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 XII

Of the benefits which this night causes in the soul.

THIS night and purgation of the desire, a happy one for the soul, works in it so many blessings and benefits (although to the soul, as we have said, it rather seems that blessings are being taken away from it) that, even as Abraham made a great feast when he weaned his son Isaac,[Genesis xxi, 8.] even so is there joy in Heaven because God is now taking this soul from its swaddling clothes, setting it down from His arms, making it to walk upon its feet, and likewise taking from it the milk of the breast and the soft and sweet food proper to children, and making it to eat bread with crust, and to begin to enjoy the food of robust persons.

This food, in these aridities and this darkness of sense, is now given to the spirit, which is dry and emptied of all the sweetness of sense. And this food is the infused contemplation whereof we have spoken.

This is the first and principal benefit caused by this arid and dark night of contemplation: the knowledge of oneself and of one's misery. For, besides the fact that all the favours which God grants to the soul are habitually granted to them enwrapped in this knowledge, these aridities and this emptiness of the faculties, compared with the abundance which the soul experienced aforetime and the difficulty which it finds in good works, make it recognize its own lowliness and misery, which in the time of its prosperity it was unable to see.

Of this there is a good illustration in the Book of Exodus, where God, wishing to humble the children of Israel and desiring that they should know themselves, commanded them to take away and strip off the festal garments and adornments wherewith they were accustomed to adorn themselves in the Wilderness, saying: 'Now from henceforth strip yourselves of festal ornaments and put on everyday working dress, that ye may know what treatment ye deserve.'[Exodus xxxiii, 5.]

This is as though He had said: Inasmuch as the attire that ye wear, being proper to festival and rejoicing, causes you to feel less humble concerning yourselves than ye should, put off from you this attire, in order that henceforth, seeing yourselves clothed with vileness, ye may know that ye merit no more, and may know who ye are.

Wherefore the soul knows the truth that it knew not at first, concerning its own misery; for, at the time when it was clad as for a festival and found in God much pleasure, consolation and support, it was somewhat more satisfied and contented, since it thought itself to some extent to be serving God.

It is true that such souls may not have this idea explicitly in their minds; but some suggestion of it at least is implanted in them by the satisfaction which they find in their pleasant experiences. But, now that the soul has put on its other and working attire--that of aridity and abandonment--and now that its first lights have turned into darkness, it possesses these lights more truly in this virtue of self-knowledge, which is so excellent and so necessary, considering itself now as nothing and experiencing no satisfaction in itself; for it sees that it does nothing of itself neither can do anything.

And the smallness of this self-satisfaction, together with the soul's affliction at not serving God, is considered and esteemed by God as greater than all the consolations which the soul formerly experienced and the works which it wrought, however great they were, inasmuch as they were the occasion of many imperfections and ignorances.

And from this attire of aridity proceed, as from their fount and source of self-knowledge, not only the things which we have described already, but also the benefits which we shall now describe and many more which will have to be omitted.

In the first place, the soul learns to commune with God with more respect and more courtesy, such as a soul must ever observe in converse with the Most High. These it knew not in its prosperous times of comfort and consolation, for that comforting favour which it experienced made its craving for God somewhat bolder than was fitting, and discourteous and ill-considered.

Even so did it happen to Moses, when he perceived that God was speaking to him; blinded by that pleasure and desire, without further consideration, he would have made bold to go to Him if God had not commanded him to stay and put off his shoes. By this incident we are shown the respect and discretion in detachment of desire wherewith a man is to commune with God.

When Moses had obeyed in this matter, he became so discreet and so attentive that the Scripture says that not only did he not make bold to draw near to God, but that he dared not even look at Him. For, having taken off the shoes of his desires and pleasures, he became very conscious of his wretchedness in the sight of God, as befitted one about to hear the word of God.

Even so likewise the preparation which God granted to Job in order that he might speak with Him consisted not in those delights and glories which Job himself reports that he was wont to have in his God, but in leaving him naked upon a dung-hill,[Job ii, 7-8.] abandoned and even persecuted by his friends, filled with anguish and bitterness, and the earth covered with worms.

And then the Most High God, He that lifts up the poor man from the dunghill, was pleased to come down and speak with him there face to face, revealing to him the depths and heights of His wisdom, in a way that He had never done in the time of his prosperity.

And here we must note another excellent benefit which there is in this night and aridity of the desire of sense, since we have had occasion to speak of it. It is that, in this dark night of the desire (to the end that the words of the Prophet may be fulfilled, namely: 'Thy light shall shine in the darkness'[Isaias lviii, 10.]), God will enlighten the soul, giving it knowledge, not only of its lowliness and wretchedness, as we have said, but likewise of the greatness and excellence of God.

For, as well as quenching the desires and pleasures and attachments of sense, He cleanses and frees the understanding that it may understand the truth; for pleasure of sense and desire, even though it be for spiritual things, darkens and obstructs the spirit, and furthermore that straitness and aridity of sense enlightens and quickens the understanding, as says Isaias.[Isaias xxviii, 19.][1]

Vexation makes us to understand how the soul that is empty and disencumbered, as is necessary for His Divine influence, is instructed supernaturally by God in His Divine wisdom, through this dark and arid night of contemplation, as we have said; and this instruction God gave not in those first sweetnesses and joys.

This is very well explained by the same prophet Isaias, where he says: 'Whom shall God teach His knowledge, and whom shall He make to understand the hearing?' To those, He says, that are weaned from the milk and drawn away from the breasts.[Isaias xxviii, 9.] Here it is shown that the first milk of spiritual sweetness is no preparation for this Divine influence, neither is there preparation in attachment to the breast of delectable meditations, belonging to the faculties of sense, which gave the soul pleasure; such preparation consists rather in the lack of the one and withdrawal from the other.

Inasmuch as, in order to listen to God, the soul needs to stand upright and to be detached, with regard to affection and sense, even as the Prophet says concerning himself, in these words: I will stand upon my watch (this is that detachment of desire) and I will make firm my step (that is, I will not meditate with sense), in order to contemplate (that is, in order to understand that which may come to me from God).[Habacuc ii, 1.]

So we have now arrived at this, that from this arid night there first of all comes self-knowledge, whence, as from a foundation, rises this other knowledge of God. For which cause Saint Augustine said to God: 'Let me know myself, Lord, and I shall know Thee.'[St. Augustine: Soliloq., Cap. ii.] For, as the philosophers say, one extreme can be well known by another.

And in order to prove more completely how efficacious is this night of sense, with its aridity and its desolation, in bringing the soul that light which, as we say, it receives there from God, we shall quote that passage of David, wherein he clearly describes the great power which is in this night for bringing the soul this lofty knowledge of God. He says, then, thus: 'In the desert land, waterless, dry and pathless, I appeared before Thee, that I might see Thy virtue and Thy glory.'[Psalm lxii,3 (KJV lxiii,1- 2).]

It is a wondrous thing that David should say here that the means and the preparation for his knowledge of the glory of God were not the spiritual delights and the many pleasures which he had experienced, but the aridities and detachments of his sensual nature, which is here to be understood by the dry and desert land. No less wondrous is it that he should describe as the road to his perception and vision of the virtue of God, not the Divine meditations and conceptions of which he had often made use, but his being unable to form any conception of God or to walk by meditation produced by imaginary consideration, which is here to be understood by the pathless land.

So that the means to a knowledge of God and of oneself is this dark night with its aridities and voids, although it leads not to a knowledge of Him of the same plenitude and abundance that comes from the other night of the spirit, since this is only, as it were, the beginning of that other.

Likewise, from the aridities and voids of this night of the desire, the soul draws spiritual humility, which is the contrary virtue to the first capital sin, which, as we said, is spiritual pride. Through this humility, which is acquired by the said knowledge of self, the soul is purged from all those imperfections whereinto it fell with respect to that sin of pride, in the time of its prosperity.

For it sees itself so dry and miserable that the idea never even occurs to it that it is making better progress than others, or outstripping them, as it believed itself to be doing before. On the contrary, it recognizes that others are making better progress than itself.

And hence arises the love of its neighbours, for it esteems them, and judges them not as it was wont to do aforetime, when it saw that itself had great fervour and others not so. It is aware only of its own wretchedness, which it keeps before its eyes to such an extent that it never forgets it, nor takes occasion to set its eyes on anyone else.

This was described wonderfully by David, when he was in this night, in these words: 'I was dumb and was humbled and kept silence from good things and my sorrow was renewed.'[Psalm xxxviii,3 (KJV xxxix,2)] This he says because it seemed to him that the good that was in his soul had so completely departed that not only did he neither speak nor find any language concerning it, but with respect to the good of others he was likewise dumb because of his grief at the knowledge of his misery.

In this condition, again, souls become submissive and obedient upon the spiritual road, for, when they see their own misery, not only do they hear what is taught them, but they even desire that anyone soever may set them on the way and tell them what they ought to do. The affective presumption which they sometimes had in their prosperity is taken from them; and finally, there are swept away from them on this road all the other imperfections which we noted above with respect to this first sin, which is spiritual pride.

To be Continued...

Note:

[1] The author omits the actual text.

Prayer Requests:

If the readers of this humble weblog can offer some prayers on behalf of a good friend of Rerum Novarum (the Canonical Kahuna Pete Vere), it would be greatly appreciated. He is very ill at the present time. Also please remember in your prayers Patty Bonds and her daughter Esther who were in an auto accident recently. (See the Envoy weblog for details.) Rerum Novarum will remember both of them in Our prayers for the duration of Holy Week.

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 XI

Wherein are expounded the three lines of the stanza.

THIS enkindling of love is not as a rule felt at the first, because it has not begun to take hold upon the soul, by reason of the impurity of human nature, or because the soul has not understood its own state, as we have said, and has therefore given it no peaceful abiding-place within itself.

Yet sometimes, nevertheless, there soon begins to make itself felt a certain yearning toward God; and the more this increases, the more is the soul affectioned and enkindled in love toward God, without knowing or understanding how and whence this love and affection come to it, but from time to time seeing this flame and this enkindling grow so greatly within it that it desires God with yearning of love; even as David, when he was in this dark night, said of himself in these words,[Psalm lxxii, 21 (KJV Psalm lxxii, 21-22)] namely: 'Because my heart was enkindled (that is to say, in love of contemplation), my reins also were changed': that is, my desires for sensual affections were changed, namely from the way of sense to the way of the spirit, which is the aridity and cessation from all these things whereof we are speaking.

And I, he says, was dissolved in nothing and annihilated, and I knew not; for, as we have said, without knowing the way whereby it goes, the soul finds itself annihilated with respect to all things above and below which were accustomed to please it; and it finds itself enamoured, without knowing how.

And because at times the enkindling of love in the spirit grows greater, the yearnings for God become so great in the soul that the very bones seem to be dried up by this thirst, and the natural powers to be fading away, and their warmth and strength to be perishing through the intensity of the thirst of love, for the soul feels that this thirst of love is a living thirst.

This thirst David had and felt, when he said: 'My soul thirsted for the living God.'[Psalm xli,3 (KJV, xlii, 2)] Which is as much as to say: A living thirst was that of my soul. Of this thirst, since it is living, we may say that it kills. But it is to be noted that the vehemence of this thirst is not continuous, but occasional although as a rule the soul is accustomed to feel it to a certain degree.

But it must be noted that, as I began to say just now, this love is not as a rule felt at first, but only the dryness and emptiness are felt whereof we are speaking. Then in place of this love which afterwards becomes gradually enkindled, what the soul experiences in the midst of these aridities and emptinesses of the faculties is an habitual care and solicitude with respect to God, together with grief and fear that it is not serving Him.

But it is a sacrifice which is not a little pleasing to God that the soul should go about afflicted and solicitous for His love. This solicitude and care leads the soul into that secret contemplation, until, the senses (that is, the sensual part) having in course of time been in some degree purged of the natural affections and powers by means of the aridities which it causes within them, this Divine love begins to be enkindled in the spirit.

Meanwhile, however, like one who has begun a cure, the soul knows only suffering in this dark and arid purgation of the desire; by this means it becomes healed of many imperfections, and exercises itself in many virtues in order to make itself meet for the said love, as we shall now say with respect to the line following:

Oh, happy chance!

When God leads the soul into this night of sense in order to purge the sense of its lower part and to subdue it, unite it and bring it into conformity with the spirit, by setting it in darkness and causing it to cease from meditation (as He afterwards does in order to purify the spirit to unite it with God, as we shall afterwards say), He brings it into the night of the spirit, and (although it appears not so to it) the soul gains so many benefits that it holds it to be a happy chance to have escaped from the bonds and restrictions of the senses of or its lower self, by means of this night aforesaid; and utters the present line, namely: Oh, happy chance!

With respect to this, it behoves us here to note the benefits which the soul finds in this night, and because of which it considers it a happy chance to have passed through it; all of which benefits the soul includes in the next line, namely:

I went forth without being observed.

This going forth is understood of the subjection to its sensual part which the soul suffered when it sought God through operations so weak, so limited and so defective as are those of this lower part; for at every step it stumbled into numerous imperfections and ignorances, as we have noted above in writing of the seven capital sins.

From all these it is freed when this night quenches within it all pleasures, whether from above or from below, and makes all meditation darkness to it, and grants it other innumerable blessings in the acquirement of the virtues, as we shall now show. For it will be a matter of great pleasure and great consolation, to one that journeys on this road, to see how that which seems to the soul so severe and adverse, and so contrary to spiritual pleasure, works in it so many blessings.

These, as we say, are gained when the soul goes forth, as regards its affection and operation, by means of this night, from all created things, and when it journeys to eternal things, which is great happiness and good fortune: first, because of the great blessing which is in the quenching of the desire and affection with respect to all things; secondly, because they are very few that endure and persevere in entering by this strait gate and by the narrow way which leads to life, as says Our Saviour.[St. Matthew vii, 14]

The strait gate is this night of sense, and the soul detaches itself from sense and strips itself thereof that it may enter by this gate, and establishes itself in faith, which is a stranger to all sense, so that afterwards it may journey by the narrow way, which is the other night--that of the spirit--and this the soul afterwards enters in order in journey to God in pure faith, which is the means whereby the soul is united to God.

By this road, since it is so narrow, dark and terrible (though there is no comparison between this night of sense and that other, in its darkness and trials, as we shall say later), they are far fewer that journey, but its benefits are far greater without
comparison than those of this present night. Of these benefits we shall now begin to say something, with such brevity as is possible, in order that we may pass to the other night.

To be Continued...

"Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.

This is a continuation of the discussion located HERE.

***

Hello I. Shawn,

My friends call me Shawn.

I read your "Prescription...", well parts of it, as well as stuff on Stephen Hand's website, and other places.

Okay.

I also read some of the hierarchy's seemingly-heretical statements IN THEIR CONTEXT, which The Remnant crowd often prints out of context.

You are being quite generous here in saying that The Remnant often prints the statements of the hierarchy out of context. I have almost never seen an example of them printing a statement in proper context. One should strive as a rule give the benefit of the doubt -as that is the charitable thing to do. However, habitual recourse to out of context citation coupled with a hermemeutic of suspicion{1} is another kettle of fish altogether.

For example, Walter Kasper is often quoted as saying that the theology of return has been "abandoned since Vatican II," and such the like.

This is true. The theology of return (viz ecumenism) has been definitively set aside as has the theology of substitution (viz. Christian-Jewish relations). There are intricacies in both subjects that are usually overlooked by the prooftexting mentalities of the so-called "traditionalists."

However, I would be remiss to not note that Cardinal Kasper himself seems to misunderstand some of the dynamics involved. He has the general principles down for the most part but on some of the essential details he speaks over the heads of the media heads who report on his statements. But that is all I will say on Kasper at this time.{2}

Well, yes, he did say that but he didn't MEAN by it what the Trads and myself took him to mean once I read his entire statement.

True. There is still enough in the statements to be uncomfortable to the self-styled "traditionalists" who have a general ignorance of ecclesiological issues however.

What really pulled me in the direction of Traditionalism was really being scandalized by the present crisis of dissent in the church.

That is probably 90% of the fuel for so-called "traditionalism" right there. And many who are attracted to those elements are people who are genuinely anguished as you were. Unfortunately it is often a case of striving to avoid the Scylla of disobedient so-called "progressivists"( who are "more Enlightened than thou") and running smack into the Charbydis of so-called "traditionalists" (who are "more Traditional than thou") who are often no less disobedient. (Albeit not usually on the same issues.)

My first pastor was a flaming modernist who always, forgive me, bitched about Pope John Paul II and how John Paul didn't know "anything" about what Vatican II REALLY was trying to accomplish.

That kind of idiocy is not uncommon. Fortunately, it is not nearly as common as it was ten plus years ago or more. The understanding of the laity on the teachings of the Council is significantly greater than it was then for many reasons too numerous to note here. And one of the key reasons other than the Catechism of the Catholic Church{3} is the access via the internet of the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

In his opinion, Vatican II was really all about ordaining women, approving of the gay lifestyle, etc., etc.,, which is of course heresy,

This kind of drivel was easier to pass off when ready access to the Council's documents by the lay faithful was scarce. But in today's day and age -and assisted in no small amount I am sure by the resurgence of Catholic apologetics- that dog simply cannot hunt anymore amongst anyone of good-will.{4}

and I couldn't understand ( and still DON'T understand ) why the Church authorities don't remove such men from the priesthood since they are poisoning souls with their false teachings.

Some of them are removed but most of them are not. To understand this involves a greater understanding of the traditional spiritual patrimony of the Church in several areas - among them zeal and obedience.{5}

At first I was mad at the bishops, but then I thought, why doesn't the pope take action?

This is a normal reaction to take. Certainly it would seem logical; however to look at the bigger picture would reveal vital hues to the mosaic that this limited view inexorably misses.

My pastor was by no means the only priest in the church teaching heresy from the pulpit and to catechumens. I still wish the pope and bishops would take action.

Everyone does to varying degrees. The question that presents itself continually though is to what extent this can be done without creating even bigger problems than we have now.{6}

But it was during this time of anger that I came across traditionalist websites and literature. That is how I got sucked in to that mindset.

Ok.

Plus once, many years ago, I had attended out of curiosity (and before my Confirmation into the Church) a Traditional Latin Tridentine mass at a schismatic church and fell in love with that mass. I thought it was the most beautiful service I had ever seen.

Out of curiosity, were you from a Protestant tradition that was strongly liturgical??? I ask because it seems that converts from these kinds of backgrounds can at times be attracted to the older liturgy -particularly those of Anglican backgrounds.

So, there were a lot of factors that lead me toward traditionalism. I'm just glad that the Lord has opened my eyes and pulled me back from jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

As am I.

***

Shawn,

Hello again XXXXXX:

I was moving toward sedevacantism just before I prayed seriously for guidance.

Ok.

I receive The Angelus magazine, published by the Society of St. Pius X, and it became clear to me that their position (We are loyal to the pope, but Vatican II is full of errors) simply doesn't make sense.

It is an mess of incoherent jibberish. At least sedevacantism is consistent. Nonetheless, as I noted earlier I...have long opined that so-called "traditionalism" leads inexorably towards sedevacantism. However, this trajectory is not often realized. If anything, that theory only continues to reinforce itself with real life examples of people who become actual sedevacantists after a period of time of functional sedevacantism brought on by the problematical elements of the so-called "traditionalist" weltanschauung. (Which lend themselves to sedevacantism when carried out to their logical extremes.)

How can the pope be pope and be teaching "error" to the Flock? The SSPX can't have it both ways.

True.

If he is truly the pope, then he cannot magisterially TEACH "error."

Well, many of the so-called "traditionalists" try to posit an artificial distinction in the ordinary magisterium to defend their positions on this issue. However, this approach is seriously defective for many reasons both of a dogmatic theology standpoint{7} as well as practical reasons.{8}

And since he bases his teachings on the Documents of Vatican II, then Vatican II cannot be in "error."

Correct.

The only logical way for the 2nd Vatican Council to be chock full of errors and for JPII to be teaching "error", is for the See of Peter to be vacant.

Precisely.

The SSPX position vis-a-vis Pope John Paul II is totally schizophrenic. They SAY they submit to him, but in fact by regularly declaring that Vatican II is full of errors, they are setting themselves up as a parallel magisterium.

This is what I emphasized in my treatise when dealing with the section on parallels between "traditionalism" and the heresy of Jansenism.

So that was what was drawing me toward sedevacantism: the ridiculous position of the SSPX.

You have been granted light to see on this issue which has not a few tormented souls troubled.

Also, I come from a Jehovah's Witness background, even though my last religion before Catholicism was Presbyterian.

As a JW, I was indoctrinated from childhood to believe that the United Nations Organization is the physical manifestation of the Spirit of the AntiChrist.

I am sure the Popes in their support of some of the aims of the UN did not resonate well with you in your JW days.

I have never liked the U.N., and the more I read about it's policies, I dislike it even MORE nowadays.

There seems to be less and less wheat in the UN as time goes on. Recently the Holy Father even seems to be calling for scrapping the UN and building another coalition for the maintenance of international laws.

Well, the Holy Father has spoken of his esteem for the U.N. I can't see what he sees as worthy of esteem in an organization which promotes the killing of the unborn, among other atrocities, so I reasoned that no "true pope" would ever speak favorably of the United Nations. That was another factor that was leading me toward sedevacantism.

There is a complexity to these issues that generally eludes those who approach them with a fundamentalist hermeneutic. With the UN, it has been more of a case of the popes trying to make the best of a bad situation. Certainly an organization like the UN is necessary in this age of massive destructive capabilities militarily. As a kind of "International Escrow Company", it has its value certainly. As a moral force of course, the UN is beyond bankrupt. But JP II and his predecessors have sought to filter the wheat from the many tares of the UN much as St. Thomas did with (to name one example) the works of the pagan Aristotle. With all such endeavours, the results will be a mixed bag.

Plus, John Paul II kissed the Koran. And on and on. You get the idea.

Yes.

So that's some of the reasons I was heading in to the sedevacantist camp. I now realize that I was jumping to rash conclusions.

Good.

The Holy Father has never told any Catholic that he or she has to share any of his personal esteem for the UN, and would never bind such esteem as Catholic dogma.

One must be careful even in these areas though. To quote Pope Pius IX's Encyclical Letter Quanta Cura on an error common to his time -and one which snares many if not most so-called "traditionalists" and so-called "progressivists" today:

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

The UN situation is not as obviously applicable to the above instruction as other controversial contemporary examples which could be given.{9} Nonetheless, fidelity to the general principles of Catholic social doctrine -which logically imply an organization such as the UN{10}- are of course applicable. Hence the need to be cautious in one's assessments on these matters. (Not to mention prudent in their public statements on them.)

I would certainly rather that he had not kissed the Koran, and I would never do that myself, but I don't think that merely kissing a book is a mortal sin or evidence of heresy. I think he made a bad call doing that, but that's about as far as it really goes.

I concur with these sentiments.

Popes are human, and in their daily lives, they are capable of personal mistakes, prudential errors in personal judgment, and sin. The pope is infallible, not impeccable.

Precisely.

Anyway I'm rambling on. Thanks for listening Shawn. Let me know your thoughts/advice on anything I've mentioned in this email, I'd really appreciate it. I'm free of the rad-trad mentality now, but I still don't understand a lot of things...

You have taken important steps in the journey. But do not feel as if you are completely free of the so-called "traditionalist" mentality: it is not easy to completely root out and there may be some residual effects for a while. Nonetheless, despite claiming to not understand a lot of things you have taken an important journey of faith.

The motto of the Scholastics fides quarens intellectum (faith seeking understanding) must remain your guiding principle. Trust me, over time with the right approach to issues you will find many difficulties that you currently have that will resolve themselves -though this side of the eschaton there will always be difficulties of course.

Notes:

{1} This expression is often utilized by Stephen Hand to explain the methodology of the radical self-styled "traditionalists." In my experience, it is true to type much more often than not with them.

{2} For some of my previous musings on Cardinal Kasper -as well as in some cases accurate predictions of his general mindset- see these threads from my weblogs:

Briefly on the November First Things Issue

On the Supreme Magisterium

On True and False 'Traditionalism' With Kevin Tierney

Discussions With Christopher Blosser (On Reflections on Covenant and Mission)

{3} This is possibly the most significant hermeneutical key to understanding the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

{4} And yes, it was feasible in the 1970's and later to have these misunderstandings in light of the manifold changes passed off in the light of the Council. The initial reactions of Archbishop Lefebvre and others in this area were not without their merits -albeit like most reactions these sorts usually made shipwreck of the faith in their own ways.

{5} With regards to zeal, the matter involves two important teachings. Massive removals from the priestly ministry of heterodox priests would run contrary to Our Lord's injunction about the tares and the wheat:

Another parable he put before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the householder came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?' He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' But he said, 'No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'" [Matthew iii,24-30]

Fr. Quadrupani, drawing on the instructions of the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition, explained the above teaching in this manner:

In every home there grows some thorn, something, in other words, that needs correction; for the best soil is seldom without its noxious weed. Imprudent zeal, by seeking awkwardly to pluck out the thorn, often succeeds only in plunging it farther in, thus rendering the wound deeper and more painful. In such a case it is essential to act prudence. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent, says the Holy Spirit. (Ecclesiastes III., 7.) Prudent zeal is silent when it realizes that to be so is less hurtful than to speak. [Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears (c. 1795)]

It also bears noting that Pope John Paul II wrote his doctoral thesis in theology on the mysticism of St. John of the Cross. An understanding of the latter -particularly his masterpiece The Dark Night of the Soul is the key to understanding why this pope does a lot of the things he does with regards to responding to the problems of heterodox prelates and the clerical scandals. The lack of understanding in these key areas is why I have so often referred to self-styled "traditionalists" as spiritually immature.

{6} See footnote five.

{7} For some examples of problems from a dogmatic theology standpoint, see these links:

Obedience: The Rise of True Catholics (Apolonio Latar III)

Response to Adam Kolasinski on Infallible Teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium (Dr. Art Sippo)

Rerum Novarum Responds to Adam Kolasinski

{8} For some threads on the practical aspects involved, see these threads:

Musings on Common Problematical Catholic Approaches to the Ordinary Magisterium

On the "Dogmatic" vs. "Pastoral" Artificial Dichotomy

{9} Such as the Church's continued affirmation of the ecumenical venture, her approach to civil religious liberty, or the pope's interfaith outreaches to the non-Christians at events such as the Assisi gatherings: all of which are unmistakably examples of the Holy Father's guidance of the universal church.

{10} I have long considered sketching this theory out but thus far have not done so in the public forum. I have some jottings from various musings on the subject which are somewhat disjointed and which need some refinement before they can be made public. Indeed, I concluded some time ago that studying the Church's social teaching carefully makes this conclusion in many respects an inevitable one. (Even if all the parameters are not readily apparent in the process.)

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.

Because I missed the installment last Friday, Holy Week will see meditations posted today, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and the final installment posted on Holy Saturday.

CHAPTER X

Of the way in which these souls are to conduct themselves in this dark night.

DURING the time, then, of the aridities of this night of sense (wherein God effects the change of which we have spoken above, drawing forth the soul from the life of sense into that of the spirit--that is, from meditation to contemplation--wherein it no longer has any power to work or to reason with its faculties concerning the things of God, as has been said), spiritual persons suffer great trials, by reason not so much of the aridities which they suffer, as of the fear which they have of being lost on the road, thinking that all spiritual blessing is over for them and that God has abandoned them since they find no help or pleasure in good things.

Then they grow weary, and endeavour (as they have been accustomed to do) to concentrate their faculties with some degree of pleasure upon some object of meditation, thinking that, when they are not doing this and yet are conscious of making an effort, they are doing nothing.

This effort they make not without great inward repugnance and unwillingness on the part of their soul, which was taking pleasure in being in that quietness and ease, instead of working with its faculties. So they have abandoned the one pursuit, yet draw no profit from the other; for, by seeking what is prompted by their own spirit, they lose the spirit of tranquillity and peace which they had before. And thus they are like to one who abandons what he has done in order to do it over again, or to one who leaves a city only to re-enter it, or to one who is hunting and lets his prey go in order to hunt it once more. This is useless here, for the soul will gain nothing further by conducting itself in this way, as has been said.

These souls turn back at such a time if there is none who understands them; they abandon the road or lose courage; or, at the least, they are hindered from going farther by the great trouble which they take in advancing along the road of meditation and reasoning. Thus they fatigue and overwork their nature, imagining that they are failing through negligence or sin.

But this trouble that they are taking is quite useless, for God is now leading them by another road, which is that of contemplation, and is very different from the first; for the one is of meditation and reasoning, and the other belongs neither to imagination nor yet to reasoning.

It is well for those who find themselves in this condition to take comfort, to persevere in patience and to be in no wise afflicted. Let them trust in God, Who abandons not those that seek Him with a simple and right heart, and will not fail to give them what is needful for the road, until He bring them into the clear and pure light of love. This last He will give them by means of that other dark night, that of the spirit, if they merit His bringing them thereto.

The way in which they are to conduct themselves in this night of sense is to devote themselves not at all to reasoning and meditation, since this is not the time for it, but to allow the soul to remain in peace and quietness, although it may seem clear to them that they are doing nothing and are wasting their time, and although it may appear to them that it is because of their weakness that they have no desire in that state to think of anything.

The truth is that they will be doing quite sufficient if they have patience and persevere in prayer without making any effort.

What they must do is merely to leave the soul free and disencumbered and at rest from all knowledge and thought, troubling not themselves, in that state, about what they shall think or meditate upon, but contenting themselves with merely a peaceful and loving attentiveness toward God, and in being without anxiety, without the ability and without desired to have experience of Him or to perceive Him.

For all these yearnings disquiet and distract the soul from the peaceful quiet and sweet ease of contemplation which is here granted to it.

And although further scruples may come to them--that they are wasting their time, and that it would be well for them to do something else, because they can neither do nor think anything in prayer--let them suffer these scruples and remain in peace, as there is no question save of their being at ease and having freedom of spirit.

For if such a soul should desire to make any effort of its own with its interior faculties, this means that it will hinder and lose the blessings which, by means of that peace and ease of the soul, God is instilling into it and impressing upon it. It is just as if some painter were painting or dyeing a face; if the sitter were to move because he desired to do something, he would prevent the painter from accomplishing anything and would disturb him in what he was doing. And thus, when the soul desires to remain in inward ease and peace, any operation and affection or attentions wherein it may then seek to indulge will distract it and disquiet it and make it conscious of aridity and emptiness of sense.

For the more a soul endeavours to find support in affection and knowledge, the more will it feel the lack of these, which cannot now be supplied to it upon that road.

Wherefore it behoves such a soul to pay no heed if the operations of its faculties become lost to it; it is rather to desire that this should happen quickly. For, by not hindering the operation of infused contemplation that God is bestowing upon it, it can receive this with more peaceful abundance, and cause its spirit to be enkindled and to burn with the love which this dark and secret contemplation brings with it and sets firmly in the soul.

For contemplation is naught else than a secret, peaceful and loving infusion from God, which, if it be permitted, enkindles the soul with the spirit of love, according as the soul declares in the next lines, namely:

Kindled in love with yearnings.

To be Continued...

"Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.

Hi!

Hello XXXXXX:

You don't know me, but I've read some of your articles.

Out of curiosity, which ones did you read???

Just thought I'd share with you that I have recently by the Grace of God stepped back from the precipice of Extreme Traditionalism.

That is wonderful news.

I'm a convert to the Faith, and was scandalized by the state of affairs in the church and started reading Traditionalist articles on the internet.

I have long opined that converts are especially susceptible to so-called "traditionalism." The psychological reasons for this I believe are many and varied but at the core is the old Protestant principle of illegitimate private judgment applied to Tradition (and the texts of the Magisterium) much as Protestants apply them to Scripture. Some of my friends do not like me saying that this indicates an incomplete conversion but I remain unconvinced thus far that this assessment is false. If anything I see additional evidences confirming this theory from time to time.

They had me 99.9% convinced that "Integrism" was the way to go, and that the Popes since Pius XII were probably not popes.

I also have long opined that so-called "traditionalism" leads inexorably towards sedevacantism. However, this trajectory is not often realized. My question to you is this:

---Were you being taken in by actual sedevacantism in toto or was it more of the kind of functional sedevacantism that groups such as the SSPX promote???

Still, I was torn by this opinion, so a couple of weeks ago I prayed and prayed very earnestly that if the Conciliar Church was apostate, that God would "confirm" that to me in my heart, mind, and spirit. Just the opposite happened!

Again, this is wonderful news.

I've been reading articles on Extreme Traditionalism and I finally see that I have nothing to worry about: John Paul II is our true pope, Vatican II did not teach any heresy, and that our Novus Ordo Missae is indeed valid, although often abused.

All of which is true -the last one sadly so alas.

Now I have to share my change of heart with my trad friends, and this is going to be hard to do...

With regards to your "trad friends", I would recommend pastoral approaches over Unam Sanctum like pronouncements if that is at all feasible to do. (And it usually is.) As a reference point, I would recommend my treatise A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' because it covers so many subjects.{1} Not knowing which of my writings you have read, that is always my first recommendation to people on the subjects pertaining to so-called "traditionalism."

Just thought I'd share that.

It is always emails like yours (and I get a fair amount of them actually) that remind me about the efforts in this area -the labours undertaken on those works were not in vain. It can seem that way admittedly at times but I suppose that is normal with works where the payoff is not in gold and silver. Thank you for the news and if you have questions or troubling issues, let me know and I will direct you either to where I have already addressed it or the matter can be gone over in various ways at my weblog.

Note:

{1} Here is the project url and most of the notes about it as advertised on the list of writings linked to my weblog:

This project is a systematic multitopical refutation of the theory of so-called 'traditionalism'. The topics covered in this project include Church History, Vatican II (its authority and misinterpretation), the Mass, Schism, Sedevacantism, Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, and other themes. This treatise is heavily documented, almost all of its sources can be verified as to their context, and the work demonstrates well beyond any reasonable doubt that these groups are not authentically Catholic in any way, shape, matter, or form. Furthermore, while aimed primarily at those who to some extent are autonomous of the Pope; nonetheless portions of this are applicable to every kind of false 'traditionalist' out there.

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 IX

Of the signs by which it will be known that the spiritual person is walking along the way of this night and purgation of sense.

BUT since these aridities might frequently proceed, not from the night and purgation of the sensual desires aforementioned, but from sins and imperfections, or from weakness and lukewarmness, or from some bad humour or indisposition of the body, I shall here set down certain signs by which it may be known if such aridity proceeds from the aforementioned purgation, or if it arises from any of the aforementioned sins. For the making of this distinction I find that there are three principal signs.

The first is whether, when a soul finds no pleasure or consolation in the things of God, it also fails to find it in any thing created; for, as God sets the soul in this dark night to the end that He may quench and purge its sensual desire, He allows it not to find attraction or sweetness in anything whatsoever.

In such a case it may be considered very probable that this aridity and insipidity proceed not from recently committed sins or imperfections.

For, if this were so, the soul would feel in its nature some inclination or desire to taste other things than those of God; since, whenever the desire is allowed indulgence in any imperfection, it immediately feels inclined thereto, whether little or much, in proportion to the pleasure and the love that it has put into it.

Since, however, this lack of enjoyment in things above or below might proceed from some indisposition or melancholy humour, which oftentimes makes it impossible for the soul to take pleasure in anything, it becomes necessary to apply the second sign and condition.

The second sign whereby a man may believe himself to be experiencing the said purgation is that the memory is ordinarily centred upon God, with painful care and solicitude, thinking that it is not serving God, but is backsliding, because it finds itself without sweetness in the things of God.

And in such a case it is evident that this lack of sweetness and this aridity come not from weakness and lukewarmness; for it is the nature of lukewarmness not to care greatly or to have any inward solicitude for the things of God.

There is thus a great difference between aridity and lukewarmness, for lukewarmness consists in great weakness and remissness in the will and in the spirit, without solicitude as to serving God; whereas purgative aridity is ordinarily accompanied by solicitude, with care and grief as I say, because the soul is not serving God.

And, although this may sometimes be increased by melancholy or some other humour (as it frequently is), it fails not for that reason to produce a purgative effect upon the desire, since the desire is deprived of all pleasure and has its care centred upon God alone.

For, when mere humour is the cause, it spends itself in displeasure and ruin of the physical nature, and there are none of those desires to sense God which belong to purgative aridity. When the cause is aridity, it is true that the sensual part of the soul has fallen low, and is weak and feeble in its actions, by reason of the little pleasure which it finds in them; but the spirit, on the other hand, is ready and strong.

For the cause of this aridity is that God transfers to the spirit the good things and the strength of the senses, which, since the soul's natural strength and senses are incapable of using them, remain barren, dry and empty. For the sensual part of a man has no capacity for that which is pure spirit, and thus, when it is the spirit that receives the pleasure, the flesh is left without savour and is too weak to perform any action.

But the spirit, which all the time is being fed, goes forward in strength, and with more alertness and solicitude than before, in its anxiety not to fail God; and if it is not immediately conscious of spiritual sweetness and delight, but only of aridity and lack of sweetness, the reason for this is the strangeness of the exchange; for its palate has been accustomed to those other sensual pleasures upon which its eyes are still fixed, and, since the spiritual palate is not made ready or purged for such subtle pleasure, until it finds itself becoming prepared for it by means of this arid and dark night, it cannot experience spiritual pleasure and good, but only aridity and lack of sweetness, since it misses the pleasure which aforetime it enjoyed so readily.

These souls whom God is beginning to lead through these solitary places of the wilderness are like to the children of Israel, to whom in the wilderness God began to give food from Heaven, containing within itself all sweetness, and, as is there said, it turned to the savour which each one of them desired.

But withal the children of Israel felt the lack of the pleasures and delights of the flesh and the onions which they had eaten aforetime in Egypt, the more so because their palate was accustomed to these and took delight in them, rather than in the delicate sweetness of the angelic manna; and they wept and sighed for the fleshpots even in the midst of the food of Heaven.[Numbers xi, 5-6.]

To such depths does the vileness of our desires descend that it makes us to long for our own wretched food and to be nauseated by the indescribable blessings of Heaven.

But, as I say, when these aridities proceed from the way of the purgation of sensual desire, although at first the spirit feels no sweetness, for the reasons that we have just given, it feels that it is deriving strength and energy to act from the substance which this inward food gives it, the which food is the beginning of a contemplation that is dark and arid to the senses; which contemplation is secret and hidden from the very person that experiences it; and ordinarily, together with the aridity and emptiness which it causes in the senses, it gives the soul an inclination and desire to be alone and in quietness, without being able to think of any particular thing or having the desire to do so.

If those souls to whom this comes to pass knew how to be quiet at this time, and troubled not about performing any kind of action, whether inward or outward, neither had any anxiety about doing anything, then they would delicately experience this inward refreshment in that ease and freedom from care.

So delicate is this refreshment that ordinarily, if a man have desire or care to experience it, he experiences it not; for, as I say, it does its work when the soul is most at ease and freest from care; it is like the air which, if one would close one's hand upon it, escapes.

In this sense we may understand that which the Spouse said to the Bride in the Songs, namely: 'Withdraw thine eyes from me, for they make me to soar aloft.' [Canticles vi, 4 (v. 5 in the KJV)] For in such a way does God bring the soul into this state, and by so different a path does He lead it that, if it desires to work with its faculties, it hinders the work which God is doing in it rather than aids it; whereas aforetime it was quite the contrary.

The reason is that, in this state of contemplation, which the soul enters when it forsakes meditation for the state of the proficient, it is God Who is now working in the soul; He binds its interior faculties, and allows it not to cling to the understanding, nor to have delight in the will, nor to reason with the memory.

For anything that the soul can do of its own accord at this time serves only, as we have said, to hinder inward peace and the work which God is accomplishing in the spirit by means of that aridity of sense.

And this peace, being spiritual and delicate, performs a work which is quiet and delicate, solitary, productive of peace and satisfaction and far removed from all those earlier pleasures, which were very palpable and sensual. This is the peace which, says David, God speaks in the soul to the end that He may make it spiritual.[Psalm lxxxiv, 9 (v. 8 in the KJV)] And this leads us to the third point.

The third sign whereby this purgation of sense may be recognized is that the soul can no longer meditate or reflect in the imaginative sphere of sense as it was wont, however much it may of itself endeavour to do so.

For God now begins to communicate Himself to it, no longer through sense, as He did aforetime, by means of reflections which joined and sundered its knowledge, but by pure spirit, into which consecutive reflections enter not; but He communicates Himself to it by an act of simple contemplation, to which neither the exterior nor the interior senses of the lower part of the soul can attain. From this time forward, therefore, imagination and fancy can find no support in any meditation, and can gain no foothold by means thereof.

With regard to this third sign, it is to be understood that this embarrassment and dissatisfaction of the faculties proceed not from indisposition, for, when this is the case, and the indisposition, which never lasts for long, comes to an end, the soul is able once again, by taking some trouble about the matter, to do what it did before, and the faculties find their wonted support.

But in the purgation of the desire this is not so: when once the soul begins to enter therein, its inability to reflect with the faculties grows ever greater.

For, although it is true that at first, and with some persons, the process is not as continuous as this, so that occasionally they fail to abandon their pleasures and reflections of sense (for perchance by reason of their weakness it was not fitting to wean them from these immediately), yet this inability grows within them more and more and brings the workings of sense to an end, if indeed they are to make progress, for those who walk not in the way of contemplation act very differently.

For this night of aridities is not usually continuous in their senses. At times they have these aridities; at others they have them not. At times they cannot meditate; at others they can. For God sets them in this night only to prove them and to humble them, and to reform their desires, so that they go not nurturing in themselves a sinful gluttony in spiritual things.

He sets them not there in order to lead them in the way of the spirit, which is this contemplation; for not all those who walk of set purpose in the way of the spirit are brought by God to contemplation, nor even the half of them--why, He best knows. And this is why He never completely weans the senses of such persons from the breasts of meditations and reflections, but only for short periods and at certain seasons, as we have said.

To be Continued...

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.