In response to the comments of a friend who spoke on the issue of doctrinal fidelity - and in light of some of the emails I have received over the years - I decided to establish a Miscellaneous blog. Basically, anything on that blog will be matters that I do not intend to rehash here at Rerum Novarum. It is in the side margin now but for your convenience I link to it at this time. The first entry is my Profession of Faith; ergo the issue of my fidelity to the Church if ever it was held suspect may be laid to rest. So let it be written...so let it be done...

"They're Coming To Take Me Away (Ha Ha)" Dept.

Lest anyone email me about it, I note here for the record that I know the archives are not posting at the moment. I am not sure why but my best technicians are at work trying to fix the problem. (Actually my only technician is moi and my status as an HTML expert is ... well ... not there.) Nevertheless, "Dr. Blog" will see what he can do lest conspiracy theorists think that either Blogger is trying to shut me up or that I am "destroying evidences" by deleting the archives stuff that I have reason to "hide" if you will...

My friend Mark Shea has dealt masterfully with Cardinal Keeler at his blog - summing up my views and saving my Irish temper a need to assert itself publicly. Before I get to those comments, I want to remind you all about a curse you could very well call down from heaven upon yourselves if you react to what Mark talks about at those links. (With regards to a friend of his and mine who has been accused of improper conduct.) To quote the Lord Himself on the matter:

Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day, our daily bread And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation But deliver us from evil. For if you forgive men their offenses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you your offenses. But if you do not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offenses (Matt. vi,9-14).

Bearing in mind that you have just called down upon yourself either a blessing or a curse depending upon your willingness to forgive, you can read these statements from Mark about the absolutely disgraceful actions by Cardinal Keeler:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

And though I do not believe in kicking someone when they are down, Cardinal Keeler's stock is lowballing Enron right now in my book. And in light of his recent actions to try to save face, I will make an exception to my usual approach and give him a swift kick in the teeth by pointing you all to what my very good friend Pete Vere noted about what the *real* title that the recent so-called "Charter for Protection of Children and Young People" document should be.

As for my stand on Gerard Serafin, I clearly and unambiguously stand with him. His links remain at this blog and if he wants to email me to talk I will keep anything he says in the strictest of confidence. Whatever wrongs were committed, God has forgiven him. Those who would not remember the self-maladictory oath you called down upon yourself above. And if that does not do it then I appeal to your own sins and failings. Ask yourself if you would want accusations made against you to be brought public to the detriment of your reputation. But then I suppose if you make a mockery of Our Lord's counsel above I cannot expect you to recognize the notion of being presumed innocent until *proven* guilty now can I???

In closing I note only to the Cardinal the following: respect for your office is all you have with many of us now Eminence ...

"Come All Without, Come All Within...You'll Not See A Blog Like Mi-ghty Bar-ris-ter" Dept.

Eric finally got the archives fixed on his blog. He has some good stuff on there including this entry on the problems of the Boston Archdioceses. Now some may make the argument that covering the Boston archdioceses problems at this point can be considered a "slam dunk". I agree but with one small caveat: Eric does more than "slam dunk the ball" he "hangs on the rim" if you will and puts "extra effect" with well placed references to William F. Buckley, Kenneth Woodward, Boston College, and of course E. Michael Jones' Culture Wars magazine. Despite that I have one minor quibble with the piece if you will.

In the quote of Woodward Eric noted that among Woodward's "I *personally* abhor abortion but would not impose my morality onto others" approach to Church doctrinal and pastoral issues, one of the points raised was laity having a say in the election of bishops. Eric appears to see this as untraditional and indeed a lot of Catholics do, but in Woodward's defense, lay people used to have a say in the election of their bishops.

Some of the greatest saints such as St. Ambrose were made bishop of their sees by massive popular acclaim. In Ambrose's case he went through the stages of enrollment in the diaconite, ordination to the priesthood, and consecration to bishop/investiture in the Milan See all in a seventy-two hour period: possibly record time. And secular authorities used to be able to select their own bishops with the Apostolic see having final say. This only ceased in the nineteenth century. Not to mention kings and emperors having a "veto" power over conclave papal selections: a practice that only ceased after the election of Cardinal Guiseppe Sarto (Pius X) to the See of Peter who put an end to such things.

So Woodward's comments about "the church to consult with laypeople in the selection of bishops" (according to Boston College) is hardly something to look upon with alarm. I for one would love to see such a system set up for us to do the same thing in America - we could have a kind of "checklist" of reasons for certain candidates. (Or Rome could narrow selection down to say three options and give the people of the archdioceses the right to vote.) In this scenario there would be some lay involvement but it would still have a check from higher authority.

I am sure I could find more minor stuff to quibble about but I have liked what I have read thus far Eric. Keep up the good work :)

James Kabala apparently wants to know why the counter at his blog is not working. Here is my guess.

My good friend Pete Vere blogged a letter from the new Archbishop of Milwaukee on the pedophilia priest situation which is worth a read.

"You Wan-na Talk of Ev-olu-tiooon (Wellll You Knooow)" Dept.

The following are some comments from a discussion list. After pointing out the difference between development of doctrine and evolution of doctrine the following assertions (in italics) were made. I will respond to them in order.

But, let us not quibble here. We both agree that what Cardinal Newman described in his work is mere development, which Pope Pius XII also touched upon. The evolution of dogma is a fantasy of the Modernists, as Pope Saint Pius X clearly said, and "the sythesis of all heresies" depends upon it.

Correct. But it is important to point out that all heresies have their grains of truth in them. With Modernism it was the notion that practices of the Church could be modified according to the circumstances according to the judgment of the Church. (A point I might add that Trent noted in Session XXI when discussing the norms of sacramental administration.)

You know as well as I do that Cardinal Newman's treatise was perfectly in line with what was stated by both Saint Vincent of Lerins and by Pope Pius XII...The expression of a dogma may change, but its meaning can never change.

Correct.

At the same time, having talked to you for a few years now, I also understand that you hold to the theories put forward by the evolutionary scientists.

I accept certain models of evolution as viable theses. I have not made an assertion at any time which position I actually "hold" and do not intend to. It is an irrelevant and divisive subject to discuss when one dogmatizes theological opinions and goes beyond what the Church specifies are the boundaries of safe speculation.

Thus for this reason and because this does not fall within the areas where my knowledge is either substantial or extensive, I wisely observe reverent silence as a theologian is supposed to do in these circumstances. I touch on this at this blog entry though in brief. I do not intend to take it beyond that point.

Also, that you have constantly refused to seriously study the theories and discoveries of other scientists in the world --all of them with equal credentials to the evolutionists; that is, PhD's and tenures at Universities-- who uphold the literal meaning of the Holy Scriptures in Genesis.

I have reiterated many times that the literal meaning of any text is not necessarily the same one that a person reading the text imposes upon it. This is why "syllabus style" statements can be dangerous when they fall into the wrong hands. See the following blog entry for part of one of our emails that I blogged on that very subject:

The Benefits and Dangers of 'Syllabus' Style Statements

Are you, then, implying that the consensus of the Fathers on the six literal 24 hour days of creation, as well as the statement by Pope Leo XIII upholding this same belief, can be "developed" into millions and billions of years? To say as much is to merely substitute the word "developed" for "utterly repudiated". Not only that, but even though the PBC allowed one to dispense with the word "day" as a literal "day", they did not specify in exactly which verses one could do that.

Au contrare!!! The PBC in a June 30, 1909 decree stated the following (all emphasis is mine):

The first three chapters of Genesis contain narratives of real events, no myths, no mere allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends.

In regard to those facts, which touch the foundations of the Christian religion, the literal historical sense is to be adhered to. Such facts are, inter alia, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time, and the special creation of humanity.

It is not necessary to understand all words and sentences in the literal sense. Passages which are variously interpreted by the Fathers and theologians, may be interpreted according to one's own judgment, with the reservation, however, that one submits one's own judgment to the decision of the Church, and to the dictates of the Faith.

As the Sacred Writer had not the intention of representing with scientific accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of the works of creation but of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom and to the pre-scientific development of his time, the account is not to be regarded or measured as if it was couched in language which is strictly scientific.

The word "day" need not be taken in the literal sense of a natural day of 24 hours, but can be understood in the improper sense of a longer space of time.

That is 99% of the decree right there. (I left off the Denzinger numbers because I tire of the way Denzinger is treated akin to how the Prot treats the Bible in "tradland".)

So that the term "improper sense" is not misunderstood, it is a reference to metaphor. See this link where the traditional 4 senses theology is discussed.

Therefore, to be prudent, one should rely on the Text to determine where this allowable. Leaving aside all of your evolutionary bias, can you make the case, using only the Text of Genesis 1 itself, as well as any documents of the Church dealing specifically with this Text, that the word "yom", day, should not be taken as a literal day?

I refer you to what I have already said. I have made no stated position on this subject and all I will say on it publicly is that my position is full conformity with the binding decree from the 1909 PBC commission - which I might add was an arm of the magisterium at the time.

Again, are you, by your continued defense of evolutionism, implying that the dogma of an actual Adam, formed from the slime of the earth on this sixth literal day, can now be "developed" into a theology that sees Adam as a brute caveman, or as a metaphor for many such brutes, one and all subject to death and disease whether they sinned or not? To say as much is to not only go against an express teaching of the Church, but to bring down the penalty of anathema upon yourself!

I have told you time and time and TIME again that I endorse monogenism. I really wish you would quit inferring that I do not. How many times do I have to repeat myself before you GET it??? (This is about the twentieth time in three years I have told you this. My fuse with you on this subject is used up now so stop it please.)

And why is it that whenever there is a conflict between this so-called "science" of evolutionism and divine Revelation, the Holy Scriptures are always offered upon the altar of sacrifice, while the foundationless philosophies which drive these neo-pagan theologies are left sacrosanct?

There can be no conflict between faith and reason. And if reason presents to us a situation where the faith has been silent, then there is nothing wrong with adjusting the glasses through which we presuppose that we understand the Faith in the areas where dogma and doctrine are not settled.

We are not fideists and fideism was condemned by Vatican I. Because of this, I really wish you would not advance notions which are akin to fideism.

It is high time you and the Mark Shea's and the SAM's and the Bill Bannon's of the world took stock of this situation.

We already do.

The Church stands or falls on the Second Adam.

Correct.

Make the First Adam a myth, and the Second Adam becomes a myth as well.

No one has made the First Adam a myth.

Jesus said: "I have come to restore all things." A worthless statement if all Adam fell from was the trees!

Adam's soul was specially created by God. The Church has left the issue of creation of the body open as do I and all faithful Catholics. Please do not go beyond the boundaries set by Holy Mother Church.

The evolutionists understand this principle well, and have said so on numerous occasions.

I do not care what these "evolutionists" you refer to say. Because (a) not all pagan knowledge is false or without worth as Church history shows us (b) there is more than one theory of evolution so your constant references to a monolithic entity is really quite facile and (c) you should not be so quick to presume that anyone or everyone that stays within the boundries of Church-transcribed theological speculation who does not agree with you is either wrong or not entitled to their opinions.

I am saddened that men of such intellect as yourselves cannot see all the damage these philosophies of naturalism and uniformitarianism are doing to the Christian philosophy.

I reiterate: you have used up my last bit of fuse on the issue of polygenism. Neither, Mark, nor SAM, nor myself profess a belief in polygenism. Nor does Bill actually do this if I am not mistaken. (He simply points to Grisez' position on the subject. I have told Bill that Grisez - as good of a theologian as he is - is in error on this point.) To my knowledge Bill has not actually embraced this notion.

Please stop erecting straw man viz my position on this issue. Your constancy in doing this would wear on the best of saints and I am not of that calibre. (Yet, God-willing in time I and all on this list will be.) I do not like having to chastise good friends on these matters but when my position is egregiosly misrepresented in public, they must be rebuked in public. And I serve notice to you now that on this one issue I will not rebuke you politely in the future if it is raised again either explicitly or by implication. Consider this note to be a monitum on that score.

"If Not For the Courage of Lou's Fearless Crew, the Mariners... Would Be Lost" Dept.

Well, actually they *are* lost. In light of their inevitable failure to make the playoffs (basically one more loss and they are toast) a song comes to mind which I will modify a bit to fit the circumstances:

Its quite a story of the Mar-in-ers fate,
the team the sports shows would cas-tig-ate,
for trades that would never come,
into the offseason they go ... oh
they could-a been the champions of the world.

There is always next year guys cause this year it will not happen. PERIOD. See my Recipe for a Successful 2003 for more information.

I am wondering what Gerard Serafin did to his blog as of late. I cannot access it for some reason and the past few days all attempts to go there have been thwarted...could it beee.......SATAN!!! Inquiring minds want to know...

"As the Yearrrrrs ... Go Passinnnng Byyyyy" Dept.
(aka "A Trip Down Nostalgia Lane")

My sister and I were talking the other day about a teacher we had in grade school who did not stick out as much at the time as he did later. (Kids who have to sort type at recess for fighting do *not* remember the teacher in a good light at the time generally. But I digress.)

Anyway, we were talking about how good a teacher he really was with the 20-20 vision of hindsight we now have looking back into the distant past at the situation. For Mr. Mangels was a Rennaissance man of sorts. In his class we learned how to operate a printing press (and we printed our own stationary, etc), we learned how to weave with one of those spindels with wool on it, and as a class we were taught how to use surveying equipment and we surveyed the entire upper and lower fields of our elementary school. Those are just a few of the many things we did in the 6th grade. But perhaps most fondly was our exposure to classic literature and poetry.

Mr. Mangels did not take the attitude that since we were in grade school that somehow we could not understand the significance of literature. This was a problem with some teachers who thought a first grader should not know how to read; that a second grader should not be reading Readers Digest's "The World's Lost Civilizations"; that a third grader Huckleberry Finn; that a fourth grader Greek Mythology: all of which I heard from teachers at the time.

Unlike other teachers, Mr. Mangels never talked down to his students - either deliberately or by implication. Instead he would bring us up to his level if you will, as close as we could get to it anyway; he did this in many different ways. One of the ways was that he would read a story or poem to us twice - the first time pausing at various points and asking if we knew what certain parts meant and if we did not (which was often) he would explain them to us until we understood the meaning of the words or the symbolism involved. After going through the story in this fashion he would read it again without comments and we would see it clearly if you will.

To this day my sister and I can rattle off whole stanzas of "the Battle of East and West", "the Cremation of Sam McGee", and other such classics. (And several short form movies like "An Occurrance at Owl Creek Bridge" which looking back was very deep subject matter - especially for grade school kids.) I think this is the reason why in large part Mr. Mangels was among the few teachers that stick out in our minds was that he would teach in ways unlike how other teachers usually did. And no doubt understanding the words of the poems and short stories makes them stick that much more firmly in the mind.

Just last week we were discussing Kipling and some of the other poems that Mr. Mangels read to us when I started quoting Danny Deever to my sister. She did not remember this one at first until I started explaining the concept and then you could see the penny drop if you will. Anyway, since I am in "nostalgia mode" right now, I thought posting Danny Deever to the blog would be in order. Here is the text of that poem - remember this was read and explained to sixth graders:

Danny Deever

"What are the bugles blowin' for?" said Files-on-Parade.
"To turn you out, to turn you out", the Colour-Sergeant said.
"What makes you look so white, so white?" said Files-on-Parade.
"I'm dreadin' what I've got to watch", the Colour-Sergeant said.
For they're hangin' Danny Deever, you can hear the Dead March play,
The regiment's in 'ollow square -- they're hangin' him to-day;
They've taken of his buttons off an' cut his stripes away,
An' they're hangin' Danny Deever in the mornin'.

"What makes the rear-rank breathe so 'ard?" said Files-on-Parade.
"It's bitter cold, it's bitter cold", the Colour-Sergeant said.
"What makes that front-rank man fall down?" said Files-on-Parade.
"A touch o' sun, a touch o' sun", the Colour-Sergeant said.
They are hangin' Danny Deever, they are marchin' of 'im round,
They 'ave 'alted Danny Deever by 'is coffin on the ground;
An' 'e'll swing in 'arf a minute for a sneakin' shootin' hound --
O they're hangin' Danny Deever in the mornin'!

"'Is cot was right-'and cot to mine", said Files-on-Parade.
"'E's sleepin' out an' far to-night", the Colour-Sergeant said.
"I've drunk 'is beer a score o' times", said Files-on-Parade.
"'E's drinkin' bitter beer alone", the Colour-Sergeant said.
They are hangin' Danny Deever, you must mark 'im to 'is place,
For 'e shot a comrade sleepin' -- you must look 'im in the face;
Nine 'undred of 'is county an' the regiment's disgrace,
While they're hangin' Danny Deever in the mornin'.

"What's that so black agin' the sun?" said Files-on-Parade.
"It's Danny fightin' 'ard for life", the Colour-Sergeant said.
"What's that that whimpers over'ead?" said Files-on-Parade.
"It's Danny's soul that's passin' now", the Colour-Sergeant said.
For they're done with Danny Deever, you can 'ear the quickstep play,
The regiment's in column, an' they're marchin' us away;
Ho! the young recruits are shakin', an' they'll want their beer to-day,
After hangin' Danny Deever in the mornin'.

"Mayday...Mayday...the SS Mariner is Sinking" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I almost forgot to mention that the Seattle Mariners' "tragic number" is now down to one. If they lose one more game, they are finished and will not make the offseason. (And they will too unfortunately.) But cheer up M's fans, 2003 will be a good year because management the past couple of years is *finally* willing to field a contender. And this team is about 2 offensive bats away from the World Series. Before being critical, let us look at the strengths we have to build upon.

Joel Piniero and Ryan Franklin have emerged as bonafide starting pitchers alongside ageless Jamie Moyer (gonna be 40 next year), Freddy Garcia the current future number one pitcher (will be 26 next year: and he is quite a "horse" if you will), Ismael Valdez (30 next year). Considering that Ryan and Joel are about 24 and 23 respectively (and that is *young* for a major league pitcher to display such good stuff consistently) the pitching core is solid 1-5. (And that does not count 24 year old Gil Meche who will rejoin the team next year after he finishes rehab. I believe will be one of the all time greats in this game if he can stay healthy.)

Basically, since starting pitching, the bullpen, and defense will be solid next year, here is Dr. Shawn's Prescription for the problems:

1) Get a consistent left fielder who hits right handed and with power.

2) Move McLemore to the bench and sub him for the 4 infield positions and left and right field as needed to rest players. (Mac is too old to play center IMO.) He and Sierra should come off the bench as that was an area of weakness this year and their presence there as all around player and big bat off the bench respectively would be an asset.)

3) Whip Jeff Cirillo into shape. He had a bad year but these things happen. Talk at the sports stations is to get rid of him if possible but that is premature. We are talking about a guy who averaged .311 for the five years before we got him. (And only two of those years were with the Rockies so I will not buy the altitude excuse.) Despite struggling he had stellar defense and showed clutch abilities and that is important to have on a team.

4) Consider getting another center fielder who can hit with more consistency than Cameron. I cringed everytime I saw (or heard) him blow it in the clutch this year - and that was a lot.

The number of times he struck out with men in scoring position in a tight game was abominable. I know he is young but when there are men in scoring position you do not try to be Babe Ruth and hit the homer. Instead you try to be Lou Gerig and drive them in with base hits. (Yes I know Ruth did this too - I am using an analogy to make a point since Ruth was known more for the HR than the RBI though he had a lot of both.) The important statistics in baseball are not batting average and home runs. They are instead on base percentage and runs batted in. Give me a guy who goes 0-3 with a walk and 1-2 RBI's over a guy that goes 4-4 with no walks and no RBI's any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

5) Ben Davis needs more time as catcher. He and Dan should at least 50-50 it instead of 70-30 with Dan getting the edge. (Ben has power and Dan does not and this team needs power on offense.)

6) Guillen needs to go. His RBI totals were anemic and there are other shortstops who hit for more power whose defense is comperable to his. (See if we can con the A's out of Miguel Tejada somehow. They will have problems signing him after next year and may want to trade him to avoid getting nothing in return should he leave via free agency,)

7) Mariner management. Please do not let the window of opportunity close for getting a ring.

Do those things and we will make the World Series and probably win it. I cannot see any team with the pitching depth 1-5 as we will have next year or the bullpen. This team is two pieces away and they are both on offense.

Let Gillick get what is needed as he is the best architect of a team there is. Translation: open the wallets a bit more please and do what is needed to put this team over the top. Trust me, you will make it all back and then some with a deep run into the playoffs and (God-willing) a World Series.

So let it be written.......so let it be done!!!

A Point to Ponder from Newman Dept.

"If we would not be beguiled by dreams, if we would ascertain facts as they are, then granting Theology is a real science, we cannot exclude it, and still call ourselves philosophers” (Idea of a University, Dis. iii., sec. 4).

For the benefit of those in Palm Beach County, FL, Thurston County, WA, or Rio Linda, CA this is *not* Paul Newman, Randy Newman, or Newman from Seinfeld.

Okay it is spiritual meditation time. If you have not read the first part go HERE and do that first and read this section tomorrow.

That is right, if you read the other one first, please do not read this one until tomorrow. This is not a marathon after all and being a day behind on reflections is not a bad thing. It is in fact, a good thing if it means you are not rushing into things hastily. (Again I reiterate, skip over this post and read it tomorrow of you have not read yesterday's reflection which was originally put up last week.) I will then take a day off so "catching up" can occur.

Now without further ado, here is tonights reflection sans the numbers on the paragraphs. The topic: Interior Peace. (In light of some recent turmoils this is a most apropo subject to cover methinks.)

Martha, Martha, thou art careful, and art troubled by many things. (St. Luke, c. x, v. 41.)

Always active, always at rest. (St. Augustine.)

Be on your guard lest your zeal degenerate into anxiety and eagerness. St. Francis de Sales was a most pronounced enemy of these two defects. They cause us to lose sight of God in our actions and make us very prone to impatience if the slightest obstacle should interfere with our designs. It is only by acting peacefully that we can serve the God of peace in an acceptable manner.

"Do not suffer our peace to be disturbed by precipitation in our exterior actions. When our bodies or our minds are engaged in any work, we should perform it peacefully and with composure, not prescribing for ourselves a definite time to finish it, nor being too anxious to see it completed." - Scrupoli

Martha was engaged in a good work when she prepared a respite for our divine Lord, nevertheless He reproved her because she performed it with anxiety and agitation. This goes to show, says St. Francis de Sales, that it is not enough to do good, the good must moreover be done well, that is to say, with love and tranquility. If one turns the spinning-wheel too rapidly it falls and the thread breaks.

Whenever we are doing well we are always doing enough and doing it sufficiently fast. Those persons who are restless and impetuous do not accomplish any more and what they do is done badly.

St. Francis de Sales was never seen in a hurry no matter how varied or numerous might be the demands on his time. When on a certain occasion some surprise was expressed at this he said: "You ask me how it is that although others are agitated and flurried I am not likewise uneasy and in haste. What would you? I was not put in this world to cause fresh disturbance: is there not enough of it already without my adding to it by my exciteability?"

However, do not on the other hand succumb to sloth and indifference. All extremes are to be avoided. Cultivate a tranquil activity and an active tranquillity.

In order to acquire tranquillity in action it is necessary to consider carefully what we are able to accomplish and never to undertake more then that. It is self-love, ever more anxious to do much than is to do well, which urges us on to burden ourselves with great undertakings and to impose upon ourselves numerous obligations. It maintains and nourishes itself on this tension of mind, this restless anxiety which it takes for infallible signs of a superior capacity. Thus St. Francis de Sales was wont to say: "Our self-love is a great braggart, that wishes to undertake everything and accomplishes nothing".

"It appears to me that you are over eager and anxious in the pursuit of perfection...Now I tell you truthfully, as it is said in the Book of Kings [III Kings, C. XIX], that God is not in the great and strong wind, nor in the earthquake, nor in the fire, but in the gentle movement of an almost imperceptable breeze.....Anxiety and agitation contribute nothing towards success. The desire of success is good, but only if it be accompanied by solicitude. I expressly forbid you to give way to inquietude, for it is the mother of all imperfections.....Peace is necessary in all things and everywhere. If any trouble come to us, either of an interior or exterior nature, we should receive it peacefully: if joy be ours, it should be received peacefully: have we to flee from evil, we should do it peacefully, otherwise we may fall in our flight and thus give our enemy a chance to kill us. Is there a good work to be done? We must do it peacefully, or else we shall commit many faults by our hastiness: and even regards penance, - that too must be done peacefully: Behold, said the prophet, in peace is my bitterness most bitter. (Isaiah.) [Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears pgs. 112-115 (c. 1795)]

Okay, your humble servant after a nice lengthy phone conversation with his good friend Dr. Art Sippo is in a better mood than he was earlier this morning. So to "celebrate" that he will start that series of spiritual reflections anew tonight. The text is finished except for minor tweaking and it will be the last thing to go up at Rerum Novarum tonight. (I note that here in case I decide in the interim to add additional stuff.) Stay tuned for details...

You know, I was going to have some kahlua on ice before turning in but I think I am going to actually need more than just kahlua to calm down now. I just read that the bishop's conference is going to try to bury the plenary council proposal in a bunch of bureaucratic paperwork. According to Greg Popcak from the HMS blog (apparently *not* the place to go to before turning in for bed):

On Heart Mind and Strength Radio, Deal Hudson urged listeners to email, call, and write to Bishop Wilton Gregory in support of the Plenary Council. It has been tabled by the Bishop's conference. Instead of bringing it to a vote, they will simply debate the issue on the floor and attempt to bury it in committee.

We cannot let this happen. The plenary council has the force of law. Every bishop would be required to enact it's policies. In this way it is totally unlike the conference, which can only suggest policy that may or may be acted upon by individual dioceses. Likewise, the Plenary Council is specifically intended to address the underlying causes of the present crisis in the Church. Namely, homosexuality and dissent. The bishops don't want to touch these questions with a ten foot crozier. They won't unless we demand it.

Write Bishop Gregory today. [Note: here is the web url: http://www.diobelle.org/contact.html - ISM] Tell him that you support the plenary council. Tell him that you believe the future of the American Church and the credibility of the bishops depend on their positive action on the plenary council initiative.

Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory
Diocese of Belleville
222 South Third Street
Belleville, IL 62220
(618) 277-8181

I wonder sometimes if these bishops realize that their silly advisory conferences are so ridiculously incompetent that they make the UN look competent by comparison. (And that is saying a lot.) But I digress...

Before pouring some kahlua over rocks, I checked a few of my "semi-regular" blogs if you will to catch up on the reading. I also dabbled in the comments boxes at two of them and found two new bloggers. One of them I want to link to a commentary on (but cannot because there is something funky with their archives - I emailed them about it.) The other mentioned me on their blog with regards to a subject with the words "I am particularly interested in what I. Shawn McElhinney has to say". I will look over James Kabala's comments tomorrow if time affords. (Gotta put a link to your entries so they can be linked to individually James.) All I will say at the moment about the subject (that the decline in mass attendance over the past thirty years is because of the Pauline Missal) James is that it comes across to me as an egregiously fallacious argument of the post hoc ergo proper hoc variety.

I mentioned earlier that Bill Cork had a very good piece on his site. The points thread together well, the piece builds up to a very convincing position. However, I admit that I did not find the final part of it to be as good as the rest of the piece. It reads to me almost as overcompensation if you will in light of the case study he outlines in the rest of the piece. Here is the part I refer to:

And the solution?

There are several things that we need. We need to make sure that converts -- especially clergy -- really get exposed to the fullness of Catholic teaching, and that they have to reflect on all areas of their life and thought.

Agreed.

We need to thoroughly instruct people in the Catholic approach to Scripture.

Agreed again.

We must stop this business of putting clergy converts on the lecture circuit before the oil is dry.

A time of acclimation is certainly called for, I have no problem with that at all.

They need to learn philosophy and theology and live the hard knocks and sweet joys of every day Catholic life for a good many years.

I disagree with Bill here in general. Time is not the essence of the problem here. I have no problem with some converts after a brief time of acclimation becoming involved in evangelization. But with one caveat: that they think with the Church.

Now Bill outlines a case where this does not happen and I am not denying that there are people who jump into the pool too soon after eating in a manner of speaking. But a person with the right temperament is an asset to evangelization and should be encouraged in their endeavours. As long as they are:

a) A team player and

b) They work well with others and

c) They do not involve themselves too deeply in issues where they are not well informed and

d) They do not presume that even on issues where they are reasonably well informed that they are above further instruction and

e) They are open to fraternal correction by their peers and

f) They cultivate the spiritual side along with the theological side and

g) They are obedient to their ecclesiastical superiors - particularly the Holy Father and their diocesan bishop and (in this light) they make any criticisms carefully and with humility and

h) They do not present their opinions on theological positions - either explicitly or tacitly - as binding teaching and

i) They approach the sacred science with humility recognizing that it is far bigger than they are and

j) They are obedient to all teachings of the magisterium on matters pertaining to doctrine and discipline.

Those who can do these things should be involved in evangelization. Does this mean that I think they need to be done perfectly in order to evangelize??? No of course not but one should strive to follow them nonetheless as best as they can. In actuality there is a common thread running through all of them that - if tended to - will kinda set the person defacto in the proper frame of mind to evangelize in a manner that will bear good fruit. Those that can get to that core thread quickly can jump into the fray quicker, those who cannot should hold back. Anyway, that is MHO for what it is worth...

And if they do feel called to teach or preach, they shouldn't do it without approval.

Well, approval should not be shunned of course but if my guidelines are followed the worry about this issue is greatly reduced.

We need greater oversight of ministries that bear the name "Catholic." We need a system of certification of lay preachers--including the modern circuit riders. Even Martin Luther saw that "No one should preach or teach or administer the sacraments without a regular call."

I do not believe it has to be that elitist Bill. I agree with you that there are loose canons out there and people who cannot think with the Church are problematical. But there are a lot of people who *can* and they can learn as they go as many of us did. What is important is their manifested disposition.

The Church is speaking now about norms and procedures for "lay ecclesial ministry." Anyone who would preach or teach the Catholic faith as an apologist or public speaker must be held to those norms.

Frankly I would like to see the bigger issues dealt with first. The problem with making laws is that it is the last vestige for the unruly oftentimes. Spiritual instruction is more important than theological knowledge when you get down to brass tacks. The latter can be learned the way a toddler learns to walk or a child learns to ride a bike: there will be stumbling and falling until they get it right. By contrast you can have someone who is theologically rounded but has the wrong mentality. But this note has gone on long enough and I await Bill's comments in response if he is inclined to. I sympathize with his diagnosis but disagree in part to the proposed "remedy" if you will.

"Dogmatic Theology 5 cents, the Doctor is in" Dept.
(in honour of Charles M. Schulz R.I.P.)

you wrote, "No in order to accept the teaching you simply accept it. The Catholic faith is not something to be discovered by theological reasoning. Instead theological reasoning is used to explain what has been handed down to us. Theological reasoning is not infallible; therefore you cannot use it as the basis for accepting a definition without falling into the fallible rendering of infallible teaching infinite regress mode. This is why I have and always will emphasize that what is important is *authority* and not infallibility."

I say, actually, what I meant isn't that we accept it because of the theological reason. what I meant is that because a definition is made in connection with the theological reason, the theological reason is defined as well. here's the example:

Vatican I first states that both the OT and NT are true because it is inspired by the Holy Spirit, not simply because they contain truth, nor because human scholarship has brought them about. and then it defines that they are inerrant.

Correct.

is it safe to say that the definition implies that the OT and NT are inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Yes.

another example:

Trent declares anathema those who do not accept the sacredness and canonicity of the Books defined as the Canon. does "sacredness" imply inspiration by the Holy Spirit?

Yes. If I recall correctly Trent in Session IV actually mentioned the Holy Ghost dictating the Scriptures before the part you mention. So if I am correct here then norms of theological interpretation would involve reading the heretical censure against those denying the sacredness and canonicity of the books in the light of the Holy Ghost dictating the contents of said book.

finally, is it safe to say that "the OT and NT are inspired by the Holy Spirit" because it is mentioned, with the prefix, "we profess," more than once in ecumenical councils? what theological qualifications should we give the "we profess" statements?

At a minimum definitive assent based on faith in the Church to inerrantly teach on matters of faith and morals (fides ecclesiastica).

You are in the secondary area of truths there. It is de fide that the Church is infallible when pronouncing on matters which fall under the primary object of truth (basically the immediately revealed truths and facts from Divine Revelation). However, it was long held to be theologically certain that this power extends also to secondary truths which are either a consequence of the teachings of Divine Revelation or which are presupposed from it. Vatican II declared this sententia definitive tenenda (basically that it is a definitive teaching to be held) in a Dogmatic Constitution thus removing the issue definitively from any future debate (cf. LG §25). However, it was widely held to be true by logical inference prior to Vatican II.

Dr. Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (circa 1952) noted that amongst the areas which are proposed for belief in virtue of the infallibility of the Church in teaching matters of faith and morals (fides ecclesiastica) include:

Theological Conclusions...

By these are understood religious truths, which are derived from two premises, of which one is an immediately revealed truth and the other a truth of natural reason...

Dogmatic facts...

By these are understood historical facts, which are not revealed, but which are intrinsically connected with revealed truth, for example, the legality of a Pope or of a General Council, or the fact of the Roman episcopate of St. Peter. The fact that a defined text does or does not agree with the doctrine of the Catholic Faith is also, in a narrower sense, a "dogmatic fact". In deciding the meaning of the text the Church does not pronounce sentence on the subjective intention of the author but on the objective sense of the text...

Truths of reason, which have not been revealed but are intrinsically associated with revealed truth, e.g. those philosophic truths which are presuppositions of the acts of Faith (knowledge of the supersensual, possibility of proofs of God, the spirituality of the soul, the freedom of the will)...[L. Ott: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma pgs. 8-9 (c. 1952)]

Hopefully this is of some assistance in sorting out your inquiries.

Time to Broaden the Application of the Ecclesia Dei Indult:

Guest editorial written by my friend Stephen Hand.

I made only minor modifications to the text and will present it between two sets of ### strips. Stephen uses the word "traditionalist" differently in this editorial than your humble blog host does. He uses it more to represent those who have certain attachments to older forms of the Latin liturgical tradition regardless of allegiences to Rome. (By contrast your host uses Traditionalist for those few who truly merit the term and "traditionalist" with a small t for those who do not.) This distinction is noted here so that Stephen's editorial can be posted substantially as he wrote it and not appear to controvert the terminology used by your humble servant at Rerum Novarum. Anyway, without further ado, here is the editorial...

#######

TCRNews.com joins Pope John Paul II in affirming, per [the Apostolic letter] Ecclesia Dei issed motu proprio, that:

"...it is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety: of that blended "harmony" which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

With that end in view we are reminded of the Holy Father's admonition regarding the

"respect [which] must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See..."

Like many other Catholics, we found ourselves again disappointed last summer when negotiations between the Church and the Society of St. Pius X failed to secure a full reconciliation. In no way do we blame the Holy See, which acted in good faith and offered the SSPX much more than what was contained in the 1988 Protocol Agreement between the Church and Archbishop Lefebvre. Nevertheless the SSPX chose to remain in schism rather than reconcile with Pope John Paul II and the Roman Catholic Church. That is tragic.

Yet we hope that this setback will not translate into a similar series of setbacks with other traditional organizations and priests operating outside of the Church, apart from Peter, the principle of Catholic unity, but who may wish in their hearts to reconcile in the near future, knowing that:

"especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishops of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ Himself entrusted the ministry of unity in His Church". [JPII: Ecclesia Dei (c.1988)]

Inspired by Rome's spirit of generosity towards traditionalists, we hope more of our separated traditionalist brethren who follow the pre-conciliar liturgy will consider coming home to Holy Mother Church to assist in the battle against unbelief, against dissent, whether from the theological left or the right, and against other forms of rebellion which have so ravaged the Church in our time and to join in the Church's joyous proclamation of the Gospel of salvation toward all.

In short, we feel the time has come and is indeed propitious for the Holy See to broaden the Ecclesia Dei indult so that any Catholic priest who wishes may, without fear of penalties at the local level, and as an expression of the Church's legitimate liturgical pluralism, celebrate Mass according to the Roman Missal typical edition of 1962, (whether in Latin, the vernacular, or, better, parts of each) in any local church for "all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition". In this way would be fulfilled that "wide and generous application" of the Indult the Holy Father has already urged but which has not been evenly accepted by all bishops.

This action, of course, would be utterly without prejudice to the normative 1970 Roman Missal of Paul VI which, when performed according to norms of that missal, has been tranquilly accepted by most of the People of God, and which also expresses that liturgical "richness...which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety..." which is so compelling.

This generous action would facilitate the potential reconciliation of traditional-minded Catholics as is the Holy Father's wish as expressed in the following passage from [the Apostolic letter] Ecclesia Dei:

"To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations."

In turn, traditional-minded Catholics would more easily abide by the teachings of the living magisterium of the Church as expressed so well in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and separate from those irresponsible leaders who have strayed from this magisterium and who used the Tridentine Mass as a banner for all manner of wrong doctrine.

In short, the Ecclesia Dei indult must be applied according to the mind of Pope John Paul II, and the Holy Father desires the reconciliation of traditionalists who have broken communion with the Church. We believe this is the proptitious moment, the Catholic moment, for full and complete reconciliation and that this may be accomplished by showing even more dramatically our desire as the People of God to facilitate that reunion which, we believe, can happen all over the world.

Integrism---that form of error, and sometimes outright rebellion, which confuses the accidents and the substance of the Faith and judges them both to be "integral" to that Faith--- which exists in doctrinal opposition to the living magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, has, alas, derailed the Latin Mass movement which must once again find its place in the Church. As the Council of Trent said:

"The Holy Council declares moreover: The Church has always had, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being saved, the power to decide or to modify what she judges better to suit the spiritual utility of those who receive them or with respect to the sacraments themselves, according to the variety of circumstances, times and places. [The Council of Trent, Dz 1728; also Dz Herder ed, 1955, #931, p. 256]

It is time to return the Latin Mass movement to the tracks of doctrinal faithfulness in accordance with the aims of the Second Vatican Council which is a gift to our time. It will certainly take time, but the time to begin the process is, we think, now.

#######

I would be remiss if I did not before winding down Rerum Novarum for the night note here the labours of my friend John Betts who has been like a watchman sounding the alarm about the sword of semitic degradation coming on the land (cf. Ez. 33:1-20). I raise my glass of kahlua to you brother. Which reminds me...

In light of recent discussions I have had with some friends, I thought it would be prudent to rerun the instructional on spiritual direction before moving onto other subjects. Here is the link of that entry which ran a week ago: Spiritual Instruction

I will start another topic tomorrow at evensong or so if time affords it...

Responsum ad Catholicam Dubiosum Part III:

(aka. "More Furious Madness from the Massed Gadgets of Integrisme")

The last installment of this series can be found at the following link (which should be read before this installment):

Another Brick in the Responsum Catholicam Dubiosum (Part II)

I found the third part rather serendipitously in my notepad file. As it was finished last month (albeit I forgot about it) I thought since since the person I am addressing here has resumed challenges to lawful authority in correspondence that we could go for another refutation and thus "strike out the side". (As well as provide some definitions of terms that may be of general assistance anyway.) Here goes...

6) Any verbal denial of any divine and catholic dogma constitutes a verbal admission of being guilty of heresy.

Sure but there is one problem: WHO judges when there has been a denial of a divine and catholic dogma??? Barring the most explicit denunciations this is not an easy thing to judge nor should it be - precisely because this charge is so serious.

7) The pope has not verbally denied a single divine and catholic dogma.

The pope has denied no dogmas PERIOD, verbally or otherwise.

8) Ergo, we cannot judge the pope to be a heretic.

Wrong again (in charity I will recognize this as a "half truth"). Yes we cannot judge the pope to be a heretic but not because of a theological inquiry or any other presumption. Without the *magisterium* passing judgment, heresy cannot be legitimately asserted by anyone. PERIOD. Also, heresy involves not only denial of dogma but willful doubt of dogma. Doubts are not restricted to the verbal domain by any means. Nor are denials - though as I noted one should be *very* careful in this matter.

It is one thing to say that someone's position is proximate to heresy - such as someone who refuses to obey the pope in matters of discipline and government of the Church: this is a denial of dogma by example. ("We proclaim, we pronounce, we define that it is *absolutely necessary for salvation* for all creatures to be in submission to the Roman pontiff - Apostolic letter Unam sanctum.) But without the Church passing judgment on them, that is as close as one can get. And even THAT assertion should never be made hastily as to do so damages a person's good name and that is a gravely serious sin.

What the pope has dished up is plenty of symbolic, impious, and circumstantial evidence of his material heresies.

This appears to be an engaging in suspicion with regards to a grave matter without adequate foundation for doing so. In short, this assertion is an objectively mortal sin. To quote from the Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary pg 510 (c. 1931) "suspicion" is defined as follows - all emphasis is mine:

Suspicion - St. Thomas distinguishes three degrees of suspicion: when one begins to question anothers goodness on slight grounds, usually a venial fault; ###when one thinks on slight ground that another is certainly wicked, and this is a mortal sin in the case of grave matter; and when one condemns another outright merely on suspicion, and this is a sin against justice.### "If we cannot avoid suspicion, because we are men, we should at least avoid judgments, that is, definite and positive opinions" (St. Augustine).

Hand in hand with suspicion is the element of pride - another of which the self-styled "traditionalist" has in spades. From the same dictionary on page 422 I give you the definition of "pride":

Pride, a capital vice opposed to humility (q.v.) consisting in excessive love of one's own excellence, exhibited in three ways: ###(a) Contempt for lawful authority - a mortal sin;### (b)Contempt for equals or inferiors - mortal or venial according to the depth of contempt; (c) Desire to surpass one's equals - a venial sin. St. Thomas and many other spiritual writers put pride in a class by itself as the most deadly and devistating of all vices, which has its part in every sin, of whatever sort that is committed; for every sin is in its degree a contempt of God ###and often our superior### and our neighbour as well. Pride feeds and thrives itelf, continually stirring up the mind and will of man to rebellion against the moral law ###and against his lawful and qualified teachers,### whether religious or civil. Ambition, presumption, and vainglory (qqv) are among the most immediate handmaids of pride".

But there is still hope for this person for in the same email they note the following:

In contrast to the Protestant notion of merely a fiducial faith, a personal relationship with God as being all that is necessary for salvation (sola fides), Catholicism insists upon a confessional Faith (D 822, D819). That is, our Faith must be exteriorly and objectively expressed though word and deed.

Okay.

SYMMETRY
The standard for salvation ought to reflect the standard for damnation.

For those who are judged on the basis of proper adherence to the Law sure. But salvation is by grace alone. And grace covers over a lot of imperfections that the Law condemns.

Well then, if by faith alone we are saved, NOT! if we are only saved by the actualization of that Faith in deed and in word, it would seem that symmetry would demand the converse for damnation.

Interesting...

That is, merely harboring a material heresy (sort of like having a “personal relationship” with the devil!) ought to be insufficient for damnation. Rather, the damnable offense of formal heresy must needs be actualized not just in deed but in word as well.

As an *excommunicable offense* this is true but there are a lot of heretics that have not been excommunicated who hide well their inner state from others through the clever use of words. This analogy presumes that liars would be honest and forthright about their outlooks. In a Disney movie perhaps but in reality that is not always the case. Hence Our Lord issued to us a warning about how to detect agents of evil:

"Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit and every bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits shall you know them" (Matt. vii,15-20).

Hence when a movement breeds schism, lying, slander, suspicion, its agents puffing themselves up as judges of other people up to and including lawful authority - whom they selectively choose when to be obedient in areas where submission is *required* de fide, and other maladies, what are we dealing with my readers??? We are dealing with an intrinsically bad tree. Such a tree is Protestantism. And likewise such a tree is "traditionalism" falsely so-called.

Caveat Emptor!!!

Credit goes to Bill Cork who successfully tied together in logical sequence several separate thoughts I have had privately about Bob Sungenis' situation. (Lest it appear that I am stealing Bill's thunder here, we had never "met" in the email sense at the time I read his piece.) Here is the link to it as it is a very good systematic explanation of the manifold elements in this current equation: Bob'n Cork

More interesting tidbits courtesy of the JunkYard Blog:

Link #1
Link #2
Link #3
Link #4

To respond in brief to an email I received this morning:

would the doctrine of the Divine inspiration of Scriptures be a part of ordinary Magisterium, if more than one ecumenical councils employ words like, we, the holy synod, profess that Scriptures is inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Yes

since Vatican I defined with a decree that Scriptures is infallible, and previously stated that Scriptures is inspired by God, would it be safe to say that the Church defines that Scriptures is infallible BECAUSE it is inspired by God,

The word infallible would need to be quantified. There is material infallibility and formal infallibility. Material infallibility would be any utterance of a statement already handed on as definitive. Thus if I tell you that the Holy Father has supreme authority not only in matters of faith and morals but also in the areas of Church discipline and government, I have made a materially infallible statement because the Church already defined it. Formal infallibility implies an active element in the here and now if you will.

It is better to refer to the Scriptures as inerrant than infallible. I for one think any usage of the word "infallible" should be tempered. The reason is the common fallacy that infallibility is the criterion for the truth or the irreformability of a teaching - and is thus the criterion for obedience. Such a position is poisonous and needs to be dispatched whenever it crops its head up because it is the death knell of the very notion of obedience to a superior of any kind. But to answer in brief, the Scriptures are inerrant because they are inspired of God (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17). So with a minor adjustment (replacing "infallible" with "inerrant") your statement works yes.

and hence "Scriptures is inspired by God" is included as part of the definition (or at least closely related to it, that in order to accept the definition, we must accept the theological reason for the definition?)

No in order to accept the teaching you simply accept it. The Catholic faith is not something to be discovered by theological reasoning. Instead theological reasoning is used to explain what has been handed down to us. Theological reasoning is not infallible; therefore you cannot use it as the basis for accepting a definition without falling into the fallible rendering of infallible teaching infinite regress mode. This is why I have and always will emphasize that what is important is *authority* and not infallibility.

The Church's infallibility stretches much further than most people presume it does. But different channels in which teaching is handed on have different circumstances whereby they can hand on a teaching in a definitive manner. This is why the root and matrix of the entire question must be focused on the authority of the Church to teach in Our Lord's name. Because infallible or not, magisterial teaching still requires at least a religious submission of mind and will. So what should be the question is not as much "is it infallible" as "is it magisterial". And if the latter answer is yes, then it is to be professed. Beyond that point one can seek a further assessment of precise theological qualification of a teaching but only when they are already professing the teaching. Otherwise they make an idol out of "infallibility" and their own private judgment of what is and is not infallible. And that is a malady that is not uncommon today unfortunately.

how do we know that something is a part of Tradition if the Church has not defined it?

This is I am afraid a very broad question and would need to be narrowed a bit. A lot of people think that something is part of Tradition simply because it is old or has been around for a while. These are facile criteria in and of themselves.

With regards to matters of faith and morals, if a principle pertaining to either of these spheres has been reiterated by the magisterium it is in many if not most cases definitive. If the teaching is handed on whereas the judgment itself presupposes certain elements that are not fixed variables then if the variables do change the teaching may have to be reasserted in a new medium where the alterations are taken into account. There is a complexity to these issues that can at times transcend the understanding of even the most learned of theologians. So bearing in mind that the Faith is not for the wise and prudent but for the little ones, the principle of religious submission of mind and will to all magisterial teachings pertaining to faith or morals is necessary. This keeps the true faithful from anxiety even in situations where they may not understand the rationale for a given teaching or pastoral directive. And it is a good damper against making an idol of one's own opinions.

In short, a lot of people put things in the Tradition that do not belong there. I cannot postulate on a blank slate so if you send me some examples I will work from them. Otherwise the statement is akin to the phrase "wherever you go, there you are" as I see it.

I planned on starting that meditation on zeal tonight but I seem to have misplaced the notes. So look for tomorrow evening to start the series. I never know when I want to do these things but if I start it it will run in sequence until done. The zeal one will be in two sections. Then in honour of the uberapologist we may touch on a few subjects he is woefully lacking in. But you will have to tune in for details... :)

In the meantime, I have Kitaro's song Silk Road playing from "Enchanted Evening" and a bottle of liquor and my shotglass nearby. As soon as I finish my bottle of water I will take them outside to the hammock with a double carona hecho a mano for some relaxation and reflection. See you all tomorrow or so...same Bat time...same Bat channel...

"He's Blinded To Real Science...[And He] Failed [In Cosmology]" Dept.
(with apologies to Thomas Dolby)

At my request my comrade SecretAgentMan has reposted a critique he did of a certain "challenge" posted by uberapologist Robert Sungenis. I think Bob took his cue from a certain amateur Reformed apologist - who is no svend of his - who put out a similarly bogus challenge back in 1999. At least the Reformed apologist had a $100,000 offer in his "challenge".

Something tells your humble blog host that the Flat Earth Society guy who has had a $5,000 challenge of his own for thirty odd years and has yet to pay up would pony the cash faster than the aforementioned uberapologist. For it appears that Bob fancies himself not only as a scientist but he is now apparently a Talmudic scholar too. (Did I also mention he was a canonist???) More could be said here but out of charity I will refrain.

Anyway here is SAM's commentary and some parting words from G K Chesterton about what your humble servant thinks is the problem with the uberapologist:

SAM vs. Sungenis

Nothing more strangely indicates an enormous and silent evil of modern society than the extraordinary use which is made nowadays of the word "orthodox." In former days the heretic was proud of not being a heretic. It was the kingdoms of the world and the police and the judges who were heretics. He was orthodox. He had no pride in having rebelled against them; they had rebelled against him. The armies with their cruel security, the kings with their cold faces, the decorous processes of State, the reasonable processes of law--all these like sheep had gone astray. The man was proud of being orthodox, was proud of being right. If he stood alone in a howling wilderness he was more than a man; he was a church. He was the centre of the universe; it was round him that the stars swung. All the tortures torn out of forgotten hells could not make him admit that he was heretical. [Heretics Ch. 1 (c. 1905)]

* * *

Mr. Sungenis is NOT a heretic. (Emphasized to avoid giving the wrong impression.) But the *mentality* outlined by Chesterton above certainly applies and has with increasing frequency in the past couple of years viz our uberapologist.

Reflections on Interfaith Outreach -Part II:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

The following is from a correspondence I had on the subject of interfaith and ecumenism. The reader is advised to read Part I of this series first before reading this entry. The first part explains theological ramifications while this one addresses the practical aspects if you will.

* * *

In trying to explain the dynamics of interfaith outreach - which differs from ecumenism in some respects - I am reminded of a MASH episode where Charles Winchester III debuted on the TV series (sometime in 1977 or so - six years into the run) and he made his first foray into the operating room. Unlike the surgeon he replaced, Charles was not barely competent. In fact, he was the only surgeon who was quite possibly a technically more proficient than the camps leading surgeons Hawkeye and Honeycut. But he was mortified by the damage done to the patients that came into the operating room - as he was used to sanitary operating conditions in Tokyo General.

You see, he was used to taking his time to get the operation done right and having all of his ducks in a row if you will. But there he was in 4077 operating on a patient barely able to believe what he was seeing and further still: he was told to "hurry it up we have more incoming wounded" as the sounds of choppers in the distance could be heard lightly echoing.

A near breakdown occurred by Charles when he heard the helicopters coming and he was nowhere near done working on the patient he was working on. You see, despite Charles' proficiency as a world-class surgeon, he had no experience in battlefield procedures - operating with substandard conditions, operating as quickly and efficiently as possible, trying to bandage up the wounded before more arrived. After his first day, he felt like an incompetent and Hawkeye told him straight up (I paraphrase) "it is not that I am necessarily a better surgeon Charles, I am simply used to the conditions. Over here we have meatball surgery unlike what you were accustomed to at Tokyo General and you have to learn shortcuts to keep up". In a nutshell that is interfaith outreach such as Assisi I and II: meatball surgery.

Most people who are critical of these kinds of meetings have never read the transcripts of the speeches. Yes interfaith is not "nice and neat" as it is when we deal with Christians. This is unfortunate and also discomforting to many people. But it is reality and reality is seldom nice, neat, and tidy. It was long overdue for the Church to come to this realization and address the matter appropriately. To those of us who see the *true* scandal of possibly millions of souls lost over the centuries because of bone headed legalist western attempts to (in essence) "speak Latin to those who speak Chinese and refusing to learn Chinese in order to speak to them", that my friend is the reality. This is not to denigrate our predecessors in the faith but to learn from their mistakes the way future generations hopefully will learn from ours.

It would be an even bigger scandal to continue the insanity of what did *not* work for hundreds of years when it did not work before - particularly since the Church has chosen to go another path in her evangelization. (And before you point to St. Francis Xavier, a lot of his actions fit nicely into the concept of modern interfaith outreach properly conducted. His successors attempts to carry on the legacy were squashed by Rome because there were too many "Cardinal Humbert's" involved if you will.)

Interfaith outreach is "meatball surgery" compared to the nice clean (by comparison) religious debates the west has conducted with the Orthodox and Protestants over the centuries. It is not "clean and neat", it is not in any sense "ideal". But it is necessary and long overdue because what is important is reaching souls with the saving power of Christ - even if implicit initially - and cultivating the religious impulse. This means reaching them in a manner that *they* can comprehend not simply what makes US feel "more comfortable" or "less scandalized".

* * *

More on this subject will be forthcoming when I have the mood to resume it again...

Okay so the day was a bit stressful today and I did another "test". To add to the results at this blog entry I give you which villain are you. Thankfully I fight for the side of good huh??? ;-)

So I said it might be weeks or months until I did another one. I changed my mind. And since it is my blog I can do that (insert evil maniacal laugh here)... :)

"When A Problem Comes Along ... You Must Whip It" Dept:

Though I have been saying much of what is in this article for years viz the real Reagan record, this can serve as a good example of why I am close to thinking that history revisionists deserve vicious caning and some time on a chain gang:
LINK

"War is Hell on the Homefront Too" Dept.

After talking in depth yesterday two days ago with my old neighbour (who was good friends with my father) I am more inclined than I was previously to thinking that we should not involve ourselves in Iraq without the backing of the United Nations. Not that I like the UN (I do not nor does my old neighbour) but we should not go in there with troops to enforce UN resolutions without UN backing. PERIOD.

My old neighbour is a former Korean war veteran with four purple hearts. He was left for dead three times including once where his tags were jammed up in his front teeth and the bodybag was on the verge of being zipped up. (If not for a tear trickling from the corner of one of his eyes being spotted the attendant would have zipped him up and he never would have survived.)

After Korea, he was asked to go to Vietnam in 1954-55 as an "official observer" and he told the government where they could stick it (to put it tersely). He is very passionate about the subject of war but will not discuss it unless it is brought up as I did yesterday two days ago with him. (When I asked for his take on the Iraq situation.) His view on matters military are ones I take very seriously because he has been to war and he has killed people in combat. And like my father before me I tend to place more trust in those with combat experience than those who do not viz how to conduct a war.

I can tell you in all honesty that - though they are not what they once were - at my size and strength and with my Irish temper, I do not fear many people but my old neighbour is one of the very few. And though he is now 71 years of age, he is still the toughest bird I have ever known. (Tougher even than my old man was.) His take on military matters is of greater credibility in my eyes than most of the clows in Bush's cabinet who have never been in combat - or even Bush who was in the National Guard during Vietnam. (That does not count.) And while Bush's overall ranking with me is around a B-, part of the reason it is that low is because of how I fear he is going to handle this military situation. But I do not want to get off track here with a vast post so I will try to focus the subject accordingly.

To sum up our conversation (almost all of which I concurred with btw as some of it was my observations that received his concurrence) would be as follows:

1) As Bush is the Commander in Chief, if he orders our troops there, regardless of personal opinions the troops must obey. [Note: So-called "dissenting Catholics" think THEY have it rough in doctrinal disputes... Hah!!! -ISM]

2) Bush would be a fool to order in ground troops considering that several people in his own cabinet have told him it is not advisable. (Including Colin Powell whom my neighbour considers credible because he served in combat.)

3) Bush wants to make an issue about this before the elections in classic diversionary tactics to influence the elections outcome. (Similar to how his father used the Gulf War to mask an oncoming recession at the time. With a recession in place now there is two reasons for Bush to want to be an ultra-hawk here.)

4) Tony Blair is as worthless as Bush (according to my neighbour) because he presupposes putting people's lives in danger in combat for political reasons. (See my comments from September 7th on "just war" theory in reality as opposed to the abstract.)

5) All means at our disposal other than going to war in an unofficial capacity by sending in troops should be employed first - most importantly getting the UN on board to order enforcement of their own resolutions. (As this would involve every member nation in the situation.)

6) If the UN does what is outlined in #5, then Bush can safely use troops.

7) If #6 is reached, we need to go in, beat the crap out of Hussein, crush his military, finish the job (this time), and get the hell out. In short, no repeat of Vietnam.

The above is basically an outline of my discussion with my neighbour from yesterday two days ago.

I talked about guys like my old neighbour and my father in one of my first entries to this blog. There is something very old world about them, very rugged and uncompromising; something that hints at "quality craftsmanship" if you will. It is the kind of qualities that make certain forms of Traditionalism so appealing to me - and which pops up at sundry times in unexpected ways. Difficult to describe it really. But it is always worth it to make a good effort to do so...

Some Thoughts on the Benefits and Dangers of Slogans and Syllabus Style Statements:

"Syllabus" style statements seek (by their very nature) to minimize or scale down wider concepts into more easily comprehendable tidbits. These are a double-edged sword if you will for while (a) those who think with the Church and have the proper dispositions they serve as an aid to learning, at the same time (b) those who do not think with the Church or who do not have the proper dispositions, there is nothing more capable of being misunderstood and thus dangerous and heresy/schism forming than such summation statements.

Dale Price basically summed up my view on the idiot Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger. Here is the link for more details: Dale's comments

As for the war subject, tune in for some commentary by your blog host later on. The time to comment on the proposed war with Iraq is soon-to-be at hand...

To go along with Amazon's recent posting of my review of bluesmaster Albert Collins' compilation "Collins Mix" (see September 3rd on this blog), my review of new age master Kitaro is finally up at Amazon. Here is the link to the latter - while I put Collins Mix into my stereo and get another bottle of water...

Review of Kitaro: An Enchanted Evening

My friend Rebecca is expecting a baby soon. Please pray for a safe delivery, a healthy baby, and an abundance of grace for her and her husband...

September 11, 2001: A New Yorker's Ruminations on the Event and its Aftermath
(aka "If I leave here tomorrow...would you still remember me" Dept.)

For those who read this morning and saw a guest editorial on the Indult by my friend Stephen Hand, and have checked back to see it missing, do not adjust your computers. It has been taken down and will be put up again this weekend (probably Sunday). The reason is that an earlier request to a friend of mine to do a guest editorial on September 11th came through this morning and I wanted to give it top priority.

Stephen's editorial is more long-range and can be put up later without any distraction from the subject it discusses. By contrast, an editorial on 9/11 seems better put up as close to the actual anniversary date as possible. So without further ado, here is the guest editorial from my good friend Bill Bannon. As all guest editorials have been (and will be) it is put between two ### strips to separate my commentary (if any is added) from the editorial itself.

Before I forget, I encourage all who are reading to click on Bill's link after finishing the editorial and give the strongest possible consideration to purchasing some of Bill's excellent art. (I have some of his sketches and they are amazingly detailed.) But first the editorial itself:

#######

Living in the suburbs of New York City made the attack on last 9/11 very real to me and I followed the event by voraciously learning about Islam and making others aware of those quotations both in the Koran and in the Hadiths that made such an event likely...given the existence of sinful males that occur in any religion.

But I want to forget that aspect here and dwell on the treasure that we New Yorkers and New Jerseyans have curiously been given through this great evil of evil men. We've been given a community feel;that sounds strange but not to anyone familiar with New York's seeming aggression and coldness. If that coldness was ever real, it has greatly diminished. I am thrilled each day in this area by the increase in politeness in traffic situations...in hellos from strangers in Liberty Park which looks out onto the void left by the buildings.

I am touched by Acme produce workers saying hello with smiles on their faces. Is it me or them? Were they always like this and I needed only to change by this event? Or am I correct, and we have all changed for the better in this area where murder has united us. And too, here we are very conscious of the 3000 children in our area who have lost one or both parents in this murder. I feel, as someone who lives in this area, that I will never again [feel the same] about any suffering. I had my parents til they were aged. I had them every Christmas. We even had a difficult family life. But we had each other if the chips were down. These children heroes around here have lost that and are like our angels and I feel proud to live near them as though someone lived near Mother Teresa.

And this feeling of living near heroes is even greater when I see the women from our area who gave birth to babies after their husbands had been killed in the murder. I drive the same highways as these women. I love that feeling. I'm allowed to be near them. Their faith in God is shown by their giving birth with no husband to help with the bottles, with no husband to help with the diapers...their sainthood has come to them in a murder. Through the tougher fights ahead, whenever they long for the help of their murdered husbands, my prayer is that God takes every ounce of their aloneness and unites it to the sufferings of Christ in the Mass throughout the world and uses it first for their sainthood and the sainthood of their children and the souls of their husbands. All I know is that I love living here now. It is friendlier and we are proud to drive and walk the same streets as these women and children...and as these men who are raising children alone because their wives were murdered in the towers.

How do I feel about the murderers themselves? I hope two things simultaneously and don't separate them a bit as you read them. I hope they made it to purgatory due to extenuating circumstances and I hope they don't come out of it til the last penny has been paid...till every loneliness they caused is satiated for. Oh...that's not the current mercy imaging. Thanks. I'll stick with Christ's actual words: Mt.5:26"...truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny."...and Luk 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily." What we must will is their salvation but that is not to say that that is in fact what happened.

"If the just man will scarcely be saved, where will the impious and the sinner appear." That passage does not augur well for the murderers but God alone knows the deepest recesses of their souls. We in the meantime must will their salvation but we need not will their immediate pardon...per Luke 18:7 and especially 8.

#######

Credit for the subtitle goes to Ronnie VanZant (1/15/48-10/20/77) R.I.P

For some reason I took a few of those "which _________ are you" quizzes over tea this morning. The results are interesting to say the least. (For those of you from either Thurston County, WA or Palm Beach County FL, clicking on each link will provide the answers to the questions below viz a viz your blog host.)

Which MASH character???
Which Muppet???
Which Beatles song are you???
What was your past life???
Which dead Russian composer???

They are posted here for whatever insight they may give into the psyche of your blog host. More "test results" will be forthcoming in the coming days, weeks, or months in accordance to my mood for taking such "tests". (Note: any emails from wannabe psychiatrists will be promptly put into my "Virtual Shredder" so kindly do not waste your time as it will be futile...)

With regards to September 11th, I doubt I could add much of anything substantial to the coverage of the situation than my good friends John Betts, Pete Vere, and Lane Core Jr. Here are some links to their blogs where they have poignant comments, historical quotes from our greatest president (Lane quotes Lincoln), the tracking down of friends and loved ones in the crash vicinity along with recollections of Pennsylvania (Vere), and pictures worth a million words (John's blog):

John Betts' Blog

Pete Vere's CLOG

Lane Core's Blog from the Core

About all I will say is that I received a call that morning about 8 am from my father's old friend and insurance salesman Ernie who asked "How are you doing on this awful morning"??? In asking what he was referring to he said "it is all over the television did you not hear???" Walking downstairs to the TV I turned it on and scrolled to a news channel to see the pictures of the planes slamming into the Towers. After watching the news for a bit I went over to the converts board to see if my friends in that area of the country were okay. If I am lucky I will persuade one of them to do a September 11th recollection piece as a guest editorial for my blog. Until then I leave you with the above links and of course ask you to pray for those who lost their lives on that day. Eternal rest grant unto their souls oh Lord and let perpetual light shine upon them...may they rest in peace...may their souls and all the souls of the faithful departed, though the Mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

[Prologue: Before reading this entry, I suggest reading this one which will explain in detail what I am doing. (And that way people do not waste time with emails that will go into my Virtual Shredder as per this issue.) ---ISM 9/12/02]

Spiritual Direction:

It is absolutely true in matters of conscience obedience to a spiritual director is obedience to God, for Christ has said to His ministers on earth: "He that heareth you, heareth me." (St. Luke, x, 16.)

A soul possessed of this spirit of obedience can not be lost: a soul devoid of this spirit can not be saved. (St. Philip Neri.)

Saint Bernard says there is no need for the devil to tempt those who ignore obedience and permit themselves to be guided by their own light and deterred by their fears, for they act the devil's part towards themselves.

Do not fear that your director may be mistaken in what he prescribes for your guidance, or that he does not fully understand the state of your conscience because you did not explain it clearly enough to him. Such doubts cause obedience to be eluded or postponed and thus frustrate the designs of God in placing you under the direction of a prudent guide. It was the priest's duty to have questioned you further had he not understood you, and that he did not is positive proof that he knew enough to enable him to pronounce a safe judgment. God has promised his special help to those that represent Him in the direction of souls. Is not this assurance enough to induce you to obey with promptness and simplicity as the Holy Scripture commands?

God does not show the state of our souls as clearly to us as He does to him who is to guide us in His place. You should be quite satisfied then, if your director tells you that the course you follow is the right one and that the mercy and grace of your Heavenly Father are guiding you in it. You should believe and obey him in this as in all else, for as St. John of the Cross tells us "it betrays pride and lack of faith not to put entire confidence in what our confessor says".

Spiritual obedience is most needful for a Christian. Ignore therefore, the groundless suspicion that you sin by obeying and walk confidentally in this path exempt from danger. "You sometimes fear", says St. Bonaventure, "that in obeying you act against the dictates of your conscience, whereas on the contrary far from incurring guilt you really increase your merit before God."

We should allow obedience to regulate not only our external actions, but likewise our mind and will. Hence do not be satisfied with performing the works it prescribes, but let your thoughts and desires also be moulded according to its direction. In fact, it is in the interior submission that the merit of spiritual obedience essentially consists.

Obedience should be simple and prompt, without reservation or disquietude. Simple because you ought not to argue about it, but decide by the one thought: I must obey; prompt for it is God whom you obey; without reservation, because obedience extends to everything that does not violate God's law; without disquietude, because in obeying God you cannot go astray: this thought should be sufficient to drive away all fear of doing or of having done wrong...

[I]t may be well to remind you that the director and the confessor have not necessarily to be the same priest. St. Francis de Sales was the spiritual director of many persons to whom he was not the ordinary confessor. "To a director", he says, "we should reveal our entire soul, whereas to a confessor we simply accuse ourselves of our sins in order to receive absolution for them." [Fr. R. P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Ally Their Fears (c.1795)]

The next few installments will be on temptations. In passing though, it is worth asking if the above at all resemble the kind of attitude taken by most self-styled "traditionalists" concerning the virtue of obedience. (Or is it in fact the very antithesis of the attitudes of most "traditionalists" falsely so-called). If it does not walk like a duck, does not quack like a duck, and does not look like a duck...need I say more???

In light of the recent Bob Sungenis flap, here is something I wrote in better days (or when I had a more positive outlook on the man than I have had since his latest piece on the 'reflections' document): Weighing in on the Sungenis Issue (circa May 2002)

Your humble servant has thought it good at this time to do a little series on spiritual instruction. Not being one who feels that this is an area that he has any particular expertise in, recourse will be had to parts of an eighteenth century instructional. To my knowledge it was last copyrighted twenty-two years ago so I have to be very judicious in what I use from it though in truth if what I use persuades the reader to go out and buy the manual for themselves, I will consider it a small victory since (I assure you) it would be some of the best money you ever spent. The theme for the first installment will be "spiritual direction". The five installments after that will be on "temptations". And other subjects will follow on a semi-regular basis. I will post the installments as the last post of the day on my blog when they are posted.