Bastiat's Corner:

The last installment of this series can be read HERE. For those who are new to the series, the first installment can be read HERE. I have thus far been unable to fix the link problem. (It is fixed in the archives but when I go to publish it the changes are not taking.) Therefore, for those who read through to October 30th, the installment following that one is on November 13th. Other then that glitch, the rest of the links appear to work just fine. Here is today's installment.

A Temporary Dictatorship

Here is Mably on this subject of the law and the legislator. In the passages preceding the one here quoted, Mably has supposed the laws, due to a neglect of security, to be worn out. He continues to address the reader thusly:

"Under these circumstances, it is obvious that the springs of government are slack. Give them a new tension, and the evil will be cured.... Think less of punishing faults, and more of rewarding that which you need. In this manner you will restore to your republic the vigor of youth. Because free people have been ignorant of this procedure, they have lost their liberty! But if the evil has made such headway that ordinary governmental procedures are unable to cure it, then resort to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow."

In this manner, Mably continues through twenty volumes.

Under the influence of teaching like this -- which stems from classical education -- there came a time when everyone wished to place himself above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it in his own way.

Socialists Want Equality of Wealth

Next let us examine Condillac on this subject of the legislators and mankind:

"My Lord, assume the character of Lycurgus or of Solon. And before you finish reading this essay, amuse yourself by giving laws to some savages in America or Africa. Confine these nomads to fixed dwellings; teach them to tend flocks.... Attempt to develop the social consciousness that nature has planted in them.... Force them to begin to practice the duties of humanity.... Use punishment to cause sensual pleasures to become distasteful to them. Then you will see that every point of your legislation will cause these savages to lose a vice and gain a virtue.

All people have had laws. But few people have been happy. Why is this so? Because the legislators themselves have almost always been ignorant of the purpose of society, which is the uniting of families by a common interest.

Impartiality in law consists of two things: the establishing of equality in wealth and equality in dignity among the citizens.... As the laws establish greater equality, they become proportionately more precious to every citizen.... When all men are equal in wealth and dignity -- and when the laws leave no hope of disturbing this equality -- how can men then be agitated by greed, ambition, dissipation, idleness, sloth, envy, hatred, or jealousy?

What you have learned about the republic of Sparta should enlighten you on this question. No other state has ever had laws more in accord with the order of nature; of equality."

The Error of the Socialist Writers

Actually, it is not strange that during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the human race was regarded as inert matter, ready to receive everything -- form, face, energy, movement, life -- from a great prince or a great legislator or a great genius. These centuries were nourished on the study of antiquity. And antiquity presents everywhere -- in Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome -- the spectacle of a few men molding mankind according to their whims, thanks to the prestige of force and of fraud. But this does not prove that this situation is desirable. It proves only that since men and society are capable of improvement, it is naturally to be expected that error, ignorance, despotism, slavery, and superstition should be greatest towards the origins of history. The writers quoted above were not in error when they found ancient institutions to be such, but they were in error when they offered them for the admiration and imitation of future generations. Uncritical and childish conformists, they took for granted the grandeur, dignity, morality, and happiness of the artificial societies of the ancient world. They did not understand that knowledge appears and grows with the passage of time; and that in proportion to this growth of knowledge, might takes the side of right, and society regains possession of itself.

What Is Liberty?

Actually, what is the political struggle that we witness? It is the instinctive struggle of all people toward liberty. And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world? Is it not the union of all liberties -- liberty of conscience, of education, of association, of the press, of travel, of labor, of trade? In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism -- including, of course, legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self- defense; of punishing injustice?

It must be admitted that the tendency of the human race toward liberty is largely thwarted, especially in France. This is greatly due to a fatal desire -- learned from the teachings of antiquity -- that our writers on public affairs have in common: They desire to set themselves above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it according to their fancy.

Philanthropic Tyranny

While society is struggling toward liberty, these famous men who put themselves at its head are filled with the spirit of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They think only of subjecting mankind to the philanthropic tyranny of their own social inventions. Like Rousseau, they desire to force mankind docilely to bear this yoke of the public welfare that they have dreamed up in their own imaginations.

This was especially true in 1789. No sooner was the old regime destroyed than society was subjected to still other artificial arrangements, always starting from the same point: the omnipotence of the law.

Listen to the ideas of a few of the writers and politicians during that period:

SAINT-JUST: "The legislator commands the future. It is for him to will the good of mankind. It is for him to make men what he wills them to be."

ROBESPIERRE: "The function of government is to direct the physical and moral powers of the nation toward the end for which the commonwealth has come into being."

BILLAUD-VARENNES:"A people who are to be returned to liberty must be formed anew. A strong force and vigorous action are necessary to destroy old prejudices, to change old customs, to correct depraved affections, to restrict superfluous wants, and to destroy ingrained vices.... Citizens, the inexible austerity of Lycurgus created the firm foundation of the Spartan republic. The weak and trusting character of Solon plunged Athens into slavery. This parallel embraces the whole science of government."

LE PELLETIER:"Considering the extent of human degradation, I am convinced that it is necessary to effect a total regeneration and, if I may so express myself, of creating a new people."

The Socialists Want Dictatorship

Again, it is claimed that persons are nothing but raw material. It is not for them to will their own improvement; they are incapable of it. According to Saint- Just, only the legislator is capable of doing this. Persons are merely to be what the legislator wills them to be. According to Robespierre, who copies Rousseau literally, the legislator begins by decreeing the end for which the commonwealth has come into being. Once this is determined, the government has only to direct the physical and moral forces of the nation toward that end. Meanwhile, the inhabitants of the nation are to remain completely passive. And according to the teachings of Billaud- Varennes, the people should have no prejudices, no affections, and no desires except those authorized by the legislator. He even goes so far as to say that the inflexible austerity of one man is the foundation of a republic.

In cases where the alleged evil is so great that ordinary governmental procedures cannot cure it, Mably recommends a dictatorship to promote virtue:"Resort,"he says,"to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow." This doctrine has not been forgotten. Listen to Robespierre:

"The principle of the republican government is virtue, and the means required to establish virtue is terror. In our country we desire to substitute morality for selfishness, honesty for honor, principles for customs, duties for manners, the empire of reason for the tyranny of fashion, contempt of vice for contempt of poverty, pride for insolence, greatness of soul for vanity, love of glory for love of money, good people for good companions, merit for intrigue, genius for wit, truth for glitter, the charm of happiness for the boredom of pleasure, the greatness of man for the littleness of the great, a generous, strong, happy people for a good-natured, frivolous, degraded people; in short, we desire to substitute all the virtues and miracles of a republic for all the vices and absurdities of a monarchy."

Dictatorial Arrogance

At what a tremendous height above the rest of mankind does Robespierre here place himself! And note the arrogance with which he speaks. He is not content to pray for a great reawakening of the human spirit. Nor does he expect such a result from a well-ordered government. No, he himself will remake mankind, and by means of terror.

This mass of rotten and contradictory statements is extracted from a discourse by Robespierre in which he aims to explain the principles of morality which ought to guide a revolutionary government. Note that Robespierre's request for dictatorship is not made merely for the purpose of repelling a foreign invasion or putting down the opposing groups. Rather he wants a dictatorship in order that he may use terror to force upon the country his own principles of morality. He says that this act is only to be a temporary measure preceding a new constitution. But in reality, he desires nothing short of using terror to extinguish from France selfishness, honor, customs, manners, fashion, vanity, love of money, good companionship, intrigue, wit, sensuousness, and poverty. Not until he, Robespierre, shall have accomplished these miracles, as he so rightly calls them, will he permit the law to reign again.*

[*At this point in the original French text, Mr. Bastiat pauses and speaks thusly to all do-gooders and would-be rulers of mankind: "Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."]

The Indirect Approach to Despotism

Usually, however, these gentlemen -- the reformers, the legislators, and the writers on public affairs -- do not desire to impose direct despotism upon mankind. Oh no, they are too moderate and philanthropic for such direct action. Instead, they turn to the law for this despotism, this absolutism, this omnipotence. They desire only to make the laws.

To show the prevalence of this queer idea in France, I would need to copy not only the entire works of Mably, Raynal, Rousseau, and Fenelon -- plus long extracts from Bossuet and Montesquieu -- but also the entire proceedings of the Convention. I shall do no such thing; I merely refer the reader to them.

Napoleon Wanted Passive Mankind

It is, of course, not at all surprising that this same idea should have greatly appealed to Napoleon. He embraced it ardently and used it with vigor. Like a chemist, Napoleon considered all Europe to be material for his experiments. But, in due course, this material reacted against him.

At St. Helena, Napoleon -- greatly disillusioned -- seemed to recognize some initiative in mankind. Recognizing this, he became less hostile to liberty. Nevertheless, this did not prevent him from leaving this lesson to his son in his will: "To govern is to increase and spread morality, education, and happiness."

After all this, it is hardly necessary to quote the same opinions from Morelly, Babeuf, Owen, Saint-Simon, and Fourier. Here are, however, a few extracts from Louis Blanc's book on the organization of labor: "In our plan, society receives its momentum from power."

Now consider this: The impulse behind this momentum is to be supplied by the plan of Louis Blanc; his plan is to be forced upon society; the society referred to is the human race. Thus the human race is to receive its momentum from Louis Blanc.

Now it will be said that the people are free to accept or to reject this plan. Admittedly, people are free to accept or to reject advice from whomever they wish. But this is not the way in which Mr. Louis Blanc understands the matter. He expects that his plan will be legalized, and thus forcibly imposed upon the people by the power of the law:

"In our plan, the state has only to pass labor laws (nothing else?) by means of which industrial progress can and must proceed in complete liberty. The state merely places society on an incline (that is all?). Then society will slide down this incline by the mere force of things, and by the natural workings of the established mechanism."

But what is this incline that is indicated by Mr. Louis Blanc? Does it not lead to an abyss? (No, it leads to happiness.) If this is true, then why does not society go there of its own choice? (Because society does not know what it wants; it must be propelled.) What is to propel it? (Power.) And who is to supply the impulse for this power? (Why, the inventor of the machine -- in this instance, Mr. Louis Blanc.)

The Vicious Circle of Socialism

We shall never escape from this circle: the idea of passive mankind, and the power of the law being used by a great man to propel the people.

Once on this incline, will society enjoy some liberty? (Certainly.) And what is liberty, Mr. Louis Blanc?

Once and for all, liberty is not only a mere granted right; it is also the power granted to a person to use and to develop his faculties under a reign of justice and under the protection of the law.

And this is no pointless distinction; its meaning is deep and its consequences are difficult to estimate. For once it is agreed that a person, to be truly free, must have the power to use and develop his faculties, then it follows that every person has a claim on society for such education as will permit him to develop himself. It also follows that every person has a claim on society for tools of production, without which human activity cannot be fully effective. Now by what action can society give to every person the necessary education and the necessary tools of production, if not by the action of the state?

Thus, again, liberty is power. Of what does this power consist? (Of being educated and of being given the tools of production.) Who is to give the education and the tools of production? (Society, which owes them to everyone.) By what action is society to give tools of production to those who do not own them? (Why, by the action of the state.) And from whom will the state take them?

Let the reader answer that question. Let him also notice the direction in which this is taking us.

The Doctrine of the Democrats

The strange phenomenon of our times -- one which will probably astound our descendants -- is the doctrine based on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator. These three ideas form the sacred symbol of those who proclaim themselves totally democratic.

The advocates of this doctrine also profess to be social. So far as they are democratic, they place unlimited faith in mankind. But so far as they are social, they regard mankind as little better than mud. Let us examine this contrast in greater detail.

What is the attitude of the democrat when political rights are under discussion? How does he regard the people when a legislator is to be chosen? Ah, then it is claimed that the people have an instinctive wisdom; they are gifted with the finest perception; their will is always right; the general will cannot err; voting cannot be too universal.

When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to be asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of enlightenment? What! are the people always to be kept on leashes? Have they not won their rights by great effort and sacrifice? Have they not given ample proof of their intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they not capable of judging for themselves? Do they not know what is best for themselves? Is there a class or a man who would be so bold as to set himself above the people, and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and should be free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do so.

But when the legislator is finally elected -- ah! then indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness, inertness, and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea: The people who, during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward into degradation.

Sone Notable Links From The Old Oligarch Worth A Read:
(And some commentary from your humble servant of Rerum Novarum)


The first is on why anonymity is a good approach for faithful blogging priests to take. In light of how Fr. Rob has again been silenced by his ordinary, any priests who read this blog who want to start a blog, please consider using pseudonyms. I am not counseling disobedience to your ordinary but there is no requirement that you have to use your real names. Please remember that should you decide to join the orthodox prelates in the blogosphere.

The second link from the Oligarch is a schedule of Catholic colleges that plan to run The Vagina Monologues. This is blatantly contrary to Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae but it is also tasteless and has no place in a Catholic college. Please bug the hell out of these institutions and nag them unceasingly until they act accordingly and drop this dung heap of a skit.

Anne Wilson on ways to deal with getting songs stuck in one's head. I had Journey's "Wheel in the Sky Keeps on Turning" stuck in my head when bleeding brakes on a vehicle the other day. It drove my friend Colin a little batty. I told him the song was stuck in my head (I have not heard it in years so I do not know how) and he said "can't you get another song stuck in your head???" My response of course was "sure" and I started singing "When the lights go down in the city"... ;-)

Anyway, read the link above. My favourite part was Anne's closing line Your brain will be clean as the proverbial stables of Augeus after the big flush. Little cultural quips like that appeal to me perhaps because so much of culture today is bereft of them. But I digress...

"Flower-Power Catholic Style" Dept.

No, this is not a reference to hippies but to St. Therese. Apparently St. Luke Productions is putting out a movie on her. See Tom Harmon's blog at this link for more details.

"Jewish World Review" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Triple Spin)

Pop music had an all female group "TLC". It seems to me that conservatives could have their own all female pundit group "TMC":

Eve Tushnet
Michelle Malkin
Linda Chavez

The subjects covered above are home schooling, lecherous celebrities, and the impending war. Enjoy!!!

Walt Williams outlines the hypocrisy of affirmative action advocates using the simple activity of an "affirmative action bake sale".

Mr. Rogers has passed away.

Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace...may his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen.

Bryan Preston on how to win without war. The source may surprise you.

Some Questions About the 2002 Scandals:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I am wondering how many who got all bent out of shape over the sex scandals will bother to issue their own correction when it is pointed out how even Catholics played a role in blowing this wholly out of proportion. I have been rather silent about this subject.{1}

Nonetheless, since there has finally been written an article covering it, there are still some questions to be answered as I see it. Among those questions I have are (i) will any of the hysterical sorts issue a public retraction and (ii) if they do, will they make it as prominantly as their original screeds. My hunch is that they will apologize on Q3 for the ranting they did on A1. This is frankly inexcusable.

It is not unreasonable to insist that those who were not slow in making their exaggerations front page do their apologizing on the front page. I have always sought to do this myself - responding to errors or omissions to the extent that they were made.{2} How many though will have the guts to do this???

I am not talking about the spineless wonders at NY/LA Slimes, NY comPost, Seattle Post Ignorancer, or other media outlets who will never in a thousand years do this. I am talking about the Catholic pundits - those at St. Blogs, those on message boards, those who write for Catholic and/or conservative publications.

I frankly do not expect the liberals to make any mea culpas on this. Nor do I expect the so-called "traditionalists" to do so either: the three 'mea culpas' of their Confiteor at mass so often being in vain it seems with the radicals.{3} But those who try to act as Christians are supposed to act have a responsibility if they want to retain their credibility untarnished. Yet watch how many of them will scurry away under the couch or some dark place and pretend that they were never as virtulent as they really were.

Watch for those who are cornered to say things like "well, I really did not have all the information" or "well, I was saying nothing that anyone else was not saying" or excuses of that sort. I will not mention any names but those who have done what I noted above know who they are. Let us now see who among them is willing to stand up now and admit to overreacting. I doubt you will find very many of them but I am open to being (pleasantly) wrong about this.

Notes:

{1} I have recently reviewed a very good and balanced book that dealt with the underlying factors behind these issues. Go HERE for details.

{2} Public if public, on a message board if that was where they were made, on my blogs if that is where they were made, or in private correspondence, etc.

{3} For these have the same vested interest as the media: to rip down the Church unless it tries to conform itself to their image ala the Jews and Roman soldiers of the Scriptures and their taunts to the Lord of Hosts.

I missed the anniversary of Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman's birthday. (In retrospect, I wish my blog anniversary was the 21st instead of the 22nd but oh well.) Thankfully, Lane Core and Donna Lewis can be counted on for charting the various verbal vignettes of the Venerable one.

It would be difficult to explain his influence on my own thinking so I will avoid long expositions on it and simply post a picture from Lane's website. Happy Birthday Cardinal Newman. And thank you for the tremendous influence on my own faith formation.


John Henry Newman, circa 1880

More El Camino Real vs. Rerum Novarum 
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I was hoping to see a response by Jeff Culbreath on definitions for the ambiguous term of "modernist-influenced" and "modernism". He has not responded yet but I trust him that time is not available for that at this time. He did point to one element of my response as a kind of brief "interim response" and took issue with my claim that the same forces behind the implementation of Humanae Vitae also impaired the reception of the Council's teaching. He did this by reiterating the position he previously espoused that If we want to know what the fathers of the Council really meant, we need only look at how they implemented their work at home. Aah if things were only that easy. Unfortunately, it is not so simple as that.

You see, there were many factors that influenced the way the decrees were implemented. (One of which was the overly bureaucratic diocesan structure of the first world dioceses (already firmly in place before Vatican II was convoked) which did what all bureaucracies tend to do and that was to gum up the machinery. There are also issues with the way the GIRM was implemented - or should I say not implemented - which bear unmistakable tendencies towards following a supposed "spirit" of the decrees rather than their letter.

Some of this may have been a reaction against over a century and a half of absurdly legalistic outlooks but that cannot explain all of it. There is also the issue of catechesis both at the lay level and also at the seminary levels. I would wager that three quarters of all the post-council problems are due to failures to properly catechize. (Part of which would involve a holistic exposure to the documents of the Council and not in little carefully parsed bits.)

The Second Vatican Council in some ways was a catechism in and of itself and it therefore needed to be studied as such. Of course the problems with our modern short attention span populace does not like anything it cannot read in a sound byte so different sides took their favourite sound bytes and they were pitted against one another rather than taken together as originally intended.

Very little of this really is in my opinion debatable to those who are properly informed. However, it is worth touching on in brief here with three unmistakable misreading of the Council texts that unfortunately were not uncommon. They are as follows:

1) Church architecture.

2) Lack of Gregorian Chant.

3) Lack of using Latin for at least some of the ordinary prayers (Confiteor, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, etc.)

Let us take into account these in order of listing.

1) The Council nowhere in any of its texts said a syllable about wreckovations. NOT ONE SYLLABLE. Yet many who have supported these projects have appealed to Vatican II for their support. Since most of the laity has not read the Council's texts, they were easily taken advantage of in the first decades after the Council. Silence on a point does not imply that it is up for grabs. Instead, silence by proper theological interpretation presumes continuity. When the Council did speak on architecture and furnishings, what was decreed cannot be twisted into justifying a lot of what has passed for art and architecture since the close of the Council. Note the following:

The Church has been particularly careful to see that sacred furnishings should worthily and beautifully serve the dignity of worship. She has admitted changes in material, style, or ornamentation prompted by the progress of technical arts with the passage of time.

Wherefore it has pleased the Fathers to issue the following decrees on these matters:

123. The Church has not adopted any particular style of art as her own. She has admitted styles from every period, in keeping with the natural characteristics and conditions of peoples and the needs of the various rites. Thus in the course of the centuries she has brought into existence a treasury of art which must be preserved with every care. The art of our own times from every race and country shall also be given free scope in the Church, provided it bring to the task the reverence and honor due to the sacred buildings and rites. Thus it is enabled to join its voice to that wonderful chorus of praise in honor of the Catholic faith sung by great men in past ages.

124. Ordinaries are to take care that in encouraging and favoring truly sacred art, they should seek for noble beauty rather than sumptuous display. The same principle applies also to sacred vestments and ornaments.

Bishops should be careful to ensure that works of art which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or through lack of artistic merit or because of mediocrity or pretense, be removed from the house of God and from other sacred places.

And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful.

125. The practice of placing sacred images in churches so that they be venerated by the faithful is to be maintained. Nevertheless their number should be moderate and their relative positions should reflect right order. For otherwise the Christian people may find them incongruous and they may foster devotion of doubtful orthodoxy.

126. When passing judgment on words of art, local ordinaries should ask the opinion of the diocesan commission on sacred are and -- when occasion demands -- the opinions of others who are experts, and the commissions mentioned in Articles 44, 45 and 46.

The commissions mentioned in articles 44-46 include commissions on music, sacred liturgy, and art - with the astute observation made that "it will often be best to fuse the three of them into one single commission" (SC §46).

Ordinaries should ensure that sacred furnishings and works of value are not disposed of or destroyed, for they are ornaments in God's house.

Those are the significant decrees on architecture and art from Sacrosanctum Concilium. Far from decreeing in favour of wreckovations they specifically decree against it. Of course those who follow their mythical "spirit of Vatican II" did what they wanted anyway. Which reminds me of a story.

The way my old SSPX church got their altar and tabernacle in the late 1970's was by one of the Church committee members lying to the church they got it from. He told them that he wanted to use the altar as a bar and the tabernacle as a liquor cabinet. The reason was if he told them what he really wanted to use them for (i.e. setting up a chapel) those wreckovating the Church never would have let him have them. Upon receiving them this fellow (who is a woodworker by trade) restored the altar and it was placed along with the tabernacle in the church in 1978 where they are still used today. That encapsulates one clear and inarguable failure to follow what the Council clearly taught. Here are additional ones.

2) Lack of Gregorian Chant. I have not heard one syllable of Gregorian Chant outside of my attendance at SSPX masses from 1986-2000 (and a few funeral masses in 2001). The Council, while allowing for other forms of music to be used explicitly stated the following with regards to Gregorian Chant:

116. The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as being specially suited to the Roman liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

Other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action as laid down in Article 30.

Article 30 reads as follows:

30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalms, antiphons, hymns as well as by actions, gestures and bodily attitudes. And at the proper time a reverent silence should be observed.

I cannot recall at any time the singing of Gregorian Chant in any Pauline liturgy I have attended except when I attend the occasional "Traditional" liturgy at my parish.{1} (At this mass the ordinary parts of the faithful responses - except for the Our Father - are done in Latin chant.) It seems to me that all parishes should have at least one Pauline liturgy celebrated in this fashion if they are not to make the Council declaration of "pride of place" for Gregorian Chant a dead letter. Moving on we have the final example I am going to give here.

3) The Constitution is quite clear on the Latin usage:

36. (1) The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (2) But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives and in some prayers and chants. Regulations governing this will be given separately in subsequent chapters.

(3) These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Article 22:2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used. Its decrees have to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. Where circumstances warrant it, it is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

Article 22:2 is one of the Constitution's General Norms and it states that In virtue of power conceded by law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of bishops' conferences, legitimately established, with competence in given territories.

This is of course an eminently Traditional norm. But the Constitution specifically calls for the use of some Latin in the liturgy and this norm is often ignored. Here are the governing regulations from subsequent chapters:

54. A suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in Masses which are celebrated with the people, especially in the readings and "the common prayer," and also, as local conditions may warrant, in those parts which pertain to the people, according to the rules laid down in Article 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

Nevertheless means "in spite of that". In short, regardless of the allowances for the vernacular to varying degrees, care must be taken to ensure that the faithful can say or sing in Latin the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass. So at the very least, even if the vernacular is used for the readings, directions, additional songs, and even the canon, it was to be maintained in the Ordinary of the Mass. I do not see any other interpretation of the text properly takes into account the general norms of interpretation that must guide any attempt to interpret properly the statements of the Constitution.

Wherever a more extended use of the vernacular in the Mass seems desirable, the regulation laid down in Article 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

Article 40 deals with adaptations for inculturation. It is clear to note that these are listed predominantly for mission territories and therefore it is a flagrant abuse of theological norms to apply them in all but the rarest of cases to first world nations with a long history of Catholic settlement.

These are only three examples of what I am referring to Jeff. It is also important to point out that many bishops took on as advisors people who were accorded the mantle of being "experts" on the Council's teaching regarding the sacred liturgy and sacred architecture who were in reality anything but. In short, this dog does hunt Jeff and he hunts well thank you.

Note:

{1} Some churches do the Kyrie, the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dei during Lent but that does not qualify as "pride of place" since that is six Sundays a year. "Pride of place" it would seem to me would logically encompass the majority of liturgical celebrations - particularly the first class feasts.

Addendum: A good article on this was put out a couple years ago by (I believe) the same Robert Johansen who is now "Fr. Rob" and who authors the Thrown Back blog which We at Rerum Novarum link to. Here is the text of that article: Liturgy as Ecology.

"Happy Birthday To Us" Dept.

Well, not exactly. Today is actually the six month plus one day anniversary of Rerum Novarum. So I am going to do with this weblog today exactly what I want to - not that I do not already do that anyway.

So we may run some more stuff from the Bastiat series on The Law today and perhaps have an update of stuff from Jewish World Review and also perhaps a traddy song parody if I am in the mood to cook one up.

One thing I thought might be interesting is posting some links to a few of the earliest links to this weblog. Because it took me a while to get comfortable with this kind of publishing admittedly. Not to prejudice the posts from an earlier time period but I do not feel that this weblog really began clicking on all cylinders until about one month into the existence of Rerum Novarum. If I had to pinpoint a particular post that would be difficult but it seems to me that this one marked the point where I had almost all the ingredients into the pot if you will.

Prior to that point, I had not touched on the aspect of me that likes old style poetry or literature. I even had a small voice in my head around the time I first thought about posting it that was opposed to posting the Danny Deever poem because it was contrary to a kind of established pattern I was settling into with the weblog.

I decided of course to post it because (i) I had an instinct to want to post it so that meant I should do so and (ii) barring the most extraordinary of examples, if I second guess myself on this then I run the risk of playing into the network "sweeps week" mentality which I delved into in detail HERE.

I have drawn flack at times over the years for not towing a certain party line and I decided there to avoid any second guessing unless it was a very serious matter and (in that case) I would temporarily hold back to consider the merits of the idea. (In short, be true to my own intuitions on the matter.)

Very rarely though in blogging do such things come up. Instead, they are more germane to theological endeavours such as evangelization - where my occasional scruples are usually more towards the tone of a message than the message itself. (Though sometimes I decide to address an idea later on when it seems prudent to allow natural courses to better define the environment for such things.)

Nonetheless, I am not in saying this implying that the first month or so of this weblog should be written off my friends - not by a long shot. It is simply an admission that it took me that long to either explicitly set forth or implicitly plant the various seeds from which this weblog developed into the kinda gumbo that it is. But in reviewing the life of this weblog, perhaps listing here some of what I think the landmark posts from the first month are would be a good idea. Of the ones listed which may be in the margin, I will indicate those with an astrisks. Anyway, here goes:

First significant post to Rerum Novarum.

In light of what I noted about my friend Albert yesterday, he may find something in this post that resonates with him. However this weblog and its subjects have varied over the months, this post still captures the essence of the way I muse a lot of the time. (Yesterday I was doing some brake work on a vehicle so this post is rather applicable to my current state of mind too.) Moving on we come to this entry not from my weblog but another one:

My one (and to my knowledge only) mention by The Retentive One.

It happened the same day my weblog debuted interestingly enough. I was not quite astute enough back then to review my work after posting it to check for mistakes.{1} Hence I cut down on the mistake ratio dramatically. (And for someone with relatively clumsy fingers at times, that is a rather significant achievement.)

Before moving on with this retrospective, I want to address a rumour that appears to be circulating in the blogosphere. Some have speculated as to whether or not the same day critique followed by a subsequent lack of mention in light of the occasionally significant error here and there is an admission that I am the anonymous party in question. The rationale I suppose is that in criticizing myself the same day I debuted Rerum Novarum was a cheap attempt at self promotion.

Presumably, (or so the conspiracy theory pundits might say), the failure to mention myself again would serve to remove me from being considered a possible solution to the ever running identity game at that individual's weblog.{2} Since some have inquired both publicly and privately on this subject, I would like to take the opportunity at this time to respond to these conspiracy theories to clarify this issue for those who have asked. So I will tend to that with the following declaration:

I neither confirm nor deny the allegations made on this matter.

Hopefully that settles the issue for those who have asked :) Moving on with the retrospective, we come to the following entry:

First linking to another blog in a post.

It was the JunkYard BLOG which has become a staple here for my readers on political and social issues. (For Bryan and I think alike on not a few of those issues.) Moving on though we come to this entry:

Some thoughts on interfaith outreach*

This was my first theological dissertation on the weblog. It was composed basically from scratch with thoughts of what I knew at the time (and for two years previous to that point) was an inexorable descent into schism by a prominent Catholic apologist. A long subject and I certainly have no interest in rehashing it at this time, maybe later.

First Explicit Statement of Blog Intentions

I believe I have remained thus far very true to this stated intention. Please pardon the poor formatting on my part as my post formularies were still in the embryonic stage at this point.

First Magisterial Exercise of the Welborn Protocol.

Self explanatory to veteran bloggers or veteran blogging surfers.

Part I of my first attempt at blogosphere diplomacy

I did not think at that time to link series stuff together. And attempts to do so with the four posts in that series today have not panned because Blogger is being stubborn. Nonetheless, if you click at that link and scroll up, the four pieces are right after one another so you can review them that way if you like.

My first baseball entry.

I am a fan of baseball, though I do not often blog on the subject. Of course with a promising year ahead that could well change. (Remember, I started blogging after the Mariners were all but pushing up daisies in the pennant race last year.)

First Guest Editorial.

In light of the subject matter discussed and the impending implosion I refer to above (see the interfaith entry), this one was quite timely in retrospect to post.

First blog advanced posting of an Amazon review.

That was also my first Amazon review since November of 2001.

First Detailed Blog Fisking of a Reasonably Known (in apologetics circles) Apologist.*

My previous forays were with predominantly unknown or otherwise not-as-established individuals. It was not long before this tactic was undertaken again (a day or so actually) but that is another story altogether.

First Attempt to Balance Out My Weblog With Eastern Links.

Considering that I am nearly half Ukrainian, that was quite a milestone my friends.

My first war entry.*

I was not in favour of war at this point as the entry perhaps makes evident.

First Spiritual Instruction Entry*

Pretty self-evident methinks.

First "Which _____ Are You?" Quiz.

In my case first five since I took five of them in sequence. (Which MASH character?, Which Muppet?, Which Beatles song are you?, What was your past life?, and Which dead Russian composer?)

Second Guest Editorial.

The significance of that entry was mostly the content (my friend Bill Bannon's piece on the Trade Center event one year after the event). Prior to this point I had done virtually nothing on social commentary per se. And while not my first usage of bold font headings, it was my first usage of the "Dept." classification in true MAD magazine fashion. (Yeah, I read the occasional issue though not as much as I used to many years ago.)

One of the first - if not the first - implicit denunciations of antisemitism at Rerum Novarum.

In light of the environment at the time - and because of certain close-to-home developments at around this time - I felt the need to speak out but not be direct about it. Maybe some time I will reveal the reasons why but not right now.

First Disagreement With Bill Cork.

There have not been too many of these. In light of how recent to this entry we were first acquainted (two days previously if I recall), this post is a milestone. It is also an opportunity for me to tell Bill in light of how the individual we were discussing has degenerated that - while I still disagree with his proposed timeframe - that I nonetheless agree with his idea for a reasonably long timeframe in most cases with neophyte reverts before they start public apologetics. (Much more so reverts than converts because the situations are slightly different.)

The first Points to Ponder post.

Perhaps the most serviceable of my various departments because it can be as brief as a sentence or as extended as a few paragraphs. It is often said that most people do not think too much anymore and while perhaps "thinking" is not what people should be doing anyway - since it is too western and not sufficiently holistic in its approach. (Nonetheless, to "ponder" or "muse" on a point is appropriate since it involves more than mere head games.) So throwing out the occasional phrase or sequence to give the readers "food for musing" was one of those "came to me in a flash" ideas so it was immediately blogged.

That is pretty much an overview of the first month of Rerum Novarum. It is true that not every seed that has germinated since that time was explicit in the first month of course. But it is not an exaggeration to say that everything from establishing new weblogs, starting blog movements such as the Faith Legion, or other such elements were all established in principle in that first one month period.{3} (To say nothing about establishing new long-running series formats for educational purposes.)

But this entry serves as a holistic overview of the first month of Rerum Novarum. There are enough links in the side margin from subsequent weblog entries to cover the remaining five month period of this weblog's existence. Anyway, I hope to possibly post another entry in the Bastiat series tonight before bedtime. I have to get ready for mass now so until then, adieu. (If I even blog again tonight that is.)

Notes:

{1} Usually I do that immediately after posting unless it is an entry of approximately three lines or less; in those instances the entry is immediately reviewed before I post it.

{2} And leaving in my stumbles - particularly on the first day - would I presume be a kind of blogging version of "send in the clowns" to use a circus metaphor.

{3} Virtually all of these were literally on-the-spot blogged ideas. When that was not possible, they were jotted down and blogged when it was feasible to do so.

New Journeyman Issue Available!!!

I thought that this e-zine was defunct after so long without a new issue. I am happy to announce that I was wrong on this one folks.

Greg Krehbiel debuted the e-zine in September of 2001 and I wrote a piece on stem cell research for that one. The next issue was November of 2001 and I did an abridged version of my Amazon book review for the "Reviews" section of that issue. Then there was an issue put out in March 2002 and I thought that the long interval meant that Greg had discontinued the concept. I was surprised in checking the link to see a new issue up now. Here is the link:

January 2003 issue

If things go as planned, I may be writing a piece on capital punishment for the next Journeyman issue. I doubt we will have to wait ten months for that one, though it may be two or three months down the road or so. It all depends on editor and chief contributor Greg Krehbiel's schedule probably. But you know, there is little stopping one of you from submitting a piece for this e-zine. Greg has some of the most reasonable submission policies out there. And I know from experience that Greg is not one of those who shies away from disagreement with him - provided that the person has the proper disposition of course.{1}

Anyway, give the above issue a read and read the back issues as well. I have my stem cell research essay linked to this weblog but with Lent coming up, the book I reviewed in late 2001 may make a good Lenten read for you. (I submitted it in my list of recommended reading to Amy Welborn's list last week.) But go there for more than just my stuff folks - you will see some familiar names there and even some not-so-familiar ones.

Note:

{1} Meaning that they do not canonize as binding on others their own personal opinions in areas where there is legitimate theological speculation.

Today is the six month anniversary of Rerum Novarum. I will post a retrospective later on. I have it about half done right now. It will be more or less my assessment of how the weblog has developed and other tidbits. Tune in here later on, same Bat time, same Bat blog for details...

Clarification on Dialogue Approach Distinctions:

I may add this to my Miscellaneous BLOG later on, I am not sure yet. Nonetheless, it is worth noting here that there have been some emails about the way I approach issues with certain self-styled "traditionalists". Those paying close attention may notice that I dialogue differently with, say Jeff Culbreath, than I do with, say, my friend Albert Cipriani.{1}

This difference may seem even more suspicious when it is pointed out that while I consider Jeff to be a friend, I am much closer to Albert personally.{2} Is there an interpretation to take from this piece of (previously unrevealed) information??? Yes there is and I will explain it in brief so readers are not misunderstanding my manifested intentions on this matter.

I mentioned it here with the intention to explain what would appear to be a strange paradoxical approach by your humble servant of Rerum Novarum. I use Jeff and Albert because they are among the few who sent me emails who originally did not insist on anonymity.{3} Jeff now has a weblog and Albert has a discussion list so stuff from those sources of course is fair game even if I was not to utilize a magisterial exercise of the Welborn Protocol. (I tend to use this protocol judiciously most of the time anyway.) So I use them personally because it makes it easier to follow the discussion than if I were to refer to them as "trad A" and "trad B" - particularly since I gladly concede the term "Traditionalist" to Jeff but do not to Albert. I will now attempt to explain in part why I take this apparently contradictory approach. I have my reasons and hopefully this entry will clearly set them forth so I do not have to reiterate them anew.

To start with, there is an element to dialogue which involves addressing both issues of similarity (if not identical positions) along with issues where there is a difference either in personal philosophies or manifested beliefs. Generally I try to factor both of these into the mix but with Albert I do not do this.{4} In truth, there is a broader stream of stuff that Albert sends my way but I post only the polemical ones. This is not out of an itch for a fight but instead is to illustrate a principle of consistency that is required in these kinds of discussions.

For as Albert and other rad-trads repine so much for the so-called "good old days" I am giving them what they appear to want: good old Counter-reformational dialectic contrariness. An ignoring of areas of common ground (or playing them down) and focusing only on the areas of dispute. (I would caricature these in the worst possible light if not for the fact that I do have a certain sense of fair play at work here.) Further still, I am employing the "ecumenism of return" model because showing any degree of encouragement for areas of common ground is in their philosophical weltanschauung an immediate defacto "indifferentism" and therefore it is to be avoided if I am to be a "true Traditionalist".

With Jeff though we have our differences Jeff's approach is so much closer to keeping with the authentic and traditional Catholic outlook that it is not necessary for polarity. Whatever difficulties Jeff has with certain subjects he (i) does not tend to take positions that wash out the fundamentals of Catholic dogmatics and (ii) he addresses these areas with a noted degree of humility and deference.

Further still, I have detected with Jeff that if he really has a struggle with a certain issue he tends to approach people privately about it and does not air these things publicly in a haughty fashion presuming that his theological opinions are sure and inarguable conclusions. (And when he does publish areas of difficulty his deference and openness to authentic dialogue is apparent.)

For these reasons there is a different tone and a different method that I use when dialoguing with Jeff and with Albert - with those who approach these issues akin to Jeff and with those who approach them in a manner akin to Albert. I hope when the series on Frederic Bastiat's The Law is completed to possibly do a series on the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. I do not know when I will get to either of these but in the interim I have assigned "homework" to some of my dialogue partners and with others where our discussions are more irenic the same pace for the most part will be maintained as before.

Which reminds me, I mentioned to Jeff an examination of the last few Professions of Faith. Perhaps we can take that up during Lent which is a good time for reflection upon our own fidelity to the Mystical Body of Christ. Anyway Jeff, if you are reading this we can perhaps do that now if you are game. I had in mind the last four Professions of Faith prescribed by the popes:

Pope John Paul II's Professio Fidei{5}

Pope Paul VI's Credo (proclaimed by the Supreme Pontiff on behalf of the entire Church in 1968: clearly this should be seen as the interpretive hermeneutic of the 1967 Professio)

Pope Paul VI's Professio Fidei (promulgated in 1967; replaced in 1989)

The Vatican I Professio Fidei (promulgated in 1870; replaced in 1967; the Oath Against Modernism was added in 1910 to supplement the 1870 Professio)

The Credo of Pius IV (promulgated in 1563; replaced in 1870)

I should note here that a faithful Catholic should be able to take all of the professions universally promulgated by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council approved by the pope. (Also, promulgation of a new Symbol does not annul a former Symbol.) But still there is a good idea to examine the last five professions to point out this with greater clarity.

Notes:

{1} And most of those identified "traditionalists" whose emails are posted anonymously are treated in a manner closer to that of which Albert is addressed than the way I address Jeff.

{2} Not only in certain religious and philosophical/political contexts but including in certain non-theological subjects such as a love of the blues.

{3} Indeed even asked certain subjects to be discussed on the weblog which I obliged them on.

{4} To say nothing of others who are philosophically aligned with Albert whom I address exclusively on the Lidless Eye Inquisition weblog. For personal reasons I do not address my responses to Albert there at this time.

{5} Required by law since 1989 for all theologians to take - along with an oath of fidelity - if they are to teach in the name of the Catholic Church.

Peter J. Vere JCL was recently interviewed by his diocesan newspaper on annulments. That interview can be read HERE.

(Link courtesy of Catholic Light)

Al Kresta Spiritual Bouquet:

Please go HERE and contribute however you can.

"JunkYard BLOG" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Double Spin)

"Recalling" my arguably airtight case for war from early February (to phrase it in UN bureaucrateze), Bryan Preston adds some icing to the cake, summarizing the facts as only he can. The first piece is with Germany:

ARMING SADDAM

Well, I could say "I told you so" about Germany's role in helping Saddam acquire WMDs. Instead, I'll point you to an article that says it for me. The Germans may have built 8 mobile bioweapons labs for the madman from Baghdad. That's in addition to the one fixed lab for which they definitely initiated construction, and which I suspect they later finished.

Gee, d'ya think this might explain Germany's hesitance to take Saddam down? Just a little bit?

I do.

And Bryan really nails it with France. Just a sample you need to click there for the rest:

OUR DEBT OF GRATITUDE

With the world seemingly headed to war, and with millions marching against that war around the globe, all the news that streams in from all parts seems bad. The North Koreans celebrated dictator Kim Jong Il’s birthday by hating the US, and promising themselves a victory should nuclear war result from Pyongyang’s own lawbreaking. Al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden or one of his voice impersonators issued a new tape again, this time promising that his terrorist group’s “victory” in Afghanistan (a victory seen in their rearview mirrors, for some odd reason) was the beginning of the end of the US.

But all is not lost, even with the gigantic anti-war protests of the weekend. We Americans, especially we Americans who lean to the right politically, owe a huge debt of gratitude to one nation which has provided so much clarity to these confusing times. So all together now, folks—thank you very much, France.

Yes, you read that right. Thank you very much, France. You have taken a clouded world and made the view as bright as a spring day...For more go here

Having completed the seven part spiritual instruction on prayer finally, I have added the series to the weblog on the side and highly recommend it. I also decided to add my reasons why I disagree with the Pope but can do so in good conscience and in accordance with Catholic tradition since (i) the entry itself is about to fall off the main page and (ii) we may well be at war before I update this weblog again. Because of that, I want my position made perspicuous in advance because there may well be other Catholics who find themselves in the same quandry that I do on this issue.

For the aforementioned reasons as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I declare that these links are to be added to this weblog and to remain there in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Spiritual Instruction on Prayer (Part VII):

The last installment of this series can be read HERE. To start at the beginning go HERE. Please read the definition of an "ejaculatory prayer" in the previous section if you are to understand the usage of that word properly in this section.

20. St. Theresa's opinion is that the body should be in a comfortable position when we pray, as otherwise it is difficult for the mind to pay the proper attention to prayer and to the presence of God. Do not then fatigue your body by remaining too long prostrate or kneeling: the important thing is that the soul should humble itself before God, in sentiments of respect, confidence, and love.

At this point the text says "Read Chap. XIII, Part II of the Introduction to a Devout Life. That section will be added at this time in dark green font. The explanatory footnotes of the text will be italicized.

CHAPTER XIII. Aspirations, Ejaculatory Prayer and Holy Thoughts.

WE retire with God, because we aspire to Him, and we aspire in order to retire with Him; so that aspiration after God and spiritual retreat excite one another, while both spring from the one Source of all holy thoughts. Do you then, my daughter, aspire continually to God, by brief, ardent upliftings of heart; praise His Excellence, invoke His Aid, cast yourself in spirit at the Foot of His Cross, adore His Goodness, offer your whole soul a thousand times a day to Him, fix your inward gaze upon Him, stretch out your hands to be led by Him, as a little child to its father, clasp Him to your breast as a fragrant nosegay, upraise Him in your soul as a standard. In short, kindle by every possible act your love for God, your tender, passionate desire for the Heavenly Bridegroom of souls. Such is ejaculatory prayer, as it was so earnestly inculcated by S. Augustine upon the devout Proba; and be sure, my daughter, that if you seek such nearness and intimacy with God your whole soul will imbibe the perfume of His Perfections. Neither is this a difficult practice,--it may be interwoven with all our duties and occupations, without hindering any; for neither the spiritual retreat of which I have spoken, nor these inward upliftings of the heart, cause more than a very brief distraction, which, so far from being any hindrance, will rather promote whatever you have in hand. When a pilgrim pauses an instant to take a draught of wine, which refreshes his lips and revives his heart, his onward journey is nowise hindered by the brief delay, but rather it is shortened and lightened, and he brings it all the sooner to a happy end, pausing but to advance the better.

Sundry collections of ejaculatory prayer have been put forth, which are doubtless very useful, but I should advise you not to tie yourself to any formal words, but rather to speak with heart or mouth whatever springs forth from the love within you, which is sure to supply you with all abundance. There are certain utterances which have special force, such as the ejaculatory prayers of which the Psalms are so full, and the numerous loving invocations of Jesus which we find in the Song of Songs. Many hymns too may be used with the like intention, provided they are sung attentively. In short, just as those who are full of some earthly, natural love are ever turning in thought to the beloved one, their hearts overflowing with tenderness, and their lips ever ready to praise that beloved object; comforting themselves in absence by letters, carving the treasured name on every tree;--so those who love God cannot cease thinking of Him, living for Him, longing after Him, speaking of Him, and fain would they grave the Holy Name of Jesus in the hearts of every living creature they behold. And to such an outpour of love all creation bids us--nothing that He has made but is filled with the praise of God, and, as says S. Augustine, everything in the world speaks silently but clearly to the lovers of God of their love, exciting them to holy desires, whence gush forth aspirations and loving cries to God. St. Gregory Nazianzen tells his flock, how, walking along the seashore, he watched the waves as they washed up shells and sea weeds, and all manner of small substances, which seemed, as it were, rejected by the sea, until a return wave would often wash part thereof back again; while the rocks remained firm and immoveable, let the waves beat against them never so fiercely. And then the Saint went on to reflect that feeble hearts let themselves be carried hither and thither by the varying waves of sorrow or consolation, as the case might be, like the shells upon the seashore, while those of a nobler mould abide firm and immoveable amid every storm;--whence he breaks out into David's cry, "Lord, save me, for the waters are gone over my soul; deliver me from the great deep, all Thy waves and storms are gone over me;" for he was himself then in trouble by reason of the ungodly usurpation of his See by Maximus.

When S. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe, heard Theodoric, King of the Goths, harangue a general assembly of Roman nobles, and beheld their splendour, he exclaimed, "O God, how glorious must Thy Heavenly Jerusalem be, if even earthly Rome be thus!" 1 And if this world can afford so much gratification to mere earthly lovers of vanity, what must there be in store hereafter for those who love the truth?

1. Was it in imitation of this that the hymn was written? "If thus Thy lower works are fair,-- If thus Thy glories gild the span Of ruined earth and guilty man,-- How glorious must the mansions be Where Thy redeemed dwell with Thee!"

We are told that S. Anselm of Canterbury, (our mountains may glory in being his birthplace 1 ) was much given to such thoughts. On one occasion a hunted hare took refuge from imminent death beneath the Bishop's horse, the hounds clamouring round, but not daring to drag it from its asylum, whereat his attendants began to laugh; but the great Anselm wept, saying, "You may laugh forsooth, but to the poor hunted beast it is no laughing matter; even so the soul which has been led astray in all manner of sin finds a host of enemies waiting at its last hour to devour it, and terrified, knows not where to seek a refuge, and if it can find none, its enemies laugh and rejoice." And so he went on his way, sighing.

Constantine the Great wrote with great respect to S. Anthony, at which his religious expressed their surprise. "Do you marvel," he said, "that a king should write to an ordinary man? Marvel rather that God should have written His Law for men, and yet more that He should have spoken with them Face to face through His Son." When S. Francis saw a solitary sheep amid a flock of goats; "See," said he to his companion, "how gentle the poor sheep is among the goats, even as was Our Lord among the Pharisees;" and seeing a boar devour a little lamb,

1 S. Anselm was born at Aosta in Piedmont, A.D. 1033.

"Poor little one," he exclaimed, weeping, "how vividly is my Saviour's Death set forth in thee!"

A great man of our own day, Francis Borgia, then Duke of Candia, was wont to indulge in many devout imaginations as he was hunting. "I used to ponder," he said, "how the falcon returns to one's wrist, and lets one hood its eyes or chain it to the perch, and yet men are so perverse in refusing to turn at God's call." St. Basil the Great says that the rose amid its thorns preaches a lesson to men. "All that is pleasant in this life" (so it tells us mortals) "is mingled with sadness--no joy is altogether pure--all enjoyment is liable to be marred by regrets, marriage is saddened by widowhood, children bring anxiety, glory often turns to shame, neglect follows upon honour, weariness on pleasure, sickness on health. Truly the rose is a lovely flower," the Saint goes on to say, "but it moves me to sadness, reminding me as it does that for my sin the earth was condemned to bring forth thorns."

Another devout soul, gazing upon a brook wherein the starlit sky of a calm summer's night was reflected, exclaims, "O my God, when Thou callest me to dwell in Thy heavenly tabernacles, these stars will be beneath my feet; and even as those stars are now reflected here below, so are we Thy creatures reflected above in the living waters of Thy Divine Love." So another cried out, beholding a rapid river as it flowed, "Even thus my soul will know no rest until it plunge into that Divine Sea whence it came forth!" S. Frances, as she knelt to pray beside the banks of a pleasant streamlet, cried out in ecstasy, "The Grace of my Dear Lord flows softly and sweetly even as these refreshing waters" And another saintly soul, looking upon the blooming orchards, cried out, "Why am I alone barren in the Church's garden!" So S. Francis of Assisi, beholding a hen gathering her chickens beneath her wings, exclaimed, "Keep me, O Lord, under the shadow of Thy Wings" And looking upon the sunflower, he ejaculated, "When, O Lord, will my soul follow the attractions of Thy Love?" 1 And gathering pansies in a garden which are fair to see, but scentless, 2

1 Moore has preserved the graceful imagery of the sunflower, anciently called "tourne-soleil" (as by S. Francis here). "Oh the heart that once truly loved, never forgets, But as truly loves on to the close, As the sunflower turns to her God when he sets The same look which she turned when he rose."

2 "Pensees." This play on words is common--as Ophelia says in Hamlet, Act iv. sc. 5: "There is pansies--that's for thoughts." But the name of this pretty viola is really derived from panacea, signifying all-heal, just as Tansy is derived from Athanasia, i.e. immortelle or everlasting. Its other name of heart's-ease also refers to the potent virtues ascribed to it of old. Cawdray, in his Treasurie of Similies, London, 1609, says: "As the herb Panax or Panace hath in it a remedy against all diseases, so is the Death of Christ against all sin sufficient and effectual." In the preface to our English Bible of 1611, the translators speak of "Panaces, the herb that is good for all diseases."

"Ah," he cried out, "even so are the thoughts of my heart, fair to behold, but without savour or fruit!"

Thus it is, my daughter, that good thoughts and holy aspirations may be drawn from all that surrounds us in our ordinary life. Woe to them that turn aside the creature from the Creator, and thrice blessed are they who turn all creation to their Creator's Glory, and make human vanities subservient to the truth. "Verily," says Saint Gregory Nazianzen, "I am wont to turn all things to my spiritual profit."

Read the pious epitaph written for S. Paula by S. Jerome; it is marvellous therein to see how she conceived spiritual thoughts and aspirations at every turn.

Now, in the practice of this spiritual retreat and of these ejaculatory prayers the great work of devotion lies: it can supply all other deficiencies, but there is hardly any means of making up where this is lacking. Without it no one can lead a true contemplative life, and the active life will be but imperfect where it is omitted: without it rest is but indolence, labour but weariness,--therefore I beseech you to adopt it heartily, and never let it go. (Introduction to the Devout Life Ch. Part II, Ch. XIII) [Fr. R. P. Quadrupini: excerpts from his spiritual instruction "Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls" pgs. 36 (c. 1795)]