On the Death Penalty with Sam and Dave:
(Plus some musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This exchange started with this writer posting the following comments to SAM's weblog with regards to his comments on the death penalty and Justice Antonin Scalia:

Other than the usual oversimplifications on ex cathedra SAM, I concur with your assessment. As far as the application on the DP goes, it is true that we must look towards bloodless means whenever this suffices to achieve the end of the fifth commandment whic[h] -as Jeff noted and as I have noted on previous discussions is the preservation of life. The death penalty when properly utilized is a *means* towards this end. And if other means suffice to meet the same end, then the death penalty would not be appropriate to use.

The question though as I see it is what those limitations ought to be. See these threads for some examples I note which would seem to be congruent with the teaching of the Holy Father in Evangelium Vitae:

On the Death Penalty (Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge)

The Death Penalty Redux (Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge)

SAM noted in response to these comments the following:

"the usual oversimplifications on ex cathedra SAM, I concur . . ."

They're not oversimplifications, they're just not complete exposition of the nuances inherent in (tentatively, for a layman) locating ex cathedra statements. As I understand it, an ex cathedra principle need not be contained in a statement which explicitly qualifies as an ex cathedra pronouncement (i.e., repeated insistence on a thing by numerous pontificates' encyclicals, allocutions, Inquisition/Holy Office/CDF statements, etc.).

Anyhow, I'm never wrong.

HI DAVE!!!

Prior to SAM's comments, a certain "Dave" weighed in{1} noting the following:

Well, Jeff [Culbreath], my problem with SAM's treatment of Scalia's disagreement with part of EV, was that SAM considered this to be not simply dissenting, but at the same time schismatic and heretical. I considered his denunciations of Scalia as holding schismatic and heretical views, and his associating him so closely with the "Culture of Death", to be rhetorical overkill.

Is there no room in Catholic understandings of things for disagreement with an encyclical which is not automatically schismatic and heretical?

It seems to me that we'll be up to our eyeballs in schismatics/heretics if we take this view.

None of my protests should be taken to indicate agreement with Scalia's reading of EV or of his understanding of a properly functioning democracy.

Taking these in order of sequence, We at Rerum Novarum respond as follows. First to SAM, then to Dave.

They're not oversimplifications, they're just not complete exposition of the nuances inherent in (tentatively, for a layman) locating ex cathedra statements.

Ok.

As I understand it, an ex cathedra principle need not be contained in a statement which explicitly qualifies as an ex cathedra pronouncement (i.e., repeated insistence on a thing by numerous pontificates' encyclicals, allocutions, Inquisition/Holy Office/CDF statements, etc.).

Correct.

Anyhow, I'm never wrong.

When you are right you are seldom wrong SAM.

Well, Jeff [Culbreath], my problem with SAM's treatment of Scalia's disagreement with part of EV, was that SAM considered this to be not simply dissenting, but at the same time schismatic and heretical. I considered his denunciations of Scalia as holding schismatic and heretical views, and his associating him so closely with the "Culture of Death", to be rhetorical overkill.

Justice Scalia is no heretic. However, on the subject of the death penalty, he is expressing a schismatic mentality and quite clearly does not know his Catholic Tradition very well. Remember the teaching of Pope Benedict XV to the self-styled "integralist Catholics" of his time -forerunners of the so-called "traditionalist Catholics" of today:

[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 (c. 1914)]

In short, Justice Scalia's public display is outside the bounds of what is acceptable and he should confine his difficulties to private correspondence with others (such as Cardinal Dulles who could straighten him out) or simply keep his trap shut.

Is there no room in Catholic understandings of things for disagreement with an encyclical which is not automatically schismatic and heretical?

It seems to me that we'll be up to our eyeballs in schismatics/heretics if we take this view.

There is room for divergences of opinion on the manner whereby the teaching is applied. The principle of bloodless restitution being utilized whenever it can safely meet the end whereby the death penalty is a means of achieving remains intact. We must adhere to it with a religious submission of mind and will (at the very least in the external forum) or else we are being schismatic. However, we are well within our bounds to ask questions about the extent to which this can be achieved. And in doing the latter, there is no disobedience.

For how are we to determine if we can meet the end of the Commandment (preservation of life) viz. certain individuals if we do not inquire into the matter???

For example, if you have a serial murderer, is such an individual ever capable of being reformed??? Obviously not. Would the death penalty be necessary for such an individual in a society where there was a solid justice system and this man's likelihood of being released was non-existent??? The answer to that question is obviously "no."

But what of a society like America where we sentence kids with marijuana possession to longer sentences than murderers -the latter of whom have been known to be paroled??? Obviously that fact changes the equation significantly.

In such instances, recourse to the death penalty would be licit even according to the prescriptions of EV. See the links further up in this post which go over a few other examples -some of which may surprise you. They are in harmony with protecting and safeguarding life which is the purpose or "end" of the fifth commandment as JP II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Roman Catechism all teach.

None of my protests should be taken to indicate agreement with Scalia's reading of EV or of his understanding of a properly functioning democracy.

Understood.

I am still mystified at why SAM is the only conservative Catholic blogger I know to have gone after Scalia in this manner.

To briefly comment on this point, if you are using the term "conservative" in the manner whereby it is utilized today that this writer is no "conservative." See these links for details on this subject:

The Definition of a Conservative

Some Brief Comments on Ressourcement Methodology

Hopefully they will serve to clarify the stance of this writer on the proper understanding of terms such as "conservative", "conservatism", "traditionalist", "progressivist", and "ressourcement."

Why didn't Mr. McElhinney or Kevin Miller, or any other of the bloggers who disagreed with Scalia use these terms in their discussion of him?

Because Professor Miller and this writer are not attorneys perhaps??? ;-)

The only thing I can think of is that SAM tightly associates disagreement with papal teaching/dissent/schismatic views/and heretical views. I think there's a looser connection here.

Certainly there is a looser connection as you note. However, We at Rerum Novarum understand SAM's annoyance at the degree of disobedience that is passed off as acceptable today. It is particularly annoying when done by those who claim to be "traditionalists" and "more Catholic than thou."

That is not to say that it is less problematical when so-called "progressivists" who are "more Enlightened than thou" do it.{1} But when those who are aghast at such things as committed by the so-called "progressivists" turn right around and do the exact same thing themselves, well they are ripe for rebuking for their attempts to have it both ways.

With regards to the latter, Greg Mockeridge outlined well the distinctions that accompany this problem from Justice Scalia's perspective in this Rerum Novarum Guest Editorial.

As far as SAM goes, this writer concurs with the substance of what he has said. If he wants to use the "schismatic" expression, that is his judgment call to make. It is certainly not in light of Church teaching and the Great Tradition an erroneous application of the expression even if it is (perhaps) pastorally ill-advised.

There's a long tradition of conservative Catholics disagreeing, quite publically, with various points in various encyclicals.

Encyclicals are a mixed bag Dave. Not everything in them constitutes teaching, there are also directives of a juridical nature, historical statements which are not covered under the mantle of teaching, and also prudential opinions pertaining to the application of teachings which are just that: personal opinions which are not binding.{3} This is why the assertion that "[t]here's a long tradition of conservative Catholics disagreeing, quite publically, with various points in various encyclicals is not problematical. Most of the time the points taken issue with are not matters of binding teaching.

Most of them disagreed with teachings that weren't being taught infallibly.

This begs the question Dave. Most Catholics have no idea what is and is not "infallible." Most theologians do not even get this element right. But of course they do not have to except as speculative theological exercises. For obedience to a teaching is not contingent upon whether it is or is not "infallible" in the subjective opinion of the individual. Rather, obedience is contingent upon the manifested mind, will, and intention, of the ecclesiastical magisterium. Not realizing this is unfortunately a common mistake made by most people -even many who are of good will.

I'd not always agreed with their criticism, but I never thought that such criticism itself placed them in the schismatical or heretical camp.

It depends on the subject and how it is approached.

George Weigel's criticisms of some of JPII's social encyclicals comes to mind.

Very few people approach this area with the care that someone such as George Weigel generally does. It would be advisable to read if you have not the CDF's Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian. From what can be discerned, George Weigel virtually never runs afoul of that instruction. This present writer is continually vigilant about avoiding anything incongruent with that instruction in his own writings. (SAM for his part is cautious too.) However, Justice Scalia in his public ruminations on Evangelium Vitae clearly has not been of this same mould.

But now I get the impression that SAM and perhaps you, Shawn, take the view that any public criticism of any part of an encyclical's teaching (even the non-infallible parts) is incompatible with religious submission of mind. Is that your view?

Why are you so hung up on "infallible"/"non-infallible" Dave??? The idea that obedience to a teaching is contingent up on its preceived "infallibility" or its preceived lack thereof is a serious error. Having reiterated that point, it is time to close this post with an answer to your question.

We at Rerum Novarum do not take the view that any public criticism of any part of an encyclical or other magisterial document is incompatible with religious submission of mind and will.{4} However, there is adherence to the belief -borne out in experience- that most public criticism is incompatible because it originates not from the position of seeking to conform oneself to the teaching of the magisterium on difficult matters of conscience. Instead, it originates from the position of striving to find ways of conforming the magisterium's teaching to the individual's view.

Any criticism from the standpoint of the former is acceptable since it has the desire of obedience at its core. By contrast, criticisms from the standpoint of the latter are not acceptable since the desire is not obedience but instead refashioning the difficult teachings or directives to accommodate to the personal whims of the individual. One approach involves carrying a cross and the other involves finding ways to set that cross down -if it is even taken up at all.

In summary, not all disagreements in the public arena are of the same weight. Nor do all disagreements proceed from the same premises. The aforementioned Instruction outlines a lot of these principles in detail. If reading the entire text exceeds the time you have for such endeavours, then please in particular focus on sections 21-37.

Notes:

{1} Not Dave Armstrong.

{2} For to some extent it is expected from them as they are by nature it seems inclined towards striving to be "as gods" ala the temptation of the serpent in Genesis. (Not that humans in general are lacking in this orientation but the so-called "progressivists" tend to shed the usual moorings that keep faithful Catholics within the boundaries of orthodoxy.)

{3} To name a few examples of the various gradations of elements that go into the gumbo of an encyclical letter.

{4} As the trackrecord of this writer's weblogs -as well as the contents of his public essays either on the web or in print periodicals- bears witness to.

Apparently Rachelle Linner of Commonweal wrote a short article on St. Blog's titled ST. BLOG’S CHURCH: America’s most vibrant parish? It is certainly worth a read.

However, your humble servant would be remiss in not noting that Responsums to that article have already been penned by The Curt One, Gen X Revert, and Christopher Blosser of The Ratzinger Fanclub: three weblogs mentioned by name in the article.

Meditations on The Dark Night of the Soul:
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")

The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.

Before posting this section, I would like to extend apologies to those who are following this series who did not see Tuesday's installment run yesterday. It has been rather hectic and these sections take about ten to fifteen minutes or so to properly format, link, etc: a luxury I did not have yesterday. -ISM

CHAPTER III

Of some imperfections which some of these souls are apt to have, with respect to the second capital sin, which is avarice, in the spiritual sense.

MANY of these beginners have also at times great spiritual avarice. They will be found to be discontented with the spirituality which God gives them; and they are very disconsolate and querulous because they find not in spiritual things the consolation that they would desire. Many can never have enough of listening to counsels and learning spiritual precepts, and of possessing and reading many books which treat of this matter, and they spend their time on all these things rather than on works of mortification and the perfecting of the inward poverty of spirit which should be theirs.

Furthermore, they burden themselves with images and rosaries which are very curious; now they put down one, now take up another; now they change about, now change back again; now they want this kind of thing, now that, preferring one kind of cross to another, because it is more curious. And others you will see adorned with agnus deis[1] and relics and tokens,[2] like children with trinkets. Here I condemn the attachment of the heart, and the affection which they have for the nature, multitude and curiosity of these things, inasmuch as it is quite contrary to poverty of spirit which considers only the substance of devotion, makes use only of what suffices for that end and grows weary of this other kind of multiplicity and curiosity.

For true 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[3] 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.

[Pay careful attention to the next words as they highlight the folly of those who have too much of an attachment to exteriors in worship and devotion. -ISM]

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.

And thus with great generosity they give away all that they have, and delight to know that they have it not, for God's sake and for charity to their neighbour, no matter whether these be spiritual things or temporal. For, as I say, they set their eyes only upon the reality of interior perfection, which is to give pleasure to God and in naught to give pleasure to themselves.

But neither from these imperfections nor from those others can the soul be perfectly purified until God brings it into the passive purgation of that dark night whereof we shall speak presently. It befits the soul, however, to contrive to labour, in so far as it can, on its own account, to the end that it may purge and perfect itself, and thus may merit being taken by God into that Divine care wherein it becomes healed of all things that it was unable of itself to cure.

Because, however greatly the soul itself labours, it cannot actively purify itself so as to be in the least degree prepared for the Divine union of perfection of love, if God takes not its hand and purges it not in that dark fire, in the way and manner that we have to describe.

To be Continued...

Notes:

[1] The agnusdei was a wax medal with a representation of the lamb stamped upon it, often blessed by the Pope; at the time of the Saint such medals were greatly sought after, as we know from various references in St. Teresa's letters.

[2] The word n**mina, translated 'token,' and normally meaning list, or 'roll,' refers to a relic on which were written the names of saints. In modern Spanish it can denote a medal or amulet used superstitiously.

[3] No doubt a branch of palm, olive or rosemary, blessed in church on Palm Sunday, like the English palm crosses of to- day. 'Palm Sunday' is in Spanish Domingo de ramos: 'Branch Sunday.'

John F-word Kerry's Voting Record:

For those who are interested in the details, Kerry's position on many issues can be found HERE. I counted approximately 300 bullets in that site on Kerry's various positions. To outline how far removed Kerry is from the correct position on those issues would take more time than I presently have. Among the only real problems I could see with the scoring is that they do so on a caricature of what is "pro business" in some categories (and what is "tough on crime" in others).

For much as I reject caricaturing of "traditionalist" and "progressivist" into falsely dichotomist camps, I likewise reject the so-called conventional wisdom that to be pro-business is to necessitate being anti-environment. Indeed I am very pro-business but not at the expense of genuine ecosystem concerns.

Likewise, there is the problematical idea that one must support capital punishment to be tough on crime. This is another false dichotomy that is unfortunately common and the aforementioned site reflects it. But other than those areas, the site seems thus far to be quite accurate on the issues. And I may well finish what I started this morning{1} in noting where Kerry should stand on the issues noted versus where he actually does. (To the extent that we can pinpoint an actual position for someone who hops around hot-potato-like on every issue.) But of course that will require perhaps doing so over lunch or before bedtime as until then such an endeavour is not feasible to do.

Note:

{1} Thus far, Kerry is right on 12.5% of the points I have examined. There will be more on this later when the final tally is completed.

Points to Ponder:

To act kindly toward others is the mystical life. The true mystic is not caught up in asceticism. Being generous, patient and compassionate to all despite interruptions in one’s life requires heroic holiness. Penance and mortification are measures to check human nature that has been irreparably damaged. Only constant vigilance can contain the ever-present weakness of the flesh, which has its own laws and tendencies. One attempts to receive charity through penance and never to attempt to gain something through one’s effort. Charity is not only a gift but God’s greatest gift that is bestowed and not earned.

Sharing charity, acting charitable and sometimes keeping quiet when one feels like criticizing, complaining and getting angry can only be achieved by supernatural graces. Charity is one. There is really only one charity and it embraces God and all of God’s creatures. It is impossible to have only one half of charity. To profess to love God and not neighbor is a hoax. To say one loves neighbor and not God is a myth.

All people are mystics to some degree. Lovers of humanity reveal Christ. Lovers of Christ reveal their concern for all humanity. The mystic aims to find God not only in his soul but everywhere and especially in being nice and kind to people. [Doctors of the Catholic Church Homepage: Excerpt from the Page on St. John of the Cross]

A Monitum or Receiving Email From Me:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This morning I received an email from a friend who was asking me about an attachment I had supposedly sent them. The email subject title read "read it immediately." The long and short of it is that I did not send them the email. I was going to confine the matter to the private note to them about it which I already sent but then after sending it, I discovered that the same thing had happened to me.

For I supposely received this morning an email from another friend. It said in the subjectline "something for you" and when I opened it, there is a single word "misc" and an attachment. For that reason, I am quite sure the latter friend did not send this email to me and it was deleted unread. My guess is there is a new technique out there for sending viruses or other questionable materials where the spammer somehow obtains email addresses which are commonly received at one's email and tries to fool them that way into opening attachments.{1}

Essentially my friends, I should note up front that I delete all emails that are like the one I got this morning. I would suggest that everyone do the same unless there is ample reason to believe that the person actually sent it. For the record, the email I supposedly sent the first friend with the subjectline "read it immediately" -let this post bear witness to the fact that I will never sent any emails with that kind of message in the subject line. (Nor to my knowledge have I ever done so.) Therefore, if one arrives in the future with a similar message from the email address attached to this humble weblog, feel free to presume that it is a fraud and delete it. Because I assure you, it will be.

Also this morning, I fell for a trick whereby I opened an email with the subjectline "stalin." At first I thought it was from someone calling me names{2} but it ended up being a piece of spam. So I will redouble my efforts to delete unread anything that does not have an unambiguous subject title to it. So be warned in advance all of you because I am not about to be opening anything with attachments that does not bear clear and unambiguous evidence of being legitimate.{3}

Another way of saying it for people who have not emailed me -or have done so very seldom- is this: if you are not "grandfathered" in with me emailing-wise, do not send attachments because I will not read them. And any attachments that come from me with subject line commands to "read immediately" or some other statement, again delete it because such a note will not be arriving from me. Any attachments I send to people are to notes which invariably bear witness to the authenticity of the sender. And one of those notes is not a subject line command (or exhortation of any sort) to open an attachment as if there is some urgency to do so.

And I suppose if I do not say it someone else will so if it is an ultra-short email with attachment, it is definitely not from me. (Unless the including text makes it unambiguously clear that it is.) As a rule, the only short emails I send when I do are to weblog or essay links or very short notes without attachments.

Notes:

{1} I am sure it can be done though I have no idea how it would be done.

{2} Sadly that still happens at times from people who have heard of me and have illusions as to what I have said on a (usually "traditionalist" related) subject. As inevitable as the sun rising in the east, they have either not read my work or they did so very superficially and have seriously misunderstood what was written. (Not to mention the frequent incapability many of them have of having an intelligent conversation.) Usually it takes a few exchanges to separate the wheat from the chaff in these situations but I digress.

{3} As I do not have the time nor the desire to waste my time with spam or spam-related products.

Meditations on The Dark Night of the Soul:
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")

The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.

CHAPTER II

Of certain spiritual imperfections which beginners have with respect to the habit of pride.

[Though there is something in this section that applies to all of us; the next six paragraphs -either all or in part- apply in particular to many if not most of those who take the position of being "more 'traditional' than thou." -ISM]

AS these beginners feel themselves to be very fervent and diligent in spiritual things and devout exercises, from this prosperity (although it is true that holy things of their own nature cause humility) there often comes to them, through their imperfections, a certain kind of secret pride, whence they come to have some degree of satisfaction with their works and with themselves. And hence there comes to them likewise a certain desire, which is somewhat vain, and at times very vain, to speak of spiritual things in the presence of others, and sometimes even to teach such things rather than to learn them.

They condemn others in their heart when they see that they have not the kind of devotion which they themselves desire; and sometimes they even say this in words, herein resembling the Pharisee, who boasted of himself, praising God for his own good works and despising the publican.[St. Luke xviii, 11-12.]

In these persons the devil often increases the fervour that they have and the desire to perform these and other works more frequently, so that their pride and presumption may grow greater. For the devil knows quite well that all these works and virtues which they perform are not only valueless to them, but even become vices in them.

And such a degree of evil are some of these persons wont to reach that they would have none appear good save themselves; and thus, in deed and word, whenever the opportunity occurs, they condemn them and slander them, beholding the mote in their brother's eye and not considering the beam which is in their own;[St. Matthew vii, 3.] they strain at another's gnat and themselves swallow a camel.[St. Matthew xxiii, 24.]

Sometimes, too, when their spiritual masters, such as confessors and superiors, do not approve of their spirit and behavior (for they are anxious that all they do shall be esteemed and praised), they consider that they do not understand them, or that, because they do not approve of this and comply with that, their confessors are themselves not spiritual. And so they immediately desire and contrive to find some one else who will fit in with their tastes; for as a rule they desire to speak of spiritual matters with those who they think will praise and esteem what they do, and they flee, as they would from death, from those who disabuse them in order to lead them into a safe road--sometimes they even harbour ill-will against them.

Presuming thus, they are wont to resolve much and accomplish very little. Sometimes they are anxious that others shall realize how spiritual and devout they are, to which end they occasionally give outward evidence thereof in movements, sighs and other ceremonies; and at times they are apt to fall into certain ecstasies, in public rather than in secret, wherein the devil aids them, and they are pleased that this should be noticed, and are often eager that it should be noticed more.

Many such persons desire to be the favourites of their confessors and to become intimate with them, as a result of which there beset them continual occasions of a thousand envies and disquietudes. They are too much embarrassed to confess their sins nakedly, lest their confessors should think less of them, so they palliate them and make them appear less evil, and thus it is to excuse themselves rather than to accuse themselves that they go to confession.

And sometimes they seek another confessor to tell the wrongs that they have done, so that their own confessor shall think they have done nothing wrong at all, but only good; and thus they always take pleasure in telling him what is good, and sometimes in such terms as make it appear to be greater than it is rather than less, desiring that he may think them to be good, when it would be greater humility in them, as we shall say, to depreciate it, and to desire that neither he nor anyone else should consider them of account.

Some of these beginners, too, make little of their faults, and at other times become over-sad when they see themselves fall into them, thinking themselves to have been saints already; and thus they become angry and impatient with themselves, which is another imperfection.

[Though he has gotten past what is noted in the paragraph that follows it, in all honesty, the above paragraph outlines probably the most ingrained faults of the author of this weblog in the area of spiritual pride. In light of pointing out tendencies that afflict people of certain outlooks, it only seems proper to note this not only for the sake of fairness but also to remind this writer of his own problems in this area. -ISM]

Often they beseech God, with great yearnings, that He will take from them their imperfections and faults, but they do this that they may find themselves at peace, and may not be troubled by them, rather than for God's sake; not realizing that, if He should take their imperfections from them, they would probably become prouder and more presumptuous still. They dislike praising others and love to be praised themselves; sometimes they seek out such praise. Herein they are like the foolish virgins, who, when their lamps could not be lit, sought oil from others.[St. Matthew xxv, 8.]

From these imperfections some souls go on to develop many very grave ones, which do them great harm. But some have fewer and some more, and some, only the first motions thereof or little beyond these; and there are hardly any such beginners who, at the time of these signs of fervour, fall not into some of these errors. But those who at this time are going on to perfection proceed very differently and with quite another temper of spirit; for they progress by means of humility and are greatly edified, not only thinking naught of their own affairs, but having very little satisfaction with themselves; they consider all others as far better, and usually have a holy envy of them, and an eagerness to serve God as they do.

For the greater is their fervour, and the more numerous are the works that they perform, and the greater is the pleasure that they take in them, as they progress in humility, the more do they realize how much God deserves of them, and how little is all that they do for His sake; and thus, the more they do, the less are they satisfied. So much would they gladly do from charity and love for Him, that all they do seems to them naught; and so greatly are they importuned, occupied and absorbed by this loving anxiety that they never notice what others do or do not; or if they do notice it, they always believe, as I say, that all others are far better than they themselves.

Wherefore, holding themselves as of little worth, they are anxious that others too should thus hold them, and should despise and depreciate that which they do. And further, if men should praise and esteem them, they can in no wise believe what they say; it seems to them strange that anyone should say these good things of them.

Together with great tranquillity and humbleness, these souls have a deep desire to be taught by anyone who can bring them profit; they are the complete opposite of those of whom we have spoken above, who would fain be always teaching, and who, when others seem to be teaching them, take the words from their mouths as if they knew them already.

These souls, on the other hand, being far from desiring to be the masters of any, are very ready to travel and set out on another road than that which they are actually following, if they be so commanded, because they never think that they are right in anything whatsoever. They rejoice when others are praised; they grieve only because they serve not God like them. They have no desire to speak of the things that they do, because they think so little of them that they are ashamed to speak of them even to their spiritual masters, since they seem to them to be things that merit not being spoken of.

They are more anxious to speak of their faults and sins, or that these should be recognized rather than their virtues; and thus they incline to talk of their souls with those who account their actions and their spirituality of little value. This is a characteristic of the spirit which is simple, pure, genuine and very pleasing to God. For as the wise Spirit of God dwells in these humble souls, He moves them and inclines them to keep His treasures secretly within and likewise to cast out from themselves all evil. God gives this grace to the humble, together with the other virtues, even as He denies it to the proud.

These souls will give their heart's blood to anyone that serves God, and will help others to serve Him as much as in them lies. The imperfections into which they see themselves fall they bear with humility, meekness of spirit and a loving fear of God, hoping in Him.

But souls who in the beginning journey with this kind of perfection are, as I understand, and as has been said, a minority, and very few are those who we can be glad do not fall into the opposite errors. For this reason, as we shall afterwards say, God leads into the dark night those whom He desires to purify from all these imperfections so that He may bring them farther onward.

To be Continued...

Like a lot of bloggers, I do my share of what is called blegging but not for donations of gold or silver. Instead, at different times of the year I request from my readers of good will prayers for departed family and friends. As today would have been my father's 63rd birthday, I would like to request prayers for the eternal repose of his soul. See this entry from last year for more details. Thankyou in advance for your generosity in this endeavour.

Rerum Novarum Weblog Addition and an Adjustment:

Essentially I have added Greg Mockeridge's new weblog Musings of the Armchair Theologian and also corrected the link to my essay The 'Tradition is Opposed to Novelty' Canard which accidentally was going to a piece Matt1618 did on the Roman Canon contra the same David Palm. (The difference in the two essay urls was one letter, hence the confusion.) These adjustments and additions have been made in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

More on Intincture and the Common Good:

Can a parish priest initiate that on his own, without the bishop's approval, Shawn?

You know, I am really not sure to be honest. I cannot imagine a local ordinary who approves of communion under both forms possibly objecting to it. Or should I say, I cannot imagine a local ordinary who approves of communion under both forms possibly objecting to it if it is presented to them properly.

Agreed. Yet, the reason I ask is because intincture isn't **really** part of the Roman Rite, but a regional "borrowing" from the Byzantine Rite. ...Not that there's anything wrong with that (it's how Rites are supposed to develop).

Indeed. As I note in my essay response to David Palm, "every change in precedent represents a novelty at some point." No novelty should be accepted simply because it is a novelty. Likewise, no practice should be retained simply because it was done for a long period of time. There should be an aim towards legitimate improvement over existing practice if a change is to be made.

I submit that intincture in light of what is commonly done today represents such an improvement. And in true ressourcement fashion, rather than improvise from scratch, I am recommending something from the wellspring of the Great Tradition here. (As you well know.)

But, then again, it seems that almost "anything goes" in the Roman Rites these days, so why worry about exceptions? ;-)

Sad but true. I think a good argument can be made that the mummified nature of disciplines and praxis was in need of serious smashing by the mid twentieth century if we were to properly understand the diversity that authentic catholicity should manifest. However, that point having been done -in legitimate and illegitimate ways alas- the time has come after a generation to take an honest look at what needs to be rectified at this point. And communion reception is an area where a lot of things need tending to.

I believe intincture is a good first step in this direction as (i) it has precedent in the Great Tradition and (ii) it solves at least five problems at once.{1} Hence, we need to promote it to our ordinaries as the way communion is administered in the Churches of the Latin rite. I see no good arguments against this proposal though of course I am more than willing to listen to other options. But I honestly doubt I will be swayed on this one iota.

Oh and one more thing: I can understand and appreciate the argument that it is more expedient to administer communion standing as opposed to kneeling. For that reason, along with intincture should be accompanied by either genuflection or a profound bow before reception. I opt for the profound bow myself but would have no objection to genuflection if the ordinary decided that that was what was to be done.

Sure, the SSPX (and friends) are wackos, but we really do need to do something about our Liturgy.

Agreed.

In the vast majority of places, this is not what the Novus Ordo was intended to be.

True. The solution therefore should come first and foremost from the Great Tradition and not from innovating for the sake of innovation.

Yet, so many Catholics (including Catholic **bishops** at this point!!) simply don't have a clue. Most Catholics have no Liturgical sensitivity anymore.

Agreed. And while you and I disagree on certain points (such as monarchy versus republican government), I doubt there are any disagreements between us on how this is to be conducted except perhaps in application.

For example, and I know this will grate on XXXX, but I believe we need to find a solid foundation to erode the practice of altar girls. And that is perhaps best done by starting with the emphasis that Fr. Stravinskas makes that there is no "more" or "less" actual participation in the liturgy by those who serve the liturgy.

For as long as the myth sustains itself that somehow those who serve the altar are participating more or less than others rather than participating equally except in different capacities -the role of the ordained excepted of course- there will be little in the way of persuasion against the practice.{2} However, if we can recognize somehow that this development while not ruling out the possibility of altar girls nonetheless serves to diminish the number of boys who want to serve the altar, that is the best approach in my view to take.

For as Catholics we must be ever so sensitive to not only issues such as public order but also the common good. I see nothing in altar girls that meets both of these criteria if you will -particularly the common good which is harmed when service at the altar is not restricted to boys. Our concern for the common good and the use of the altar server function one "training ground" for future priests needs to take precedent over "self-esteem" issues of girls serving the altar. They can be ushers, sing in the choir, even lectors and that is not in my view the slightest bit problematical.{3}

In summary, we should be emphasizing this all from the standpoint of both public order and also common good. In doing this, we should make it clear that girls who forego serving at the altar actually participate in improving the overall common good of the Church for reasons I already outlined. But as I have probably again stirred the hornets nest, that is all I will say on it at this time.

Notes:

{1} Go HERE to see the five reasons alluded to in this post outlined in brief.

{2} Particularly since Vatican II declared the clear separation between those with orders and those without.

{3} Indeed lector by its very nature is properly seen today as a lay function that would of course admit of women serving as lector.

Announcing a New Weblog:

It seems that We at Rerum Novarum have broken down yet another reader encouraged without realizing it another frequent reader of this humble weblog to start their own weblog. This time it was Greg Mockeridge whose weblog can be accessed HERE. It is titled Musings of the Armchair Theologian and it appears to be very ressourcement oriented. That can of course only please this writer greatly since such individuals are very rare to find. In light of this development, it only seems appropriate to muse on this subject a bit and show in a snapshot an example of ressourcement in action.

The subtitle of Greg's new weblog is [a] weblog dedicated to defense of Catholicism and its application to political and socio-economic affairs. In light of what this writer has noted before about that subject, perhaps the reader now sees with greater clarity why the debut of this weblog is so pleasing to Us here at Rerum Novarum.

In other news, the very same Greg Mockeridge, in his capacity as an Inquisitor at Lidless Eye, he has called for an auto da fe on Jacob "U Thant Touch This" Michael and one of the latter's fundamental errors regarding the Catholic faith. It is Our recommendation to give that thread a reading if you at all follow such things as apparitions. Also worth reading are this writer's prefatory comments to a guest editorial on Jacinta's Vision by Fr. Thomas Carleton to the Lidless Eye weblog last year. (Where what was made -with the assistance of the teaching of the eighteenth century Pope Benedict XIV- the key distinction that Jacob misses viz. apparitions.) Anyway, if interested give the latter (along with Fr. Carleton's excellent guest editorial) a read but start with Greg's post first.

Meditations on The Dark Night of the Soul:
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")

The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.

On a dark night

CHAPTER I

Sets down the first line and begins to treat of the imperfections of beginners.

INTO this dark night souls begin to enter when God draws them forth from the state of beginners--which is the state of those that meditate on the spiritual road--and begins to set them in the state of progressives--which is that of those who are already contemplatives--to the end that, after passing through it, they may arrive at the state of the perfect, which is that of the Divine union of the soul with God. Wherefore, to the end that we may the better understand and explain what night is this through which the soul passes, and for what cause God sets it therein, it will be well here to touch first of all upon certain characteristics of beginners (which, although we treat them with all possible brevity, will not fail to be of service likewise to the beginners themselves), in order that, realizing the weakness of the state wherein they are, they may take courage, and may desire that God will bring them into this night, wherein the soul is strengthened and confirmed in the virtues, and made ready for the inestimable delights of the love of God. And, although we may tarry here for a time, it will not be for longer than is necessary, so that we may go on to speak at once of this dark night.

It must be known, then, that the soul, after it has been definitely converted to the service of God, is, as a rule, spiritually nurtured and caressed by God, even as is the tender child by its loving mother, who warms it with the heat of her bosom and nurtures it with sweet milk and soft and pleasant food, and carries it and caresses it in her arms; but, as the child grows bigger, the mother gradually ceases caressing it, and, hiding her tender love, puts bitter aloes upon her sweet breast, sets down the child from her arms and makes it walk upon its feet, so that it may lose the habits of a child and betake itself to more important and substantial occupations. The loving mother is like the grace of God, for, as soon as the soul is regenerated by its new warmth and fervour for the service of God, He treats it in the same way; He makes it to find spiritual milk, sweet and delectable, in all the things of God, without any labour of its own, and also great pleasure in spiritual exercises, for here God is giving to it the breast of His tender love, even as to a tender child.

Therefore, such a soul finds its delight in spending long periods--perchance whole nights--in prayer; penances are its pleasures; fasts its joys; and its consolations are to make use of the sacraments and to occupy itself in Divine things. In the which things spiritual persons (though taking part in them with great efficacy and persistence and using and treating them with great care) often find themselves, spiritually speaking, very weak and imperfect. For since they are moved to these things and to these spiritual exercises by the consolation and pleasure that they find in them, and since, too, they have not been prepared for them by the practice of earnest striving in the virtues, they have many faults and imperfections with respect to these spiritual actions of theirs; for, after all, any man's actions correspond to the habit of perfection attained by him. And, as these persons have not had the opportunity of acquiring the said habits of strength, they have necessarily to work like feebler children, feebly. In order that this may be seen more clearly, and likewise how much these beginners in the virtues lacks with respect to the works in which they so readily engage with the pleasure aforementioned, we shall describe it by reference to the seven capital sins, each in its turn, indicating some of the many imperfections which they have under each heading; wherein it will be clearly seen how like to children are these persons in all they do. And it will also be seen how many blessings the dark night of which we shall afterwards treat brings with it, since it cleanses the soul and purifies it from all these imperfections.

To be Continued...

On Ressourcement Methodology:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

To start with, ressourcement minded people have a great respect for the traditions and revealed truths of the past. However, they differ from a so-called "traditionalist" in that they are beholden to the past but not enslaved by it. Likewise, ressourcement minded people strive to have awareness of newer developments and properly discern how they can contribute to a refinement of the present. However, they differ from so-called "progressivists" in that while they are aware of the opportunities and developments of the present, they are not striving to put such things in controversion with the traditions handed on to them. They are in other words not "people of their own time" though they of course live in their own time. They are not slaves to technology or new ideas but see these as tools to serve the greater good if you will.

Much more could be noted on this but at the same time, much already has been noted at this weblog or its affiliates. And so in true ressourcement fashion, We will now quote from something added to the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG about nine months ago on this very same theme. In a post about the definition of a conservative, the authentic understanding of "conservatism" was set out. (As opposed to the fraudulent understandings of that term so commonly utilized over the past several decades.) We defined the term "conservatism" as follows:

Conservatism: An integrated philosophy encompassing religious, political, and social tenents which seeks to find ways of fruitfully applying the wisdom, experience, and revealed truths of the past to the problems of the contemporary world.

The term "conservative" was defined along the same lines as "conservatism":

Conservative: Someone who advocates an integrated philosophy of seeking to find ways of fruitfully applying the wisdom, experience, and revealed truths of the past to the problems of the contemporary world - be they of a religious, political, or social nature.

Essentially this weblog and its affiliates use the term ressourcement as synonymous with true and authentic "conservatism." This is done because the latter term in the modern vernacular has been so bastardized, caricatured, and dichotomized that it makes such distinctions necessary.

Briefly on The Passion of the Christ

Have you seen The Passion yet?

No but I intend to see it during Lent.

I got back from seeing it. Well done. It has a few inaccuracies, like Jesus conversing with Pilate in Latin (that could Mel's partisanship toward traddism coming out).

Perhaps. I do not expect 100% accuracy from any movie dealing with historical people and situations so this does not bother me.

The most common possible scenarios, from what I've heard, was either they conversed in Greek, since Greek was the commercial language and both Pilate as provincial governor and Jesus, as carpenter could very well have understood Greek or that they conversed with the help of an interpreter.

I am inclined towards that understanding myself. Greek was the vernacular of the Empire at the time. Latin was only to start displacing it in the third century AD. In Our Lord's time, Greek is with the highest probability what a Jew and a Gentile conversing together would speak in.

Also, I found it odd that he didn't have Longinus the Centurion say the famous line "Truly, this is the Son of God" after lancing His side with the spear.

The ambiguous nature of the phrase "Son of God" in that time period would have been maintained if a Jew had said the phrase but a Gentile like the Centurion saying it would have one interpretation in mind. My guess is that it was probably left out for ecumenical reasons -which in light of what Mel has been subjected to is understandable.

Lest people find this comment troubling, allow me to note here that if non-Christians did not already know what Christians believe about Jesus of Nazareth, that would be problematical indeed. But as they generally do know this already, I do not find it troubling at all.{1} Besides, there are four Gospels to draw from. Your reference is if memory serves from two of the Synoptics (Matthew and Mark). Mel's main text was the Gospel of John{2} where the phrase is not noted.

In any event, it was a good movie.

That is the consensus I have heard. And that it has the second highest total gross in its first five days in the theatres in history{3} is a welcome addition as well. It really shows how out of touch the so-called "experts" are about the audience for this kind of film.

And may Mel Gibson become the richest man in Hollywood because of it, if for no other reason than to tweek the Hollyweird elites.

Amen!!! Seek ye first the kingdom of God and the rest shall be given to you so to speak. Mel did this with his own money and probably sacrificed his vocation for the sake of this film. May he therefore make a bundle and be able to provide well for his family and their families to the fourth generationif not beyond.

Notes:

{1} If anything its inclusion could be chalked up to being rather pedantic.

{2} This is not to say that he did not fill from the Synoptics of course -a point I made when criticizing a certain Catholic critic's criticisms last year.

{3} Only Return of the King from the Lord of the Rings trilogy had a higher first five day gross than The Passion of the Christ.

Brief Response to Tim Enloe:

This is a response to Tim's response to my comments located HERE which were an extension of my previously enunciated request to him.

Tim:

The main reason I want to discuss the foundational premises rather than the subjects that you want to discuss now is because I can determine in advance where we will arrive at in dialogue if we do not do this. Indeed, I am experienced enough in dialogue to anticipate future impasses and want to therefore avoid them if at all possible. And one such impasse is inevitable if all we do is hurl citations at one another and attempt to reduce complex theories into propositional formats that miss the finer details where God is often to be found. You often emphasize wanting to get to the nuts and bolts and avoid the kinds of generalizations that often impede fruitful dialogue. My intention here is to provide for doing just that.

To start with, we both agree and have often stated in divers ways that history is a complex mosaic. For that reason, we need to get beyond the individual interpretations of the data and into the operative points of view behind those interpretations. That is why I would rather focus on operative points of view first before even discussing the differing theories.

As a veteran of many of these kinds of discussions, you are not unaware of how people can continually miss one another like ships passing in the night.{1} My time for dialogue is not extensive nor will it be for the rest of the year. I am interested therefore even more than I normally am in getting behind your theory to attempt to better understand where you are coming from. And in such a discussion, I would likewise strive to provide for you a window to viewing things as I view them. Once that is achieved, our odds of having a fruitful dialogue on these controversial subjects increase substantially over what they will be if we do not do this.

This is the reason for the request I made to you. Hopefully this brief clarification will help explain why I posted the entry I posted. And again I ask: is this an area that you have any interest in going over at all??? For like you I have little patience for apologetical "dog and pony shows" no matter who is putting them on.

My interest is a dialogue on ideas and the presuppositions that colour those ideas. As I trust that you also have this interest, I extend to you again this invitation hoping that you will take it. Few people are willing to have this kind of discussion but I believe (and long have btw) that you are willing to go beyond conventional approaches in your desire to better understand any subject you study. (Be it theology, history, philosophy, or whatever.) This is why I addressed this request specifically to you.

The other points I touched on briefly can be dealt with another day. They are not going anywhere soon -indeed they have not in hundreds of years. So we need not worry that they will if we focus for a few months or whatever on the very prisms through which either of us view any data we appropriate to defend our respective distinctions of outlook. Surely you can concur with me there I presume.

Note:

{1} I remind you of the one year go around you had with Gary Hoge on the meaning of the term "perspicuity" as a case in point of precisely the kind of thing I am saying here. (Not to say I have been free of such go-arounds myself in my life of course.) But they are the sort of thing I desire to avoid or make the likelihood of them happening as remote as possible if at all possible. (Particularly in light of the even greater time constraints on my time that I noted earlier in the month.)

Meditations on The Dark Night of the Soul:
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")

The previous installment of this series can be read HERE.

PROLOGUE

IN this book are first set down all the stanzas which are to be expounded; afterwards, each of the stanzas is expounded separately, being set down before its exposition; and then each line is expounded separately and in turn, the line itself also being set down before the exposition. In the first two stanzas are expounded the effects of the two spiritual purgations: of the sensual part of man and of the spiritual part. In the other six are expounded various and wondrous effects of the spiritual illumination and union of love with God.

STANZAS OF THE SOUL

1. On a dark night,
Kindled in love with yearnings--oh, happy chance!--
I went forth without being observed,
My house being now at rest.

2. In darkness and secure,
By the secret ladder, disguised--oh, happy chance!--
In darkness and in concealment,
My house being now at rest.

3. In the happy night, In secret, when none saw me,
Nor I beheld aught,
Without light or guide,
save that which burned in my heart.

4. This light guided me
More surely than the light of noonday
To the place where he (well I knew who!) was awaiting me--
A place where none appeared.

5. Oh, night that guided me,
Oh, night more lovely than the dawn,
Oh, night that joined Beloved with lover,
Lover transformed in the Beloved!

6. Upon my flowery breast,
Kept wholly for himself alone,
There he stayed sleeping, and I caressed him,
And the fanning of the cedars made a breeze.

7. The breeze blew from the turret
As I parted his locks;
With his gentle hand he wounded my neck
And caused all my senses to be suspended.

8. I remained, lost in oblivion;
My face I reclined on the Beloved.
All ceased and I abandoned myself,
Leaving my cares forgotten among the lilies.

Begins the exposition of the stanzas which treat of the way and manner which the soul follows upon the road of the union of love with God.

Before we enter upon the exposition of these stanzas, it is well to understand here that the soul that utters them is now in the state of perfection, which is the union of love with God, having already passed through severe trials and straits, by means of spiritual exercise in the narrow way of eternal life whereof Our Saviour speaks in the Gospel, along which way the soul ordinarily passes in order to reach this high and happy union with God. Since this road (as the Lord Himself says likewise) is so strait, and since there are so few that enter by it,[St. Matthew vii, 14.] the soul considers it a great happiness and good chance to have passed along it to the said perfection of love, as it sings in this first stanza, calling this strait road with full propriety 'dark night,' as will be explained hereafter in the lines of the said stanza. The soul, then, rejoicing at having passed along this narrow road whence so many blessings have come to it, speaks after this manner.

BOOK THE FIRST

Which treats of the Night of Sense.

STANZA THE FIRST

On a dark night,
Kindled in love with yearnings--oh, happy chance!--
I went forth without being observed,
My house being now at rest.

EXPOSITION

IN this first stanza the soul relates the way and manner which it followed in going forth, as to its affection, from itself and from all things, and in dying to them all and to itself, by means of true mortification, in order to attain to living the sweet and delectable life of love with God; and it says that this going forth from itself and from all things was a 'dark night,' by which, as will be explained hereafter, is here understood purgative contemplation, which causes passively in the soul the negation of itself and of all things referred to above.

2. And this going forth it says here that it was able to accomplish in the strength and ardour which love for its Spouse gave to it for that purpose in the dark contemplation aforementioned. Herein it extols the great happiness which it found in journeying to God through this night with such signal success that none of the three enemies, which are world, devil and flesh (who are they that ever impede this road), could hinder it; inasmuch as the aforementioned night of [purificative] contemplation lulled to sleep and mortified, in the house of its sensuality, all the passions and desires with respect to their mischievous desires and motions. The line, then, says:

On a dark night

To be Continued...

On the 2004 Election:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

After some soul-searching today, this writer concluded that as President George W. Bush has showed some backbone on the defining issue of our age (the defense of marriage){1} that the previously noted plan to write a confutation of the positions taken by Professor Kevin Miller is now indefinitely postponed. It is possible that this writer may resume them before the election but right now more important issues are before us -one of which is the subject of this posting.

Despite (i) reservations on many issues as your weblog host has noted previously and even (ii) the same host having personal doubts as to the reasons for his taking of this stand, your weblog servant has decided that he must vote for George W. Bush a second time. It is true that this weblog noted previously that the illegal aliens issue would be the final straw against any voting for Bush if the latter approved of that in legislation. However that proposal remains in the "ideas" stage and is not likely to be a factor for a while if it is at all.{2} For that reason, it is necessary to switch gears here from one defining issue (national security and the survival of this nation) to another (the survival of civilization in general).

All of this weblog writer's defenses of the three fundamental rights of man (life, faculties, and production essentially) -both in past as well as any future applications of the principle-{3} hinge on the recognition of the importance of considering with any proposal the factor it plays on the public order of society as well as society's common good. Homosexual so-called "marriage" would be a millstone around the neck of the public order and it would kill this civilization as promoting homosexuality to the detriment of marriage has in every extinct culture that preceded us.{4}

Whatever his convoluted rationale for coming to the defense of marriage is, President Bush has nonetheless done so and no one else with any reasonable chance of being president has taken his stance on this crucial issue. And while Professor Miller is wrong about making abortion the defining issue over and against numerous other issues that more directly impact the existence of this nation;{5} nonetheless marriage is not only the defining issue for defending the existence of this nation but it also is the issue for defending the existence of all civilization. Therefore, it requires a circling of the wagons and no concessions of any kind whatsoever.

Frankly, your weblog host's Constitutional mind is appalled at the idea of having to amend the Constitution on such a self-evident matter.{6} Nonetheless, whatever will kill this demon and bury it six hundred and sixty feet underground (as opposed to a mere six feet) will receive his concurrence. The natural instinct of Us at Rerum Novarum is admittedly to oppose a Constitutional amendment on this issue. However, if it is not subordinated to the common good of society and right public order -which appear to require it if there is to be any stopping of the lawlessness on the part of judges and mayors- then We are not being true to the very principles that this weblog seeks to inculcate.

For fidelity to principles is a requirement of this weblog writer -as is the fact that the judges and mayors who are violating federal and state laws in granting such recognition of this abomination{7} will not be adequately checkmated without such a stance being taken by a significant number of people. Ergo, it must be done here as much as anywhere else.

For the reasons noted above, We at Rerum Novarum will be supporting not only George W. Bush for president this election but also a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. These are two notions which repel this writer by his own admission. Nonetheless, they have been judged by him as necessary if we are not to throw up a serious roadblock on the route to going the way of ancient Rome.

Notes:

{1} We refuse to say "traditional marriage" as if to imply that there are other kinds of marriage other than that between a man and a woman.

{2} And that there are over seventy Republicans in congress vehemently opposed to that proposal now has this weblog writer breathing a bit easier on that issue at this time. (Though of course the right to go postal on it later is of course reserved.)

{3} See this margin link for one example of many that could be noted here.

{4} And as such it cannot possibly contribute to the common good of society.

{5} Such as national security. And while Bush's squishy position on abortion could be expounded upon at this time, your weblog host will refrain for the sake of not blogging up a SAM-like post in the process.

{6} In that the Constitution recognizes no "right" to homosexual pseudo-"marriages." But then again, it is also self-evident that the Constitution has no recognition of any "right" to abortion under any circumstances. So perhaps missing the obvious on the subject of marriage on the part of society's useful-idiot so-called "moderates" should not surprise on second thought.

{7} The root problem here is in large part due to a common misunderstanding of what constitutes a right properly understood.

Briefly on the Syllabus of Errors and its Frequent Misuse:

COMMUNION Message Board got sideswiped by a spurious quote from the Syllabus of Errors condemning democracy.

The Syllabus does not condemn democracy in toto. It condemns a particular form of democracy of course but that is all.

I looked at your piece for help, and was particularly delighted with your comparison of the "smoke of Satan" with the "spirit of Vatican II." Nice stuff.

Well, it is true unfortunately. And the errors of understanding the Syllabus come just as often from the so-called "progressivists" as they do the so-called "traditionalists." Fundamentalism is hardly limited to the so-called "traditionalists" by any means -indeed arguably the so-called "progressivists" are worse culprits of it. (Their claims of being "more enlightened than thou" notwithstanding.)

God bless you and yours.

And God bless you and yours as well XXXXXX. I have not seen you since the old days at Steve Ray's board before the Novus Boardo format was imposed. May your Lent be a fruitful one.

Rerum Novarum Weblog Adjustments:

Blogs Added:

Dr. Phillip Blosser's Scripture and Catholic Tradition BLOG

Amy Welborn's Open Book BLOG

In the case of Amy's weblog, I got tired of having to click on the old weblog address for the new weblog so the change was finally made. (Lent is not a time for further procrastination on changing these things of course.)

Blogs Transferred:

Amy Welborn's old weblog and G. Thomas Fitzpatrick's old weblog were transferred to the "inactive" weblog categorization.

Blogs Removed:

I finally got sick of the one-track minded agenda of Bill Cork's weblog. One can only handle so much drivel and this writer has had his fill. It is too bad because he once had a very good weblog. But failing to maintain one's balance on delicate or heavily nuanced issues can affect anyone who is not careful unfortunately. Nonetheless, I can no longer in good conscience tacitly endorse by my linking to it that weblog anymore so I now no longer will.

As Lent is a time bereft of pomp and ceremony, all I will note here in brief is that these weblog links are added, transferred, or deleted in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

On Miscellaneous Matters:
(And Added Musings Where Applicable)

---Our good friend Dave Armstrong has weighed in on the Passion with a post-viewing review of the film. This writer thanks Dave for waiting until after seeing the film to review it...sadly there were even some Catholics who lacked the fundamental decency to do this. In the words of that great western philosopher James Hetfield, "sad but true..."

---The father of Christopher Blosser, the esteemed Dr. Philip Blosser is apparently among the readers of this humble weblog.{1} This writer recalls Christopher mentioning it to him in passing before that his father had a weblog but time constraints prevented Us from looking into it until today. Dr. Blosser's weblog can be read HERE. And though the entry is almost a month old now, We still must mention Dr. Blosser's very good response to the criticisms of Catholic theologian Richard Gaillerdetz.{2}

Astute readers of this weblog know that this writer has used (albeit with some reservations) the work of Gaillerdetz before.{3} And Gaillerdetz is a pretty good theologian for someone of his outlook.{4} But he is nonetheless somewhat sloppy in certain areas of key importance including the subject of biblical study. Nonetheless, We render a blanket endorsement of Dr. Blosser's weblog which will be added to Rerum Novarum very soon if not when this post is completed under the "occasional indulgence" classification.{5}

---Our friend Lane Core Jr. has a lot more sticktuitiveness on the political front than this writer can hope to have. For those interested in following the political issues closely, Lane's blog is tough to beat.{6} We recommend Blog from the Core as an excellent 2004 presidential campaign site.

---Envoy Encore's Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner Patrick Madrid put a fine rip on this writer's good friend Pete Vere's love for beer. (It really perked the spirits when We saw it earlier today.) Pat appears to be taking advantage of Pete only blogging on Sundays during Lent{7} -wise strategy Pat...very wise :)

---Eve Tushnet does not seem to get the idea of what blog quizzes are all about. They are supposed to be humourous and lighten the mood a bit. That is not easily accomplished by taking the Which federal rule of civil procedure are you? quiz. Oh well, to each their own supposedly.

On the brighter side, she at least has the Yankee or Dixie quiz up which this writer will be taking later on today if the time is there to.

---The Curt One of St. Blog's issues a sobering review of The Passion -again this writer thanks him for seeing the movie first before reviewing it. He also has several funny novelty things and even a strange kind of complement to your humble servant at Rerum Novarum.

One note Jeff: this writer while being at times lengthy (yes yes, "at times" is a stretch of Ruthian proportions there), the real key is that there is no attorney involved in the mix. When you consider that The Secret One is an attorney, you can see how he can pack over fifty footnotes into a blog post{8} replete with a ton of "the party of the seventh part shalt henceforth be known as the party of the seventh part" kind of stuff :)

---Jeanetta of De Fidei Oboedienta has an interesting quiz that this writer intends to take later on. It is important after all for everyone to know what historical lunatic they are right???

There will be more weblog notes later on if there is time for it. But right now "the time is gone, this blog is over...thought [We'd] something more to saaaayyy..."

Notes:

{1} Vindicating yet again what this writer has noted before about the quality of the readers of this weblog.

{2} This writer does not put theologian in quotes in Gaillerdetz' case. However, that does not mean his outlook is not without its own problems.

{3} See this link for example.

{4} Meaning of course a so-called "progressivist."

{5} Because he only blogs on occasion.

{6} If it even can be this side of the real "political only" blogs.

{7} All is fair in love and war presumably and apologetics to some extent is war so Pete cannot complain.

{8} We believe that twenty is about the most ever done in a single post at this humble weblog. (Though perhaps a multi part thread may have approached fifty at one time or another.)

Miscellaneous Musings:
(On Communion Reception)

I first saw the practice of communion by intincture at a Maronite mission liturgy where the priest communicates everyone in that manner. It involves the priest dipping the communion bread in a small bowl of communion wine and then placing the host on the tongue of the communicant. I have long felt that this is the best way to administer communion and at least five reasons come to mind to support this idea. Consider the following:

---Communion by intincture would eliminate the argument that the sign value of communion under both forms is impaired by only receiving under one form.

---Communion by intincture would cut down on the amount of wine needed at mass.

---Communion by intincture would as a result of the second point eliminate any preceived need for so many additional "extraordinary" ministers. (Thus such usage would easily be cut at least in half for functional reasons.)

---Communion by intincture would make the arguments about "sanitation" viz double reception a non factor.

---Communion by intincture would settle once and for all the communion in the hand controversy and do so in an indirect manner.

In short, I see no other means of administering communion which has this many advantages going for it at once. For that reason, I exhort the readers to work to have this method instituted at their own parishes.

Meditations on The Dark Night of the Soul
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")

Before starting this thread, please go HERE to see the outline of what this series will cover and on what days material will be posted.

The prologue and introduction of the work -which this installment will cover- were written by E. Allison Peers. (Whose translation of St. John's work was widely viewed as surpassing all that preceded it.) On Friday we will start with St. John's own prologue and the stanzas which he intends to expound upon. All of this is necessary to set the table for what will follow in this series which will run throughout Lent. Oh, in this series, all my words will be in black font for easier differentiation from the purple font. -ISM

PROLOGUE

"It is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that the verse and prose works combined of St. John of the Cross form at once the most grandiose and the most melodious spiritual canticle to which any one man has ever given utterance.

The most sublime of all the Spanish mystics, he soars aloft on the wings of Divine love to heights known to hardly any of them. . . . True to the character of his thought, his style is always forceful and energetic, even to a fault.

When we study his treatises--principally that great composite work known as the Ascent of Mount Carmel and the Dark Night--we have the impression of a mastermind that has scaled the heights of mystical science; and from their summit looks down upon and dominates the plain below and the paths leading upward. . . . Nowhere else, again, is he quite so appealingly human; for, though he is human even in his loftiest and sublimest passages, his intermingling of philosophy with mystical theology; makes him seem particularly so.

These treatises are a wonderful illustration of the theological truth that grace far from destroying nature, ennobles and dignifies it, and of the agreement always found between the natural and the supernatural--between the principles of sound reason and the sublimest manifestations of Divine grace."

E. Allison Peers

INTRODUCTION

SOMEWHAT reluctantly, out of respect for a venerable tradition, we publish the Dark Night as a separate treatise, though in reality it is a continuation of the Ascent of Mount Carmel and fulfils the undertakings given in it:

The first night or purgation is of the sensual part of the soul, which is treated in the present stanza, and will be treated in the first part of this book. And the second is of the spiritual part; of this speaks the second stanza, which follows; and of this we shall treat likewise, in the second and the third part, with respect to the activity of the soul; and in the fourth part, with respect to its passivity. [Ascent, Bk. I, chap. i, sect. 2]

This 'fourth part' is the Dark Night. Of it the Saint writes in a passage which follows that just quoted:

And the second night, or purification, pertains to those who are already proficient, occurring at the time when God desires to bring them to the state of union with God. And this latter night is a more obscure and dark and terrible purgation, as we shall say afterwards. [Op, cit., sect. 3.]

In his three earlier books he has written of the Active Night, of Sense and of Spirit; he now proposes to deal with the Passive Night, in the same order. He has already taught us how we are to deny and purify ourselves with the ordinary help of grace, in order to prepare our senses and faculties for union with God through love. He now proceeds to explain, with an arresting freshness, how these same senses and faculties are purged and purified by God with a view to the same end--that of union.

The combined description of the two nights completes the presentation of active and passive purgation, to which the Saint limits himself in these treatises, although the subject of the stanzas which he is glossing is a much wider one, comprising the whole of the mystical life and ending only with the Divine embraces of the soul transformed in God through love.

The stanzas expounded by the Saint are taken from the same poem in the two treatises. The commentary upon the second, however, is very different from that upon the first, for it assumes a much more advanced state of development. The Active Night has left the senses and faculties well prepared, though not completely prepared, for the reception of Divine influences and illuminations in greater abundance than before.

The Saint here postulates a principle of dogmatic theology--that by himself, and with the ordinary aid of grace, man cannot attain to that degree of purgation which is essential to his transformation in God. He needs Divine aid more abundantly. 'However greatly the soul itself labours,' writes the Saint, 'it cannot actively purify itself so as to be in the least degree prepared for the Divine union of perfection of love, if God takes not its hand and purges it not in that dark fire.' [Dark Night, Bk. 1, chap. iii, sect. 3.]

The Passive Nights, in which it is God Who accomplishes the purgation, are based upon this incapacity. Souls 'begin to enter' this dark night

when God draws them forth from the state of beginners--which is the state of those that meditate on the spiritual road--and begins to set them in the state of progressives--which is that of those who are already contemplatives--to the end that, after passing through it, they may arrive at the state of the perfect, which is that of the Divine union of the soul with God. [Op. cit., Bk. I, chap. i, sect. 1.]

Before explaining the nature and effects of this Passive Night, the Saint touches, in passing, upon certain imperfections found in those who are about to enter it and which it removes by the process of purgation. Such travellers are still untried proficients, who have not yet acquired mature habits of spirituality and who therefore still conduct themselves as children.

The imperfections are examined one by one, following the order of the seven deadly sins, in chapters (ii-viii) which once more reveal the author's skill as a director of souls. They are easy chapters to understand, and of great practical utility, comparable to those in the first book of the Ascent which deal with the active purgation of the desires of sense.

In Chapter viii, St. John of the Cross begins to describe the Passive Night of the senses, the principal aim of which is the purgation or stripping of the soul of its imperfections and the preparation of it for fruitive union. The Passive Night of Sense, we are told, is 'common' and 'comes to many,' whereas that of Spirit 'is the portion of very few.' [Dark Night, Bk. 1, chap. viii, sect. 1.] The one is 'bitter and terrible' but 'the second bears no comparison with it,' for it is 'horrible and awful to the spirit.'[Op. cit., Bk. I, chap. viii, sect. 2.]

A good deal of literature on the former Night existed in the time of St. John of the Cross and he therefore promises to be brief in his treatment of it. Of the latter, on the other hand, he will 'treat more fully . . . since very little has been said of this, either in speech or in writing, and very little is known of it, even by experience.'[Ibid.]

Having described this Passive Night of Sense in Chapter viii, he explains with great insight and discernment how it may be recognized whether any given aridity is a result of this Night or whether it comes from sins or imperfections, or from frailty or lukewarmness of spirit, or even from indisposition or 'humours' of the body. The Saint is particularly effective here, and we may once more compare this chapter with a similar one in the Ascent (II, xiii)--that in which he fixes the point where the soul may abandon discursive meditation and enter the contemplation which belongs to loving and simple faith.

Both these chapters have contributed to the reputation of St. John of the Cross as a consummate spiritual master. And this not only for the objective value of his observations, but because, even in spite of himself, he betrays the sublimity of his own mystical experiences. Once more, too, we may admire the crystalline transparency of his teaching and the precision of the phrases in which he clothes it. To judge by his language alone, one might suppose at times that he is speaking of mathematical, rather than of spiritual operations.

In Chapter x, the Saint describes the discipline which the soul in this Dark Night must impose upon itself; this, as might be logically deduced from the Ascent, consists in 'allowing the soul to remain in peace and quietness,' content 'with a peaceful and loving attentiveness toward God.'[Dark Night, Bk. I, chap. x, sect. 4.]

Before long it will experience enkindlings of love (Chapter xi), which will serve to purify its sins and imperfections and draw it gradually nearer to God; we have here, as it were, so many stages of the ascent of the Mount on whose summit the soul attains to transforming union. Chapters xii and xiii detail with great exactness the benefits that the soul receives from this aridity, while Chapter xiv briefly expounds the last line of the first stanza and brings to an end what the Saint desires to say with respect to the first Passive Night.

[Even though we are only going to cover the first book of the series, I will nonetheless keep the outline of book two in the introduction section. It will follow in sequence from this point. - ISM]

At only slightly greater length St. John of the Cross describes the Passive Night of the Spirit, which is at once more afflictive and more painful than those which have preceded it. This, nevertheless, is the Dark Night par excellence, of which the Saint speaks in these words:

'The night which we have called that of sense may and should be called a kind of correction and restraint of the desire rather than purgation. The reason is that all the imperfections and disorders of the sensual part have their strength and root in the spirit, where all habits, both good and bad, are brought into subjection, and thus, until these are purged, the rebellions and depravities of sense cannot be purged thoroughly.'[Op. cit., Bk. II, chap. iii, sect. 1.]

Spiritual persons, we are told, do not enter the second night immediately after leaving the first; on the contrary, they generally pass a long time, even years, before doing so, [Op. cit., Bk. II, chap. i, sect. 1.] for they still have many imperfections, both habitual and actual (Chapter ii). After a brief introduction (Chapter iii), the Saint describes with some fullness the nature of this spiritual purgation or dark contemplation referred to in the first stanza of his poem and the varieties of pain and affliction caused by it, whether in the soul or in its faculties (Chapters iv-viii). These chapters are brilliant beyond all description; in them we seem to reach the culminating point of their author's mystical experience; any excerpt from them would do them an injustice. It must suffice to say that St. John of the Cross seldom again touches those same heights of sublimity.

Chapter ix describes how, although these purgations seem to blind the spirit, they do so only to enlighten it again with a brighter and intenser light, which it is preparing itself to receive with greater abundance.

The following chapter makes the comparison between spiritual purgation and the log of wood which gradually becomes transformed through being immersed in fire and at last takes on the fire's own properties. The force with which the familiar similitude is driven home impresses indelibly upon the mind the fundamental concept of this most sublime of all purgations.

Marvellous, indeed, are its effects, from the first enkindlings and burnings of Divine love, which are greater beyond comparison than those produced by the Night of Sense, the one being as different from the other as is the body from the soul. 'For this (latter) is an enkindling of spiritual love in the soul, which, in the midst of these dark confines, feels itself to be keenly and sharply wounded in strong Divine love, and to have a certain realization and foretaste of God.'[Dark Night, Bk. II, chap. xi, sect. 1.]

No less wonderful are the effects of the powerful Divine illumination which from time to time enfolds the soul in the splendours of glory. When the effects of the light that wounds and yet illumines are combined with those of the enkindlement that melts the soul with its heat, the delights experienced are so great as to be ineffable.

The second line of the first stanza of the poem is expounded in three admirable chapters (xi-xiii), while one short chapter (xiv) suffices for the three lines remaining. We then embark upon the second stanza, which describes the soul's security in the Dark Night--due, among other reasons, to its being freed 'not only from itself, but likewise from its other enemies, which are the world and the devil.'[Dark Night, Bk. II, chap. xvi, sect. 2.]

This contemplation is not only dark, but also secret (Chapter xvii), and in Chapter xviii is compared to the 'staircase' of the poem. This comparison suggests to the Saint an exposition (Chapters xviii, xix) of the ten steps or degrees of love which comprise St. Bernard's mystical ladder. Chapter xxi describes the soul's 'disguise,' from which the book passes on (Chapters xxii, xxiii) to extol the 'happy chance' which led it to journey 'in darkness and concealment' from its enemies, both without and within.

Chapter xxiv glosses the last line of the second stanza-- 'my house being now at rest.' Both the higher and the lower 'portions of the soul' are now tranquillized and prepared for the desired union with the Spouse, a union which is the subject that the Saint proposed to treat in his commentary on the five remaining stanzas. As far as we know, this commentary was never written. We have only the briefest outline of what was to have been covered in the third, in which, following the same effective metaphor of night, the Saint describes the excellent properties of the spiritual night of infused contemplation, through which the soul journeys with no other guide or support, either outward or inward, than the Divine love 'which burned in my heart.'

It is difficult to express adequately the sense of loss that one feels at the premature truncation of this eloquent treatise.[On this, see Sobrino, pp. 159-66.] We have already given our opinion [Cf. pp. lviii-lxiii, Ascent of Mount Carmel (Image Books edition).] upon the commentaries thought to have been written on the final stanzas of the 'Dark Night.' Did we possess them, they would explain the birth of the light--'dawn's first breathings in the heav'ns above'-- which breaks through the black darkness of the Active and the Passive Nights; they would tell us, too, of the soul's further progress towards the Sun's full brightness.

It is true, of course, that some part of this great gap is filled by St. John of the Cross himself in his other treatises, but it is small compensation for the incomplete state in which he left this edifice of such gigantic proportions that he should have given us other and smaller buildings of a somewhat similar kind. Admirable as are the Spiritual Canticle and the Living Flame of Love, they are not so completely knit into one whole as is this great double treatise. They lose both in flexibility and in substance through the closeness with which they follow the stanzas of which they are the exposition.

In the Ascent and the Dark Night, on the other hand, we catch only the echoes of the poem, which are all but lost in the resonance of the philosopher's voice and the eloquent tones of the preacher. Nor have the other treatises the learning and the authority of these. Nowhere else does the genius of St. John of the Cross for infusing philosophy into his mystical dissertations find such an outlet as here. Nowhere else, again, is he quite so appealingly human; for, though he is human even in his loftiest and sublimest passages, this intermingling of philosophy with mystical theology makes him seem particularly so.

These treatises are a wonderful illustration of the theological truth that grace, far from destroying nature, ennobles and dignifies it, and of the agreement always found between the natural and the supernatural--between the principles of sound reason and the sublimest manifestations of Divine grace.


To be Continued...

Musings on a Lenten Project:

Along with Rerum Novarum going to its customary Advent/Lenten purple colours sometime tomorrow, a spiritual instruction on the entire "nuts and bolts" of the spiritual life will be blogged during Lent.

Work from the upcoming series has surfaced as a source most noticably in recent essays written by this writer -and also in recent writings revisions as well. (Though its use to lessor degree was in earlier versions of this writer's essays as well.)

The theme of that spiritual instruction series will coincide with the Passion in some key respects. For it seems appropriate as we prepare for this lenten season that climaxes in life coming forth from death to likewise prepare ourselves through death for a rebirth in life. But to do that means we must first go forth unnoticed from our houses of contentment and journey through the Dark Night of the Soul.

Join Us at Rerum Novarum as this weblog outlines reflections on the journey through the Dark Night throughout Lent starting tomorrow with the first installment. After that point, the successive installments will run on every Tuesday and Friday after Ash Wednesday until Holy Week. At that point, the final four installments will run on Tuesday, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday to complete the cycle. (The intention is to cover the entire first book of the two book series.) Other stuff theological, social, philosophical, political, etc will also be blogged during Lent but this series will be the primary weblog material for the period up to and including Holy Saturday.