On St. John of the Cross and 'Traditionalism':
(A Response to Albert Cipriani)

Having noted previously about my intention to post on four key subjects "in the coming weeks", it seems appropriate at this time to post the second of the four planned responses noted above. I have already responded to my friend Kevin Tierney on society's ills and the function of law in a just society. It now seems right to respond to my friend Albert Cipriani's mid March email on St. John of the Cross and so-called "traditionalism: an email that was surely prompted by this humble weblog's Lenten meditation on Book 1 of The Dark Night.

The response to the unidentified "traditionalist" on political and social subjects will be next on the horizon and hopefully done in the next week. (It is at the moment partly completed.) That will leave the dialogue with Tim Enloe on philosophical presuppositions viz. universals as the one promised response from early April that is left to get to. That one will hopefully be a summer project if Tim is willing to have that discussion. But enough on that for now and onto this response to Albert. His words will be in lime green font and his sources in fire coloured font. My words will be in regular font and sources in dark blue.

Shawn,

Hello Albert:

You compare us traditionalists to those gluttonous beginners St. John of the Cross speaks of in his Meditations On the Dark Night of the Soul when he says: “Many of these persons are very insistent with their spiritual masters to be granted that which they desire…”

Yes I do. I actually pointed to spiritual pride, spiritual wrath, and spiritual gluttony as three areas that afflict most who call themselves "traditionalists." That is not to say of course that the other areas do not apply too -or that they are the only ones afflicted in the areas I pay particular emphasis on of course. But in light of how they claim to be "traditionalists" and thus by logical extension "The True Believers"™ who are "more Traditional than thou" it seems appropriate to highlight just how short of the mark such individuals really fall.

Remember, the ones who are making the boast are the so-called "traditionalists." They therefore should expect to be held to a higher standard. And when it is so manifestly obvious that they are as a rule badly informed about such important subjects as (i) Church history (ii) liturgical history (iii) dogmatic theology (iv) the spiritual masters of the Great Tradition,{1} then it only shows how their claims to be "traditionalists" are in realty nothing more than "so much sound and fury signifying nothing" to borrow a bit from William Shakespeare.

Our “desire” to pray as our fathers did feels to me more like an obligation than any desire I’ve ever felt. It’s our “piety,” that would be a more accurate description of what motivates us.

Piety is of course fine as long as it is not used as an excuse to countenance disobedience. I will for the sake of brevity not go into the liturgical diversity that permeated the universal church prior to Quo Primum. It discounts this idea that all our "fathers" and "mothers" in the faith prayed the same way as your statement implies. By contrast, there was a rich tapestry of external forms. Obviously in essentials there was no difference. But you are getting hung up on externals -something that I have noted many times{2} is a problem. The spiritual masters are clear that we are to focus on the gift, not the external trappings. Indeed it was failing to do this which is what Our Lord castigated the Pharisees for.{3} And the spiritual masters such as Thomas a Kempis (to name one example of many) are quite clear on this matter.{4}

I remind you that in the Spiritual Instruction on Prayer (posted to this weblog some time ago) that this theme was quite a prevalent one.{5} Fot that reason, I suggest that you take it seriously because it underlines a common key problem with this movement you align yourself with.

“For they [traditionalists according to you] go about clinging to their own will and pleasure.”

Oh not just the so-called "traditionalists" Albert. By no means do they own the franchise on spiritual gluttony. It is however a problem that they possess which is particularly of interest since it is one that is often criticized by the spiritual masters.

Yep, every one of the traditionalists I know gets a lot of pleasure out of stuffing their kids into their car and driving 45 minutes one-way to their Traditional Mass. With gas prices over $2 a gallon, it’s our will to cling to a Mass whose unlawful and scandalous scarcity empties our wallets.

First of all, (i) there is nothing unlawful about the scarcity of the Tridentine liturgical form and (ii) there is nothing scandalous about the scarcity of this liturgical form. Granted, the handling of this matter by many local ordinaries is not a situation that is good -particularly in light of the way that the "diversity" card is played to justify other variations.{6} However, that does not excuse those who seek the end of the older liturgy via illicit and criminal means. It is an eminently Traditional maxim that "the end does not justify the means." That principle is at the cornerstone of all Catholic morality -indeed it could accurately be said to be a theorem of Catholic morality.

And it bears noting that for those who do not have an Indult to utilize -and who act as you note in the above paragraph- that they are engaging in an egregious violation of that principle. There is nothing commendable there. It instead strongly parallels what St. John of the Cross noted about those guilty of spiritual avarice and how they place undue value in externals:

[T]rue devotion must issue from the heart, and consist in the truth and substances alone of what is represented by spiritual things; all the rest is affection and attachment proceeding from imperfection; and in order that one may pass to any kind of perfection it is necessary for such desires to be killed.

I knew a person who for more than ten years made use of a cross roughly formed from a branch that had been blessed, fastened with a pin twisted round it; he had never ceased using it, and he always carried it about with him until I took it from him; and this was a person of no small sense and understanding. And I saw another who said his prayers using beads that were made of bones from the spine of a fish; his devotion was certainly no less precious on that account in the sight of God, for it is clear that these things carried no devotion in their workmanship or value.

Those, then, who start from these beginnings and make good progress attach themselves to no visible instruments, nor do they burden themselves with such, nor desire to know more than is necessary in order that they may act well; for they set their eyes only on being right with God and on pleasing Him, and therein consists their covetousness. [St. John of the Cross: The Dark Night of the Soul Book I, Chapter III on Spiritual Avarice (c. 1580)]

“These persons [traditionalists!] think that their own satisfaction and pleasure are the satisfaction and service of God.”

Yeah, it’s been real satisfying being called a schismatic and well over 100 names by your “good” friend Mark Shea.

Mark and I get along but I am not sure that we are "good friends." If we are good friends, it seems strange that my weblog is not listed over there. And while I have made by my reckoning (thanks to blogger's search engine) forty-eight references to Mark Shea's weblog or him personally in the past twenty-two months, I doubt you can find more than five references in return. Yup, "thick as thieves" we are.{7}

As far as the schism subject goes, I do not want to delve into it now. If you like, we can perhaps discuss it in another dialogue and see if Mark's reference of the term to you is accurate or not. I cannot speak for whatever else he has called you since I have in most cases probably not seen it. Certainly if it has happened in the past two plus years I have not. If you are referring to some of the rounds over at the old converts board, I remind you that I took your side in those exchanges out of principle.{8} But enough on that point for now.

These persons who are thus inclined to such pleasures… are very weak and remiss in journeying upon the hard road of the Cross. For the soul that is given to sweetness…”

If journeying great distances physically, emotionally, and intellectually in order to attend the Mass that the English were martyred over is not “the hard road of the Cross” then I don’t know what is.

Prior to Quo Primum the mass the English were martyred over was not the Roman rite contemporary to the sixteenth century. (Or basically the liturgical form you attend.) The predominant liturgical form in England prior to Quo Primum was the Sarum liturgy. So nice try but you do not have the same liturgical solidarity with the English martyrs that you claim. Furthermore, the difference between the old Sarum mass and the Anglican liturgy is that the latter did not (and does not) involve a valid Eucharist whereas the former did. And the lack of a valid Eucharist is not a charge that can be laid at the feet of the Revised Roman Missal. So again your analogy collapses like a cheap tent in a big wind kemosabe.

If the intellectual turmoil I’ve endured these past four years can be counted as “pleasures,” then the one doing the counting is a sadist.

It is akin to an adulterer who goes through intellectual and emotional turmoil over his affair. Or the alcoholic who goes through intellectual and emotional turmoil over his frequent repairs to the bar or his private bottle.

My conversion to traditional Catholicism has brought my soul to the precipice of despair over my past 20 years of mindlessly obedient neo-Catholicism and over the bleak future I see for me and what’s left of our religion.

In light of what you note above, it does not seem prudent at this time to go into why your usage of terms like "traditionalist Catholic" and "neo catholic" are contrary to the manifested mind of the ecclesiastical magisterium prior to the Second Vatican Council.

My soul’s only solace is not that it is “given to sweetness” but that it is taken by the truth, a brutally depressive truth, but truth nonetheless.

This sounds like depression to me. If that diagnosis is correct then it would also not be prudent to explain here why the "truth" you claim to be taken in by is counterfeit. To everything there is a season and this post is not that season my friend.

Notes:

{1} All of which are areas that I have outlined in well-documented web writings over the years.

{2} Here is but one of the many examples I could note on this subject:

Dialogue on Liturgy and "Restoration" (El Camino Real vs. Rerum Novarum)

{3} Though I am not as a rule inclined to use this parallel in dialogue, sometimes for the sake of vivid illustration it must be utilized.

{4} IT IS not hard to spurn human consolation when we have the divine. It is, however, a very great thing indeed to be able to live without either divine or human comforting and for the honor of God willingly to endure this exile of heart, not to seek oneself in anything, and to think nothing of one's own merit.

Does it matter much, if at the coming of grace, you are cheerful and devout? This is an hour desired by all, for he whom the grace of God sustains travels easily enough. What wonder if he feel no burden when borne up by the Almighty and led on by the Supreme Guide! For we are always glad to have something to comfort us, and only with difficulty does a man divest himself of self. [Thomas a Kempis: Imitation of Christ Book II, Ch. IX on Wanting No Share in Comfort (c. 1418)]

{5} If you experience great dryness in your meditation or other prayers, do not feel distressed and feel that God has turned His Face away from you. Far from it. Prayer said with aridity is usually the most meritorious. It is quite a common error to confound the value of prayer with its sensible results, and the merit acquired with the satisfaction experienced. The facility and sweetness that you may have in prayer are favours from God and for which you will have to account to Him: hence the result is not merit but debt. [Fr. R. P. Quadrupini: excerpts from his spiritual instruction "Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls" pgs. 19-20 (c. 1795)]

{6} Some good and others which are not so good to put it mildly.

{7} That is not to say that anyone whose weblog or website is not in my scroll is not a friend of mine of course. However, certainly if we were "best buds" as you would say, I would note this quite often at Rerum Novarum. In checking my archives, I see that I never once have referred to Mark Shea as my "good friend." Indeed, I only have referred to him as my "friend" twice -and both of those posts were within the first two months of this weblog's existence. By contrast, there are twelve weblog archive references to you as my "friend" and four which I refer to you as my "good friend." I trust that the disparity between you and Mark on this point viz. my weblog references is not without notice to you now.

In the case of this humble weblog, the idea that being my friend translates into a web margin notation is not the case at all. I have friends of varying outlooks whose weblogs or websites may have been lost in my reconstruction of this template last month. Then there are others who frankly endorse particular outlooks which I cannot link to. That does not mean that they are not friends of mine of course. However, it does mean that certain outlooks some of my friends may have are not ones that I can countenance in good conscience. But I digress.

{8} Certainly it was not because I agreed with your arguments in the debates with Mark. (For the most part I concurred with him.) But that is ancient history. Now if you want to point to where Mark has called you names recently -say since he started his weblog- that would be one thing. In doing a quick search for you name and his weblog, I was only able to find one link from October of 2002.

With regards to the earlier post on blogging vs. message boards, Mary H. of St. Blog's Parish Hall has posted a response which can be read HERE. For the record, We at Rerum Novarum hope that everything on that message board goes in acccordance with how she outlines it.

The Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG has been updated.

Briefly on Blogging vs. Message Boards:
(Courtesy of Mary H's St. Blog's Parish Hall)

I'm curious if the stats from ye olde Catholic converts msgboard are down, and if so is it only because of their switch to a new format (which I don't happen to like) or is it because blogs are sucking the available oxygen from msgboards in general?

It is probably some of both. I know when I started blogging, my message board time decreased dramatically. And when Steve Ray's board went to the Novus Boardo format along with revoking the password I had used for nearly four years, I took an attitude of "sod off" to the message board format. That was in January of 2003 and I stopped posting to the converts board on New Years Eve 2002. And I have no plans to ever post there again.

Many former Catholic Converters are bloggers now, and many blogs serve as a msgboard since that they have comments (Amy Welborn & Mark Shea's spring immediately to mind). Anyway be nice to see this board get a lot of posts.

I suppose it will depend on how variegated the subject matter is. If it is too restrictive of subject matter, then there will be less interactions. I explain the problem I have long had with message boards HERE and will not reiterate it here. I am not sure yet if this site will have the same problems that every other message board I have posted at over the years has had.{1} Certainly I hope it does not. We shall see.

Note:

{1} All things being equal, I prefer for the reasons noted at the above link to focus on blogging rather than on message boards -particularly now that I have even less time for this kind of interaction than I did previously. I think I posted seven times last year to message boards. In 2004, thus far I have posted once including this post you are reading. But I digress.

A Digression on the "Scylla/Charybdis" Conundrum of American Political Parties, Etc.

Though some of this will be covered in an upcoming response to an unidentified self-styled "traditionalist" Charles de Nunzio, it seems appropriate to touch on it here since it will allow for setting forth one of the principles that will guide that response. My words will be in regular font with any sources in darkblue font.

You will be happy to know that on Friday I'll be with VP Dick Chaney, in a reception for a local candidate for State (of Texas) Representative.

A great judge, proudly pro lifer conservative and smart. I have been helping elect W Bush as governor twice and to president once, hope the battle will be won again in November. It was a joy to see the historically democratic Texas turn around in the last 10 years. We are the last corner of Texas which is still democrat but even this island is changing. Thanks be to God.

We need more Constructionists on all the supreme courts -state and federal.

TROUBLE is that many professional politicians are beginning to pretend they are Republicans and are joining the party in droves with their socialistic atheistic ideas.

This has been a problem for a long time. It is the reason why I cannot in good conscience affiliate with the Republican Party. If not for the fact that (i) the Democrats are even worse (ii) there is no viable third alternative, and (iii) on the war on terror, Bush actually understands the kind of enemy we are facing, there is no way I would support the president. But concern for the common good and by logical extension this country's survival make that choice in my view necessary.

It takes a lot of homework to study every candidate who runs for election, especially in such a vast state. But it is our responsibility.

I use a simple acid test. To me, the key variable is how they view the proper function of law in a just society. Any candidate that endorses a differentiation between the laws of the individual and the laws of society at large is one who inexorably endorses the plunder of one class of citizens to enrich another class is not a real conservative. And sadly, almost all who run for office under the conservative banner support legal plunder in some form or another. It then becomes a case of ascertaining whether or not their support of legal plunder is based on ignorance of what they are actually supporting or whether they are intentionally in support of it. That is admittedly not easy to determine but a safe norm to follow is to see how much they favour federal involvement or intervention. For the greater they favour those factors, the more they inexorably endorse legal plunder.{1} And no just society can countenance such an abomination and expect to avoid dissolving as a nation at some point or another - either through military conquest or revolution.{2}

It's amazing how when you are listening to a pro lifer it is usually a moral, honest person on all other phases. While when one starts with the "personally I am against abortion..." he turns out to be a dishonest person morally on all other subjects.

And usually those who support abortion also favour various forms of legal plunder as well. I do not believe this parallel is at all coincidental.

One of the "reasons" for pro abortion I heard is that we need to get rid of all the poor (and unwanted) babies since they are such a burden on the tax payer...like they care about the tax payer.

Margaret Sanger would be proud of that "logic." So too would the Nazis. Those who would call themselves conservatives{3} who place the market over any and all things are wolves in sheep's clothing. But I digress.

Notes:

{1} For a working definition of legal plunder, see this link.

{2} But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law -- which may be an isolated case -- is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (c. 1850)]

{3} See this link for some details on what it means to be a true conservative.

Points to Ponder:

Today, some self-identified Catholic politicians prefer to emulate Pontius Pilate's 'personally opposed but unwilling to impose' stance. [Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando, Florida]

The Aggiornamento of Rerum Novarum:
(Via Ressourcement of Course)

Yes, it has been a long time since We at Rerum Novarum have updated this humble weblog. (Over three and a half months in fact.) Nonetheless, this update is substantially completed though We reserve the right of course to make additional adjustments in the coming days as needed. Without further ado, here are the additions listed by category:


Weblog Special Reports, Commemorations, Retrospectives, Etc:

"Raising an Irish Shotglass to Dad" Dept. [>>>]

Guest Editorial on the Passion of the Christ (Written by Mark Downey; Additional Commentary by Stephen Hand and I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]

On Emailing Rerum Novarum or Receiving Email From Us [>>>]

Miscellaneous Musings on "Funks" and How to Avoid Them While Blogging [>>>]


On Political/Social Subjects in General:

On So-Called "Gay Marriage" (Dialogue With Pete Vere) [>>>]

On Workable Remedies for Societies' Problems (Dialogue With Kevin Tierney) [>>>]



On the US Constitution and the Fundamental Rights of Man:

Society's Ills, the Function of Law in a Just Society, Etc. (Dialogue With Kevin Tierney) [>>>]


On Political Election Topics:

On the 2004 Election [>>>]

John F -word Kerry's Voting Record Revisited [>>>]

Miscellaneous Musings on Al Queda, Spain, John Kerry, Etc. [>>>]

More on John Kerry, Spain, Al Queda, Etc. [>>>]

On the 9-11 Commission (With Greg Mockeridge) [>>>]


On the Recent War and War in General:

Rerum Novarum Pays Tribute to Pat Tillman [>>>]

On Nick Berg and the Animals Who Killed Him (Not for Viewing by Children) [>>>]

Briefly on the Iraqi Prison Scandal [>>>]


On the Second Vatican Council:

Points to Ponder From Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh (Parts I-IV) [>>>]



On Particular Philosophical Subjects:

Brief Response and a Request to Tim Enloe [>>>]

A Followup Response to Tim Enloe on Proposed Dialogue [>>>]

Reprising a Request for Dialogue on Foundational Premises (to Tim Enloe) [>>>]

On Adoption in the Spirit (With Apolonio Latar III) [>>>]


On 'Traditionalism' (Falsely So-Called):

More Sedevacantist Nonsense [>>>]

Deconstructing Another Dyspeptic "Traditionalist" [>>>]

Responding to Another "Traditionalist" Wannabee [>>>]


On 'Traditionalism' (Properly So-Called):

Miscellaneous Musings on Communion Reception [>>>]

More on Intincture and the Common Good [>>>]

Mail From A Former "Traditionalist" [>>>]

More Mail From A Former "Traditionalist" [>>>]

Briefly on David Palm's Novelty Article, Etc. [>>>]

On the Recent CDWDS Document (With F. John Loughnan) [>>>]

Dialogue on Self-Styled "Traditionalism" (With Dr. Philip Blosser) [>>>]


On Certain Controverted "Hotpoint" Subjects Pertaining to Doctrine:

Natural Law vs. Personalist Approaches to Theology [>>>]

Briefly on Ressourcement Methodology [>>>]


On Other Controverted Subjects:

On the Pope, Moral Principles, the UN, and Stephen Hand [>>>]

Miscellaneous Musings on Weblog Maintenance and the Continued Existence of Rerum Novarum) [>>>]

Miscellaneous Morning Musings (on The Passion of the Christ) [>>>]

Briefly on The Passion of the Christ [>>>]

On the Death Penalty With SAM and Dave [>>>]

On Theological and Liturgical Ressourcement, 'Traditionalist' Schools of Thought, Abortion, and Other Subjects (Dialogue With Kevin Tierney and Pete Vere) [>>>]

An Activist Call Against the "Morning After" Pill [>>>]


Spiritual Instruction:

Meditations on the Dark Night of the Soul [>>>]



Shawn's Eastern Catholic Corner Approved Links:

Omnibus Compertium Encyclical Epistle on Unity Among the Greek Melkites (Pope Leo XIII) [>>>]


Other Approved Sites or Links of Interest:

A second division was made in this column for the magisterial texts grouped here to separate them from the other links.

Quanta Cura Encyclical Letter on Condemning Errors (Pope Pius IX) [>>>]

Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum Encyclical Letter on Appealing for Peace (Pope Benedict XV) [>>>]

Mediator Dei Encyclical Letter on the Sacred Liturgy (Pope Pius XII) [>>>]

Ecclesiam Suam Encyclical Letter on the Church's Path in the Modern World (Pope Paul VI) [>>>]

Lumen Gentium Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council) [>>>]

Veritatis Splendour Encyclical Letter on Fundamental Questions of the Church's Moral Teaching (Pope John Paul II) [>>>]


As all of these additions and modifications meet with my approval, by virtue of my authority as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I promulgate these additions in perpetuity all things to the contary notwithstanding.

Though I have discussed it on message boards before, I do not believe it has graced the archives of Rerum Novarum -though I am sure if I am mistaken on this that someone will at some point tell me. Nonetheless, here is a good example of why I have long taken Santayana's dictum about history so seriously:

The Myth of the Flat Earth

Thanks for the link Greg.

Briefly on the Unconstitutionality of Brown vs. Board of Education, Etc.

One of the nice things about being part of St. Blog's is that the odds are good that someone will cover an issue that We intend to talk about. (And they do it so well that We do not feel compelled to write about it Ourselves.) This is what The Mighty One did today with the subject of Brown vs. Board of Education a landmark perversion of constitutional law that that set the table for Roe vs. Wade and numerous other abominations.{1}

This is not to say that Brown was the first judicial perversion of its kind in American history of course. However, it did set the tone for such decisions eventually becoming normal rather than remaining as an occasional abominable exception as was the case prior to 1954. Anyway, give the Barrister's commentary a read and notice how well it meshes with what We have often noted on this weblog about the role of law in a just society. See the weblog column titled On the US Constitution and the Fundamental Rights of Man for many of the posts blogged through January of 2004. (In the coming days, We will be updating this weblog and adding to the various categories in the side margin including the aforementioned one.)

Note:

{1} Not to mention the kind of faulty reasoning that sustains such injustices.

A Rerum Novarum Weblog Update:

I have finally gotten and formatted all of the weblog posts that will go into the weblog update in the coming days. All that remains is to (i) sort them by category, (ii) add them to the margin, (iii) save the template, (iv) copy and paste the updated template to my private weblog, {v) save the template of the private weblog, (vi) republish the private weblog template so the changes take hold (vii) republish the template at Rerum Novarum after it has been updated (viii) post a note to the weblog indicating changes made with solemn promulgation formulary. In short, there is still plenty to do but the hardest of the process is completed. The rest should be tended to in the coming days if all goes according to plan.

Briefly on the Iraqi Prison Scandal:

My words in this thread will be in the regular weblog font.

[H]ow I wish my countrymen would grow up and stop emotionally overreacting to such excusable nonsense. A few bored and frustrated soldiers (secular idiot-heads that they are) had some sadistic fun with some of Saddam's thugs. So what? If this were peace time, we could get upset about that. But we don't have that luxury ...not with such people. Some things are more important than that American myth that goes "liberty and justice for all" ...all AMERICANS, that is, ...nor all Sadamists, or terrorists, or Nazis. ;-). Someone should remind the liberals of the latter.

I'm absolutely dumfounded by how these liberal IDIOTS over-react as cheap actors. The prison abuse isn't good, but as much as I'd hate to say this, those are terrorists in there. Why do we care about people that want to CHOP OUR HEADS OFF more than about our soldiers and our president?

Anything for political power is how they see it.

The sheer hatred of Republicans that the Democrats have is appalling and absolutely disgusting.

Real Americans know that during wartime these kinds of partisan squabblings are inappropriate. Hence though the Republicans savaged President Roosevelt before Pearl Harbor{1}, after that they put partisan politics aside because they recognized that the security of the republic was at stake and was of much greater importance. I might add that the Democrats of that day if the shoe was on the other foot probably would have done the same thing. But that only highlights just how far off the rails the Democratic leadership (and many rank and file Democrats) have gone.

Let us approach this pragmatically for a moment. What is needed is for President Bush to get the NEA to fund the pictures as "artistic license." I mean, come on: a crucifix in a jar of urine is "art" to these people as are pictures of Our Lady smeared with elephant feces. And of course do not forget about the "free expression" of pornography. Why then in light of these indisputable facts{2} are the pictures of the soldiers humiliating prisoners considered so "scandalous"??? If anything these people should be nominating those soldiers for the equivalent of the "2004 Larry Flynt Freespeech Award" for those photos where they are so clearly "indulging their appetites" right???

It is only a matter of sex so I cannot see why these people are so worked up about it. It is difficult to imagine that if Clinton were still president that this would be considered anything but an odd quirk if not for the fact that these were military people.{3}

That is why Bush should retaliate by getting the NEA to fund these pictures if only to expose these people for the hypocrites that they are.{4} A bunch of little Neros fiddling while Rome burns. I have to wonder if even atrocities like the savage beheading of Nick Berg by subhumans will wake these idiots up. Here it is in a nutshell: WE ARE AT WAR WITH SAVAGES WHO HAVE NO SHRED OF COMMON DECENCY IN THEM!!! My guess is that the liberals seeking to cozy up to these vermin will die with their severed heads still in their rectums because of an unwillingness to wake up, remove their heads, and face up to reality.

Imagine these liberal useful idiots of Satan during WWII. "Oh no, but look at how wonderful Hitler really is, he built the autobahns and helped German economy. Stupid bigoted Americans!" *sigh*.

If these kinds of people were in charge during the Second World War, we would all either be speaking German today or be lampshades. That is the bottom line that these seditionists cannot understand. And yes, I do favour trying the most extreme of these sorts for sedition and throwing them behind bars. Make examples of a few big names and the rest will not be so inclined to spout off with their verbal "aid and comfort to the enemy." But I digress.

Notes:

{1} And this was proper prior to December 7, 1941 I might add.

{2} I refer here to the fact that these talking points are treated as dogma by the liberals.

{3} Obviously anything the Purjurer-in-Chief could have used to denigrate the military would have been used if we are to go by his eight year track record in office.

{4} I am not saying that this would be constitutional of course because it would not be. But controverting the Constitution has become so common the past sixty odd years that what is one more indiscretion - particularly if it would underscore the hypocrisy of the "free speech" crowd???

In light of the earlier ranting -none of which I retract for an instant lest anyone wonder- it seemed appropriate to focus on more mundane matters such as weblog restoration. Therefore, not long after that post was added -and before I updated that post- the weblogs were recategorized as they once were and the bulk of the ones I had up previously were restored. (Along with some that I had long intended to add but never had being added at that time.) I also spent about three hours completing and formatting the restoration of the archives for Rerum Novarum. They are completed through July 31, 2004 so all that is left to do is the long delayed weblog update. However, I am too tired to do that now. It is however on the agenda before the end of the month as is finishing and blogging some long planned responses to others. As these adjustments will be duplicated on my private weblog so that any future glitches are easily corrected and quickly, all that is left now is to conclude this entry.

I am frankly not in the mood to utilize solemn pomp for these promulgations tonight my friends. I am tired and also quite livid still at what I blogged on earlier. For that reason I will only note here in brief that all adjustments, restorations, additions, and subtractions are approved in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

On the Death of Nick Berg and the So-Called "Religion of Peace":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[WARNING: Any children or those with weak stomachs or sensitive ears, kindly do not read this post. -ISM]

Having noted that, those who are not children and can more readily handle reality, kindly go to these photos courtesy of the Paul Revere Society:

Nick Berg R.I.P

About thirty minutes ago, I was listening to the radio on my way to complete a business transaction when I heard the audio that went along with those pictures. What I heard was a bunch of Islamo-fascists changing to "Allah" while Mr. Berg was screaming. You see, they were sawing his throat with a blade and not apparently a sharp one at that. In a word: they cut his head completely off. I am so angry right now that if those bastards were in my presence I would kill them all without a second thought.

You see my friends, we are in a war here and we are dealing with people who are quite obviously incapable of being reasoned with - people who are less than people but are instead properly styled as "human debris." There is a reason why after mulling over the issue for about four months on this weblog{1} I took the stand I took last year on the war and even to the extent of publicly disagreeing with the Holy Father on that subject in no uncertain terms. Those who are familiar with my work know that I only do such things with the greatest of trepidation. However, these are not ordinary circumstances my friends. This is much like the so-called "homosexual marriage" subject in the realm of being a major determining factor in my paradigm of thought on these matters. Here is how I see the war on terror in a nutshell:

---We are fighting a group of intellectually and emotionally arrested fanatics who have yet to come out of the seventh century. Arab civilization contrary to the ignorant babblings of the media is hardly some fertile ground for philosophy, mathematics, science, and the like. All of their contributions in those areas -significant though they were- were a millennia ago. One commentator astutely noted that "since they gave us the zero, they have given civilization zero" and that sums it up about as well as can be done in a syllabus style statement.

---We are dealing with people who revel in death who do not hesitate to boast about this. We are dealing with people who view innocent children as "infidel subversives" and who have no scruples about killing them. Likewise non-Muslims are viewed. Essentially if they cannot convert you, then you must die. Hence in the most sadistic of "rituals" I heard chanting to "Allah" while a young man's bloodcurdling screams rang out over the airwaves as those bastards, those rats, those vile pieces of human debris cut his throat slowly in sawing motion with a dull blade.

But I suppose we are still going to hear the hollow paens of "involving the UN" in the Iraq situation - the same UN who cannot even run a simple oil for food program without massive corruption. I suppose we are going to still hear the cheap rhetoric of "give peace a chance" and after all, if we simply reason with these people and if we show them we are nice people that they will be nice too and all will be well. No my friends, you do not deal with a rabid disease infested dog that attacks you with kind words or idle threats. You deal with such an animal by shooting it. Likewise, these vile people need to be dealt with. I think stake burning would be appropriate for them.

Now I am sure that there are people who will think that I am doing an aboutface on my position on the death penalty stated on this weblog early on and inculcated at this weblog not a few times since then.{2} I however know for a fact that they are congruent with one another -as I never take public stands on controversial issues without doing a good amount of reflecting first on all possible contingent situations. The Church's directive is that the death penalty must be used judiciously and when no other recourse is possible. I submit my friends that this is one of those cases.

For we cannot negotiate with these bastards. They only want to kill us to appease their twisted view of God. Therefore, we need to incinerate them first. It has been proposed in various forms by others but here is my suggestion: give the populace 72 hours to get the hell out of Dodge and then carpetbomb their stronghold cities (like those inside the "Sunni Triangle"). After that, salt the earth so that nothing will grow. I came within a hair's breadth of wishing these inhumans an eternity in hell today but I will not go that far. But I will pray that they have the most painful of purgatories possible.

Also, I will note here for the record that I am calling the bluff of the hypocrites in the media who go out of their way to defend the silence of the Muslims in this country who are presumably no more represented by these thugs than Catholics or any other group are represented by the worst examples in their respective histories. Here is the call my friends. Those who continue to (i) defame or otherwise demean the "silence" of Pius XII during the Holocaust (ii) defame or otherwise demean the southerners who were silent in the face of Klan or other kinds of violence towards our brothers and sisters of a darker hue or non-WASP ancestry need to stop using the "they are silent out of fear" excuse for American Muslims. It is bullshit and I cannot take it anymore. Therefore, you media hypocrites need to start approaching these issues with consistency. I will give you your only choices here.

You can either (i) call them to the carpet for their negligence or (ii) continue to parrot this partyline and cease and desist from the slanders directed towards Pius XII and the inhabitants of the old pre-1970's south. Otherwise, you have not a whit of credibility with thinking people on any subject whatsoever and deserve any derision you receive now and in the future. Oh and one more thing. Though I am hardly a rabid Bush supporter,{3} the following needs to be said also:

I BLAME THOSE TRYING TO USE INDISCRETIONS FROM THE IRAQ WAR FOR POLITICAL GAIN -SUCH AS JOHN KERRY, EDWARD KENNEDY, AND THE OTHER PARTISAN DEVILCRATS- FOR THE DEATH OF NICK BERG. MAY HIS BLOOD BE ON YOU AND ON YOUR IDEOLOGICAL CHILDREN!!!

I am sure this post has resulted in my losing all but the most diehard of my readers but so be it. This is not a popularity contest and I never say what I say to be popular. Those who would question the tenure of this post or the language used -which I assure you is significantly restrained from what I would like to say- I exhort you to do two things:

1) Review the pictures at the link above.

2) Obtain the audio of Nick Berg's murder and listen to it when viewing the pictures yet again.

If at that point you have not changed your mind on this matter, then I have to question just how human you really are and how concerned you are for real justice. These dogs do not deserve to live for what they have done and they cannot be reasoned with. Therefore, exterminate their sorry asses as a testimony to other would-be Islamofascists. Then wrap their bodies in pig entrails. That is all I have to say on the matter at this time except for a small note to Nick Berg and his family -starting with Mr. Berg himself.

---Nick: be assured of my prayers that you may rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed.

---To Nick's family: may you all receive the comfort you need in this difficult time. I hope that any readers I have left will also offer their prayers for you and your family.

And finally:

---May the animals who murdered Nick Berg be snuffed out and buried in pig entrails.

There is really nothing more to say at this time.

[Update: For those who still do not get it, consider the situation from a couple of years ago with the late journalist Daniel Pearl. Like Nick Berg, he was murdered in the name of "the religion of peace." May his soul rest in peace as well. - ISM 5/12/04 7:25 pm]

Notes:

{1} See the entries preceding the above links in the margin on the war subject. There may well be some in the archives which are not in the margin as well - I cannot at the moment remember one way or the other.

{2} I cannot recall if I blogged on this subject since January -as this humble weblog has not been updated since then. However, this subject was treated on again at least as recently as HERE. Until this weblog is updated again -and it is slated for being done before this month is out- I cannot say with certainty if there are any postings more recent than that.

{3} See this link lest anyone think this is a political grandstand on my part. (I solemnly assure you that it is anything but that.)

Points to Ponder:

We at Rerum Novarum found Ourselves while working on template restoration wondering when a good friend of our friend Pete Vere (Shawn Tribe) would begin blogging again. His take on several issues being akin to what has been expressed on this humble weblog is but one reason that We wonder about this. Another reason is that his eastern sensibilities provided a different way of viewing subjects rather than through the stock overly Latin way common to the majority of Catholics. (Even those not affected by so-called "traditionalist" outlooks.)

Though We have checked on occasion over the months, his weblog is still without an update since October 27, 2002. We therefore post this as some points to ponder on matters liturgical and exhort those who know this individual well to encourage him to again take up the blogging discipline anew. But without further ado, here are the points to ponder for today:

One of the things I have been trying to point out is that in the post-Tridentine Western church, we have what seems a uniquely Roman attitude that there is only one way to do things -- that there ought to be one Mass, etc. It is reflected in the tensions which already exist between communities of the indult, of the reform of the reform, and of the modern trendy liturgical circles with each other. Historically, it is represented in the negative bias which even the likes of the great Dom Gueranger expressed in relation to the Oriental and Byzantine liturgies. Even now there are many Western Catholics who view Byzantine Catholicism as somehow "funny", "odd", "eccentric" or even inferior -- yes, I have heard that claim made by some hardline traditionalists. It is reflected when parish priests get concerned because some people wish to receive on the tongue, or kneeling, or by making a sign of the cross first, etc. They feel the people must be catechized to all receive in the same way; they view this varied devotional practise as somehow a disunity in the Body of Christ. Each of these represent an attitude that there must be one way of doing things.

But what effect has this stab at homogeneity had? Has it been unifying? It would seem not since we have a situation where people are segregated in the ways suggested. Is the solution to allow a multiplicity of rites again? Not in and of itself, no. Really that is a separate, but not unrelated issue. It should not be said that I am proposing a multiplicity of rites as a means to greater unity in the Church. For myself, the harmonious co-existence of rites would be a *fruit* of greater unity in the Church. The point was initially raised in response to those who were hesitant to have changes applied to the 1962 missal. In response I pointed out that there was no absolute necessity that everyone must celebrate the 1962 missal with these changes, nor that everyone must use the 1962 missal as is, nor that there wasn't room for the 1965 missal and certainly not that all must use the Pauline missal. In short, that there is room in the Church's tradition, past and present, for unity in diversity; for legitimate liturgical variation. The East has always had this variance and it continues to serve them in the present day...

I should take a minute to point out that when I speak of liturgical variation, I am not speaking of, nor including do-it-yourself liturgies...

What we need to most establish is a change in what seems a uniquely Roman attitude in favour of homogeneity. It is that attitude, I think, that is the cause of the segregation and ghettoization in the Church. The mere presence of a multiplicity of rites is not the cause of this; it merely aggravates it (just as does homogeneity) given that climate. [Shawn Tribe: From Blog of a Byzantinesque Latin circa August 14, 2002]

Though I do not have time to say much else on it at the moment, the weblog list restoration project is almost complete. The archives as noted before are done through July 5, 2003. Everything is almost back to normal now...sigh...

Points to Ponder:

It seems appropriate to use this entire entry so that is what we will do here...

This is truly and frighteningly evil. From The Chronicle of Higher Education - Oh, what we have wrought:

In many parts of Asia, that advice [favoring male offspring] appears to have stuck. Centuries later, a strong preference for sons persists, enhanced by technology that increasingly allows parents to realize their desires. Amniocentesis and ultrasound can easily identify the sex of a fetus, and sex-selective abortion has become an everyday practice. Daughters who are born are frequently given up, and thousands are adopted out of the country every year. On the horizon are inexpensive sperm-sorting techniques that will guarantee a son even before conception. New technology, of course, is not the only factor; in some rural areas, old-fashioned female infanticide still lingers.

The reasons for the persistence of offspring sex selection, and the exact numbers of pregnancies involved, have been hotly debated since the early 1990s, when the economist Amartya Sen called attention to the phenomenon of "missing women." By some social scientists' measure, more than 100 million females are now missing from the populations of India and China.

For example: in 1996, the ratio of boys to girls (aged 1 - 4) was 121 boys for every 100 girls. Do you have any reason to believe that this is not a ticking time bomb?

If ever there was proof that abortion targets women, here it is. Women, you've been tricked into supporting a genocide that is wiping out your sisters (sororicide) at a rate far higher than your brothers, and yet you support the very evil that has you squarely in its crosshairs.

On the other side, without providentially even ratios, there are a lot of men out there without hope of a mate. Rather than fix the problem at its source (stop killing women), supporters of the Sacrament of Abortion will simply advocate killing more males. And gay marriage.

While I subscribe to the theory that if you see ten troubles coming down the road nine are sure to fall in the ditch, I can't see a problem this large as doing anything but hugging the middle of the road. Combine this with the increasing enstupification of large segments of the population (link goes to Fred Reed's latest column) and I think we're looking at a massive, world-wide social failure. [The Mighty Barrister (c. 5/03/04)]

A Response to Dr. Philip Blosser:

Dr. Blosser's words will be in green font. The text which Dr. Blosser emailed to me (and to which I am responding here) can be accessed HERE.

Dear Shawn,

Hello Dr. Blosser:

Thanks for your detailed response.

You are welcome.{1}

I understand all about time constraints and difficulties of engaging the sorts of concerns raised by Mr. David Palm in New Oxford Review.

To David's credit, I am far more inclined to respond to him than to most of his allies.

As I'm sure you would agree, one of the principal challenges facing us in the Church today is the problem of ignorance and confusion. It is no longer a matter of large numbers of rank-and-file Catholics (lapsed or "practicing") rejecting Church teachings or "dissenting" from them; many of them have not the vaguest knowledge of what those teachings are. And, ironically, the more widespread the ignorance about Catholic teaching, the greater the prejudice against the Catholic Church.

Indeed.

The fact that "the truth is out there" somewhere, in encyclicals and historical documents of the Church seems of little avail when one is staring priests and catechists in the face who don't believe in hell or purgatory, and who deny the importance of sacramental confession, observance of holy days of obligation, rubrics of Mass, or importance of knowing the Bible.

This is also true.

It may be that writers such as David Palm are wrong about this or that detail of their patristic interpretation, etc.

They usually are.

But my interest is with what animates their concern in the Church today, which I do not think can be easily dismissed as a matter of misreading this Church Father or that encyclical. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge . . ." (Hosea 4:6)

Most who call themselves "traditionalists" make the mistake of not handling problematical issues with a proper Catholic way. Hence, they gripe about Assisi and incidents like that forgetting that it is contrary to the dogma of the papal supremacy to refuse assent to the Apostolic See not only in matters of faith and morals but also in matters which concern the Church's general good as well as her rights and discipline.

Catholic dogma is clear that the pope has full authority in the areas of "feeding" (teaching), ruling (directives or disciplines), but also in "guiding" the Church. These distinctions were spelled out by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura: an encyclical that "trads" like to prooftext but obviously have not read very carefully.{2} Likewise, the practice or utilizing terms such as "Neo-Catholic", and "traditionalist Catholic" was clearly condemned by Pope Benedict XV in Ad Beatissimi.{3}

That same pope condemned those who would appeal to the press or media outlets against a judgment or directive of the Holy See.{4} Yet what essentially has David and his allies done repeatedly over the years??? They attempt to defend this dissidence under the umbrella of Canon 212 but that dog does not hunt as Pete Vere has noted on a few occasions.{5} But I am getting ahead of myself here.

Returning to the subject of Quanta Cura and the threefold division it makes (feeding, ruling, and guiding), the trads usually toe the line with the first one and sometimes with the second one. But even people such as David Palm appear to me to be falling short of the third one which deals with the Pope's ability to set the agenda for how the Church is to handle issues in a given epoch of time.

As far as David's other essay goes, I have proposed a way of approaching it on one of your weblogs. Here is the link.

In closing, I agree with you that the concern that animates their positions is important. However, a lot of it is simply a lack of spiritual maturity on their side -something I made note of in many of my writings particularly my August 2003 essay response to Chris Ferrara and my last essay response to David Palm. Previous writings alluded to it and in revising my treatise in late 2002 early 2003, I added a section I wrote in March 2002 specifically for addressing this subject which had become much more obvious to me than it once was. {6} I have enclosed that section in this note as you may find it of interest.

We need your resources.

Fortunately, I have written a lot in the past five years so I can draw on that material as needed. I will do what I can but admittedly because of time constraints being tighter than ever now, I have to be more selective in the topics I discuss.

Notes:

{1} I may blog the bulk of that response later on.

{2} [We cannot] pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. [Pope Pius IX: Encyclical Letter Quanta Cura §5 (c. 1864) as quoted in I. Shawn McElhinney's essay The "Tradition is Opposed to Novelty" Canard (c. 2004)]

{3} It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum §23 as quoted in I. Shawn McElhinney's essay The "Tradition is Opposed to Novelty" Canard (c. 2004)]

{4} [W]henever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum §22 as quoted in I. Shawn McElhinney's essay The "Tradition is Opposed to Novelty" Canard (c. 2004)]

{5} See this link for details:

No, Canon 212 Does Not Grant An Imprimatur To Publish Irresponsible Opinions

{6} Psychological Factors:

As none of the changes made to the liturgy in any way infringes upon unalterable Tradition, none of them are valid excuses for avoiding the Pauline liturgy. (Those with the licit option to attend the Tridentine Mass in their dioceses can do so of course.) The only arguments can be made are ones of personal preference and not for the invalidity of the Pauline Rite. (And arguments about any rite being "superior" are by their very nature very subjective judgments.)

Objectively speaking, since the merits of the Mass are infinite regardless of the rite used, arguments from any position except those of personal preference are illegitimate and those who claim otherwise are opposing themselves to the judgment of the Church. Indeed often statements about one rite or another being "superior", one rite providing "greater motivation to pray better" or the claims that "I get more out of it" are statements that this writer has heard different Catholics make about the various rites sanctioned by the Catholic Church. (Including some converts who have told him that understanding what is said at mass with the newer rite was a pivotal part of their conversion process.) Whichever liturgy this attitude is taken towards, it is a dangerous principle for reasons that will now be outlined in brief.

One constantly hears in the west that many people do not go to church because they "do not get anything out of it". Now many Catholics claim that they attend a rite of mass that they are "motivated to pray better" with, and a lot of them justify rending the cloak of Christ by partaking in liturgy with groups that are schismatic either de facto or de jure. Hence, that this attitude can lead to shipwreck of the Faith, it must be repudiated.

The reader can start by asking himself or herself why they are "better motivated" - if indeed they are - at a particular liturgy. They need to ask themselves why they "get more out of" one liturgy than another. They need to really focus on the fact that their motivation may seriously be misplaced - because it is. An easterner would hear a statement like "I do not get anything out of it" and be shocked that someone could be so shallow, so selfish. The reason for this is that the Easterners recognize oftentimes that what one "gets out of it", is the inestimable privilege of glorifying Almighty God.

This has nothing to do with what you the reader subjectively feel. Instead, it is recognizing that Mass is to honour the Lord of Hosts. Ergo, if you cannot place the honour of the Lord above your own personal motivations, then you are not approaching worship as a Catholic should. This is how a Catholic who prefers a rite of mass that is not licitly celebrated in their dioceses needs to approach this subject, lest they be like the "spiritual gluttons" spoken of by the great mystic and Doctor of the Church St. John of the Cross:

"You will find that many of these persons [spiritual gluttons] are very insistent with their spiritual masters to be granted that which they desire, extracting it from them almost by force; if they be refused it they become as peevish as children and go about in great displeasure, thinking that they are not serving God when they are not allowed to do that which they would. For they go about clinging to their own will and pleasure, which they treat as though it came from God; and immediately their directors take it from them, and try to subject them to the will of God, they become peevish, faint-hearted, and fall away. These persons think that their own satisfaction and pleasure are the satisfaction and service of God..."

"These persons who are thus inclined to such pleasures have another great imperfection, which is that they are very weak and remiss in journeying upon the hard road of the Cross; for the soul that is given to sweetness naturally has its face set against all self-denial, which is devoid of sweetness..."

"And many of these would have God will that which they themselves will, and are fretful at having to will that which He wills, and find it repugnant to accommodate their will to that of God. Hence it happens to them that oftentimes they think that therein they find not their own will and pleasure is not the will of God; and that on the other hand, when they themselves find satisfaction, God is satisfied. Thus they measure themselves by God acting quite contrary to that which He Himself taught in the Gospel, saying: 'That he who should lose his will for His sake, the same shall gain it and he that desires to gain it, the same shall lose it.'"

"These persons likewise find it irksome when they are commanded to do that wherein they take no pleasure. Because they aim at spiritual sweetness and consolation, they are too weak to have the fortitude and bear the trials of perfection. They resemble those who run fretfully away from everything that is hard, and take offense at the Cross, wherein consist the delight of the spirit. The more spiritual a thing is, the more irksome they find it, for as they seek to go about spiritual matters with complete freedom and according to the inclination of their will, it causes them great sorrow and repugnance to enter upon the narrow way, which says Christ, is the way of life." ...

The reader needs to honestly assess if they are acting in the same manner as the "spiritual gluttons" outlined in St. John of the Cross' work. This writer asserts that anyone who feels the need to disobey their ecclesiastical superiors in any area (except of course for a command to sin) is spiritually immature. A spiritually mature Catholic, who prefers a rite of mass that is not licitly celebrated in their dioceses, does not disobey their ecclesiastical superiors by attending illegally celebrated masses by clerics who do not have the communion of the Holy Father. This will be dealt with in greater detail in the upcoming treatise urls lest the reader falsely ascribe as "non-authoritative" or "optional" teachings or directives which are in reality binding. (Or ascribing ecclesiastical communion to those who do not have it.) [I. Shawn McElhinney: From the treatise "A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism'" Part V (c. 2003, 2000)]

For bibliographical and notes on this entry, see url five at this link.

"Slouching Towards Gommorah" Dept.

Your weblog host received this link (among other materal) from Kathryn Lively earlier today:

Stop the Morning-After Pill! Over-the-Counter approval to be decided by the FDA May 21. No age limits, no medical supervision, no parental involvement!

Please take a moment and read the material at that link carefully.

As the arguments that undergird these subjects are so similar, We at Rerum Novarum remind the readers that your weblog host mused on the teen smoking/teen sex double standard last year. For the record, Our views have not changed and the above link outlines a classic example of such hypocrisy. We therefore, take the time to reiterate anew our previous observations on this obvious double standard and exhort you all to contact your senators and representatives. {1}

To facilitate contact of these representatives, if it helps any, We release from our normal site copyright any and all of the material in the aforementioned link. The readers of this weblog may thereby utilize it as they see fit without concern for proper crediting thereof.{2} Our only recommendations is to apply such points -if they are utilized at all- with measured care. It is imperative that anyone contacting their congresspeople try to avoid coming across as someone that can be typecast as a fringe lunatic. There are very good arguments in our favour consistency-wise which can be used to advance this cause. Please try to approach it from that issue however passionate you may be on this issue. (And We trust that you are plenty passionate about it.)

Notes:

{1} See the link as supplied by Kathryn Lively. Here is a sample letter to send to congresspeople and the president which you will find among the materials at the aforementioned link:

Dear Senator ____________ (or Congressman _____________):

I understand the FDA is set to decide whether or not the morning-after-pill (MAP) will go over-the-counter on 21 May 2004. I believe that pressure from you and your colleagues could stop this
dangerous drug from being made available to very young girls without medical supervision or parental knowledge. Would you please advise the FDA to cease and desist? If MAP is approved, then it won't be long before the FDA makes the birth control pill available over-the-counter. This will further compromise the sanctity of life and the integrity of the family.

Thank you.

(Signed)
Your name
Address
City, State. Zip
Phone

It also would not hurt to remind your congresspeople (and any senators you have who are up for election in 2004) that you will be active in that election and will remember how they stood on this crucial issue. Again though, please do this tactfully for the best possible effect.

{2} However, for all other post entries -along with any essays written by your humble servant- the site copyright and respective essay copyrights remain intact, stable, and valid all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

"Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.

Dear Shawn,

Hello Gregory:

[N]ow that I'm in touch with you, I would like to ask a few questions. Hope you don't mind.

I do not mind.

First, I have a lot of news pieces, which are relevant to "traditionalism", that I've put in files on my computer. I was entertaining the idea of posting some of them on the LIdless Eye blog, but I would like your opinion first. What do you think I should do with them??

Feel free to post them there.

Furthermore, I believe (and I'm sure you agree) that traditionalists, in attacking VII's teachings (and the Pope's) don't understand the concept of
"paradox" (GK Chesterton had some interesting stuff to say on that).

Yes, I have long thought that was one of the significant problems that they have as a rule. (Though there are of course exceptions.)

But here is were the trouble is. If we can use the argument "don't disagree with Church teachings merely because you don't understand how they are consistent; things are more complex then they seem", how can one, like myself who is not a theologian, say for that a certain position is "immoral" or "heretical". It seems to me that once you say that paradoxes exists which can certainly seem like contradictions, you have eliminated the foundation for making judgments on peoples theological opinions.

This is a good question. The best answer you can give in my opinion is that you do not judge anyone. As a Catholic we leave such judgments of the internal forum to God and of the external forum to the Church. If the Church defines something as being de fide, then those who do not accept this teaching as such are heretics. We of course do not make the demarcation that strict but instead recognize most non-Catholics as heretics only in the improper sense. And because this sense is improper,{1} and has long been recognized as such,{2} we no longer utilize terms like "heretic" or "schismatic" on the broadbrush basis as they were once used.

Also, on your blog today you have a post about "How grammatically sound are you?".

It is one of those web quizzes. Things were rather hectic today and I needed a bit of levity.

I was just wondering why you didn't think that picture, with it's title, wasn't somewhat disrespectful to God. I'm not saying that *I* believe it was disrespectful, but I think some people would feel that way.

It was a bit irreverent perhaps but that is all in my opinion.

I'd like to know how you would defend that.

I amended that post a bit to address this concern. You will see my answer to that question there.

Finally, (this is a little off topic) what is your opinion of modern art?

My view of modern art is not one that I can give in a brief sentence or two. Perhaps another time I will go over that subject. In the interim, I will simply note that my view of most modern art is akin to my view of 95% of what is published on all subjects ala the dictum of the great Arthur Jones. (Not the guy who writes for NCR.)

Notes:

{1} Since it applies to a denial of material that requires belief rather than a conscious and willful active rejection or doubt which is properly referred to as formal. For this reason, the Church has seen fit in recent decades to no longer use such improper terminology and instead only apply it to those who can be reasonably discerned by her to be rejecting such truths in a formal sense.

{2} Schismatic. In its strict sense, one who voluntarily, knowingly, and deliberately separates himself from the unity of the Church. Ordinarily one who is so separated is called a schismatic regardless of the circumstances, but "anyone born and brought up in a schismatic church and turned away in good faith from the Roman Church, not knowing her to be the one true church...is called by the epithet 'schismatic' only in an improper sense; he is not in fact party to the sin of schism" (Jugie, Theol. Dogm. I. pg. 17). Such is apparently the state for the overwhelming majority of non-Catholic Christians today. [Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary: Donald Attwater General Editor, tenth edition, pgs. 476-477 (c. 1941)]

You are a GRAMMAR GOD!


If your mission in life is not already to
preserve the English tongue, it should be.
Congratulations and thank you!


How grammatically sound are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

In light of how this picture could possibly be construed, it seems appropriate to note that any similarities between anyone either living or dead is purely coincidental as far as I am concerned.