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 V

Of the imperfections into which beginners fall with respect to the sin of wrath.

BY reason of the concupiscence which many beginners have for spiritual consolations, their experience of these consolations is very commonly accompanied by many imperfections proceeding from the sin of wrath; for, when their delight and pleasure in spiritual things come to an end, they naturally become embittered, and bear that lack of sweetness which they have to suffer with a bad grace, which affects all that they do; and they very easily become irritated over the smallest matter--sometimes, indeed, none can tolerate them.

We will get to the biggest weakness of the so-called "traditionalists" as a group shortly -even bigger perhaps than pride, luxury, or wrath. In the meantime, the above paragraph notes one of the imperfections of the so-called "traditionalists": the irritability that they have when they are bereft of spiritual consolations.

In particular this would be those who are so attached to the Tridentine liturgy who are irritated at having to go to the Pauline liturgy either most of the time or on occasion. (Those who never do this -particularly where there is no available Indult liturgy- are in even worse shape than those who do. Tomorrow's A later points to ponder segment from St. Thomas Aquinas will deal with people in this situation.)

This frequently happens after they have been very pleasantly recollected in prayer according to sense; when their pleasure and delight therein come to an end, their nature is naturally vexed and disappointed, just as is the child when they take it from the breast of which it was enjoying the sweetness. There is no sin in this natural vexation, when it is not permitted to indulge itself, but only imperfection, which must be purged by the aridity and severity of the dark night.

As long as the natural vexation is contained within the internal forum, there is of course no sin just imperfection. It is when these difficuties or annoyances are put forth in the external forum when the danger of sin becomes much more proximate if not actual.

There are other of these spiritual persons, again, who fall into another kind of spiritual wrath: this happens when they become irritated at the sins of others, and keep watch on those others with a sort of uneasy zeal. At times the impulse comes to them to reprove them angrily, and occasionally they go so far as to indulge it[39] and set themselves up as masters of virtue. All this is contrary to spiritual meekness.

The above also applies in spades with so-called "traditionalists." Much as luxury is an area where the so-called "progressivists" often fall, wrath is an area which affects the so-called "traditionalists." (And of course both are affected by pride though not in exactly the same way.)

There are others who are vexed with themselves when they observe their own imperfectness, and display an impatience that is not humility; so impatient are they about this that they would fain be saints in a day.

Now we are into an area which still afflicts your weblog host. He used to make a lot of resolutions, now he does not make many. But there is an impatience at times that he is not progressing spiritually at a much more rapid pace.

Many of these persons purpose to accomplish a great deal and make grand resolutions; yet, as they are not humble and have no misgivings about themselves, the more resolutions they make, the greater is their fall and the greater their annoyance, since they have not the patience to wait for that which God will give them when it pleases Him; this likewise is contrary to the spiritual meekness aforementioned, which cannot be wholly remedied save by the purgation of the dark night.

The next one pertains to many if not most of the so-called "progressivists."

Some souls, on the other hand, are so patient as regards the progress which they desire that God would gladly see them less so.

To be Continued...

On Al Queda, Spain, John Kerry, Etc.:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

These are some disjointed thoughts that came to mind when reading Greg Krehbiel's Weblog today. In an entry on the Spain situation, Greg opines that Spain's election cave in is a victory for the terrorists. It is darn difficult to argue against this viewpoint as I see it.

For what happened was an entire country caved in at the last minute. The liberals were trailing big time before the explosions but within seventy-two hours the electorate did a flip flop voting out the conservative party and voting in the terrorist appeasers liberal party. I wonder if this will give those terrorists ideas about 11th hour bombings before elections in other countries. But enough on that point as this situation opens up a can of worms logically.

For one thing, this is referred to as America "losing an ally" in the war on terror. (In the election turnaround in Spain.) Now I am confused because we had no "allies" according to John Kerry.{1} Why now that Spain has folded like a cheap tent and voted in the Al Queda fan club liberal party in that country were they a "former ally." How can they go from not being an ally to being a former ally. Something does not jive with these media reports.

While my readers know that I am not much of a George Bush fan, I can nonetheless not see how a vote for Kerry is not a vote for Al Queda. Which reminds me of something else.

If (i) Al Queda is behind this bombing and (ii) they did so because Spain was an ally of ours in the recent war, then (iii) what of the claim that there was no connection between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein??? It would seem strange for Al Queda to care about what we did to Hussein and Iraq if there was no alliance of any kind (read: no connection) there. How will the media pundits explain away this one and will John Kerry actually name any of the so-called "world leaders" that he claims support him against Bush??? These are two questions that I would like to see answers to.

I am reminded of the old Bob Hope joke where he says that Joseph McCarthy claimed to have obtained the names of over 200 communists. Bob's punchline: [McCarthy] had gotten his hands on a Moscow phone book. In Kerry's case, he claims to have met with these leaders. But where (out of curiosity) did the media ever report Kerry meeting with foreign leaders???

You have to think that such meetings would be heavily reported since (i) the media wants Kerry to win and (ii) such meetings would give Kerry the appearance of being "presidential material" and also give him a certain amount of foreign policy credentials in the eyes of the average Joe Six Pack who at best casually follows these matters. Are we to believe that the media would avoid making Kerry look as presidential as he could by neglecting to report such meetings with foreign leaders??? Or is it more probable that Kerry is lying his keister off again???

In short, there are a lot of loose ends that need tying up for the Democrats as I see it...and not only that they have to root for higher unemployment, for increased job loss, for increased deficits, and also (it seems) for another terrorist strike right before our elections.{2} As far as Spain goes, the only concern they seem to have about the Spain explosion is that they see it as political fuel for their agenda. Which raises another question:

Does this make a vote for Kerry and the Democrats -who have long claimed that Bush exaggerated the scope of the terrorism threat for political advantage- a vote for Al Queda type terrorists??? I am forced in light of all that is noted above to answer that question with a "yes" unfortunately.

Notes:

{1} Except of course for Great Britain.

{2} With the hope that America will follow the poltroons of Spain and vote in our full blown socialist party (the Democrats) to replace our wishy-washy "ambiguously-socialist-on-domestic-policy-issues" party (the Republicans).

For more musings on these and other related subjects, please see this subsequent weblog link. -ISM (3/22/04 9:28 am)

Points to Ponder:

Obedience is foreign to the minds of the modern world because, again, it is sacrificial. Every obedience requires that we sacrifice our wills for truth. It requires that we be humble, to know that we cannot know everything, that we are fallible beings. Knowing that we are fallible beings, we know that there is always the possibiliy of error. No matter how intelligent we think we are, self-abandonment, self-sacrifice, is primary. And self-abandonment means to trust that God will work through us, through our thoughts, through our life, even if we do not think that we are walking on the right way. This is what obedience means. It is through obedience that we will grow in wisdom. [Apolonio Latar III (January 14, 2004)]

"St. Blogs Parish Hall" Dept.

Mary H of the Ever New BLOG has started a St. Blog's Parish Hall discussion board. It is set up a lot like the Catholic Converts board before the Novus Boardo format was imposed in January of 2003.{1} I even see some familiar names from years past (Walt, Lane Core Jr, Mary H) and fellow bloggers of St. Blog's as well. (Lane and Mary are also in this category.)

Though I will not make any promises, I will nonetheless note that it is probable that I will post there in the coming months at least occasionally. Such endeavours will depend on (i) the subject being discussed (ii) who is doing the discussing (iii) if I want to muse on the subject being discussed at that time and (iv) if I have time to involve myself there.

My guess offhand is that any posts for the Parish Hall that I put up will be written first at Rerum Novarum and then linked to the Parish Hall system. That is what I am generally inclined to do with message boards now for many reasons.{2} But anyway, I thought you may be interested in the Parish Hall and by all means, stop by and pay Mary a visit. She is one of the nicest people you will meet I assure you.

Notes:

{1} I had been finding myself less and less pleased with the way that board was going in 2002 but I still weighed in on occasion or when specifically requested to. However, when I sought to log on to wish the board a happy new year on January 1, 2003, my password of almost four years would not register. That was the next to last straw for me viz. posting at that board. (The last straw was the Novus Boardo format.)

{2} Primarily because it saves time and duplication of material that way. Though I often blog more developed versions of previous message box posts that is due to space constraints in the message box formats. (Which message boards generally do not have.)

Reprising a Request for Dialogue on Foundational Premises:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

It seems good at this time to reiterate a previous dialogue request to my friend Tim Enloe which was issued two weeks ago. Slightly adjusted to reflect the time passage and refined a little bit, here is the text of that request once again. -ISM

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.

Such impasses are 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.

Of course 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 constraints on my time that I noted a month ago today.)

Paul's Gospel vs. Our Gospel (From Rabbi Saul via. Cor Ad Cor Loquitur)

Another Review of The Passion:

This time from Mark Shea.

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.

All I will note upfront about this imperfection is that it is doubtful that there are many people who do not run aground spiritually due to the imperfection of luxury or the sensual element obscuring or hindering in some manner or another their spiritual advancement.

CHAPTER IV

Of other imperfections which these beginners are apt to have with respect to the third sin, which is luxury.

MANY of these beginners have many other imperfections than those which I am describing with respect to each of the deadly sins, but these I set aside, in order to avoid prolixity, touching upon a few of the most important, which are, as it were, the origin and cause of the rest. And thus, with respect to this sin of luxury (leaving apart the falling of spiritual persons into this sin, since my intent is to treat of the imperfections which have to be purged by the dark night), they have many imperfections which might be described as spiritual luxury, not because they are so, but because the imperfections proceed from spiritual things.

For it often comes to pass that, in their very spiritual exercises, when they are powerless to prevent it, there arise and assert themselves in the sensual part of the soul impure acts and motions, and sometimes this happens even when the spirit is deep in prayer, or engaged in the Sacrament of Penance or in the Eucharist. These things are not, as I say, in their power; they proceed from one of three causes.

The first cause from which they often proceed is the pleasure which human nature takes in spiritual things. For when the spirit and the sense are pleased, every part of a man is moved by that pleasure to delight according to its proportion and nature. For then the spirit, which is the higher part, is moved to pleasure and delight in God; and the sensual nature, which is the lower part, is moved to pleasure and delight of the senses, because it cannot possess and lay hold upon aught else, and it therefore lays hold upon that which comes nearest to itself, which is the impure and sensual.

Thus it comes to pass that the soul is in deep prayer with God according to the spirit, and, on the other hand, according to sense it is passively conscious, not without great displeasure, of rebellions and motions and acts of the senses, which often happens in Communion, for when the soul receives joy and comfort in this act of love, because this Lord bestows it (since it is to that end that He gives Himself), the sensual nature takes that which is its own likewise, as we have said, after its manner.

Now as, after all, these two parts are combined in one individual, they ordinarily both participate in that which one of them receives, each after its manner; for, as the philosopher says, everything that is received is in the recipient after the manner of the same recipient. And thus, in these beginnings, and even when the soul has made some progress, its sensual part, being imperfect, oftentimes receives the Spirit of God with the same imperfection.

Now when this sensual part is renewed by the purgation of the dark night which we shall describe, it no longer has these weaknesses; for it is no longer this part that receives aught, but rather it is itself received into the Spirit. And thus it then has everything after the manner of the Spirit.

The second cause whence these rebellions sometimes proceed is the devil, who, in order to disquiet and disturb the soul, at times when it is at prayer or is striving to pray, contrives to stir up these motions of impurity in its nature; and if the soul gives heed to any of these, they cause it great harm.

For through fear of these not only do persons become lax in prayer--which is the aim of the devil when he begins to strive with them--but some give up prayer altogether, because they think that these things attack them more during that exercise than apart from it, which is true, since the devil attacks them then more than at other times, so that they may give up spiritual exercises.

And not only so, but he succeeds in portraying to them very vividly things that are most foul and impure, and at times are very closely related to certain spiritual things and persons that are of profit to their souls, in order to terrify them and make them fearful; so that those who are affected by this dare not even look at anything or meditate upon anything, because they immediately encounter this temptation.

And upon those who are inclined to melancholy this acts with such effect that they become greatly to be pitied since they are suffering so sadly; for this trial reaches such a point in certain persons, when they have this evil humour, that they believe it to be clear that the devil is ever present with them and that they have no power to prevent this, although some of these persons can prevent his attack by dint of great effort and labour.

When these impurities attack such souls through the medium of melancholy, they are not as a rule freed from them until they have been cured of that kind of humour, unless the dark night has entered the soul, and rids them of all impurities, one after another.

The third source whence these impure motions are apt to proceed in order to make war upon the soul is often the fear which such persons have conceived for these impure representations and motions. Something that they see or say or think brings them to their mind, and this makes them afraid, so that they suffer from them through no fault of their own.

There are also certain souls of so tender and frail a nature that, when there comes to them some spiritual consolation or some grace in prayer, the spirit of luxury is with them immediately, inebriating and delighting their sensual nature in such manner that it is as if they were plunged into the enjoyment and pleasure of this sin; and the enjoyment remains, together with the consolation, passively, and sometimes they are able to see that certain impure and unruly acts have taken place.

The reason for this is that, since these natures are, as I say, frail and tender, their humours are stirred up and their blood is excited at the least disturbance. And hence come these motions; and the same thing happens to such souls when they are enkindled with anger or suffer any disturbance or grief.[1]

Sometimes, again, there arises within these spiritual persons, whether they be speaking or performing spiritual actions, a certain vigour and bravado, through their having regard to persons who are present, and before these persons they display a certain kind of vain gratification. This also arises from luxury of spirit, after the manner wherein we here understand it, which is accompanied as a rule by complacency in the will.

Some of these persons make friendships of a spiritual kind with others, which oftentimes arise from luxury and not from spirituality; this may be known to be the case when the remembrance of that friendship causes not the remembrance and love of God to grow, but occasions remorse of conscience.

For, when the friendship is purely spiritual, the love of God grows with it; and the more the soul remembers it, the more it remembers the love of God, and the greater the desire it has for God; so that, as the one grows, the other grows also.

For the spirit of God has this property, that it increases good by adding to it more good, inasmuch as there is likeness and conformity between them. But, when this love arises from the vice of sensuality aforementioned, it produces the contrary effects; for the more the one grows, the more the other decreases, and the remembrance of it likewise.

If that sensual love grows, it will at once be observed that the soul's love of God is becoming colder, and that it is forgetting Him as it remembers that love; there comes to it, too, a certain remorse of conscience.

And, on the other hand, if the love of God grows in the soul, that other love becomes cold and is forgotten; for, as the two are contrary to one another, not only does the one not aid the other, but the one which predominates quenches and confounds the other, and becomes strengthened in itself, as the philosophers say.

Wherefore Our Saviour said in the Gospel: 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.'[38] That is to say, the love which is born of sensuality ends in sensuality, and that which is of the spirit ends in the spirit of God and causes it to grow. This is the difference that exists between these two kinds of love, whereby we may know them.

When the soul enters the dark night, it brings these kinds of love under control. It strengthens and purifies the one, namely that which is according to God; and the other it removes and brings to an end; and in the beginning it causes both to be lost sight of, as we shall say hereafter.

To be Continued...

Note:

[1] All writers who comment upon this delicate matter go into lengthy and learned explanations of it, though in reality there is little that needs to be added to the Saint's clear and apt exposition.

It will be remembered that St. Teresa once wrote to her brother Lorenzo, who suffered in this way: 'As to those stirrings of sense. . . . I am quite clear they are of no account, so the best thing is to make no account of them' (LL. 168). The most effective means of calming souls tormented by these favours is to commend them to a discreet and wise director whose counsel they may safely follow. The Illuminists committed the grossest errors in dealing with this matter.

John F-word Kerry's Voting Record Revisited:

Having decided earlier in the week to eventually slog through the various points of Senator Kerry's voting record, the results are posted here for your perusal. Though this is based mostly on the bullet-point summations, I did check the context closer on the ambiguous statements of which there were some. Nonetheless, without further ado, let us get to it:

---On the Abortion subject, Kerry is 0-5

---On the Budget and Economy subjects, Kerry is 1-6 at best.{1}

---On the Civil Rights subject, Kerry is 1-13.{2}

---On the Corporations subject, Kerry is 0-3.

---On the Crime subject, Kerry is 5-11.{3}

---On the Drugs subject, Kerry is 1-3.{4}

---On the Education subject, Kerry is 1-14.{5}

---On the Energy and Oil subjects, Kerry is 0-18.{6}

---On the Environment subject, Kerry is at best 1-10.{7}

---On the Families and Children subjects, Kerry is 2-3.{8}

---On the Foreign Policy subject, Kerry is 0-12.{9}

---On the Free Trade subject, Kerry is 0-14.{10}

---On the Government Reform subject, Kerry is 1-10.{11}

---On the Gun Control subject, Kerry is 0-7.

---On the Health Care subject, Kerry is 1-14.{12}

---On the Homeland Security subject, Kerry is at best 3-18.{13}

---On the Immigration subject, Kerry is at best 1-5.{14}

---On the Infrastructure subject, Kerry is 5-5.{15}

---On the Jobs subject, Kerry is at best 2-8.{16}

---On the Principles and Values subjects, Kerry is at best 2-17.{17}

---On the Social Security subject, Kerry is 0-8.{18}

---On the Tax Reform subject, Kerry is 0-16.{19}

---On the War and Peace subjects, Kerry is 0-24.{20}

---On the Welfare and Poverty subjects, Kerry is 7-7.{21}

There are 251 points in this examination. As a rule, Senator Kerry did very poorly in every category though there were of course some stellar exceptions. (Welfare/Poverty and Infrastructure where he had a perfect score in each.) However, in registering 34 out of a possible 251, that equates to a 13.54% rating.

President Bush would be far from perfect himself. Nonetheless, he would do significantly better on the whole than Kerry has. And we have not even considered the subject of same-sex so-called "marriages" - an area where I have noted already was the most significant issue facing us today bar none.

His 13.54% rating notwithstanding, Senator John F-word Kerry fails and fails huge on the defining issue of our age. So between that and his miserable voting record on other issues, We at Rerum Novarum will be biting our tongues and voting for Bush. Kerry's lousy voting record -which has been examined here- is simply more nails in his coffin as far as this writer is concerned.

Notes:

{1} If given the benefit of the doubt on the first bullet-point in that category. (In reality he is about half-right on it.)

{2} In this category, I concur with him on opposing the constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning only.

{3} In the crime category, I concur with him on the moratorium on federal executions -though I would except more than terrorism from it, the death penalty for Osama bin Laden, on restricting class action lawsuits -if they cannot be eliminated altogether that is, on repealing federal speed limits (already happened), and on DNA testing for all federal executions.

{4} I frankly could care less whether or not he has smoked marijuana.

{5} He is correct on supporting charter school proposal only.

{6} There is no way I could support any of his alternative ideas on energy if they include continuing the charade of not drilling for oil on US soil. For not opening up more drilling -or more oil to be pumped from existing oil supplies- is to allow our oil prices to be affected by OPEC.

{7} When I read about a vote against a candidate for Secretary of the Interior who is "conservative to libertarian" on environmental issues, I am not sure I would necessarily disagree with this vote. See this link for an idea of my environmental outlook.

{8} His idea of more funding for programs like Head Start is problematical. I see little else in this subject to take issue with him on -but then there were three points only.

{9} Even his Africa proposal is tainted by the fact that he would seek to implement the same kind of population control methods which are killing first world nations economically.

{10} This is an unfortunate canard of the so-called "neo-conservatives" but even people generally liberal such as Kerry support it. In the case of the liberals, it it is likely because they like the idea of international organizations outside of US sovereignty telling us whom we can trade with and why. The so-called "neo-conservatives" fall for this kind of "voodoo economics" but cannot point to one single example in history where a nation became strong and prosperous due to so-called "free trade" without any recourse to protecting their borders.

The latter constituted the foundation of a challenge I made to some of my business instructors in college who were pro free trade. And despite not being able to answer the challenge, they still uncritically mimicked the "free trade" mantra. My exposing of this canard before the classes I was in -and invariably making my instructors look very bad in the process- probably prevented me from getting the grades I should have gotten in those classes.

{11} He voted correctly on the presidential line item veto.

{12} He voted correctly on medical savings accounts. For those who think his tobacco vote was correct, kindly read a past weblog musing I did on teen smoking/teen sex double standard to understand the principles behind this common liberal double think.

{13} He views the subjects of military pay raises and benefits to veterans correctly. (About the only area where I feel that the federal government "owes benefits" to anyone -except the handicapped who cannot help themselves- is the veterans who have through their service kept this country free.) And I suppose his view on chemical weapons is okay -though I am not sure I concur with it. His other positions are predictable and IMO detrimental to national security.

{14} He may have voted correctly to oppose visas for skilled workers. To determine this would require a bit more study but we should not be giving anyone visas who is in this country illegally. Nor should we be giving citizenship to illegals no matter how long they are here.

{15} Yes, you read that right.

{16} The idea for ergonomic rules for repetitive stress is a good one and one area that businesses should have much greater concern about than many of them do. The "energy independence" claim is shallow since Kerry would not be willing to allow for more drilling on US soil; ergo his position on "energy independence" is a sham since he would outlaw the one approach that would guarantee energy independence for this nation.

As far as "trade grows jobs" yes it can -depending of course on how this is approached. But there is too much vagueness on Kerry's part here to give him props for this position -particularly since he is on the record as a deluded proponent of so-called "free trade."

{17} A campaign built around "a call to service" is of course good -provided that it is genuine. (It is hard to take someone like Kerry seriously considering how often he tries to have it both ways on issues.) The rest is of course a bunch of pseudo-pious fluff but of course Kerry has the right to his favourite song even if he and I do not agree.

{18} And no, his "Retirement Savings Accounts" idea is not a good one if you read the fine print.

{19} You read that right.

{20} See footnote nineteen. Even the good sounding quips in that section if you check the context are not what they appear at first glance.

{21} Gotta give the devil Kerry his due on this one.

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.