On Workable Remedies For Society's Problems, Etc.:
(Dialogue with Kevin Tierney)

This is a response to Kevin's response to my weblog entry blogged HERE. (It is also to some extent a continuation of our discussions on church and state the last installment of which can be read HERE.) His words will be in shale coloured font. Any sources I reference will be in darkgreen.

Kevin:

I appreciate your nice words about Rerum Novarum. As far as my other weblogs go, the Miscellaneous BLOG is basically an extension of Rerum Novarum and is usually a place where foundational principles which outline my approach to divers subjects are sketched out in brief. (Or definitions of key terms utilized in dialogue.) Of a different purpose of course is The Lidless Eye Inquisition.

I am sure that it would not surprise you if I noted that I view The Lidless Eye Inquisition weblog much differently than you do. Not only is this because numerous are the people who have expressed to varying degrees an appreciation for what we do there.{1} There are also many more Catholics who were taken in (or nearly taken in) by the propaganda from so-called "traditionalists" have expressed appreciation for the role of that apostolate -in conjunction with a number of my web writings- has had in helping them see the light.

And among those who -despite having the scales removed from their eyes- remain attached to some forms of Tridentine discipline and worship are directed accordingly to apostolates which are not antagonistic to the faith or to authentic spiritual progress. In short, we will have to agree to disagree there since the number of those I respect who are favourable to the enterprise by far outweigh those I respect who are not.

While the issues of abortion, contraception, and gay marriage are all very important issues, I believe they are but symptoms of a far larger issue, that of a flagrant disrespect for rule of law that comes from judicial activism.

It is highly probable that I have discussed the perversion of the Law -and remedies against said perversions- more in cyberspace than almost anyone who has sought to deal with this subject. Virtually all commentators are critics and I see that as something that anyone can do. By contrast, it takes genuine effort to be both critical and also proactive. I believe you have sought to do this but are nonetheless mistaken in your approach to the subject of marriage in civilization.

The redefinition of the institution of marriage is not a mere symptom of a larger issue as I see it; instead it is the root and matrix of every culture if you will. For the institution of marriage is the cornerstone of all civilization. Furthermore, marriage embodies explicitly within itself all fundamental rights of man. And history unambiguously bears witness to the fact that the existence of the civilization that succeeds in undermining that central societal structure will be extinguished. Without a shadow of doubt.

As we know, one of the primary (if not the primary) purposes of law is to safeguard the sanctity of life.

Life is but one of the fundamental God-given rights of man. In a nutshell the three are life, faculties, and production. These three rights precede all legislation and all properly formed legislation must safeguard these three rights. Furthermore, these rights cannot stand independent of one another. Indeed when one is trampled upon, the others are as well -like breaking one leg off of a three-legged stool. The subject of marriage directly involves not one of these fundamental rights but definitely two of them and arguably all three. It is also the bedrock of all civilizations and history shows us that as it goes, so goes civilization.

No civilization can continue to exist without a stable rule of law.

No civilization can continue to exist without (i) preservation and promotion of the institution of marriage which is the bedrock foundation of all civilization and (ii) a proper understanding of the role of law in society in its protection of the three fundamental rights of man.

The idea of imposing ideas down people's throats that the majority are opposed to, through high priests in black robes in the courts, sets a very dangerous precedent, and allows no rule of law.

This is a perversion of law certainly.

Those who oppose these programs could just as easily in the future use the courts for their own ends, the same way the liberals use them nowadays.

Agreed.

I took a lot of heat on this issue from friends before when I called Justice Roy Moore a "Conservative judicial activist" who flagrantly violated the rule of law to suit his own purposes. Those who censured Moore, the majority agreed with his premise about the 10 commandments.

True.

The only problem was Moore refused to play by the rule of law, purposely delayed submitting his briefs, forcing a showdown in the public eye, that I honestly believe did no good for us. Many don't realize before prosecuting Moore, Attorney General Pryor had offered to argue Moore's case in the court system. We must beware of such actions on all sides of the fence.

I believe we can extend some leeway to Justice Moore if he is a non-Catholic (as I believe he is) since the principle of "the end does not justify the means" is usually not common to the religious traditions of non-Catholics. He violated that maxim as much as the mayors of these cities who are violating the rule of law in issuing pseudo "marriages" are doing. Those mayors should at the very least be treated as Justice Moore has been but of course that will not happen. (Due to an obvious double-standard employed by the media elites.)

Back to the issue at hand. Most conservatives are rightly opposing these social issues, yet ignoring the cause behind them. Abortion was forced on a nation where the majority opposed it. They were fed lies, and the courts were used by the liberals to achieve what they could not achieve elsewhere. The role of the Supreme Court was never to make laws, but to interpret them. Yet even prominent liberal Constitutional scholars such as Dershowitz admit this wasn't the case with Roe vs. Wade.

True. However, as I noted in a weblog post last year on the subject of language control{2}:

[A]ll forms of engineering - be it social, philosophical, theological, political, medical, scientific, legal, or otherwise is preceded by verbal engineering.

Among the verbal engineering which preceded Roe v. Wade was the attempts to redefine the meaning of terms such as "rights", "life" and "free speech." These were spun against the backdrop of a largely fictionalized accounting of civil rights as part of the agenda being promoted. But this is not only something which played out in the political/social arena.

For you see, the same situation happened in the Church with regards to subjects such as usury and slavery amongst many so-called "progressivists" much as subjects such as "ecumenism" and "religious liberty" have been treated by many so-called "traditionalists."

For of these extremes, they each use certain issues as "talking points" to attempt to justify disobedience to the Church's teaching or current disciplines based on the false notions that (i) teaching was in "error" in the past (or present) on said points and (ii) teaching having presumably changed on said points in the past means that it is defacto changeable in the future. (And as a result there is no reason to give proper obedience to what they do not like in the present.)

These are the same tactics used by the liberal political dissidents. And the idea that an authority cannot command obedience even when said authority is (possibly) in error underlies this approach to issues.

Likewise, in the gay marriage issue, the courts have been the one to force this upon the will of the people, violating again the rule of law. Conservatives are losing the battle by failing to demonstrate that the activists are looking to change the definition, not apply the definition.

Conservatives are losing the battle because they are not viewing the three fundamental rights of man as the seamless garment issues that they are -if they even recognize them explicitly at all. Nor for that matter do they place enough of an emphasis on the notions of public order and common good which must accompany any legitimate approach to issues. (And must trump any individuals opinions in the event of a contradiction.)

So while I agree with you that the "abortion or bust approach" doesn't really work, I think I'm taking it a step further than you are Shawn, at least in this regard. (I'm guessing me and you will be in general agreement on this.)

I think we are in general agreement but not in particulars. As I see it, your premise is that it all rests on respect for authority viz. the rule of law. I see this as only part of the equation.{3} I take the subject beyond this to the most fundamental of human rights given to us by God: rights which precede all man made laws and to which all laws were originally framed to protect.

Indeed if anything I have not blogged on these themes enough{4} but my reasons for refraining to the extent I have (time constraints excepted of course) is to avoid appearing to try and ram an agenda down people's throats. I get annoyed when others do that to me so I have to be careful and strive to persuade without being too overbearing. It is not an easy balancing act by any stretch I assure you.

We must also realize that no government survives in socialism, something the Democrats are rapidly promoting.

Socialism inexorably dissolves into Communism over time.

The fact that properly defined, there are striking similarities between the political ideologies of Hitler and that of many prominent Democrats many don't realize. Hitler was a socialist, and the best thing the left did was cover this fact up, and make people think Hitler represented the "far right."

Correct. Fascism is a slightly less totalitarian philosophy than Communism. It is heavily rooted in socialism -indeed Nazi was an amalgam for the National Socialist German Worker's Party. The extreme of communism on the "right" is anarchy: and the US Constitution was framed slightly to the "left" of anarchy. (To utilize the common faulty "left" and "right" terminology.)

Since the majority of liberals are showing utter contempt for the rule of law, they must figure out something to be in place of that rule of law, and their choice is socialism. (A side note, the main reason conservatives are losing the culture war is because we have no alternative to it. Though perhaps this is the case because sadly, the individualism of Protestantism limits it's cultural and social aspects.)

I and others have enunciated workable alternatives to the socialist juggernaut for years. The problem is, people accept as true a lot of "facts" which are in reality not true. When paradigms are built on shifty foundations and the prism to which things are viewed is altered, it alters all things.

I could write a book of thousands of pages on many such examples that are accepted as true which are not. But it is beyond the scope of this response to delve into that. As far as Protestantism goes, it has a definite weakness in the area of an overemphasis on individualism over and against the collective or common good. By contrast, Catholic social theory improperly utilized can have a weakness of overemphasis on the common good or the collective majority to the detriment of legitimate individualist or smaller group aspirations.

A properly balanced outlook should respect both individualism and collective elements: individualism insofar as it does not do injustice to the public order of a society (or its common good). And of course the common good insofar as individuals should not be forced in areas which are not necessary for the maintenance of public order and society's common good to have to conform their outlooks to the views of others.

This is not an easy balancing act to do -indeed mankind is to some extent destined to fail at it. Therefore, concessions to weakness or vice are necessary to be made. However, these cannot undermine the public order or the common good of society.{5}

While many are attacking the symptoms of the problem, I prefer to attack the source of the problem, a degrading of the rule of law, and a slow advancement towards socialism by the leaders of the Democrats today.

It is not just the Democrats who are guilty of perverting the concept of law in a just society Kevin. For the Republicans are also guilty though not to the same extent. Nonetheless, we cannot let them have a "get out of jail" card since they give credence to a lot of the foundational premises from which the Democrats illogically posit their rhetorical trajectories from: foundational premises which are themselves grounded in a perverse understanding of the proper role of law in a just society.

With regards to your prescription for society's ills, I see it as attacking one of the heads of the hydra headed monster much as I see Pete's approach doing. If you recall, in Greek Mythology the hydra was only killed when stabbed through the heart. Likewise, the problems of society will not be corrected with lopping off the heads of "abortion", "contraception", "improper usage of the death penalty", "respect for the rule of law", "secularism", etc. off the body of the beast. All of these while important are not at the heart of the beast: they are symptoms or "heads" which draw their nourishment from the heart or from certain foundational paradigmatic principles.

I have reiterated for years -either through implication or explication- that an integrated approach is needed that seeks to uphold the three fundamental rights of man as well as recognizing (i) the importance of the concept of public order of society (ii) the concept of the common good of society, and also (iii) the importance of obedience to one's superiors -be they ecclesiastical or temporal- will truly get to the heart of the problems of our society. I suppose that (iv) proper definitions of terms such as "right" and "free speech" are also of assistance.{6} Indeed, We at Rerum Novarum have gone over all of these aspects in sundry times and in divers manners.

It could also be noted that religious morality has a role here too but more obliquely than is commonly recognized.{7} In a nutshell: that is how I see approaching these issues. I do not believe that the end that I have differs from what you and Pete have, only the means. And I believe that my means for achieving that end are more integral and stand on firmer foundations than those advanced by you, Pete, Professor Miller, and several others -with all due respect to you all.

I will note in closing that it is not a mere coincidence that my approach to ecclesiastical matters parallel very closely with how I approach political and social issues. By contrast, I am not sure the same is the case for most others who strive to commentate on both of these spheres of subject matter. Nonetheless, I am hardly above being persuaded otherwise if someone feels inclined to want to do this.

Notes:

{1} Including many prominent Catholic evangelists but I will not note them here out of a desire to avoid namedropping.

{2} On the Underlying Weltanschauung of "Language Control"

{3} Though the lack of a proper notion of obedience is no minor bagatelle by any means.

{4} A large number of the threads on these themes up to late October 2003 are connected to this post. Since that time other threads have of course been added but the above is a good summary thread of the first fourteen months of Rerum Novarum on subjects pertaining to that subject line. (A series of threads which include about twenty pertaining to Claude Frederic Bastiat's magnum opus The Law: the definitive treatment on the subject of the proper role for law in a just society. The expositions of this writer draw heavily on that source.)

{5} An example of a concession that undermines the public order and the common good of a society would be homosexual so-called "marriages." By contrast, an example of a "concession to weakness or vice" would be something along the lines of prostitution in a culture that did not hold prostitution up as some noble aspiration or in anyway as legitimate as the institution of marriage.

{6} But not as much as the first three since they set the ground rules for how the latter terms would be properly defined.

{7} This weblog writer's goal has been to formulate principles that those of faith and who are not of faith could grasp and utilize if they are of good will. This has a dual benefit since it does not ask those of faith to set aside their faith and does not demand of those without faith to obtain faith.

Essentially, with this methodology, those who already adhere to religious moral principles can supplement their positions with these arguments. Likewise, those that do not have faith or religious convictions have a common foundation of reason and logic from which they can approach these issues with those who are of faith.

On Theological and Liturgical Ressourcement, 'Traditionalist' Schools of Thought, Abortion, and Other Subjects With Kevin Tierney and Pete Vere:

The words of the other two persons in this discussion (Kevin Tierney and Pete Vere) will be in shale font and in blue font respectively. This is essentially a response to Pete's response to Kevin though this response does include some material from Kevin's well-thought-out email to Pete and this writer that Pete did not respond to. Any sources cited by this writer will be in darkgreen font.

Mr. Vere,

I hope this letter finds you in good spirits. I'd like to commend you for your one article on CIEL and Adoremus. While I myself do not subscribe to the "Reform of the Reform"...

Hello Kevin and Pete:

Though this writer appreciates greatly the work of Adoremus -and even links to them at this humble weblog, at the same time that is not to imply support of a "reform of the reform" concept. Essentially the view of this humble weblog is much more ressourcement oriented and seeking of a renewal through two means:

---Purifying the streams of what is not sanctioned by the Holy See by distinguishing what is and is not permissible.

---As a result of the first point, proceeding to recommend implementable solutions to problems that take into account present realities.

As a result, such proposals as are made at this weblog generally speaking are (i) pastorally expedient (ii) take into account situations as they are rather than as We wish they were and (iii) are as much as possible drawn from the wellstream of the whole of the Great Tradition rather than one small inlet of that wellstream.{1}

This does not necessarily mean that what We recommend is the only solution to the problems noted of course. However, this writer has at all times the view of doing what can be done to aid in the restoration of Christian Unity not as an abstract idea but as a reality to be achieved.{2} This is the prism to which this writer has long viewed the Indult or other attempts to call those who refer to themselves as "traditionalists" to involvement in this venture.

The long and short of it is the following principle: to the extent that the Indult has the Holy Father's concurrence it also has the concurrence of this writer. Being caught as he is between the west and the east -as his ancestry is both Latin Catholicism and also Ukrainian Catholic/Ukrainian Orthodox- this writer's view of the streams from which to draw is much broader than most Catholics. This is also why Rerum Novarum has not and never will give voice to the prevarication that "catholicity means uniformity" because it is not true not and it never has been -Counter-reformational pretentions on the matter notwithstanding.

Of course in such proposals as are advanced here are also ideas for correcting intra-church difficulties as well. This is why for example We have recommended as of late replacing the current manner of administrating communion in the Latin rite with intincture and have further mused on how this proposal jells with the common good of all the Churches.

There is a lot of majoring in minors by far too many people. The interest in this weblog is ressourcement not apologetical propaganda. That can mean at times saying things that will appear to be contrary to "the cause" -something that in those of a more propagandistic mindset view as anathema. But then again, We make no pretentions at promoting polemical propaganda here so if that is what the reader is looking for, they are advised to look elsewhere.

[While I myself do not subscribe to the "Reform of the Reform"] I think you[r] article poses some interesting questions Traditionalists need to think about.

What you mean to say is that these are questions AMERICAN traditionalists need to think about.

Precisely Pete. There is a lot more to the multifaceted movement called "Traditionalism" than simply the American aspects.

Shawn Tribe (a Canuck), myself (a Quebequois), Luc Gagnon (a Quebequois), Loic Merian (French and founder of CIEL), Fr. Paul Aulagnier (French and co-founder of the SSPX with the Archbishop), Fr. Arnaud Devillers (French and FSSP Superior General), Dom Basile Valuet (French and Le Barroux's head theologian) as well as Abbe Gerard de Servigny (FSSP France's head theologian) are all traditionalists who have pondered these questions for years. I could make a similar list for American conservatives.

Indeed though of course this writer would hesitate to be categorized as a "conservative" for reasons already noted before and reiterated not long ago. And most of the above are examples of the very sorts of people which The Lidless Eye Inquisition in no way takes issue with because it is beyond the scope of that weblog's purpose.{3}

In a nutshell, here's the problem. While we French moderate trads are very open to discussion and academic dialogue, French conservatives tend to have a ghetto mentality in which they prefer division and polemic. In America, the situation is reversed -- most American conservatives are pretty open to discussion and academic dialogue with their traditionalist counterparts, however, it is the trads in America who wish to maintain the polemic and a ghetto mentality.

Most of the time yes, the latter is certainly as a rule true. But of course all rules admit of exceptions. Pete, you surely know a number of trads who are not interested in the polemic. They might know a few of the "talking points" at best -if they know any of them at all- but they do not push them if they know them. Indeed they are instead simply doing what they do for their own reasons which can be varied. One cannot be in traditionalist circles and not run into these kinds of people -indeed even possibly have them in their families sometimes.

Ergo, I've long advocated that we do a switch. Namely, we set up French conservatives with American traditionalists, and allow them to battle for supreme obstiancy. I could care less who wins, I'm simply happy that this would mean them going off into a corner and leaving the rest of us alone.

Yes.

We moderate French trads and our American conservative counterparts could then continue our dialog, which has born much good fruit in the past, uninterupted by the obstinacy of French conservatives and American traditionalists.

It has borne very good fruit. Indeed, though Kevin may find this difficult to believe, the primary purpose of The Lidless Eye Inquisition is and always has been to serve as one facet of promoting authentic dialogue. Likewise, this writer's recent commentary on the intricacies of dialogue{4} serves the same purpose but on a more universal scope.

While many traditionalists oppose the Novus Ordo while believing it valid, Traditionalists need to realize that Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo are Catholics nonetheless.

A concept that is difficult to inculcate amongst them as long as terms such as "neo-catholic" and "traditionalist" are used: two very misleading terms for reasons too numerous to go over here.

They are faced with a liturgy where there are certain problems, and reform is needed.

This is true. However, the same situation presents itself with the liturgy celebrated by those who call themselves "traditionalists." The difference though is that the problems are not as easily preceived due to (i) the language barrier issue and (ii) the fact that most who utilize the older liturgy tend to now not take it for granted and thus generally celebrate it with proper reverence. Nonetheless, this liturgy as well has its problems as this writer has outlined in not a few articles over the years.{5}

If that reform helps them in worshipping God, and bringing them to a stronger representation of the Catholic faith, then this matter should by all means be applauded.

Agreed. This writer has proposed some areas of reform for the older liturgy to serve the same purpose.{6}

It's something I lament amongst Traditionalism, that while our ultimate goal for anything we do is for the salvation of souls...

Of course the implied position oftentimes is that those who do not align themselves with those who call themselves "traditionalists" do not have the same modus opperandi in mind. (Though to Kevin's credit he does not appear to endorse this position at all.)

...we don't realize the big picture, and that there are numerous issues that one must look at, to help those who are looking for true reform in the obedience to the Holy Father.

There are a lot of details to the big picture this is true.

While I didn't agree with all of what you wrote in that article, the fact you are willing to raise these questions, and put this issue on the table so to speak for "liturgy buffs" is very commendable.

:)

Next onto your commentary of "Aside from Abortion." While abortion is certainly the most important issue, the Democrats (such as Dean and John Kerry), and the liberals in Canada your colleague John Pacheco battles with, fail in numerous areas of Catholic doctrine apart from the issue of abortion.

This is true certainly.

This piece must be read in the context of an on-going political debate taking place in blogosphere. It was simply a rhetorical device to show that abortion trumps all other life issues. However, in the on-going debate, it was quickly followed up by another blog entry entitled "Not Just Abortion", which you can read here.

In the view of this present writer, the only life issue that trumps abortion is the one that preserves the cornerstone of civilization. Essentially the preservation of civilization trumps abortion but the latter -as the killing of life that it is- contributes to a decline in the preservation of civilization. Likewise abortion trumps artificial contraception but the latter contributes to a decline in the respect for life and thus could arguably be said to pave the way for abortion.

And of course artificial contraception trumps the death penalty improperly utilized. However, the latter as it also cheapens life paves the way for the cheapening of life in other ways -such as rampant artificial contraceptive practices, abortion, etc. But as this writer has noted a worse problem than abortion and done so obliquely, he will clarify it explicitly: same sex so-called "marriage" is worse than abortion.

The reason this is said is that marriage is the cornerstone of any and all civilization. And while abortion and artificial contraception demean marriage, redefining marriage would be the stake through the heart of civilization. History bears this out everytime that unique institution is undermined or brought down to the level of others as a kind of "one option among many of presumably equal worth."

For society must have high moral standards which must remain as goals to be reached. We may fall short of them -indeed many of us often do. However, the solution is not to lower the standard to justify our failings. Instead, we are to work to improve ourselves to better attain to the high moral standards that any civilization interested in its own authentic betterment must promote.

Anyway, this writer is not sure that Pete and he agree on the rankings of these problems but what cinched it for this writer in voting for Bush was the stance of the latter on marriage. Indeed prior to that point, We at Rerum Novarum had planned to write a confutation of the arguments set forth by Professor Miller on the "abortion trumps all life issues" principle. (One which Pete appears to endorse.) But that idea for reasons that were noted on this weblog{7} has been indefinitely suspended.

Contraception in its varying artificial forms is evil; nonetheless societies have survived it throughout history. (Albeit not without varying degrees of damage.) Likewise, abortion is evil but again: societies have throughout history survived it -though again not without varying degrees of damage. But redefining or undermining marriage as the cornerstone of civilization has always (and will always) result in that civilization not only undergoing damage but also dying out. And it is for that reason that this writer disagrees with Pete and Professor Miller on the argument that abortion trumps all life issues.

In the view of this humble weblog, the defense of marriage trumps all existence issues. Period. And it is the thread around which both the issues of abortion and artificial contraception -and even improper uses of the death penalty- are all wound.


Notes:

{1} This is the largest problem with the approach taken by many of those who call themselves "traditionalists": their view of the Church is heavily coloured by post-Trent polemic and anachronisms and the view that certain policies of that period are viewed incorrectly as "what the Church always did." This is the case in many subjects that could be noted - two of which are the liturgy and ecumenism.

{2} Christian Unity and the Role of Authority

{3} A possible exception to this rule among those Pete named would be Fr. Paul Aulagnier. However, due to current circumstances (Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion from the SSPX and his current contacts with the Vatican), this writer is predisposed as a rule to simply defer to Pete's public musings on this subject -which the latter does in an authentically ecumenical manner it must be noted.

{4} On the Intricacies of Dialogue - A Commentary

{5} The following three urls from this writer's treatise contra false "traditionalism" are three of the half-dozen or so treatments on the mass written in the pre-Rerum Novarum days:

A Macro Look at the Two Rites of Mass

A Micro Look at the Pauline Mass (Part I)

A Micro Look at the Pauline Mass (Part II)

Another piece originally written for the above project (but later cut out when the work was abridged) was eventually made into a short essay of its own which can be read here:

A Short Primer on the Mass

While other writings could be listed, there is more than enough documented above to keep any readers interested in liturgical intricacies busy for a while.

{6} Though many areas could be mentioned here, the following represents a few recommendations from this writer which were blogged over a year ago:

Reform of the Tridentine Missal (Part I)

Reform of the Tridentine Missal (Part II)

{7} On the 2004 Election

To compensate for three weeks of a non-updated archives, I added to the archives so they run through to May 16th at the moment on the main page. At the moment I am contemplating a recasting of the subject headings of the main page and where certain posts are categorized. The Controverted Subjects heading became a convenient category to throw in anything that did not have a precise fit in the various categorizations I have utilized since founding this weblog. Having given it a look over I counted 48 links in it and have determined that the update I planned to do today will need to be postponed until probably into April. Tending to the weblog categorizations has to take precedence now so that is what I will be doing in what little spare time the next few days I will have viz. work on this weblog goes.

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. As things have been rather hectic around here, I apologize for being late in running the installment that was scheduled for Friday today.

CHAPTER VIII

Wherein is expounded the first line of the first stanza, and a beginning is made of the explanation of this dark night.

THIS night, which, as we say, is contemplation, produces in spiritual persons two kinds of darkness or purgation, corresponding to the two parts of man's nature--namely, the sensual and the spiritual. And thus the one night or purgation will be sensual, wherein the soul is purged according to sense, which is subdued to the spirit; and the other is a night or purgation which is spiritual, wherein the soul is purged and stripped according to the spirit, and subdued and made ready for the union of love with God.

The night of sense is common and comes to many: these are the beginners; and of this night we shall speak first. The night of the spirit is the portion of very few, and these are they that are already practised and proficient, of whom we shall treat hereafter.

The first purgation or night is bitter and terrible to sense, as we shall now show. The second bears no comparison with it, for it is horrible and awful to the spirit, as we shall show presently. Since the night of sense is first in order and comes first, we shall first of all say something about it briefly, since more is written of it, as of a thing that is more common; and we shall pass on to treat more fully of the spiritual night, since very little has been said of this, either in speech or in writing, and very little is known of it, even by experience.

Since, then, the conduct of these beginners upon the way of God is ignoble, and has much to do with their love of self and their own inclinations, as has been explained above, God desires to lead them farther. He seeks to bring them out of that ignoble kind of love to a higher degree of love for Him, to free them from the ignoble exercises of sense and meditation (wherewith, as we have said, they go seeking God so unworthily and in so many ways that are unbefitting), and to lead them to a kind of spiritual exercise wherein they can commune with Him more abundantly and are freed more completely from imperfections.

For they have now had practice for some time in the way of virtue and have persevered in meditation and prayer, whereby, through the sweetness and pleasure that they have found therein, they have lost their love of the things of the world and have gained some degree of spiritual strength in God; this has enabled them to some extent to refrain from creature desires, so that for God's sake they are now able to suffer a light burden and a little aridity without turning back to a time which they found more pleasant.

When they are going about these spiritual exercises with the greatest delight and pleasure, and when they believe that the sun of Divine favour is shining most brightly upon them, God turns all this light of theirs into darkness, and shuts against them the door and the source of the sweet spiritual water which they were tasting in God whensoever and for as long as they desired. (For, as they were weak and tender, there was no door closed to them, as Saint John says in the Apocalypse, iii, 8).

And thus He leaves them so completely in the dark that they know not whither to go with their sensible imagination and meditation; for they cannot advance a step in meditation, as they were wont to do afore time, their inward senses being submerged in this night, and left with such dryness that not only do they experience no pleasure and consolation in the spiritual things and good exercises wherein they were wont to find their delights and pleasures, but instead, on the contrary, they find insipidity and bitterness in the said things.

For, as I have said, God now sees that they have grown a little, and are becoming strong enough to lay aside their swaddling clothes and be taken from the gentle breast; so He sets them down from His arms and teaches them to walk on their own feet; which they feel to be very strange, for everything seems to be going wrong with them.

To recollected persons this commonly happens sooner after their beginnings than to others, inasmuch as they are freer from occasions of backsliding, and their desires turn more quickly from the things of the world, which is necessary if they are to begin to enter this blessed night of sense. Ordinarily no great time passes after their beginnings before they begin to enter this night of sense; and the great majority of them do in fact enter it, for they will generally be seen to fall into these aridities.

With regard to this way of purgation of the senses, since it is so common, we might here adduce a great number of quotations from Divine Scripture, where many passages relating to it are continually found, particularly in the Psalms and the Prophets. However, I do not wish to spend time upon these, for he who knows not how to look for them there will find the common experience of this purgation to be sufficient.

To be Continued...

Points to Ponder:

Thirty-seven years of teaching have taught me that convincing arguments will only carry the assent of those willing to accept the conclusion drawn. Numerous are those who will never be convinced because their will stands in the way: The conclusion is not to their taste...It is sadly true that false arguments will "convince" those who welcome their conclusion. [Alice von Hildebrand]

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 VII

Of imperfections with respect to spiritual envy and sloth.

WITH respect likewise to the other two vices, which are spiritual envy and sloth, these beginners fail not to have many imperfections. For, with respect to envy, many of them are wont to experience movements of displeasure at the spiritual good of others, which cause them a certain sensible grief at being outstripped upon this road, so that they would prefer not to hear others praised; for they become displeased at others' virtues and sometimes they cannot refrain from contradicting what is said in praise of them, depreciating it as far as they can; and their annoyance thereat grows because the same is not said of them, for they would fain be preferred in everything.

All this is clean contrary to charity, which, as Saint Paul says, rejoices in goodness.[1] And, if charity has any envy, it is a holy envy, comprising grief at not having the virtues of others, yet also joy because others have them, and delight when others outstrip us in the service of God, wherein we ourselves are so remiss.

With respect also to spiritual sloth, beginners are apt to be irked by the things that are most spiritual, from which they flee because these things are incompatible with sensible pleasure. For, as they are so much accustomed to sweetness in spiritual things, they are wearied by things in which they find no sweetness.

If once they failed to find in prayer the satisfaction which their taste required (and after all it is well that God should take it from them to prove them), they would prefer not to return to it: sometimes they leave it; at other times they continue it unwillingly.

And thus because of this sloth they abandon the way of perfection (which is the way of the negation of their will and pleasure for God's sake) for the pleasure and sweetness of their own will, which they aim at satisfying in this way rather than the will of God.

Though the above is quite applicable viz. the liturgy to those who received the bulk of the commentary in the section on spiritual gluttony, at the same time, it is also in some ways applicable to your weblog host too.

And many of these would have God will that which they themselves will, and are fretful at having to will that which He wills, and find it repugnant to accommodate their will to that of God. Hence it happens to them that oftentimes they think that that wherein they find not their own will and pleasure is not the will of God; and that, on the other hand, when they themselves find satisfaction, God is satisfied.

Thus they measure God by themselves and not themselves by God, acting quite contrarily to that which He Himself taught in the Gospel, saying: That he who should lose his will for His sake, the same should gain it; and he who should desire to gain it, the same should lose it.[St. Matthew xvi, 25.]

The above paragraphs outline what is is probably among the biggest indictments of false "traditionalism" there is: the spiritual dereliction of viewing what they desire as what God wants and find[ing] it repugnant to accommodate their will to that of God. This writer has in mind in particular a certain friend who refuses to accommodate his will to that of God - one who attends liturgy with an priest whose only evidence of proper faculties is what the priest himself *says* he has. The quip about being an honest man with the folowup line "if you do not believe me just ask me" comes to mind here.

These persons likewise find it irksome when they are commanded to do that wherein they take no pleasure. Because they aim at spiritual sweetness and consolation, they are too weak to have the fortitude and bear the trials of perfection. They resemble those who are softly nurtured and who run fretfully away from everything that is hard, and take offense at the Cross, wherein consist the delights of the spirit.

See my previous comments for the above paragraph and the one that follows.

The more spiritual a thing is, the more irksome they find it, for, as they seek to go about spiritual matters with complete freedom and according to the inclination of their will, it causes them great sorrow and repugnance to enter upon the narrow way, which, says Christ, is the way of life.[St. Matthew vii, 14.]

Let it suffice here to have described these imperfections, among the many to be found in the lives of those that are in this first state of beginners, so that it may be seen how greatly they need God to set them in the state of proficients. This He does by bringing them into the dark night whereof we now speak; wherein He weans them from the breasts of these sweetnesses and pleasures, gives them pure aridities and inward darkness, takes from them all these irrelevances and puerilities, and by very different means causes them to win the virtues.

For, however assiduously the beginner practises the mortification in himself of all these actions and passions of his, he can never completely succeed--very far from it--until God shall work it in him passively by means of the purgation of the said night. Of this I would fain speak in some way that may be profitable; may God, then, be pleased to give me His Divine light, because this is very needful in a night that is so dark and a matter that is so difficult to describe and to expound.

The line, then, is:

In a dark night.

To be Continued...

Note:

[1] 1 Corinthians xiii, 6. The Saint here cites the sense, not the letter, of the epistle.

which art movement are you?
this quiz was made by Caitlin

You should know something about this, it's the Renaissance! As for style, "...artists studied the natural world, perfecting their understanding of such subjects as anatomy and perspective." (artcyclopedia.com.) They loved science-y things and labored for perfection and harmonious beauty, a goal with which you sympathize. You're probably pretty smart, too. Anal-retentive much? Famous Renaissancers (lots!): Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael, and You.

Of course they have to mention three artists who were Renaissanceers. (Ironic really since I am probably among the worst artists of all time.)

Points to Ponder:

[C]hasing conspiracies becomes a religion of its own. It's all very interesting detective work and it gives a simplistic view of the world situation. I speak from my own experience and I know that I'm not alone here. What is worse is that continuous reading of these conspiracy books leads to hatred of races and peoples. It leads to unbalanced fears. I've witnessed the unbalance first hand. A certain person says that I exaggerate but I do not. When your own grandson is practically starved to death because certain conspiratorialists believe modern medicine is part of the great conspiracy to harm us, then, you'll stand up and take note.

People become unbalanced, xxxxxx, when they delve too much into the conspiracy books. I know from experience. The conspiratorialists get livid when they cannot convince their neighbor that Bill Clinton is out to put them into chains by using black helicopters. The proof was there to be seen by all. We were told that foreign troops on our soil would be led to the enemy by the directions located on the back of highway signs. Remember that one? The conspiratorialists are flabbergasted that their neighbor doesn't lose sleep over the international banker who is working to enslave them.

"I came out of an independent, traditional Chapel one Sunday morning. I had a short conversation with the priest and suddenly the priest said: "Those God----ed Jews!" He had read too many conspiracy books. The conspiratorialist thinks he or she has revealed the work of evil when, in truth, the evil has taken them in. They are neutralized and they work against Our Lord Jesus Christ because they give unbelievers all the reasons why they should not have anything to do with Christianity."[Anonymous]


I got this from James M. Scott IV in the comments boxes over at Lidless Eye. Apparently a former SSPXer made these comments on the Envoy Encore weblog. If someone supplies me with the name, I will delete this prefatory paragraph and credit the person accordingly. (I think I know whom it is but am not certain.) Until then, it will read simply "anonymous." And other than the sentences which directly apply to the individual (the grandson, the part about the independent chapel priest), so much of the remaining statement puts flesh on one of the skeletons from the closet of this writer's own past.

More on John Kerry, Spain, Terrorism, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is a more refined version of comments posted earlier to the message boxes at SecretAgentMan's Dossier BLOG. It also builds a bit on subjects touched on earlier in the week as well.

[A]n attack WILL sink Bush on Nov 4--my psychic prediction.

I am not sure this would be the case actually. If Leiberman was running against Bush this is possible (since he has some good national security positions). But John Kerry is a man who has voted against probably every military spending bill in the past thirty odd years. Likewise, John Kerry is very anti-American. He likes to talk about "foreign leaders" whom would prefer him to Bush. He refuses to name names so I will do so for you. They are as follows:

---Gerhard Schroeder

---Jacques Chirac

---Vladimir Putin

---Muammar Khaddafi

---Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

---Bashar al-Assad

---King Jong II

---Fidel Castro

If those are your idea of "good guys" then by all means vote for Kerry to confirm yourself in your own suicidal idiocy. As I noted earlier, Kerry is probably lying about that claim of meeting with "foreign leaders."

Yes my friends, I do not buy the "mistranslation" crap for an instant because Kerry failed to say this until he found out that the comments were not playing well with the American people as a whole. Prior to that, he was quite content to let the idea permeate the election atmosphere. Thus, I can only conclude that he is lying here and -if not- then his refusal to name names is probably because they would be on the list above.

Of course anyone aware of the kinds of contacts (not to mention contracts) that Russia, Germany, and France had with Hussein are well aware of the reasons why (i) they voted for action in Iraq and then (ii) opposed the US military actions to enforce the UN's own sanctions -one of which was recognizing the termination of the 1991 war ceasefire for what it was.{1}

The former was because they saw Resolution 1441 as an abstract idea which was not going to be implemented in reality. The latter was because they realized that Bush intended to actually implement the very same 1441 that they voted on. Nonetheless, Kerry does not want to name names because either (i) he is a liar or (ii) if he is telling the truth, the names he would name would not be to his credit. But enough on that point.

Furthermore, Kerry makes no secret about believing that we should turn over war on terror operations in the Iraq theatre -and presumably in Afghanistan as well- to the UN. This I remind you is the very same UN which is involved in its own corruption and profiteering in the Iraq oil for food program which ran in Iraq for about 11 years. My friends, if the UN cannot even run a simple humanitarian program without this kind of blatant corruption, how the hell would they competently manage a much more complex war effort???{2}

Frankly, I believe that we will benefit from watching Spain get their just desserts for their pathetic ass kissing to terrorism by voting in the terrorist appeasers socialists. They are going to only see worse days in the coming months and if Bush plays his cards right in dealing with those situations, we will not have to worry about an attack like that causing an election defeat. If anything, Bush's handling of 9-11 will likely be an ace in his hand since Spain's conservatives had nothing of the sort to fall back on.

I must note though that I understand your concerns CCCCCCC but with defense issues and national security, Bush is so superior to Kerry that we need to in the coming months emphasize those points.

It also would not hurt to emphasize the constitutional amendment idea in tandom with Kerry's weaknesses on defense. In doing this, we can with greater ease point out that those who undermine marriage are the very sort of people that these kinds of terrorists hate the most. As a 70% plus issue, it would quite likely contribute to Kerry losing in 2004. Obviously nothing is 100% but I have a hard time believing that Americans would be stupid enough to put Kerry into office after another terrorist attack of the same scope or greater than what happened on 9-11.

Oh, lest I forget to mention it, Kerry also voted to cut funding for intelligence and then gripes in his campaign stops about being "deceived" about 9-11 by Bush. He tries to have it both ways on everything. If it would help insure against the likelihood of such attacks in the future, I would be willing to see my civil liberties suspended for a week or two under certain conditions.{3} A week or two to really bust the heads of terrorist cells in this country and also -though I am probably going to get criticism for this- the terrorists at the ACLU as well.{4} There is more to terrorism than physical destruction after all. But that is all I will note on those subjects at this time.

Notes:

{1} This as my readers know was the foundation of my position on the war with Iraq. Unlike certain war supporters who -in their mania for war- fell on their face in embarrassment by focusing on the wrong points of this situation, this weblog writer chose to ignore superficialities and focus on the root and matrix issues.

For I never sought to make what was speculative (the WMD's existence) the foundation of my position, only what was incontrovertible. As a result, I can stand here today and say with a clear conscience that I have not the slightest regret of my position as enunciated at the above link.

{2} I will save giving you a detailed dossier of the UN's miserable war management trackrecord over the decades. John Kerry wanting to put us under UN command in those operations insure that it would be saimo saimo viz. nothing happening against terrorist sponsored regimes. And you can take that statement to the bank for cash my friends.

{3} Provided of course that there was a clear sunset provision in the bill and no riders contradicting said sunset provision.

{4} There is also fifth column forms of terrorism. This is the very sort that the ACLU for the past four decades plus has been involved in by seeking to defend every filthy piece of degenerate human debris they can find.

In such situations, often the losers in this are often the very kind of fairly moral people whom we need more of in this country. From there the degenerate so-called "winners" are paraded around as so-called "examples" for us to supposedly embrace.

As I see it, the difference between the two (those the ACLU opposes versus those it supports) is that of half a loaf or more with the so-called "losers" and little to none with the pseudo-"winners." Anyone with a normal intact functioning brain can figure out which sorts are a more solid foundation to lean on for building a strong cultural structure. But then again, such people would not likely be supporters of the ACLU anyway.

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 VI

Of imperfections with respect to spiritual gluttony.

Though there are imperfections in all of us, the imperfections with respect to spiritual gluttony are particularly applicable to most of those who claim to be "traditionalists" and by implication "more Traditional than thou."

WITH respect to the fourth sin, which is spiritual gluttony, there is much to be said, for there is scarce one of these beginners who, however satisfactory his progress, falls not into some of the many imperfections which come to these beginners with respect to this sin, on account of the sweetness which they find at first in spiritual exercises.

There are parallels here between the spiritually gluttonous who find sweetness in spiritual exercises and those who find it in what is inappropriately referred to as "The Traditional Mass."

For many of these, lured by the sweetness and pleasure which they find in such exercises, strive more after spiritual sweetness than after spiritual purity and discretion, which is that which God regards and accepts throughout the spiritual journey.

See my previous comments.

Therefore, besides the imperfections into which the seeking for sweetness of this kind makes them fall, the gluttony which they now have makes them continually go to extremes, so that they pass beyond the limits of moderation within which the virtues are acquired and wherein they have their being.

Of course I should note that moderation is generally a problem in some ways for everyone. That does not make such deficiencies "okay" however.

For some of these persons, attracted by the pleasure which they find therein, kill themselves with penances, and others weaken themselves with fasts, by performing more than their frailty can bear, without the order or advice of any, but rather endeavouring to avoid those whom they should obey in these matters; some, indeed, dare to do these things even though the contrary has been commanded them.

The above it might be noted was the weakness that beset Fr. Martin Luther. And your weblog host in his "trad" past was not exactly innocent in that area either unfortunately.

These persons are most imperfect and unreasonable; for they set bodily penance before subjection and obedience, which is penance according to reason and discretion, and therefore a sacrifice more acceptable and pleasing to God than any other. But such one-sided penance is no more than the penance of beasts, to which they are attracted, exactly like beasts, by the desire and pleasure which they find therein.

The reference to God preferring obedience to sacrifice in the Old Testament comes to mind here (1 Samuel xv,10-26).

Inasmuch as all extremes are vicious, and as in behaving thus such persons are working their own will, they grow in vice rather than in virtue; for, to say the least, they are acquiring spiritual gluttony and pride in this way, through not walking in obedience.

Notice how often St. John of the Cross returns to the subject of obedience. This is an area that is not infrequently problematical (if not lacking altogether) in many of those who claim to be "more Traditional than thou."

And many of these the devil assails, stirring up this gluttony in them through the pleasures and desires which he increases within them, to such an extent that, since they can no longer help themselves, they either change or vary or add to that which is commanded them, as any obedience in this respect is so bitter to them.

To such an evil pass have some persons come that, simply because it is through obedience that they engage in these exercises, they lose the desire and devotion to perform them, their only desire and pleasure being to do what they themselves are inclined to do, so that it would probably be more profitable for them not to engage in these exercises at all.

You will find that many of these persons are very insistent with their spiritual masters to be granted that which they desire, extracting it from them almost by force; if they be refused it they become as peevish as children and go about in great displeasure, thinking that they are not serving God when they are not allowed to do that which they would.

For they go about clinging to their own will and pleasure, which they treat as though it came from God; and immediately their directors take it from them, and try to subject them to the will of God, they become peevish, grow faint-hearted and fall away. These persons think that their own satisfaction and pleasure are the satisfaction and service of God.

Albert (among others I could mention), did you pay close attention to what was noted in the above paragraph???

There are others, again, who, because of this gluttony, know so little of their own unworthiness and misery and have thrust so far from them the loving fear and reverence which they owe to the greatness of God, that they hesitate not to insist continually that their confessors shall allow them to communicate often. And, what is worse, they frequently dare to communicate without the leave and consent of the minister and steward of Christ, merely acting on their own opinion, and contriving to conceal the truth from him.

And for this reason, because they desire to communicate continually, they make their confessions carelessly, being more eager to eat than to eat cleanly and perfectly, although it would be healthier and holier for them had they the contrary inclination and begged their confessors not to command them to approach the altar so frequently: between these two extremes, however, the better way is that of humble resignation. But the boldness referred to is a thing that does great harm, and men may fear to be punished for such temerity.

What is noted in this next paragraph can legitimately be noted of many of those who are so strident against communion in the hand. Granted the pretext given is that not receiving this way is more "fitting"; however, I have seldom found such a proponent who when superficialities are not stripped away does not react to this issue emotionally and thus betray themselves as one who is attached to the "sensible sweetness" of reception in the manner of reception on the tongue.

Now granted, since this option is allowed them, it cannot in and of itself be seen as problematical. However, it should be noted that those who would presume to kneel to receive (if there were local customs to the contrary), would be guilty of some degree of spiritual gluttony in this area. (Insomuch as their pride and stubbornness would be prevailing over the obedience that is required of them in these situations.)

These persons, in communicating, strive with every nerve to obtain some kind of sensible sweetness and pleasure, instead of humbly doing reverence and giving praise within themselves to God. And in such wise do they devote themselves to this that, when they have received no pleasure or sweetness in the senses, they think that they have accomplished nothing at all.

How many people say things like "I do not like mass because I get nothing out of it???" or opine about a supposed "superiority" of the Tridentine rite because the latter better caters to their own spiritual gluttony??? These are the sorts who believe that absence of sweetness or pleasure of the senses during mass is the barometer by which they measure the "worth" of the mass or the "superiority/inferiority" of a particular liturgical rite.

This is to judge God very unworthily; they have not realized that the least of the benefits which come from this Most Holy Sacrament is that which concerns the senses; and that the invisible part of the grace that it bestows is much greater; for, in order that they may look at it with the eyes of faith, God oftentimes withholds from them these other consolations and sweetnesses of sense.

The same principle applies in some respects to the Revised Missal which generally speaking is lacking in "sensible sweetness" to self-styled "traditionalists."

And thus they desire to feel and taste God as though He were comprehensible by them and accessible to them, not only in this, but likewise in other spiritual practices. All this is very great imperfection and completely opposed to the nature of God, since it is Impurity in faith.

These persons have the same defect as regards the practice of prayer, for they think that all the business of prayer consists in experiencing sensible pleasure and devotion and they strive to obtain this by great effort, wearying and fatiguing their faculties and their heads; and when they have not found this pleasure they become greatly discouraged, thinking that they have accomplished nothing.

I refer back to my previous three comments here.

Through these efforts they lose true devotion and spirituality, which consist in perseverance, together with patience and humility and mistrust of themselves, that they may please God alone. For this reason, when they have once failed to find pleasure in this or some other exercise, they have great disinclination and repugnance to return to it, and at times they abandon it. They are, in fact, as we have said, like children, who are not influenced by reason, and who act, not from rational motives, but from inclination.

Such persons expend all their effort in seeking spiritual pleasure and consolation; they never tire therefore, of reading books; and they begin, now one meditation, now another, in their pursuit of this pleasure which they desire to experience in the things of God. But God, very justly, wisely and lovingly, denies it to them, for otherwise this spiritual gluttony and inordinate appetite would breed in numerable evils. It is, therefore, very fitting that they should enter into the dark night, whereof we shall speak, that they may be purged from this childishness.

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

Again I ask you Albert (among others I could mention), are you paying close attention to what was noted in the above paragraphs???

These persons have many other imperfections which arise hence, of which in time the Lord heals them by means of temptations, aridities and other trials, all of which are part of the dark night. All these I will not treat further here, lest I become too lengthy; I will only say that spiritual temperance and sobriety lead to another and a very different temper, which is that of mortification, fear and submission in all things.

Of course the so-called "neo-catholics" in frequently resorting to the above refrain (particularly that of submission) are only echoing the sentiments of St. John of the Cross. Apparently St. John of the Cross, the Mystical Doctor par excellence, was a "neo-catholic" too!!!

It thus becomes clear that the perfection and worth of things consist not in the multitude and the pleasantness of one's actions, but in being able to deny oneself in them; this such persons must endeavour to compass, in so far as they may, until God is pleased to purify them indeed, by bringing them into the dark night, to arrive at which I am hastening on with my account of these imperfections.

The above reason (for those who have in the past inquired about it) is why I have never once utilized the Indult in my dioceses (despite pestering my local ordinary about providing one which he finally did) and quite possibly never will. To explain this in detail would be akin to opening the windows to pray in front of others rather than doing so behind closed doors (cf. Matt. vi,1;5-6); ergo that is all I will say about it.

To be Continued...

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.