father...." Though education would later become more refined, with the influx of Greek learning, "home training... was essentially a school of morals; filial obedience, modesty of mien and deportment, self control, were the things that mattered." Rome gradually accepted the Greek school system. Yet it remained free from public direction, even in the late empire when some teacher salaries were paid out of public funds. Even more than Athens, the family in Rome was seen as the building block of society. Cicero appealed to citizens of the late Republic in these terms.

I ask you to listen to me... as a Roman citizen, who thanks to his father's care has had a liberal education and who has loved study from boyhood, yet owes more to experience and to the lessons of the home than books.

Of all ancient role models the best example (and the one frequently overlooked) is that of the Hebrews. Says Castle, "It is surprising that a people who produced a superb national literature over a period of a thousand years did so without establishing a single elementary school." In this regard, Pope Benedict XVI offers a relevant insight in his meditation on the Holy Family in Nazareth:

Jesus grew up a Jew in "Galilee of the Gentiles," learning the Scriptures, without going to school, in that house where the Word of God dwelt…. Especially we recognize from the masterly way Jesus reads the Scriptures, his confident knowledge of them, and his command of the rabbinical tradition, how much he learned from their time together in Nazareth (Journey to Easter).

As in other early civilizations, the lives of children were often austere, yet there was a warmth and solicitude that surpassed even the best pagan cultures. The practice of infant exposure (infanticide) was completely unknown to this people to whom God had revealed his commandments.

The Restoration Begins at Home
Looking at education in light of ancient examples and modern experience, Prof. Castle believes that the first need of children is "a closely knit family life... where there is discipline without tyranny and security within strong bonds of affection." He also says that all new developments and activities geared towards children, even the kindness of responsible teachers, can never be substitutes for the ungrudging care of a mother or a father. From the enduring quality of the Jewish family, from the failures as much as from the successes of Greece and Rome, comes the hard truth that it is in our homes that children first learn what to want and what to admire, what is important and what is trivial, what has quality and what is shoddy, and that these things are the roots of education.

Schooling outside the home has its place. Even in a future when public schooling dwindles or disappears, private schools will fill a major role. Yet there is no doubt that parental schooling is underestimated. We must be careful not to end up in a situation like that which gave rise to public schools in the first place — parental apathy and an overdependence on outsiders to do our job for us. It is axiomatic that unless education begins at home (even if completed elsewhere) children will more readily fall prey to un-Christian influences.

***


Matthew Anger is a freelance journalist who has written essays on history, philosophy and literature from a Catholic perspective. He lives with his wife and eight children in the Richmond, Virginia area. He has recently edited The Eyewitness, a volume of short stories by Hilaire Belloc.

Participation in Invalid Marriages

An article from Homiletic & Pastoral Review
February 1988

By Rev. Regis Scanlon

How long has it been since you preached or heard from the pulpit that it is evil for a Catholic to marry in a ceremony not approved by the Church? Perhaps fear of publicly embarrassing someone in the pews and belief that these invalidly married Catholics may be in good conscience has silenced preaching against invalid marriages. This new sympathy toward invalid marriages is not without grave risks. Couples living in invalid marriages could remain blind to the truth that they are really (objectively) living in adultery or fornication and that "these are the sins which provoke God's wrath" (Col. 3:5-6). The ultimate danger here is that invalidly-married Catholics will not heed St. Paul's warning that "God will judge fornicators and adulterers" (Heb. 13:4) and "those who do such things (impurity) will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:19-21). A fact that must not be ignored today is that a number of these Catholics die cut off from the sacraments of the Church because they are still living in an invalid marriage. The impossibility of reconciling a number of these invalid marriages in the Catholic Church, along with the difficulty of abandoning an invalid marriage once a family is formed, argues for a prompt and honest response to these marriages right from the start. Should a Catholic attend such a wedding ceremony? Should he attend only the reception following the ceremony, or just send a gift or card? Or ought he do none of these? This article is an attempt to evaluate certain pastoral answers to these questions recently adopted by both pastors and laity in the United States.

Traditionally, Catholics did not participate in invalid marriage celebrations because it was seen as approval to adultery or fornication. As invalid marriages increased among Catholics, however, moralists began to de-emphasize the danger of scandal from these celebrations. For example, Msgr. Raymond T. Rosier, nationally known during the 1970s for his syndicated column answering moral questions for Catholics, stated that "Attendance at a wedding shower or giving a gift does not today mean approval of marriage."1 Msgr. Bosler implied that this applies to parents attending invalid weddings, since most relatives and friends would understand and sympathize with the parents. Once more, according to Msgr. Bosler, ". . . it is quite possible that more scandal might be given to Protestants by what could appear to be a lack of love and interest in their child were the parents to avoid the wedding."2

Parents must manifest disapproval
More than a decade later Fr. Frank Sheedy offered another version of this new pastoral approach in "Ask Me a Question" of the July 22, 1984 issue of Our Sunday Visitor. When Fr. Frank Sheedy was asked about the possibility of parents being present for their child's invalid wedding, he stated that "some pastors would permit a presence in such a case as long as the child was clearly aware that the parents disapproved of their action."3 According to Fr. Sheedy, attendance is justified on the ground that one should not "irretrievably cut off the relationship with a son or daughter."4 Two years later in the same column of Our Sunday Visitor Fr. Sheedy commented more extensively on the wisdom of attending an invalid marriage of a divorced person in these words: There are three things that have to be considered here. One, we cannot cooperate in the wrong of another. Thus it would be forbidden for a Catholic to take an active part (bridesmaid, best man, etc.) in such a wedding. Second, one cannot give seeming approval to an illicit act. Third is family harmony, which is particularly important for parents and siblings. If the person is fully aware of their disapproval of such a ceremony, I would permit parents and siblings to attend so that family lines of communication may be kept open and the door not closed. Other relatives and friends I would counsel to avoid the ceremony but attend the reception. This way they let the person know that while not approving of his or her actions, they still care for the person and do not want to end the relationship. People who have followed this counsel tell me that it works well. However, there may be a case where an uncle, aunt or godparent might feel obliged to attend the wedding for the sake of family harmony. This would be permitted as long as the Catholic relative was truly aware of personal disapproval.5

This pastoral advice of Fr. Sheedy, which permits Catholics to attend invalid marriages, is similar to the official position of a number of dioceses in the United States. Fr. Charles Bober of the Pittsburgh Diocese, for example, states that: There is a PastoralManual in use within the Diocese of Pittsburgh. It states that "As a rule, Catholics should not attend or participate in marriage ceremonies which are invalid. However, when such attendance cannot be construed as approval and when there are" serious reasons for attendance (such as retention of Christian ties of family or friendship, or the founded hope of contact for future reconciliation) such attendance may be justified."6

The present practice of Catholics attending invalid marriages in the United States goes far beyond any limits set down by recent pastoral moralists and diocesan statutes. If one scans the wedding announcements in the societal section of one's home-town newspaper, he will find Catholic names listed time and again as best men, bridesmaids, formal attendants, and ushers at weddings not approved by the Church. Reports of Catholics being ridiculed by family members for not attending invalid marriages of relatives indicates that a type of reverse legislation has taken root. The unwritten rule now seems to be that the Catholic must attend the invalid wedding of a loved one, and the exception, for which the Catholic will receive much flack, is to avoid these celebrations. Let us evaluate this new pastoral approach permitting parents to attend the invalid marriages of their children by examining the theories of Msgr. Bosler and Fr. Sheedy.

Bible reflects two types of scandal
In order to clearly understand the question about scandal in relation to attending invalid weddings, one must first recall that there are two types of scandal mentioned in Sacred Scripture. There is the scandal arising out of evil mentioned by Jesus Christ in a well-known passage from the Bible: "Scandals will inevitably arise, but woe to him through whom they come. He would be better off thrown into the sea with a millstone around his neck than giving scandal to one of these little ones" (Luke 17:1-2). Then, there is the scandal from good actions which comes from Christ himself (Luke 2:34). This second type of scandal involves the truth that, like Christ, all Christians must suffer and die rather than yield to sin to attain eternal life. This is the scandal of the cross (Matt. 16:21-27). About this kind of scandal Jesus says: "Blest is the man who finds no stumbling block in me" (Matt. 11:16). In today's materialistic and permissive society, the only absolute imperative seems to be the avoidance of pain. Following the sexual revolution, too many Catholics in the United States believe that it is wrong to require children to suffer for the sake of chastity and purity. Because parental avoidance of weddings usually involves both parents and children in the pain of misunderstanding and rejection, parental avoidance of weddings is a "cultural heresy."7 Consequently, Msgr. Bosler fears that avoidance of a child's invalid wedding by parents, out of fidelity to Christian Law, will be interpreted by others as a lack of love and interest in their child.

Msgr. Bosler, however, confuses the scandal of the cross with the scandal of evil. For it has never been the Christian philosophy of love to yield to impurity and infidelity in the face of misunderstanding so that others might not feel rejected. If it had been, John the Baptist would have never enraged the feelings of Herodias at the cost of his own life over the matter of her adultery (Mark 6:14-29 and Matt. 14:1-12), nor would Saints Agnes and Maria Goretti have been honored as Christian Martyrs for infuriating their suitors by rejecting their sexual advances. In other words, if the early Christians had compromised Christ's teaching on chastity to spar the feeling of others, Christianity would have never made it to the twentieth century. Scandal arising from following the Law of Christ is not only permitted, it is even desirable! Karl Rahner was correct when he stated that in our pluralistic modem world people should be encouraged to give witness to Christianity "even if their environment is scandalized."8

Msgr. Hosier's theory, that parental attendance at invalid weddings does not mean approval nor cause scandal, hinges entirely upon his claim that even if the parents attend these invalid wedding celebrations, friends and relatives will still understand that the parents disapprove of the invalid marriage. Msgr. Bosler probably thought that the faith of Catholics in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s was so strong that almost all Catholics believed that marrying invalidly was evil. The difficulty with Msgr. Hosier's theory today is that recent parochial studies following the sexual revolution show that many Catholics in the United States no longer believe that marrying invalidly is evil. Consequently, it makes little sense today to claim that relatives and friends of Catholic parents who attend invalid marriages will understand that these parents disapprove of these marriages.9

Some approve invalid marriages
What is even more damaging to Msgr. Hosier's theory is the fact that the change among Catholics from disapproval to approval of invalid marriages surfaces about a decade or so after Msgr. Bosler first began advising Catholics through the public media to attend the invalid marriages of then- loved ones. It is most difficult to believe that this change on the part of Catholics toward approving invalid marriages is not in some way linked to Catholics attending invalid marriages for the past ten years or more. It certainly appears that Msgr. Bosler was wrong when he advised that attending invalid marriages does not mean approval and does not cause scandal. Whatever credibility Msgr. Hosier's theory had decades ago, it certainly has less today! Proof that Msgr. Hosier's (no scandal) theory has lost its appeal is that recent moralists, like Fr. Sheedy, insist that the children be made "clearly aware" that the parents disapprove of the marriage before the parents attend the wedding celebrations. Obviously, the need for clarification implies that scandal will be caused. The explanation to the child by the parents is supposed to cancel or wipe out the scandal from parental attendance at the wedding celebrations. The problem here, however, is that it is impossible for parents to make the child "clearly aware" of parental disapproval of the invalid marriage when the child knows full well that the parents are attending the wedding celebrations.

One should recall St. Anthony of Padua's sound advice about teaching morality when he stated that "actions speak louder than words."10 It may be possible for parents to convince then: son or daughter that they disapprove of the invalid wedding, but these parents will not convince their child that they seriously disapprove. Any high school teacher knows that the only way to inform students that you are serious about anything is to back up words with action. Similarly, the only way for parents to convince their child that they seriously disapprove of the invalid marriage is to avoid the wedding celebrations altogether. If one follows Fr. Sheedy's pastoral advice, however, not only will actions supporting parental disapproval be lacking, but, instead, the parent's actions will contradict their words of disapproval. When words and actions collide, the best that can be hoped for is that the child will be confused, and the worst that can happen is that the child will be more influenced by the actions than by the words. The same must be said for Fr. Sheedy's advice that the friends and relatives might avoid the wedding ceremony, but attend the wedding reception. Recall that Fr. Sheedy required, as a necessary condition for parental attendance of the wedding celebrations, that the child be "fully," "truly," or "clearly aware" of parental disapproval. Inconsistency, whether it be in words or actions, can never be a basis for clarity.

We cannot cooperate in a sin
But there is something more than scandal that is fundamentally wrong with attending an invalid wedding celebration. Fr. Sheedy, himself, stated that, first of all, "we cannot cooperate in the wrong of another." It would be illicit, then, to formally cooperate in the evil act of adultery or fornication by cooperating in an invalid marriage. Thus, as Fr. Sheedy says, "it would be forbidden for a Catholic to take an active part (bridesmaid, best man, etc.) in such a wedding." Fr- Sheedy, however, must be limiting his consideration of the couple's formal act of adultery or fornication just to the formal exchange of invalid marriage vows since he limits formal cooperation in this act of adultery or fornication just to being a formal member of the wedding party. But the formal act of adultery or fornication of an invalidly-marrying couple certainly includes the attempted consummation of these invalid wedding vows in the couple's act of sexual intercourse on the night of the wedding. It is precisely the promise of this act which makes the invalid wedding ceremony evil.

Now, according to sound traditional moral theology, if one "concurs" in the will and attention of another doing an evil act, or, if one's own action "influences" the evil act of another, then, one is formally cooperating in evil. "Consequently, anyone who concurs in the will and intention of an invalidly marrying couple to have sexual intercourse on the night of their wedding, or anyone who influences such an act of sexual intercourse, is formally cooperating in adultery or fornication. It is obvious, however, that: giving away the bride; throwing rice and kisses; giving hugs and handshakes of support; sending congratulatory cards and gifts; and even singing and dancing at the following reception all concur in the will and intention of the couple to complete their wedding vows with the act of sexual intercourse on the night of their wedding. Because these actions all encourage the invalidly-marrying couple to some degree (be it ever so slight) to consummate their invalid marriage on the night of their wedding, they all influence the couple's act of adultery or fornication. All who knowingly do such things, therefore, are formally cooperating in the evil act of adultery or fornication. Some Catholics believe that they are justified in attending an invalid marriage because they intend to support the invalidly-marrying couple, but not the invalid marriage, itself. But these Catholics intend to support the invalidly marrying couple by means of supporting (attending) the invalid marriage. And to do so is to adopt an old pagan theory that the end justifies the means, which was rejected by St. Paul (Rom. 3:8) and by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical, Humanae Vitae, when the Pope stated that "it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom."l2 Against the theory that one can have a good reason to formally cooperate hi evil, Genicot said that "formal cooperation hi sin is always illicit." and Bernard Raring stated that "It is never permitted, directly or indirectly, to cooperate in an act which is in itself evil, even though one anticipates the very greatest good as a result of the act."13

End does not justify means
Sometimes the wrong of formal cooperation in a specific evil act can be more easily seen when it is paralleled with formal cooperation in another act which is more obviously evil - like abortion. What pastor or moral theorist, for example, would advise a disapproving husband or parent to show up at the abortion clinic to hold his wife or daughter's hand and comfort her through the ordeal of abortion to support her (but not the abortion!), or to avoid irretrievably cutting off his relationship with her? Yet, this parallels the pastoral advice to Catholics which states that they should attend the invalid marriage of their loved ones to support them or to avoid irretrievably cutting off their relationship with them.

Influencing, supporting, concurring in, or celebrating the evil act of adultery or fornication by formally cooperating in an invalid marriage out of a so-called motive of love is also inconsistent with the gospel. No one loved sinners more than Jesus Christ, yet he avoided their evil acts entirely. While Jesus Christ did not shun Mary Magdalene, he certainly did shun her sin of impurity, and he ordered her to do the same when he said: "But from now on, avoid this sin" (John 8:11). If a Catholic attends an invalid wedding of a loved one, attends the reception following the ceremony, or just sends a congratulatory card or gift, he cannot claim he is acting out of love, because, as St. Paul states, "Love does not rejoice in what is wrong but with the truth" (1 Cor. 13:6). Love is always honest!

The idea of a Christian cooperating in the evil act of adultery or fornication by attending an invalid marriage seems so contrary to correct reasoning and Sacred Scripture that one wonders why so many Catholics today attempt to justify it. Fr. Sheedy expresses the main reason when he stated that one should not "irretrievably cut off the relationship with a son or daughter." When Catholic parents have to say "no" to their children and break the unity and peace of the family, the Catholic parents often feel that they are the ones who are doing something wrong and un-Christian. It is at these times that the reason must prevail over emotion. Catholics must recall that, while honesty and chastity are absolute moral values for which a Christian may even have to give his life (St. John the Baptist, St. Agnes, St. Maria Goretti, etc.), filial friendship or family unity is not. Our Lord, himself, has said: Do not suppose that my mission on earth is to spread peace. My mission is to spread, not peace, but division. I have come to set a man at odds with his father, a daughter with her mother, daughter-in-law with her mother-in-law: in short, to make a man's enemies those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother, son or daughter, more than me is not worthy of me. he who will not take up his cross and come after me is not worthy of me. (Matt. 10:34-38)

As painful as it is, invalidly-marrying couples must clearly understand that insofar as they reject the moral teaching of Jesus Christ concerning the sixth commandment, it is Christ's will mat they be separated from then- parents, the Christian community, and even Christ himself. In the same way the parents must understand that it is Christ's will that the parents embrace the cross of division rather than lay it down in a false gesture of moral unity. As the primary teachers of their children in the Catholic faith, parents have the solemn responsibility to clearly teach to their children the truth that sin separates one from Christ. So if the invalidly-marrying son or daughter interprets parental avoidance of the wedding celebrations as a sign of her separation from the Christian community of her parents, then this is good - because it is the truth! Again, there is no way to clearly communicate this truth to an invalidly-marrying son or daughter other than by avoiding the wedding celebrations altogether. What must not be overlooked here is that it is the rejection of the gospel by the invalidly-marrying son or daughter that is the primary cause of separation, not Christ or the parents. The claim on the part of pastoral moral theorists, therefore, that parental attendance at invalid weddings is justified on the grounds that the parents should not "irretrievably cut off' their children must be rejected as false and as bad psychology. The notion of parents "irretrievably cutting off' their son or daughter merely by following their own conscience turns out to be a case of inverted logic. Who is cutting off whom? No one is demanding that the parents shun their invalidly-marrying child, but only that they shun the marriage. As long as Mom and Dad keep the lines of communication open from their side, no one is being irretrievably cut off. If a son or daughter, however, refuses to associate with the parents following the wedding, he or she is cutting off the parents, not vice versa. It is downright immoral to make the parents feel guilty for following their consciences, especially when their consciences are formed according to Christ and his Church. It is the children who are out of step with the gospel, not the parents. Let up put the responsibility for the break-up where it belongs. The very justification offered by those who favor the new pastoral approach fosters immaturity in the young by stripping them of responsibility for their own actions.

Adults suffer moral defeatism
Although the new pastoral theorists do not state it, they could be yielding to popular pragmatic parental thinking which goes something like this: "My son (or daughter) is going to marry outside the Church anyway, so we might as well make the best of a bad situation." While this course of action may appear to be a benevolent act of diplomacy and prudence, it presumes that the son or daughter will do evil. This attitude fits so well a culture in which numerous minor seminaries, aspirancy convents, and Catholic schools have close even though these institutions had more students than when they originally opened. The main problem here is not with the young, but with the adults who are suffering from moral defeatism. Contrary to popular opinion, it is possible for a son or daughter to master their sexual desires and heroically follow Christ's teaching on chastity and marriage. It is even possible for a son or daughter to call off a marriage prior to the wedding ceremony, or to reverse it soon after. But this is likely to occur only when parents struggle with their children to get them to do good and avoid evil because they expect their children to succeed. If pastors and moral theorists are to reverse the plague of invalid marriages among Catholics in the United States today, they must avoid a pastoral approach in these matters that "throws in the towel" on the moral life of our children. Rather, the pastors and moral theorists must adopt an approach which encourages adults to hope in the young by giving them the opportunity to be responsible for their own moral actions. But for this to be possible, both parents and children must be made clearly aware of the evil of invalid marriages and the immorality of formal cooperation in these celebrations. This means that pastors must engage in some tough preaching and teaching from the pulpit This will be somewhat unpopular, but part of the pastor's job is preaching the word is "... to stay with the task whether convenient or inconvenient" (2 Tim. 4:2). This is surely part of the burden of the gospel, but the young are worth it!

Footnotes

1 Raymond T. Bosler, What a Modern Catholic Believes About Moral Problems (Chicago: The Thomas More Press, 1971), p. 73.

2 Bosler, p. 71.

3 Fr. Frank Sheedy, "Ask Me a Question," Our Sunday Visitor (July 22, 1984), p. 11.

4 Fr. Frank Sheedy, "Ask Me a Question," Our Sunday Visitor (July 22, 1984), p. 11.

5 Fr. Frank Sheedy, "Ask Me a Question," Our Sunday Visitor (May 11, 1986), p. 18. My underline.

6 Charles Bober, "Questions for Fr. Bober," Pittsburgh Catholic (June 6, 1986), p. 4.

7 Daniel E. Pilarczyk, "On Preaching Heresy," America (February 22, 1986), p. 135.

8 Karl Rahner and Herbert Borgrimler, Theological Dictionary (New York: Crossroads, 1981), p. 465.

9 James S. Young, "The Divorced in the Parish Community Today," New
Catholic World (November/December, 1985), pp. 272-275.

10 St. Anthony of Padua, Sermon, 1,226, in The Liturgy of the Hours, vol. 3 (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1975), p. 1470.

11 Ed. Genicot, S.I. etlos. Salsmans, S.l.Jnstitutiones Theologiae Moralis, Caput 11 §6,235, Notiones, editio decimaseptima ed. A. Gortebeck, S.I. vol. 1 (Brussels: Uitgeveriz Universum, N.V. 1951), pp. 184-185; Bernard Raring, C.SS.R., The Law of Christ, vol. 1 trans, by Edwin G. Kaiser, C.PP.S. (Westminister, MD: The Newman Press, 1963), p. 293.

12 Pope Paul VI, "On the Regulation of Birth (Humanae Vitae)" No. 14 (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1968), p. 9.

13 Genicot, Asserta. 1, p. 185; Haring p. 293.

Who are the real sedevacantists?

by Chris Lauer

I recently ran across a radio broadcast that was run on an ABC Radio affiliate (transcript below).

This is typical of the media—poorly researched sloppy reporting where journalists just makes up facts--out of laziness--that fit within their Marxist deconstructionist world-view. But what is interesting about this story is that it represents a recent trend where the secular media appears to be increasingly threatened by traditional liturgical reforms inside the Catholic Church.

TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT


"Among the many changes stemming from Vatican II, Pope John XXIII did away with the Latin mass, but there is a small minority within the Catholic Church who like things the way they were.

"... they call themselves Sedevacantists. It's just from the Latin sede vacante, "the seat is empty", that is the Papal seat, so basically they deny the legitimacy of the Pope.

"They tend to insist on the necessity for Latin in the mass. They see that as a kind of sacred language. They are also highly critical and non-accepting of any reforms to the liturgy and the worship of the Church. So they want to say mass in the old style. They tend to hang onto old style vestments - all that kind of thing."

END OF TRANSCRIPT

Of course the problem with this is that Pope John XXIII did not "do away with the Latin Mass" as this journalist claims. Pope John XXIII died shortly after the start of the Second Vatican Council, so it would have been quite difficult for him to "do away" with anything after Vatican II. And just prior to Pope John XXIII's death in 1963, he issued the Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia on the specific subject of promoting the Latin language.

Well surely Pope Paul VI must have done away with Latin after the Second Vatican Council. Here again this journalist would have been rebuffed. Pope Paul VI statement on the matter came in his Apostolic Letter Sacrificium Laudis, where he wrote, "The Latin language is assuredly worthy of being defended with great care instead of being scorned..."

Even the Second Vatican Council did not change Latin as the ordinary language of the Mass or the official language of the Catholic Church. The Council document that addresses this subject, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, states "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites" (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36.1). As such, Latin is today, as it has always been, the norm. The fact that it is hardly used these days, is a matter of liturgical abuse and not one of policy.

For this journalist to try to portray faithful Catholics as schismatics or sedevacantists is a bit silly. Pope Benedict XVI himself is one of those faithful Catholics who wants to see Latin restored in the Church. And for him to effect this restoration, no changes are necessary. It is just a matter of disciplining the forces who have taken advantage of the Church during turbulent times.

While there are plenty of dissenting groups out there who deny the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, all but a very small fraction of them are liberal Catholics who reject Church teachings on social issues such as abortion, artificial contraception, in vitro fertilization, and homosexual behavior, (basically the entire platform of the Democratic Party USA).

For certain there is a renewal brewing in the Church that will hopefully correct many of the liturgical abuses of the past forty years. What is fascinating to see, however, is how the secular media is growing increasingly hostile to the Church faithful for matters that really should be nothing more than liturgical minutia inside the Catholic Church. What stake do they have in such matters? It is a curious question... If the devil is protesting this much, then maybe these faithful Catholics are on to something. Maybe the devil has a vested interest in seeing that these abuses are not corrected.

True Soldiers in the Church Militant

Great Article from http://www.seattlecatholic.com/

The Whistling Priest

The following excerpt was taken from the novel, The Edge of Sadness, by Edwin O’Connor (1961). This exchange is from a scene in the novel involving the main character, Father Hugh Kennedy (first person), and his young curate, Father Danowski. In the scene, Father Danowski is describing one of his fellow classmates from his days in the seminary.

“But then I am almost forgetting to mention the classmate of mine who has become the most illustrious of us all. By reason of his innumerable television appearances. He is of course the celebrated Father Clement Cassidy.”

Of whom of course I had not heard. My face must have showed this, for the Father Danowski said quickly, “He is better known to some, perhaps, as the Whistling Priest.”

The Whistling Priest. Really? A fact? A fact. I heard about him now. He was a young priest who appeared each Sunday night on a popular television program; he was sponsored by a bath mat. On this program he had one function: he whistled songs. In his selection of these songs he offered a shrewd change of pace: he “mixed them up”; there was something for everybody. Father Danowski explained to me.

“He will whistle first, let us say, a grand old favorite song such as ‘There is a Long Long Trail A-Winding.’ Then there will come a popular song of the moment such as ‘How much Is That Doggie in the Window?’ And lastly,” he said, “he will whistle, let us say, ‘Ave Maria.’”

“I see. He always concludes on the spiritual note?”
“Oh yes. That is the whole idea.”
“Does he do anything else? Such as say Mass, for example? Or hear a confession now and then? Of course I don’t suppose his whistling really leaves him much spare time.”

He stared at me. “Oh no, Father,” he said reprovingly. “You have quite misunderstood. No priest is more scrupulous about his duties than is Father Clement Cassidy. The whistling is all in addition. It is what we might term a supplement. It is a way of reaching those who might not otherwise be reached.”

Another bridge to the unregenerate. This time the Bridge of Whistles. “And these people your friend is whistling at: you feel they’re being reached?”

“One can judge,” he said, “only by the response. And the fan mail is positively overwhelming.” His voice as he said this was awed and slow, but then after a moment he said, a trifle more sensibly, “Of course I realize that that does not prove everything. One perhaps cannot hope for a profound or permanent spiritual effect from merely a whistled hymn, but it is a beginning. Possibly it will prove to be nothing more than that, but even if it does, a road has at least been opened. And after all, Father, that is just what we are enjoined to do!” he said enthusiastically. “It is our task to open up the roads!”

All roads lead to Rome. So they do, or so I hope, but I have my doubts about the highway of the Whistling Priest: that is, I wouldn’t think it led much of anywhere. I’ve always disliked and mistrusted this carnival shill approach to the church—and yet heaven knows we see it often enough. Does it really work? I don’t think so, but more than that I think it’s all wrong. Because for one thing it’s so unworthy. I don’t mean by this that it’s too informal, too much in the marketplace, too “popular”; I do mean quite simply, that it’s cheap. Obviously, when you talk about such things as God, religion, the church, man’s soul, to a great different people, you must necessarily do so in a great many different ways and on a great many different levels. But none of these levels can be—or at least none of them should be—in any sense flashy or false or vulgar, because if they are—no matter what the apparent justification—you run the very serious risk of making God, religion, the church, and man’s soul seem just a little bit of the same. It’s all very well to suggest that this really doesn’t matter so much, that what does matter is that, as a result, the people come in, but I think that’s a great mistake. I know they come in—and often in considerable numbers—in response to such techniques. That’s not surprising. The gaudy, the meretricious, frequently have a powerful and immediate seductiveness: at a fair or a circus, the children invariably make a beeline for those horrible puffs of pink candy. Bit what is surprising is that we sometimes take comfort from this: I know priests, for example, who will point with great pride to statistics proving the value of such appeals. So many appeals, so many souls for God: quod erat demonstrandum. Of course what the statistics don’t do so well is to measure the depth, the strength, and the duration of the faith of those who do so come in—or in other words, they tell you absolutely nothing about the only thing that counts. And—still more—while there are all sorts of statistics to tell you how many souls these tactics have brought in, there are no statistics at all to tell you how many they may have kept out. Who knows, for instance, who can even guess the number of those who, with every sympathy, with every goodwill, have tentatively approached the church only to be repelled by vaudeville antics at their first point of contact? As I say, we have no statistics for that at all; if we had, they might not be so comforting …

So then, these are my misgivings, not about Father Clement Cassidy himself—who most probably is a very decent young man, and whom in any case I suspect of being something less than this magically compelling Pied Piper of my curate’s story—but about the kind of apostolic work he represents.

Saint Michael defeats the devil by Eugène Delacroix

Virgin and Child by Sandro Botticelli