Category Archives: Church Authority

Scriptural Bingo

September 21, 2022Bible, Church Authority, God's Will, Grace, ScriptureFaith, Leo XIII, Romans, St. Augustine, St. Paul, Word of Godtwowingstogod@gmail.com

In Book VIII of his Confessions, St. Augustine details his conversion. After begging the Lord to finally free him from enslavement to sin, he began to weep with bitter sorrow because he felt powerless to overcome it. He suddenly hears the voice of a child, almost in a sing-song voice, say “Take and read, take and read.” He reasoned that the voice had a divine source and immediately opened a book of the Epistles of St. Paul. Happening upon Romans 13:13-14, “let us live honorably as in the day, not in reveling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy. Instead, put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires”, the saint was immediately converted to Christ with “all the darkness of uncertainty vanishing away” (VIII, 29).

Augustine had learned this approach from St. Antony of the Desert whom he had read about. Antony entered a church and upon hearing the words of Christ to the Rich Young Man to sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me” (Mt 19:21) did exactly as he was told. We might be tempted to think the men superstitious, playing a form of Scriptural Bingo. Except, that is, for the fact that we are talking about two saints. Let us then examine exactly what is going on there.

Faith in Sacred Scripture

In his Encyclical on Sacred Scripture, Providentissimus Deus, warned that “a thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom” in Scriptural interpretation represented a great threat the belief in Sacred Scripture as the true Word of God. Scripture itself became victim to the cult of the expert and Scripture Scholars, rather than the Church, became authentic interpreters. The average Catholic comes to think Scripture above his paygrade so that, confused by the experts, he sets it aside. Faith in Sacred Scripture as the authentic Word of God, addressed not just to experts but to every man, was toppled.

The saints, including Antony and Augustine, believed in the public revelation contained in Sacred Scripture. But because it is God Who speaks, they also believed that Scripture was a vehicle of private revelation as well. This does not make them closet Protestants but fully Catholic. They believed that God also revealed Himself and His will to them personally through Sacred Scripture. To grasp this fully, we have to do some theology. “Doing” theology means that we take something we believe and work out the implications of it so that it becomes a real principle in our lives. We move from just believing it to real-izing it.

Real-izing Our Belief in Sacred Scripture

Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit is the true author of Sacred Scripture. To real-ize this we must first set aside the question of how inspiration works. It is not that this is an unimportant question, but that there is a tendency to over-play the hand that man plays in it. However it worked, we have to know that the Holy Spirit inspired the Sacred Author to say exactly what He wanted to say and how it was to be said. In other words, the Holy Spirit is the One Who is speaking, even if He is using a human mouthpiece. From this we can draw a couple of principles

Every single word is both inspired—“all Scripture is inspired by God” (2Tim 3:16) and true—“He cannot deny Himself”(2Tim 2:13)
Because it is God Who is doing the speaking Scripture is “living and active” (Heb 4:13)

This second principle likewise bears some explanation. Because it is God Who was speaking through St. Paul, He had foreknowledge of the fact that St. Augustine would read Romans 13 on the fateful day. The words contained within their meaning exactly what Augustine needed to hear to move his heart, opening it up to receive the grace of conversion. It is as if God Himself in that very moment spoke directly to St. Augustine telling him what to do.

The words therefore are more than a dead letter, they are also active. This means that like all of God’s words they are performative. They effect what they command. Augustine was not just reading something directed to him personally, the words themselves contained the power for him to “make no provision for the flesh.” It is the words themselves that move Augustine to convert. Whenever God commands, He also equips.

Augustine as Everyman

What happened to Augustine is really not unique in that regard. It is the same thing that is supposed to happen to each one of us every time we open our Bibles. Each time Christ told the Apostles “have no fear”, He wasn’t just telling them to calm down, but He was also taking away their fear. But not just their fear, but everyone who ever laid the eyes of faith upon Mark 6:45-52 while in a state of anxiety.

The Apostles knew Christ’s words had power because He had commanded a storm to cease with a single rebuke. We too must come to believe that same power flows from the same Word found in Sacred Scripture. This is what I mean by faith in Sacred Scripture. Once you real-ize that it truly is living—directed to you personally from the seat of Eternity—you can expect it to be active by causing something to change in you.

The problem is that there are forces at work trying to undermine this by turning Scripture into an academic subject and subjecting it to literary criticism without having faith in it living power. Ultimately this undermines faith by echoing Satan’s “did God really say?”. God really is speaking through Sacred Scripture, not just to mankind but to me here and now. Pray for the grace of an increase in faith in Sacred Scripture!

Vaccines and the Common Good

November 3, 2021Catholic Social Teaching, Church and State, Church AuthorityCommon Good, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Churc, CST, Vaccinestwowingstogod@gmail.com

The past 150 years has seen the greatest flurry of social change in the history of mankind. From the end of all monarchies to the full acceptance of democracy and the rise of Marxist regimes, the world is very different than it was a century and half ago. Not surprisingly, the Church has struggled to keep up with the massive changes, especially in her articulation and application of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Her principles are often misunderstood and misapplied, furthering the plunge into chaos that seems to be the inevitable conclusion. This is especially true when it comes to one of the “Four Pillars of Catholic Social Though”, the Principle of the Common Good.

It is admitted at the outset that the notion of the Common Good remains elusive because it can be rather complicated, compounded by the fact that the Church has largely abandoned the Scholastic language that lends itself to explaining the nature of various things. Nevertheless, this has not stopped many Churchmen from using the term in a sloppy manner because of its innate power. For once a man enters a society, he has an obligation to contribute to the Common Good. This means it can be used as a coercive term and leads some people astray when it is not used properly. It is with this in mind that I intend to shine some light on the Common Good.

Defining the Common Good

To begin, the Church provides two definitions of the Common Good, both of which are given in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church in paragraph 164:

“…the common good indicates ‘the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily’. The common good does not consist in the simple sum of the particular goods of each subject of a social entity. Belonging to everyone and to each person, it is and remains ‘common’, because it is indivisible and because only together is it possible to attain it, increase it and safeguard its effectiveness, with regard also to the future. Just as the moral actions of an individual are accomplished in doing what is good, so too the actions of a society attain their full stature when they bring about the common good. The common good, in fact, can be understood as the social and community dimension of the moral good.”

Notice first that the definitions are difficult to reconcile. The first speaks of the utility of the Common Good and makes it seem as it is a collection of parts (“the sum total”). The second speaks of the Common Good not being a sum but an indivisible whole. We need not do the theological gymnastics necessary to reconcile the two to understand the Common Good, just look to Tradition to find a good working definition.

Once we do that, we find that the second definition is the most useful. For it speaks of the Common Good as both being common and a good. This bears further explanation. First a good is something that man desires in order to fulfill his nature. Second, there are two types of goods private and common. Private goods are those of one person alone. A common good on the other hand is one in which the good diffuses itself to many people, and in its diffusion, it is equally shared among members and is not diminished in any way when it is shared.

An illustration might help. Food is a necessary good for each man. I can speak of my peanut butter and jelly sandwich. But the minute I speak of our peanut butter and jelly sandwich, there is a problem. We cannot both have the whole sandwich. The minute I share that sandwich, there is a diminishment of the sandwich such that me taking a piece of it diminishes the amount you can have. There is only so much to go around. Properly speaking we might call the sandwich a public good because I shared it, but this does not make it a common good. Public goods are really just private goods that are shared.

This distinction is important as well for another reason. In a certain sense, by me eating my half of the sandwich, I have done harm to my neighbor by depriving him of it. What makes a common good a common good is that by doing the good, I am also willing the good of my neighbor for his own sake. By contributing to the common good, even though I benefit, I still am also benefiting my neighbor equally. This is why the image of the Common Good as being the good that flows over each member of society equally is helpful. I might have to forgo certain private goods for the benefit of the Common Good. But in doing so, I too share equally in the good. A police officer forgoes the private good of personal safety for the sake of a just ordering of society. The good of justice flows back over the police officer as well and thus he shares equally in it with every other member of his society.

The Common Good is “better” than a private good, or even a collection of private goods, because it is diffused to each member of that society. This extension of the good makes it a more noble good than merely a private good, no matter how many we are speaking. A good is higher based upon its diffusion so that St. Thomas calls the common good “divine” and says that God Himself is the ultimate Common Good. It also shows the primacy of the spiritual over the material. The material always diminishes in its diffusion while the spiritual does not.

Abusing the Common Good

Once we grasp this definition, we see the danger of only adhering to the first definition in the Compendium (which is the only one the Catechism has in #1906). It makes it appear as if the Common Good simply exists for the private good of individuals and not for the sake of the whole. This is characteristic of our time in which the good of the individual is seen to trump the good of all and how they are often seen to conflict. When we speak of the good of all we really mean all and not just some.

This misunderstanding is especially problematic in the recent CDF statement regarding vaccination: “the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one’s own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good.”

The former, namely that one has an obligation to protect one’s health is undoubtedly true. But health can only be and can only ever be a private good. Public health is not part of the Common Good, but a private good, even though it may extend to many people. It can never be shared equally among the members of society. It also, because it depends upon material conditions, is diminished when shared.

The danger of linking it to the Common Good is that it appears to take on an obligatory nature, despite the fact “that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.” You cannot have it both ways and by connecting it to the Common Good you have muddied the waters (at best). The fact of the matter is that justice, which is intrinsic to the Common Good, is not maintained when vaccination is forced, even if it is through the soft coercion of ambiguity and the flurry of non-authoritative Magisterial prodding. Decisions regarding one’s health falls under prudential judgment and can never be imposed without doing great harm to the Common Good.

On Politicians and Receiving Communion

May 26, 2021Abortion, American Founding, Bioethics, Catholic Social Teaching, Church, Church and State, Church Authority, EucharistAmericanism, Arian Heresy, Arianism, Art of the Possible, Catholic Church in America, Catholic Politicians, Heresy, NARAL, Senator Tim Kaine, Separation of Church and Statetwowingstogod@gmail.com

Last week, Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia wrote an Opinion piece in the National Catholic Reporter weighing in on the debate over Catholic politicians who openly support abortion and the reception of Holy Communion. The Senator clearly articulates the challenges faced by politicians who attempt to adhere to the Catholic faith when Christendom has eroded. Although he does not frame it using the same terms, he speaks of applying the principle of the Art of the Possible when fighting against the Culture of Death. Despite the good beginning, ultimately Senator Kaine’s opinion reveals him not to be Catholic, but an Americanist.

Americanism was first condemned as a heresy in the Church by Pope Leo XIII in a letter to the American Bishops in 1899. The Pope condemned the infection of Catholicism by the American “spirit of independence which passed too easily from the political to the religious sphere.” It attempts to replace the Holy Spirit with the Spirit of `76 and to focus only on areas of agreement with other Americans.

Revealing the Americanist Heresy

Only an Americanist would say that “bishops demanding that Catholics in public life not only live according to church doctrine but additionally shape the law, even to include the threat of criminal prosecution and punishment, to enshrine church doctrine on sexuality as mandatory for all Americans is contrary to our basic liberty.” And only an Americanist would ask, “Why would government require that Catholic sexuality doctrine, or Sharia law, or Orthodox Jewish rules about Sabbath observance, be followed by all?”

A Catholic would never need to ask that question because the answer is simple: Catholicism is true and the others are false. At the very least we can say that “Catholic sexuality doctrine” is binding upon all because it is based on the natural law. He has committed the fallacy of equivocation. As a Catholic he should know and believe that the only protection of our “basic liberty” comes through following the truth, both as revealed in nature and directly by God.

The law most certainly should be shaped according to the truth and not according to the whims of the masses. His job is not “representing a pluralistic society” but of representing God (Romans 13:1) from whom his authority comes. The Americanist always believes there is a separation in Church and State, but the Catholic knows that just as separation of body and soul leads to death, so too a “wall of separation” between Church and State leads to death of a society (and its members).

Americanism Leads to Arianism

Furthermore, the Senator attempts to put up a wall of separation between the man Jesus and the Word adding Arianism to his list of heresies. He says that “a decision by U.S. bishops to elevate issues of human sexuality, however important, above all others seems contrary to the Gospel. No reading of the life of Jesus would suggest these issues as his primary, or even secondary, concern. His towering message is about love of neighbor as oneself with a special focus on the poor, sick, hungry, marginalized.”

First of all, there is a reading “of the life of Jesus” that suggests these issues are of significant concern. That reading would include three mentions of human sexuality in the Sermon on the Mount regarding purity (5:8), lust (5:27) and divorce (5:31-32). Likewise in Chapter 19 of Matthew he speaks of marriage being restored to how is was in the beginning. Given how deeply sexuality concerns human beings, we would be surprised to find the Word becoming Flesh and ignoring those things as the Senator suggests.

Senator Kaine also makes the Arian mistake of not grasping that the Word of God as revealed throughout Scripture is the same Word of God Who took flesh. This is why we must look upon the Scriptures as a whole and not just focus on the “life of Jesus”.

The Senator also treats abortion as an “issue of human sexuality.” Certainly, the child being conceived has something to do with human sexuality, but the fact that they are legally killed is a matter of social justice. His rhetorical bait and switch allows him to speak of Jesus’ “towering message about love of neighbor…with a special focus on the poor…marginalized” and then support legislation that takes the most vulnerable, the most marginalized in the womb and sentences them to death.

Americanism and the Reception of Communion

Animated by the Americanist spirit, we should not be surprised to find the Senator taking exception to the practice withholding Communion from Catholic politicians who obstinately remain in support of grave sins such as abortion and gay marriage. The “wall of separation” between Church and State likewise divides the Americanist’s heart from his political action. It is impossible, according to the Senator, that a bishop or a priest should judge the heart of politician by his action.

A moment’s reflection upon this position shows its absurdity. Saying you are “personally opposed” to something while simultaneously supporting it by voting for and enacting legislation that leads to its spread is a lie. Personal opposition always manifests itself through public opposition. For a politician like Senator Kaine to have a 100% NARAL rating and to claim personal opposition is impossible.

The point is that someone may be in favor of abortion, but not let anyone else know. That is, in a certain sense, a “private” sin and nearly impossible for a bishop or a priest to judge. Therefore, you would not expect them to withhold Communion from that person. However once someone’s view has become public, that is, once they have made their will known, their sin likewise becomes public. Now, there is no longer a question of judging the interior disposition, but the exterior revelation of the interior disposition. In that case, the bishop or priest has an obligation to withhold Communion for the good of the person’s soul (more on this in a moment). Likewise, the bishop or priest would be contributing to the scandal attached to the public sin by not publicly correcting it. Notice that this would apply not just to politicians but to anyone and any public sin.

It might be contended that the politician might be in a state of ignorance regarding the seriousness of their sin. This of course allows for a private discussion in which the bishop or priest lets the person know that they are in an objective state of grave sin so as to remove any ignorance that might be present. This would give the person the opportunity to repent publicly without the appearance of having been chastised.

The Eucharist should be withheld for the person’s own good because to receive unworthily, that is, in a state of mortal sin, is to draw condemnation upon oneself (1 Cor 11:29). That is, they sin further by desecrating the Eucharist and do further harm to themselves. It is analogous to cutting a drug addict off from access to more drugs so they do no further harm to themselves. This is not being “judgmental” but instead is a pastoral act of love.

Before closing, it is worth responding to the concluding statement by Senator Kaine because it is a popular “go to” for people in his situation. “The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.” Medicine is not for the dead, but for those who are sick and weak. Those in a state of mortal sin are spiritually dead and incapable of eating—it is St Thomas who says a dead man cannot consume food; he first needs to be spiritually resurrected from the dead through Confession. Instead, the nourishment is for those who are in a state of grace but battling the weakness of concupiscence. The Church has always taught that the Eucharist is a Sacrament of the living and cannot be given to those who are spiritually dead without first going to Confession. Senator Kaine seems to be omitting this important detail from his argument.

The Worst Sin

April 14, 2021Church, Church Authority, Eucharist, Magisterium, SacramentsAdoration, Aquinas, Communion, Communion on the Tongue, Penance, Reparation, Sacrilege, St. John Vianneytwowingstogod@gmail.com

What is the worst sin that afflicts the world today? Our immediate inclination might be to respond, Abortion. And we would not be wrong in identifying the sheer magnitude, done with impunity and under the legal protecting of the State, of the deliberate murder of the most innocent members of society. We most certainly cannot turn a blind eye nor remain silent in the face of such a grave evil. The murder of the innocent cries out to Heaven for vengeance prompting us to clothe ourselves in “sackcloth and ashes”—doing public penance for so public a sin—but, as evil as it is, it is not the worst sin.

Admittedly, all sin is evil because it is an offense against God first and foremost. Sins such as murder, abortion, adultery, and theft are direct offenses against love of neighbor. Other sins such as sacrilege, idolatry, blasphemy, apostasy, heresy, final impenitence, and the like are offenses directly against the love of God. The latter set always represent, objectively speaking, graver offenses for that reason. So as evil as abortion is, it is not the greatest evil. Instead, the greatest evil in the modern world, both in magnitude and frequency, is sacrilege against the Eucharist.

Sacrilege

Sacrilege is, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, “irreverence for sacred things.” A thing is sacred because it is been set aside for Divine worship. “Now just as a thing acquires an aspect of good through being deputed to a good end, so does a thing assume a divine character through being deputed to the divine worship, and thus a certain reverence is due to it, which reverence is referred to God…and is an injury to God” (ST II-II q.99, art.1). The worst acts of sacrilege St. Thomas says are committed against “the sacraments whereby man is sanctified: chief of which is the sacrament of the Eucharist, for it contains Christ Himself. Wherefore the sacrilege that is committed against this sacrament is the gravest of all” (ibid, art.3).

Considering the magnitude alone should give us great pause in both the manner and intention by which we approach the Eucharist. But in our time, it is the frequency by which this sin is committed that makes it the worst sin.

First of all, at least objectively speaking, Protestant services by which “Communion” is “blessed” and given represents an act of sacrilege against the Eucharist. This does not, to be clear, consider the subjective guilt of those who participate which may be relatively light. Still, simulation of a Sacrament, even when done by professing Christians who have no intent of offending God, still can be an act of sacrilege. I bring it up, not as an attack on Ecumenism, but for Catholics to be conscious of this fact when they are considering participating in such services, even if they choose not to actually partake of the communion wafers and grape juice. Regardless, it is still objectively an act of sacrilege and calls for those who do love Jesus in the Eucharist to do penance and acts of reparation. Perhaps the Ecumenical Movement would gain more steam if Catholics did not commit what St. John Paul II referred to as Eucharistic “duplicity” (c.f. Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 38) by ignoring the fact that Communion will never be achieved while these sacrileges are glossed over.

Then there are the sins of those who are professed members of the Catholic Church. By far these are most grave and frequent because “he who handed me over is guilty of the greater sin” (John 19:11). For a Catholic to commit any sacrilege of the Eucharist is akin to betraying the Son of Man with a kiss. The Eucharist is Christ’s gift of Himself to His friends. To betray a friend, especially when that friend is Christ Himself, is a diabolical deed. These sacrileges tend to happen in one of three ways.

Sacrilege in the Church

First, there are those who “eateth and drinketh unworthily” (1 Cor 11:28) by receiving when in a state of mortal sin. These sinners, according to St. John Vianney, crucify Jesus in their hearts:

He submits Him to a death more ignominious and humiliating than that of the Cross. On the Cross, indeed, Jesus Christ died voluntarily and for our redemption; but here it is no longer so: He dies in spite of Himself, and His death, far from being to our advantage, as it was the first time, turns to our woe by bringing upon us all kinds of chastisements both in this world and the next. The death of Jesus Christ on Calvary was violent and painful, but at least all nature seemed to bear witness to His pain. The least sensible of creatures appeared to be affected by it, and thus wishful to share the Savior’s sufferings. Here there is nothing of this: Jesus is insulted, outraged by a vile nothingness, and all keeps silence; everything appears insensible to His humiliations. May not this God of goodness justly complain, as on the tree of the Cross, that He is forsaken? My God, how can a Christian have the heart to go to the holy table with sin in his soul, there to put Jesus Christ to death?
Sermon on Unworthy Communion, Book IV, Sermons of St. John Vianney

When members of the Hierarchy either promote such sacrilege by encouraging those who are living in an objective state of sin to receive the Sacrament or by those who look the other way when a public sinner presents themselves for Communion, then they become complicit in the guilt. At least Judas kept his betrayal to himself and did not try to corrupt other members of the Apostolic College or the rest of Our Lord’s disciples.

Likewise, sacrilege can also occur when a sacred thing is treated as profane. This is, to use St. Paul’s terminology, a failure to properly “discern the Body of the Lord.” Faith is vitally important to receiving Our Lord in the Eucharist because it is our part in the exchange that occurs in Communion. Our Lord gives Himself completely while we give Him our faith that the Eucharist is. It is only by first believing that the Victim for our sins is truly and really present that we can identify with Him as Victim and join Him in offering ourselves to the Holy Trinity. This exchange cannot happen unless we first receive in Faith.

This profanation of the Eucharist can occur in the manner in which Our Lord is handled. I will not belabor the point that was made previously about how the unnecessary use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, Communion in the Hand, and all of the sanitary abuses related to the pandemic have only served to increase the number of offenses against Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Still, I would like to point out that when there is mass sacrilege going on, we must have the zeal to receive Our Lord in the most reverent way possible. This means making acts of faith, hope and charity and self-offering (Suscipe) before receiving Our Lord on the tongue. It also means approaching Him after making a sincere act of contrition and an act of thanksgiving afterwards.

It also calls for acts of reparation and penance to repair the harm done to the Church by abusers of the Blessed Sacrament. This starts by committing to watching for one hour with Our Lord in Adoration in reparation specifically for sins against the Eucharist. But it continues by joining Bishop Schneider’s Crusade of Reparation to the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus. He has a prayer (at the bottom of this link) that should be said at the end of every Mass and each of the acts contained within the prayer offers a concrete way in which we might offer Reparation.

In many ways, the sin of sacrilege against the Eucharist and abortion are simply parallels in the same failure of love of God and love of neighbor. Just as we fail to love the God Who hid Himself in the Eucharist we also fail to love our neighbor hidden in the womb of his mother. Out of sight, out of mind as the expression goes. But until we treat Our Lord in the manner worthy of us great gift, we likewise will not see an end to the mass killing of the hidden children in the womb.

The Visible Church

February 24, 2021Bible, Church, Church Authority, Defending the Faith, Ecumenism, ProtestantismChristian Unity, Faith, Liturgy, St. John Henry Newman, Unity, Worshiptwowingstogod@gmail.com

Sacred Tradition is, and always has been, a great obstacle for Protestants to overcome. There is an utter incongruity between the Christianity of history and Protestantism that requires much mental gymnastics to avoid. St. John Henry Newman put it another way: “if ever there were a safe truth, it is this…To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” The early Protestants, because they were drawn from the ranks of Catholics, knew this so that their theological acrobatics required them to discredit, or at least mitigate the role of the Catholic Church during the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, while still maintaining the revealed truth that the Church could not totally fail. From this they developed the idea of the “Invisible Church” as the true Church. This “spiritual” society was to be comprised of all the just men and women. It would only be made visible to the extent that the various religious communities more or less perfectly realize the ideal proposed by Christ. All of this leads to the notion that one Church is as good as another and only the “heart” of the individual believer really determines whether they are a part of the true, invisible Church.

We must admit at the outset that this ecclesiastical sleight of hand by the original Protestant revolutionaries was deliberate. But for Protestants today, it is simply an unquestioned maxim upon which the entire façade of Protestantism rests. This is why Newman thought, especially from his own personal experience, that studying the Church Fathers would lead one to the conclusion that the Protestant Fathers invented a new Christianity that was, at least in theory, based on the Bible alone. But prior to this study it is often necessary to raze the foundation upon which the entire building of Protestantism rests—the invisible Church.

That Christ intended to form a single Church is clearly testified to in Sacred Scripture. The one mustard seed, the one field, the one Bride of Christ and telling it to the Church all put this unity on display. He prayed to the Father before making His sacrifice that all believers would be one. Of these facts both Catholics and Protestants can agree. But in order for this unity to real, there must be certain characteristics among the body of believers.

For any society to exist there must be a true union of minds and wills between members. This unity in intellect means that the same doctrines are known and professed by each of the members. Likewise, the union of wills means, not just that they do the same things, but that there is submission to a common authority. Because man is not just a mind and will however, there must also be a third characteristic. This third characteristic is a set of external signs that symbolizes this internal unity.

Unity in Visible Government

In merely human societies, this unity is usually realized imperfectly. Nevertheless, there are some core set of beliefs, recognition of authority and visible signs that mark members of a society as belonging to that society. In the supernatural society that is the Church, these are necessarily realized perfectly. No mere core set of beliefs will do because of the Divine promise of being given “all truth” (Jn 16:13). There are no “core beliefs” in Christianity because the Truth is one. This unity of doctrine likewise means a unity of acceptance and a unity of government.

The Truth must be guarded and protected so as to avoid corruption. Protestantism bears this aspect out. Because there is no unity of belief, there can be no unity in government and thus we have thousands of “denominations.” Protestantism, rather than leading to the unity willed by Christ, has led in the opposite direction. This government must not only be one, but it must be visible. The Government of the Church, because of the nature of man and the nature by which men are cooperators, must be something visible and external.

As Leo XIII said in Satis Cognitum:

The Apostles received a mission to teach by visible and audible signs, and they discharged their mission only by words and acts which certainly appealed to the senses. So that their voices falling upon the ears of those who heard them begot faith in souls-“Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the words of Christ” (Rom. x., 17). And faith itself – that is assent given to the first and supreme truth – though residing essentially in the intellect, must be manifested by outward profession-“For with the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. x., 10). In the same way in man, nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments which are administered by men specially chosen for that purpose, by means of certain ordinances.
SG, 3

Unity in Visible Worship

But this visibility in government is not the only aspect by which the Church must be visible. Since it is a religious society, there must be a unity in worship. It is this unity of worship that signals to the world that the Church is one.

Man, on his own, is incapable of worshipping God in a fitting manner. For that, God must reveal the form of worship that is pleasing to Him. Throughout salvation history, God always makes a covenant with Israel that includes regulation of a concrete form of worship that God seeks. The New Covenant is no different in that regard. The worship that God seeks, the only worship that is pleasing to Him is the Mass. This is exactly the point that St. Paul makes to the Corinthians. First, he reminds them that the liturgy is their source of unity: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf” (1Cor 10:16-17). Then he tells them that the form of the liturgy, including the manner in which they participate, is regulated by Christ Himself: “In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes” (1Cor 11:25-26).

Practically speaking then there can be no true Christian Unity without unity of Faith, government and worship. True Ecumenism then must always have as its purpose conversion because until we have unity in the True Faith, governed by the True Church and worshipping with the True Sacrifice, we remain a divided society.

Making the Ordinary Extraordinary Again

February 6, 2021Church Authority, Eucharist, Magisterium, SacramentsAquinas, Chesterton, Eucharistic Ministers, Holy Communion, Liturgy, Precious Bloodtwowingstogod@gmail.com

G.K. Chesterton once said that there is “a silent anarchy eating out our society” because there is a wholesale “incapacity to grasp that the exception proves the rule.” What he meant by this the very fact that when we treat something extraordinary, we are in fact admitting that there is an ordinary. The anarchy has come in because we now treat the exception as the rule. Possible is interpreted as probable and all dogmatic statements are rendered useless. Unfortunately, this habit has crept into the Church as well and has led to a widescale adoption of things that were hitherto thought sacrilegious. One such example considers special attention today and that is the use of so-called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

The Church has not been immune to the Covidiocy that has attacked our world, especially in the Liturgy. Not only was there a long-term liturgical blackout, but the dictatorship of the hygienic has led to all kinds of abuses of Our Lord in the distribution of Communion. Part of the issue can be placed at the feet of bad catechesis.

The Real, Real Presence

In the 12^th and 13^th Centuries, the Church was confronted with a Eucharistic heresy that might be described as an exaggerated realism in which the broken Host or half-filled chalice was thought to no longer contain the whole Christ since the sacred species had become corrupted. The Church, adopting the view of St. Thomas that Christ was wholly present as long as the appearances of bread and wine were not corrupted (say through digestion for example) was quick to defend the truth that Christ is wholly present in even the smallest particle of the Host or the smallest drop of the Precious Blood. As St. Thomas puts it:

If there be such change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the wine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.
ST III q.77, art.4

In summary, provided that the Eucharist does not undergo a substantial change, Christ remains whole and entire in each and every part. This foundational truth has profound practical implications both in the manner in which we receive and respond. If Christ remains whole and entire as long as the borrowed accidental appearances of bread and wine are present, then we truly have Christ wholly present within us until the species are digested. This ought to inspire in us a profound reverence and gratitude by which we remain wholly attentive to the Divine presence. We should be slow to leave the Church and never omit sentiments of sincere thanksgiving and self-offering.

Our response however is conditioned on our reception and so a special emphasis needs to be placed on the manner in which Communion is distributed. Communion in the hand, which I have spoken of previously, is one such abuse that should be avoided. The passing of the Sacred Host back and forth most certainly leads to particles of the Host falling to the ground. Add to this the phenomenon of masks which are usually touched after receiving the Host in the hand and there is an even greater risk that the small particles of the Host is lost. Receiving in the hand is also by far the less sanitary means of receiving as our hands are far dirtier than our tongues, especially considering that Communion on the tongue, when done properly, does not lead to any tongue to hand contact the way that there is hand to hand contact when receiving in the hand.

The hygienic considerations hinge on the clause “when done properly”. Those who receive on the tongue know to tilt their head back and extend their tongue and priests know how to place it on the tongue without touching it. Consider further that when the Priest is taller than the person receiving (which happens 100% of the time when Communion is received while kneeling) then the chances of contact are far less than if Communion was received in the hand. The problem of course is that far too often, Communion is distributed by someone other than a Priest.

“Eucharistic Ministers”

All of this leads up to the question of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. This “office” is a relatively new phenomenon in the Church and was not present anywhere at any time during the first 1900 years of Christianity. It was added as part of the Liturgical changes made in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. It was meant to facilitate the distribution of Holy Communion when some extraordinary circumstance dictated it. The problem of course was that it fell upon the soil of anarchy that Chesterton mentioned so that it became ordinary and thus has led the way to great abuse of the Blessed Sacrament.

One of the reasons the Church has traditionally avoided the sanctioning of Extraordinary Ministers is certainly the practical things we have already discussed. But there are deep theological reasons for not using them also. Not only does it lead to abuses of Our Lord in the Sacrament, but it ends up being an attack upon the Faith itself.

Traditionally only men who received the Sacrament of Orders could touch the Eucharist because only they, by virtue of their ordination, have been consecrated to the service of God in the Liturgy. This consecration is not merely symbolic but real. Sacraments effect what they signify so that they have been Sacramentally conformed to Christ the Priest through a Sacramental Character. It is Christ who distributes the Eucharist and only those who have been Sacramentally conformed to Him should do so. This power cannot be delegated.

If that is true then why did the Church reverse course? They thought that there might be times when, because of some extraordinary circumstance such as a Priest not being available or too infirm to come off the Altar and distribute Communion. But like all “exceptions” those who have a clear agenda to Protestantize the Church seized the opportunity to further blur the distinction between the Ministerial Priesthood and the Priesthood of All Believers. The exception became the rule.

The Vatican has repeatedly cautioned against the “habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion…[as something that is] to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches” (Ecclesia de Mysterio, 1997). Despite the clear mandate and the fact that most churches are now at less than 50% capacity, the practice has continued.

The Mandate

The Congregation for Divine Worship in 2004 called upon all the Faithful to maintain Eucharistic integrity, saying “In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favoritism” (Redemptionis Sacramentum §183). It is in that spirit that “everyone” should actively work to remedy the abuse. This can be done, not in some democratic way, but through an application of the law of supply and demand. Those who want to see greater reverence for Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament should not serve as Extraordinary Ministers to cut off the supply. To reduce the demand, one should avoid receiving from them in situations where it is reasonable to receive from the Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

St. Paul informs the Corinthians that many of their infirmities are being caused by their Eucharistic irreverence. Abusing the Blessed Sacrament is literally causing their sickness. That is why it is ironic that in the name of keeping people from getting sick, the Church has turned a blind eye to the many Eucharistic offenses. What if, rather than making it better, it was actually making people get sick? We need to all work to restore Eucharistic piety, which starts by eliminating the ordinary usage of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Guest Post: Against the Institution of Female Acolytes and Lectors

February 3, 2021Church, Church Authority, Eucharist, Guest Post, Magisterium, Sacraments, Women's OrdinationAcolytes, Altar Girls, Latin Mass, Ministerial Priesthood, Pope Francis, Priesthood of all Believerstwowingstogod@gmail.com

Recently, the Holy Father promulgated a ruling which allows for laywomen to be formally accepted into the to roles of lector and acolyte, roles which for sometime they have already been filling in practice. Up to this point, however, the formal acceptance was restricted to men. The move, while having very little visible effect on the current state of the liturgy, formalizes growing problems that will now be explored.

Why is Reading a Big Deal?

In the liturgical tradition of the Church, the priest reads from Sacred Scripture from the altar while facing away from the people. This liturgical choice preserves two important ideas: 1) the sacredness of the Word of God and 2) the offering of the Word to God. The first idea, the sacredness of the Word of God, is shown by the fact that only a person that has been in some way consecrated to God is able to the proclaim the word of God in the Church’s public worship. In the past, a distinction has existed between those possessing sacramental ordinations (deacons, priests, and bishops) and those that had received non-sacramental ordinations (lectors, porters, acolytes, exorcists, and subdeacons). Those receiving non-sacramental ordinations (also called minor orders) were understood to be acting as an extension of the ministry of the deacon, who possessed a sacramental ordination.

It is also important to note that, keeping in mind the principle that liturgical actions often have both a practical and symbolic purpose, the restriction of the ability to read publicly to those who will have a clear reading voice and will be knowledgable enough to correctly pronounce the more difficult words in Scripture will stop the proclamation of the divinely revealed Word of God from becoming an event the faithful laugh about on the car ride home.

Why do you hate Altar-girls?

With regards to the second idea, it must be kept in mind that the priest is offering the entire Mass as a sacrifice to God. This reality is reinforced by the priest facing towards the tabernacle while he is proclaiming the Word. The addition of women to the role of lector, in addition to the problems created by reading while facing the people, destroys this because God has always indicated that He desires the priestly ministry of offering sacrifice to be reserved to males.

In the liturgical tradition of the Church, only men are allowed to approach the altar, be it as bishops, priests, deacons, or even humble altar servers. Why is this? Is it because the Church fell to the spirit of past ages and has reinforced in its liturgy sexist ideas? The answer is a clear ‘No.’ To see why this is, one only needs to open a Bible and observe the patterns of worship that have been in place since the beginning and have been shown to please the Lord. (Exo. 28-29, Num. 3) They all contain male-only clergy because they are types of Christ Who will be both Priest and Minister in the New Testament. Those who participate in that liturgy act as sacramental signs of Christ, Who is male. This practice continues into the New Testament when Jesus and His Apostles continued the practice of male-only clergy even though they could have changed it. This change would not have even been perceived as strange outside the Jewish community as female clergy already existed in other religions in other parts of the Roman Empire, e.g., the vestals.

While the change only allowed for female acolytes, the formalization of an altar server, the principle on display is one that would eventually advocate for the female diaconate, priesthood, and episcopacy. This principle is rooted in the denial of the different roles of men and women in the Church, roles that have been clearly established in Scripture and vindicated by two millennia of tradition.

What about the Priesthood of the Baptized?

Forgetting the problems introduced by these changes discussed above, let us ask ourselves the question, ‘To what end are these changes made?’ Some would advance that it is desire to teach the doctrine of the priesthood of all the baptized. In response to this, it must be realized that this method will never achieve that goal because it obscures that reality more than it reveals it.

The sacrifice of the Mass is the perfect prayer of the Church and it is the meeting of Heaven and earth. All the faithful ought to hear Mass and offer this most perfect offering to God. An authentic teaching of the doctrine of the priesthood of all the baptized would teach the faithful how to more perfectly offer this sacrifice, because offering sacrifice is exactly what priests do. However, the priesthood within the liturgy is not the same as the priesthood outside the liturgy.

The ordained priest has been given the honor of offering the Mass and the faithful participate in the Mass to the degree that they spiritually unite themselves with him in his offering. This, however, is precisely the opposite of what is shown by allowing more and more faithful on the altar. Does the man or woman that reads at Mass participate more fully than one that doesn’t? If so, does that mean that we need to multiply roles until everyone attending the Mass is able to more ‘fully’ participate? This, again, is exactly the mindset forwarded by the increase of the roles of the laity in the Church’s liturgy. From this, confusion emerges and we are left with a faithful that has traded true spiritual participation for a visible and ‘active’ participation and reduced the ability of others to spiritually participate in the liturgy by needlessly multiplying distractions.

Stripping down the Priesthood

What these changes leave us with, in addition to a liturgy less able to lead the faithful to union with God in prayer, is a sacramental priest stripped down and lacking identity. The priest has a sacred duty to offer sacrifice to God, namely the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. At the center of his spirituality must be this sacrifice and his entire life must be conformed to this sacrifice such that his entire life becomes a sacrifice. Just as a married man must lay down his life daily for his wife (who is the altar upon which he offers himself to God) and they are so conformed together that they become one flesh, so to must the priest become so conformed to the sacrifice of the Mass that he becomes a Victim-Priest just as Christ was. These changes, however, lead him more towards the roles of presider and orchestrator. One by one, his sacred duties are ‘contracted out’ to the laity and therefore lose their priestly character and change the character of the priest. The retractions are even more impactful to the diaconate, who has the duty to preform the exact ministerial actions that are being given to the laity.

The clergyman (be him a deacon, priest, or bishop) is a man chosen by God and consecrated such that he is given God-like powers, e.g., forgiving sins, calling down Christ from heaven, and strengthening a soul to endure death. Why are we stripping him of his duties and making him seem like an ordinary man? The evidence of this transformation is clear from priests being uncomfortable with saying, “I absolve you”, and replacing the ‘I’ with ‘Jesus’ or something similar. How can a man unconvinced of the massive amount of supernatural grace given to him and unwilling to proudly proclaim, with St. Paul that, “by the grace of God, I am what I am,” (1 Cor. 15:10) going to be able to fill the souls entrusted to his care with supernatural grace. We, the faithful, must support our clergy in living out their vocation by insisting that they keep the clerical duties for themselves.

About the Author

Connor Szurgot is currently a senior study for his BS. He has given multiple talks to the Catholic Campus Ministry at his university on topics such as Eucharistic reverence and mental prayer. He is a member of the Thomistic Institute and is a regular participant in their intellectual formation. He enjoys discussing the practical and philosophical aspects of politics as well as religion, particularly systematic theology.

Masking and the New Religion

December 9, 2020Apologetics, Church and State, Church Authority, Conscience, Culture, Human Dignity, Magisterium, Marxism, Moralilty, Natural Law, New Age, Paganism, Politics, Sacramentals, Sacraments, VirtueCoronavirus, Covid19, Mask Mandate, Religion of Humanity, Virtue Signalingtwowingstogod@gmail.com

We have been hearing for decades that we are living in a post-Christian society. This has mostly been a way to describe the fact that Christian values have been in decline. But Christianity has still been the dominant religion; dominant, that is, until the Covid-19 crisis hit. The arrival of the Covid-19 pandemic in our society marked the official changing of the guard. While we have been hearing about the emergence of a post-Christian society for decades, Christianity was still the dominant religion. No longer is this true, however. Christianity has been toppled and replaced by a new Gnosticism that we call Science.

To be clear, the issue is not against science per se, but what is more accurately described as religion masquerading as science. After all, as Aquinas says “He who neglects the experimental order in natural science falls into error” in all aspects of knowledge. To solve the Covid-19 crisis, natural science plays a necessary, although not sufficient, role. The peddlers of the new religion, would have us believe that it is sufficient because all we need to do is “trust the science.” We are saved by faith, not in Christ, but in Science.

The New Priesthood

Nor should we be quick to dismiss expert opinion. But expert opinion is not fact, it still must be based on solid reasoning. The problem is that expert opinion is often treated like dogmatic truth because the Scientific Elite are the new priests. Based on their secret knowledge that only “experts” such as themselves can understand, they dictate religious dogma. Spoken word becomes fact. Thus says the Scientist—“Masks don’t work” and it is so. Thus says the Scientist two months later—“Masks do work” and it is so. The Shepherds have spoken and the Sheeple must follow suit. Laws are made to punish heretics who dare to question the spoken word.

This, by the way, is why masks have elicited such a strong response. The High Priest initially said that they don’t work. Then he spoke again saying they did and that the Priests lied because they were worried about a shortage. But if a person unapologetically lies once, how do you know they are telling the truth now? Actually, a leading Priest at Johns Hopkins says, it wasn’t lying but that “[A]t first, researchers and scientists did not know how necessary mask wearing would be among the general public. Now we are aware that wearing masks is an effective way to help prevent spread of this coronavirus” (Emphasis added). Given the timeframe and the rather dramatic shift from no-mask to mask, where did this awareness come from? Changing your mind is fine. But changing your mind without a change in the data is based not on science, but fiat. If you search prior to the dogmatic declaration, scientific opinion for the most part deemed them ineffective. The fact is that the Priests exercised their hidden knowledge (because there was no new data) and declared them so. I would probably be clothed in a scarlet mask for this statement alone, but let me go a little further as a statistician and speak about what a reasonable approach to this question would look like.

The Statistician Speaks

First, proving a negative is extremely difficult. To conclusively say “masks don’t work” is a practical impossibility. Having said that, there is little data to suggest that they do work (a complete summary that is thoroughly documented can be found here). There have been studies in the last few months that have suggested they might, but these are inconclusive at best. They are all very poorly done because they are being done in the midst of the crisis. To study the problem properly you need to set up what would be something akin to a clinical trial in which you had a placebo group to compare it to. But you also have the problem that mask usage is almost certainly confounded with social distancing. Is social distancing the thing that helps, or is it masks, or is it both? You’d have to set up a study to separate them. Secondly, not all masks are created the same or are equally effective.

Carnegie Mellon tracks (among many other things) mask compliance here. Notice that many places are in the high 80ish% for compliance and yet “cases” continue to increase in all of those areas. If any intervention works, then you should expect the slope of the line of increase to decrease (“flatten the curve”). But the data suggests that the lines are actually steeper. For example, see the plot below of my home state of North Carolina which instituted a Mask Mandate on June 26^th and has had above an 85% mask compliance rate (currently 91%). North Carolina is far from unique in this regard and you can find similar data for all your favorite states.

If we were true to “Science” we would look at this medical intervention and determine that it does not work. A drug company running a clinical trial (where they are using their own money) would stop the trial and might even decide that the intervention is actually making it worse.

This might mean that…wait for it…masks are making it worse. You would again need to study this, but it is a reasonable supposition given the data. It also makes sense in that it could easily be creating a false sense of security or become a petri dish of germs just waiting to be deposited on someone else or an aritficial barrier suppresses the body’s natural barrier of the immune system. To be sure though, if we were testing a drug and the data looked like this, we would stop giving it to people.

This tangent was necessary because it speaks to the reasonableness of mask mandates. Law, according to St. Thomas, is “an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community and is promulgated.” Any law that does not fulfill those four requirements—reasonable, aimed at the common good, proper authority, and made known—is not, properly speaking, a law. Therefore, because they are not reasonable (or at least can not be proven to be at this point reasonable) we have no obligation to obey them. As true Shepherds of the Flock, Bishops and Priests need to stop being so deferential to mask mandates precisely for this reason.

The New Sacrament

The revolt against masks then is really a revulsion to what they symbolize. They have been made into sacraments through the words of the New Priests. They are said to protect and so therefore they do. Those who do not want to subscribe to this religion therefore will not want to wear them. It seems like a small thing to do, but it plays a key role in the overall narrative that Science can save us. As a sacrament it symbolizes the fact that the Coronavirus is a serious threat to our overall well-being. If you are tempted to think “well 99.99% of people that get this will survive”, then you only have to look around at everyone wearing a mask to tell you that you should be scared anyway. The smiling face of your neighbor, which would normally comfort you, is now hidden from your sight. The masks will permanently disfigure us because when the next virus comes along, and it will, they will tell us “this is more serious than the Coronavirus (which it likely will be) you must put the mask back on.”

By blessing the mask, the Priest also makes it into a Secular Scapular. Through the words of Mary to St. Simon Stock, we know that the Brown Scapular helps to save you eternally. Through the words of the Scientist, the mask saves us from Covidoom. The Brown Scapular is an aid to our growth in virtue, the Covid Scapular signals that we have virtue.

One of the things that the totalitarian regimes of the 20^th Century was their exaltation of Science as the new religion. Lenin, Stalin, Chiang Kai-Shek, and Hitler all committed their atrocities using “Science” as their justification. Had someone stood up to them early on, one has to wonder whether things would have been different.

Eliminating the Other Police Force

June 10, 2020American Founding, Church and State, Church Authority, Culture, Culture of Life, Defending the Faith, Ecumenism, FreedomFirst Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Libertytwowingstogod@gmail.com

While we are about the project of reforming the civil police force, we are allowing the Thought Police to run amok. The Thinkpol are slowly rendering certain ideas unutterable simply because they do not conform to the Ochlocratic Orthodoxy. Not only do they have ritual humiliation at hand, they have co-opted corporations so that private views now have become fireable offenses. The mob silences dissenters by threatening livelihood and so most people simply conform. Free speech has come under attack in America in ways that would make even Woodrow Wilson blush. Like the previously discussed freedom of conscience, freedom of speech also needs defending. And like freedom of conscience, only Catholics who have a proper understanding of it, are in a position to lead the charge.

On the one hand, it is not wholly unexpected that free speech in our country has taken such a sharp left turn into a ditch. The Founders had an absolute faith in the power of the popular mind. Individuals might err, but the entire society could not. Free speech, coupled with democracy, serves as a recipe for finding the truth. All debate, they thought, would eventually lead to the truth. All ideas, even bad ones, then must be protected in order to keep the debate moving. In Gertz vs Welch, the Supreme Court declared that “”Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea … (it) requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters.”

Captivity to the Mob

Any freedom that is directly linked to democracy is always susceptible to becoming captive to the mob. If debate over an issue ceases then it is assumed that the truth has been reached. Now those who do not accept the orthodoxy become a threat to the well-being of society and need to be shut up. Thus we have things such as “hate speech” becoming punishable offenses.

A vicious circle is formed so that truth as a democratic matter always ends in an assault upon true liberty including free speech. It is as if they must saw off the limb they are sitting on. Liberty can only be connected to purpose and the purpose of speech is to utter truth. Therefore, there is such thing as liberty to speak falsehood. Freedom of speech is not unlimited but instead is not then a justification to say anything.

Truth is not democratic but is strictly governed by the dictatorship of reality. Truth, that is, the accordance of mind with reality, is necessary for liberty. Summarizing, Leo XIII says that the right to free speech “is a moral power which – as We have before said and must again and again repeat – it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State” (Libertas, 23).

This abuse of free speech eventually leads to its destruction as ironic as that seems. The problem is that there is no set of public truths that are immune to criticism, no intellectual foundation upon which debate may be carried out. Leaving everything open to debate actually closes it, a situation that Leo XIII anticipated when he said “The excesses of an unbridled intellect, which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak. And this all the more surely, because by far the greater part of the community is either absolutely unable, or able only with great difficulty, to escape from illusions and deceitful subtleties, especially such as flatter the passions” (ibid).

Americanism and the Fallout

Eventually, “nothing will remain sacred and inviolate; even the highest and truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race, will not be spared. Thus, truth being gradually obscured by darkness, pernicious and manifold error, as too often happens, will easily prevail. Thus, too, license will gain what liberty loses; for liberty will ever be more free and secure in proportion as license is kept in fuller restraint” (ibid). This is exactly where we find ourselves.

Because many prelates in the Church in the United States are infected with the Americanist heresy, they often confuse the authentic Catholic (i.e. true) understanding of free speech with the American model. The former leads to peace and justice while the latter leads to further division. One prelate recently said that our religious principles demand that we “defend the rights of all people even those with whom we might disagree.” Such a statement is misleading at best. What we are disagreeing about absolutely matters. Some topics are still open to debate, or as Leo XIII said, “In regard, however, to all matter of opinion which God leaves to man’s free discussion, full liberty of thought and of speech is naturally within the right of everyone; for such liberty never leads men to suppress the truth, but often to discover it and make it known” (ibid). Others, such as the right to religious liberty and the immorality of racism God has not “left to man’s free discussion”. Both sins against God cry out for justice. Therefore, it is neither “baffling nor reprehensible” that a Catholic institution, faced with playing a role in rectifying either, would seize the opportunity; unless, that is, you think the Thinkpol, rather than God, has closed the discussion.

On Liberty of Conscience

May 23, 2020American Founding, Church and State, Church Authority, Faith and Reason, God's Will, Magisterium, Martyrdom, Politics, SaintsApostles, Blood of Martyrs is the Seed of the Church, Conscience, John Henry Newman, Leo XIII, Liberty, Liberty of Conscience, Religious Libertytwowingstogod@gmail.com

The character of evil, in imitation of its greatest champion, is such that it is ever on the prowl looking to devour the freedom of each man. One of the means by which such freedom is protected is liberty of conscience. This natural right of conscience protects each man from having to act in such a way that he is forced to participate in something that he knows to be evil. As the prevailing culture moves further and further from its Christian roots, the protection by law of the rights of conscience becomes increasingly important. Therefore, it is worth examining more thoroughly in order bring into relief why it is so vital.

The Character of Conscience

First, we must clear up some of the popular misconceptions about conscience. It is not a thing like the proverbial angel on the shoulder, but a mode of judgement. More specifically it is a judgment of practical reason that is linked to the power of man to do what is right and shun what is evil within the concrete circumstances of human life. Since it is a power of practical reason, it depends upon a knowledge of the principles that lead to genuine human thriving even if it is only concerned with applying those principles. It is then the power of man to link truth with goodness.

Conscience, even if it issues commands to the will, is not an act of the will. Therefore, we must always keep conscience from becoming synonymous with self-will. Most people treat conscience as if it were freedom to do whatever they want rather than being beholden to the truth. It carries about with it a certain obstinacy of “sticking to your guns” no matter what. Therefore, authority is quick to use its power to command actions in conformity with cultural norms. This is nothing more than Power attempting to replace conscience.

Conscience protection is the Catholic’s last line of defense against the growing power of the State. The next step is to cross over into the field of martyrdom. So we must fight vehemently to keep it in place. The necessary principles for this defense were laid out quite articulately over a century ago by St. John Henry Newman. In a letter to the Duke of Norfolk, the saint gives us a defense of the Supremacy of Conscience that fits with a true and Catholic understanding of conscience and its inviolability.

Conscience and Character

Newman notes that all men are by nature bound to observe the natural law. Our apprehension of this Divine Law occurs within the realm of conscience. Even “though it may suffer refraction in passing into the intellectual medium of each, it is not therefore so affected as to lose its character of being the Divine Law, but still has, as such, the prerogative of commanding obedience.” Steeped within Catholic tradition, Newman views conscience as the voice of God and not merely the creation of man. It may be more or less heard correctly by each man, but it still remains what he calls the “aboriginal Vicar of Christ.”

Based upon the fact that conscience is properly viewed as the voice of God, the Fourth Lateran Council said: “He who acts against his conscience loses his soul.” To act against conscience is to act against God. Despite the fact that God has implanted this voice of conscience commanding us to do good and avoid evil, the ear of the intellect needs to be trained and given its “due formation.” This formation must come through reason enlightened by Divine Faith because the latter was given to purify the former. To fail to form the conscience properly constitutes a great evil, perhaps one of the greatest because it chooses to deny conscience its rightful dignity.

A man has a right to something because he has a corresponding duty. The right of conscience flows from his obligation to obey it. But this obligation does not flow from a need to be true to oneself, but to obey God. As Newman puts it, if conscience is the voice of the Moral Governor then the rights of conscience are really the rights of the Creator and the duties toward Him. “Conscience,” Newman says, “has rights because it has duties”. This ultimately is what makes freedom of conscience so important and why we must protect it at all costs. St. Thomas More is the model in this regard. He was a martyr because he obeyed the dictates of God mediated through His conscience.

As religious liberty goes into decline, conscience protection becomes more and more important. Pope Leo XIII called it true liberty, the liberty of the sons of God that shows that “the dignity of man and is stronger than all violence or wrong.” (Libertas, 30). When all the power of the State bears down upon a single man and he still refuses to join in evil, it shows that man is bigger than the State and shows that he is made for God. Leo XIII calls it “the kind of liberty the Apostles claimed for themselves with intrepid constancy, which the apologists of Christianity confirmed by their writings, and which the martyrs in vast numbers consecrated by their blood. And deservedly so; for this Christian liberty bears witness to the absolute and most just dominion of God over man, and to the chief and supreme duty of man toward God” (Libertas, 30).

Restoring the Kingdom

May 20, 2020Church, Church Authority, Holy SpiritActs of the Apostles, Ascension Thursday, Golden Calf, Jewish Roots, Pentecosttwowingstogod@gmail.com

Just prior to Our Lord’s Ascension, the disciples ask Him about the coming of the Messianic Kingdom; “Lord, will you at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel?” He responds rather cryptically, saying “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samar′ia and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:7-8). Many people read this answer as a non-answer, a dismissal of sorts because the Apostles were asking the wrong question. It is usually followed up by a comment as to just how clueless the Apostles still were even after spending their 40-day bonus round with Our Lord. But it is not the Apostles that were clueless, but us.

Notice first, that the Apostles were expecting Jesus to restore the kingdom to Israel. Having had “their minds opened to understand the Scriptures,” (Luke 24:45) the Apostles understood that the Christ would restore the kingdom to Israel. Their question is not if, but when. This is no dodge or redirection, but about the most direct answer He can give. The restoration of the kingdom to Israel will occur when they “receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” that is, on Pentecost.

The Meaning of Pentecost

For us to grasp this, we need to first understand the meaning of the Jewish feast of Pentecost. Fifty days after the first Passover, the People of Israel “came into the wilderness of Sinai” (Ex 19:1). It was there that Moses ascended Mt Sinai and brought the Torah to the people. This giving of the law that governs Israel marks the birth of Israel as a People. The Feast of Weeks, as it was known, was instituted to mark this event and was one of the three great Jewish feasts, when “all males shall appear in the sight of almighty God” (Ex 34:23). This feast was also known by its Greek name, Pentecost. This is what St. Luke was referring to when he mentions that the disciples were all gathered in one place “When the day of Pentecost had come” this is the feast that he is referring to” (Luke 2:1).

The Feast of Weeks was also the Feast of Reaping (c.f. Deut 16:9-11) to offer to God the first fruits of the Wheat Harvest. This helps to explain the abundant harvest of the 3000 souls that the Apostles reaped on that day, 50 days after the Divine grain of wheat became standing grain (c.f. Deut 16:9). The harvest of 3000 souls also ties back to those who, while God was giving Moses the Law, worshipped the Golden Calf and were punished by death (Exodus 32:28).

Pentecost then is the “time the Father has fixed” for the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. This restoration occurs when the Jewish Feast of Weeks finds its fulfillment in the Christian Pentecost. Jesus, the New Moses, ascended to Mount Zion, and God gives the New Law. This New Law is not written on stone, but on our hearts by the Finger of God’s Right Hand (i.e. the Holy Spirit, c.f. Veni Creator Spiritus). Just as in the giving of the Law to Moses, it is accompanied by a mighty wind and flashes of fire (c.f. Ex 19:18 and Acts 2:2-3).

Because the Jews were obligated by Divine precept to travel to Jerusalem for the Feast of Weeks, “there were devout Jews from every nation” (Acts 2:5) to show the universality of the restored Kingdom. But it also has unity as reflected by the fact that all present heard Peter in their own tongue. God undoes the disunity that was created at Babel by uniting all mankind under the Tower of Peter, the house built upon the Rock. This restored Kingdom then bears four marks: Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity.

Therefore, Just as the People of Israel found its birth at Sinai on the 50^th day after Passover, the People of the New Israel finds its birth on Pentecost, on the 50^th day after the new Passover. Our Lord restored the Kingdom to Israel on that day, the same day that we celebrate the birth of the Church. This link created by Our Lord in his response to the Apostles’ question between the Ascension and Pentecost helps to maintain the inseparable link between Israel and the Church. The new Israel formed from a remnant of the Israel of Old (c.f. Is 10:20-22) will be gathered together by the Messiah. All such promises made to Israel are taken up and fulfilled in the Church. This connection also maintains the necessity that the Church be both universal (catholic) and united from within a visible structure.

On Wasting Moral Capital

May 2, 2020Catholic Social Teaching, Church and State, Church Authority, Culture, Culture of Life, Economics, WorkBishop Gomez, Cardinal Sarah, Common Good, Democratic Party, Immigration, Just Wage, Redistribution, Republican Party, USCCBtwowingstogod@gmail.com

In response to the President’s order temporarily halting all immigration into the United States, several US Bishops issued a statement condemning his decision. This is not the first time that the Bishops have come to loggerheads with the President over his immigration policies, and rightfully so at times, but this particular statement leaves Catholics wondering whether the shepherds might be moonlighting as lobbyists for the Democratic Party.

To be clear, the problem is not that they are aligning themselves with the Democratic Party’s position regarding immigration, but that they so closely aligning themselves with a political party at all. Trapped in what has been called the “left-right fallacy”, American political parties have succumbed to either/or thinking. The Church on the other hand, is animated by both/and type thinking, especially with respect to her social doctrine. When a group of prelates comes out with a statement that sounds like it was drawn up by a Party member, you can almost always be sure that they are failing to embrace and teach the full Catholic understanding of the issue.

The Church on Immigration

With respect to immigration, the Church’s teaching is quite clear that there is a right to emigrate “when there are just reasons in favor of it” (Pacem in Terris, 25). The right is not absolute, conditioned not only to just reasons on the part of the emigrant, but also depending upon the Common Good of the nation they seek to enter. A State must accept immigrants “so far as the good of their own community, rightly understood, permits” (ibid, 106). As custodian of the “good of the community” or the Common Good, the State must exercise its office by enacting policies that first and foremost look to the Common Good and only then to the good of the individual immigrants.

This precedence of the Common Good over the right of the individual is not merely evidence of, as the Bishops insist, “the indifference of a throw-away mentality” but instead flows from the right to emigrate. The immigrant has an obligation to contribute to the Common Good if he is to become a member of the society in which he seeks to emigrate. From this responsibility flows the right to emigrate. If he does harm to the Common Good, then the right disappears.

There is a flip side to this as well, one that is not often discussed, but his highlighted by Cardinal Robert Sarah in his book The Night is Far Spent. The Cardinal says that “without a precise plan for their integration, it is criminal to offer hospitality to migrants.” The Cardinal speaks of the necessity of a welcoming State to have a “precise plan for giving them all the guarantees of dignified life.” This “dignified life” means not just that they have food and housing, but that they have the means for securing these things themselves. To come to another country and live off of the host is not dignified at all, but instead actually does great harm to both the individual person and the Common Good.

Democratic Party Talking Points?

It seems that the US Bishops have ignored the convergence of these very important principles and instead decided to regurgitate Democratic Party talking points. With 30 million Americans currently unemployed, it would be contrary to the Common Good to allow more people into the country and create additional competition for work. The Bishops obviously have fallen into the “immigrants do jobs Americans won’t do” fallacy. Immigrants don’t do jobs Americans won’t do, they do jobs at far lower wages than Americans will do them. They drive down wages for lower-skilled jobs by flooding the market with more workers. In a 2016 article in Politico, George J. Borjas, Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, reported that,

[W]hen the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants.
Both low- and high-skilled natives are affected by the influx of immigrants. But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable. The typical high school dropout earns about $25,000 annually. According to census data, immigrants admitted in the past two decades lacking a high school diploma have increased the size of the low-skilled workforce by roughly 25 percent. As a result, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable group dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year.

Contrary to the Bishops’ insistence that “There is little evidence that immigrants take away jobs from citizens,” it is clear Americans do lose jobs as a result of the influx of immigrants. This Democratic Party taking point, on the lips of Catholic Bishops ought to concern all of us, especially because there are two especially relevant Catholic principles upon which they are silent.

If you search “just wage” “immigration” on the USCCB website, you will find a single mention of just wage in the context of immigration (and that is a 2003 document quoting John Paul II). Why are the Bishops not defending this clear abuse of immigrant workers? The Church has long insisted that the dignity of the human person demands that he receive a just wage that is “sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children” (Rerum Novarum, 46). Of course, neither the Democrats or the Republicans ever speak of just wage either (and no “minimum wage” is not the same thing as a just wage).

The reason that politicians never speak of it is because immigration is a hidden way in which a redistribution of wealth occurs. Thus, the Bishops make the unsubstantiated claim that “Immigrants and citizens together are partners in reviving the nation’s economy.” A closer examination however reveals the exact opposite to be the case. Returning to Professor Borjas’ article, he pointed out that

somebody’s lower wage is always somebody else’s higher profit. In this case, immigration redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants—from the employee to the employer…I estimate the current “immigration surplus”—the net increase in the total wealth of the native population—to be about$50 billion annually. But behind that calculation is a much larger shift from one group of Americans to another: The total wealth redistribution from the native losers to the native winners is enormous, roughly a half-trillion dollars a year.

Thus we can see how indiscriminately allowing immigrants into the country, even to fill jobs supposedly “Americans won’t do” can do great harm to the Common Good.

There is nothing in the President’s order that is contrary to the Church’s teaching on immigration and thus they have nothing to add to the conversation as Catholic prelates. Their personal opinions, even when stamped with an imprimatur, only serve to damage their credibility as teachers of the truth. Given the great moral crisis we are facing, especially in the United States, it would be great if Catholic Bishops would not waste their moral capital taking what are clearly political positions.

The Security Exchange

April 18, 2020American Founding, Catholic Social Teaching, Church and State, Church Authority, Culture, Freedom, Moralilty, SinSecuritytwowingstogod@gmail.com

As has been written here on many occasions, Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America remains a vital resource for understanding the American mindset. What makes Tocqueville so valuable is that he was not necessarily an advocate of democracy. He saw in it great possibilities, but also was very much aware of the dangerous pitfalls that loomed in the background especially as the society around it rejected both religion and morality. In that way it has an almost prophetic quality about it, especially when it comes to the despotic and totalitarian temptations that all members of a democratic society ought to fear. Particularly prescient and especially relevant to today is a passage in which he cautions against totalitarianism that is smuggled in through a Nanny State:

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?”
Democracy in America Vol. II, Sect IV Ch. VI

Although this ought to be obvious, Tocqueville’s criticism rests upon an abuse of authority. What makes this type of abuse so pernicious is that it is so subtle that it is easy to miss at first because it is smuggled in as a form of paternal authority. As the name suggests, paternal authority serves a legitimate and vital function because it secures the survival and development of an immature person. But this type of authority has a pedagogical aim such that it assures its own disappearance. The goal is to discipline the person such that self-discipline comes about; govern them so that self-government is easy. Only when that happens can the person truly be free. Paternal authority then provides security so that freedom develops. Once the full flourishing occurs, this authority has outlived its usefulness and fades away.

Freedom and Security

The subtlety then comes in the relationship between security and freedom. The proper use of paternal authority is that it is ordered towards freedom while providing security. In its proper form there is no tradeoff between the two. Once the person has reached maturity and able to properly govern their own freedom, paternal security is no longer necessary. Able to properly discipline themselves the children have the liberty to secure for themselves what they need to thrive. In having true freedom, they have security, a security that minimally depends upon others. This is not to advocate for a rugged individualism, but to see security in its proper light. There are still aspects such as policing and military protection for example that will require society, but belonging to the common good, they never take away liberty but expand it.

Tocqueville’s point is that one of the sure signs that authority has outlived its usefulness, or has become an outright abuse, is that it takes away freedom. And in so doing it creates and encourages a “perpetual childhood.” Authority becomes “absolute and minute” because it becomes a form of control. It does all of this in the name of security and the people willingly trade their freedom, because, lacking the necessary virtue to govern themselves, they must have security.

If you wanted to create a populace that willingly made this tradeoff, you would start by attacking the legitimate exercise of paternal authority. Paint the paterfamilias as a dufus and ensure that he acts irresponsibly. Break up the school of freedom the family by making divorce easy. Separate children from their parents as much as and as early as possible. Teach them “values”, mostly economic and political, and not virtues. Mock virtue as repression and substitute license for true liberty. Once license replaces liberty, there appears to be no tradeoff between security and liberty (which is really license) because those in power still, to use Tocqueville’s terms, “facilitate their pleasures.”

All of this might have a libertarian ring to it, but that it to miss the fact that freedom is wedded to virtue. Libertarians tend to treat freedom as an end rather than a means. They demand liberty to do what pleases them provided they do not infringe upon others. This too becomes license and the trap is laid in reverse. Lacking the virtue necessary for self-control, they must look elsewhere for security. We cannot turn a blind eye to vice nor can we enthrone it as a “right”. There may be times when we tolerate it, but it can never seen as a true exercise of freedom.

Tocqueville the Prophet

Tocqueville’s words are particularly relevant today because they illumine the path we are currently on towards totalitarianism. In the midst of a plague, the government has taken away the natural rights of its citizens all in the name of security. Notice that the “liberties of vice” are still available as “essential businesses”, a literal bread and ciruses approach in which Liquor stores, recreational marijuana dispensaries, unlimited and free access to Pornhub, and so forth. Heck, even the occasional encounter facilitated by Tinder is, according to Health Czar Anthony Fauci, an option “if you want to take the risk.” But you can’t take the risk to go to Mass, the one place where both security and freedom grow.

By creating an atmosphere of fear, we have been sold the bill of security. We are living on the cusp of tyranny, even if we believe it to be a “benevolent” tyranny. Those are the worst kind because they admit of no limits. As CS Lewis put it, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

We would be wise to listen to both Lewis’ words and Tocqueville’s. Trading freedom for security is the surest path to tyranny and results in the loss of both freedom and security.

Religious Liberty and the Coronavirus Quarantine

April 15, 2020American Founding, Church and State, Church Authority, Vatican IIAmerica, Dignitatis Humanae, Leo XIII, Religious Freedom, Religious Liberty, Separation of Church and State, Thomas Aquinastwowingstogod@gmail.com

One of the more closely related issues to the Coronavirus Quarantine is Religious Liberty. Some have argued that the State demanding the shutdown of Church’s infringes upon the right to religious freedom. Arguments have but put forth, at least from a Constitutional perspective, that in general the demand that churches be shut down is not unconstitutional. We will set the constitutional question aside for the time being and examine it from the Church’s traditional teaching on religious freedom.

From the outset it must be admitted that examining religious freedom from the standpoint of traditional teaching is not without controversy. Ever since the Second Vatican Council this teaching has been contested thanks to what amounts to a document plagued by ambiguity. This despite the fact that the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, makes it clear that “it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ” (DH 1). This “traditional Catholic doctrine” can be summarized as follows.

The Traditional Teaching on Religious Liberty

Man has an obligation to worship God, not just in any manner that he wishes, but according to the religion that God has revealed. More to the point, man has an obligation to be a member of the Catholic Church. This membership however must be voluntary. No one can be forced to embrace the True Faith against his will. Two corollaries follow from this. First, no one may be forced from acting against his religious conviction in private or in public. Vatican II affirms this teaching when it says that religious “freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.”

In a discourse in 1953, Pope Pius XII said ‘That which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality has objectively no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated.” Because “error has no rights”, the public exercise of religion is another issue. Only the true religion has a right public expression and thus a person may be kept from publicly acting upon their religious convictions. To summarize, a man can’t be forced to act against his conscience but can be kept from acting on it. The second corollary then is that the State, because it is the custodian of the Common Good may prohibit public expression of false religions.

In Catholic countries the State may tolerate some public expression of false religions only for proportionate reasons in order to protect the Common Good. St. Thomas gives two reasons in general—to avoid civil unrest or avoid prejudicing non-Catholics toward the Church. What is clear is that this must be viewed merely as tolerance and not a right. No one has right to be tolerated. Either way a non-Catholic religion must not be given the space to flourish and propagate itself.

In non-Catholic States the obligation to protect and promote the true religion still remains in place, but the level of tolerance of false religions obviously increases because of the Common Good and the threat of civil unrest. This is where Dignitatis Humanae seems to veer from the traditional teaching of the Church saying both that “religious communities…have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word”(DH 4). It seems to confuse true rights from mere tolerance. How this can be reconciled with the traditional teaching remains to be seen.

The traditional understanding then differs from the American Model. The American Model treats all religions as equal. This is contrary to justice however. As Leo XIII put it:

“Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it.”
Pope Leo XIII, Libertas 21

This also means that the Church cannot be treated as merely one other social organization. This means that the constitutionality defense, namely that religious congregations have not been singled out, of the religious quarantine does not fly. The Church not only should be treated differently than other religious groups, but also from all social groups. Lumping it in with other “large gatherings” is unjust and does great harm to the Common Good.

Religious Liberty and the Power of the Church

The confusion regarding religious liberty has led to a grave misstep when it comes to the quarantining of the Church’s public worship and Sacraments. To be clear, the issue isn’t about whether Bishops should comply with the order of the State regarding not gathering. That question is best left up to the prudential judgment of the Bishops and their charism as Shepherds. But any compliance must be shown to be voluntary. It must be “we will comply” and not “we must comply”. Very few Bishops (if any) have made it clear that this is a voluntary cooperation, “signal proof of her motherly love by showing the greatest possible kindliness and indulgence” (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei 15) in cooperating with the State.

The Church has an obligation to repeatedly tell the State to stay in its lane and this situation is no different. Leo XIII, always aware of State encroachment upon the Church, said “Whatever, therefore in things human is of a sacred character, whatever belongs either of its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred, to the salvation of souls, or to the worship of God, is subject to the power and judgment of the Church. Whatever is to be ranged under the civil and political order is rightly subject to the civil authority” (ibid). This is because the spiritual common good always has precedent over the temporal common good.

When the transition back to normal life happens, the question is who decides when the Church may resume Masses? Is it the State or is it the Church? The way this has played out so far it appears that it will be the State which sets a dangerous precedent and gives the Church’s enemies great leeway in performing a “soft persecution” in the name of public health. The Shepherds of the Church must defend religious freedom and not cede any power over to the State.

A Kingdom Divided?

February 22, 2020Catholic Social Teaching, Church and State, Church Authority, Culture, Culture of Life, Evangelization, HeavenKingship of Christ, Pius XI, Quas Primas, Separation of Church and State, Social Justice, Tower of Babeltwowingstogod@gmail.com

When he instituted the Feast of Christ the King, Pope Pius XI went to great lengths to remind Christians of the fact that Christ not only reigns in the hearts and minds of individual men, but He is also ruler of all temporal kingdoms as well. As the Pope put it, “it would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power” (Quas Primas). Writing nearly a century ago, the Pope’s words remain especially forceful today when we find many Christians trapped by this “grave error.” Many prefer to disengage from civil affairs completely or treat them as if they are wholly divorced from religion. It is this attitude that has gotten us into this mess and it is only through a renewed awareness of our duties toward Christ the King that things will get better.

In an age where almost all the cultural chatter focuses on individual rights, we would be well served to recall that Christ too has rights especially since “all power in Heaven and Earth has been given by His Father”. No society will be just without rendering to Christ His due. As Pope Leo XIII put it, “the people have heard quite enough about what are called the ‘rights of man’. Let them hear about the rights of God for once” (Tamesti). So while we might agree that Christ is King of Heaven and Earth, it is difficult to grasp what that might look like here and now.

Christ’s Kingship Explained

The Church’s understanding of Christ’s Kingship is just an extension of what Our Lord said to Pilate when the Roman Governor tried to pull rank on Him: “My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants [would] be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here” (John 18:36).

A cursory reading of Our Lord’s words leads towards two opposite errors. The first is to see His kingdom as completely other worldly, merely spiritual if you will. They read it as “My kingdom does not belong in this world.” This is the “what happens on earth, stays on earth” type mentality that Christians are often accused of by which they show little concern or engagement in civil affairs and simply try to avoid getting caught up in the cultural claptrap so as to remain as unsullied as possible. It is also the mistake that leads us to willingly go along with the model of “Separation of Church and State” that animates most Western societies.

The second error adds to Christ’s words and says, “although my Kingdom is not here, we must bring it here.” These are the Christians who fall into the “Social Justice trap” and ultimately substitute humanitarianism for the Gospel. This approach flattens out Christ’s Kingdom and robs it of its supernatural content. Christ was no utopist nor was He instructing His followers to create some earthly bliss. Even Eden was not the Kingdom of Christ. Men remain fallen and any attempts to build God’s Kingdom on Earth ultimately go the way of the Tower of Babel. His Kingdom must come to us.

If both of these viewpoints twist Christ’s words, then what is the properly Catholic way of viewing the kingship of Christ?

Obviously, Christ’s Kingship is total and found in its full integrity only in the Kingdom that is to come. Still it is a spiritual kingdom that is in, not of, this world that derives its principles from heaven. Its exercise in the here and now is split, a point that Pope Gelasius made in his 4^th Treatise to the Emperor Anastasius on the roles of Church and State: “He, indeed because of human weakness, separated the two ministries for the following reason, so that no one might become proud.” Because of man’s fallen nature, Christ has divided His kingdom between the spiritual and temporal.

We might think of the two realms as two concentric circles. The outer circle that pertains to His spiritual kingship is exercised in the Church through the Pope and Bishops who are in union with him. The inner circle represents His temporal kingship that is shared by the rulers of nations. The inner circle, while always with us in essence, grows or shrinks in size according to how much the leaven of the Gospel permeates it. It will always be lacking in some way but its fullest integrity is found when its laws and institutions make it easiest for the Church to fulfill her mission of saving souls. In other words, the best secular regime is that in which both Church and State, while remaining wholly distinct from each other, are pulling in the same direction. Historically we find this as the basis of Christendom and see it most operative in the 13^th Century.

A Kingdom Divided Will Not Stand

One immediately grasps why a “Wall of Separation of Church and State” can never be acceptable for Catholics. You can no more separate Church and State than you can separate soul and body. The latter leads to individual death, while the former clears the way for a Culture of Death. You literally cannot separate them because the State will always take the place of the Church when the Church is absent, demanding religious obedience to all its precepts. Absent the Church, Caesar will always demand his pinches of incense, a phenomenon we are witnessing first hand in our own day as political correctness demands more and more religious obedience from both individuals and corporations.

It is not enough then to seek freedom to operate. The Church must be free to inform the State so that all of its moral precepts work toward the salvation of souls. As Pope Leo XIII said, “…it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority”(On Catholicity in America, 26).

This is ultimately why Catholics cannot stand idly by and watch the political realm from a disinterested perspective. There must be active engagement in order that men and women would recognize Christ on His throne. But not only that, souls are being lost specifically because of the laws and institutions in our country. This will not change without us.

We can do no better to summarize the urgency with which we ought to act than to echo the words of Cardinal Pie, the 19^th Century prelate who fought so judiciously for the rights of Christ the King:

“If we suppose Catholic social institutions, with Our Lord no longer living in the hearts of the individual members of society, then religion is merely a signboard which will soon disappear. But, on the other hand, try to convert individuals without Catholicizing the social institutions and your work is without stability. The structure you erect in the morning others will tear down in the evening. Is not the strategy of the enemies of God there to teach us a lesson? They want to destroy the faith in the hearts of individuals, it is true, but they direct still more vigorous efforts to the extirpation of religion from social institutions. Even one defeat of God in this domain means the weakening, if not the ruin, of the faith in the souls of many.”

On Inculturation

February 13, 2020Anthropology, Church Authority, Culture, Defending the Faith, Devils, Natural Law, Pope FrancisAdoration, Amazonian Synod, Culture, Idolatry, Inculturation, John Paul II, Pachamama, St. Francis Xavier, Vatican IItwowingstogod@gmail.com

In his new Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Querida Amazonia, Pope Francis mentioned the process of inculturation as a starting point for the conversion of the region. The Holy Father most certainly had the Pachamama controversy in mind when he exhorted the Faithful to “not be quick to describe as superstition or paganism certain religious practices that arise spontaneously from the life of peoples. Rather, we ought to know how to distinguish the wheat growing alongside the tares, for ‘popular piety can enable us to see how the faith, once received, becomes embodied in a culture and is constantly passed on.’ It is possible to take up an indigenous symbol in some way, without necessarily considering it as idolatry. A myth charged with spiritual meaning can be used to advantage and not always considered a pagan error. Some religious festivals have a sacred meaning and are occasions for gathering and fraternity, albeit in need of a gradual process of purification or maturation” (QA 78-79). Setting aside the fact that all false religions are by definition superstitions, the Holy Father’s remarks call for a deeper understanding of what the Church means when she uses the term Inculturation.

Understanding authentic inculturation begins by grasping what we mean when we use the term culture. Culture is the soil in which the human person grows. As the Second Vatican Council put it, “Man comes to a true and full humanity only through culture, that is through the cultivation of the goods and values of nature…. The word ‘culture’ in its general sense indicates everything whereby man develops and perfects his many bodily and spiritual qualities” (GS, 53).

Against Cultural Relativism

When viewed in relation to “goods and values of nature,” it becomes evident that cultures are not ends in themselves, but instead means for human growth. Likewise because there are objective “goods and values of nature,” we can also evaluate cultures objectively in terms of good and bad. Good cultures are those that cultivate authentic human flourishing and bad cultures are those that do harm to true human goods. Authentic culture must always be, according to the International Theological Commission, that which “reveals and strengthens the nature of man.”

In short, there is no such thing as a neutral culture nor can anything like cultural relativism be tolerated. We must evaluate and judge cultures by the objective criterion of whether true human goods are protected and promoted. It is the Church’s role to be judgmental towards cultures in three specific ways. Those values that are true human values, even if expressed in “local” terms are adopted as part of the vernacular of the Church and are the means by which the Gospel takes root. If they point to true human values, but are deficient in some way then the Church purifies them. Finally, if they are irreconcilable then the Church condemns them. This process of promoting, purifying and purging is what the Church calls inculturation.

The point of reference for the Church is not the culture itself, but as in all things, the transmission of the Gospel. The culture is simply the means by which the message takes root. This is why it is disingenuous to speak of inculturation as a two-way street. The Church has the fullness of truth and thus has no new facts to learn from the various cultures. The culture gives to the Church what is for its own benefit—a language that speaks the truths of salvation. What she does gain is a fuller manifestation of her catholicity. It becomes proof positive that the Gospel can be put in terms that are intelligible to men of every age and place and answer the deepest longings of all human hearts.

Because he was the most traveled Pope in the history of the Church, St. John Paul II constantly emphasized the connection between inculturation and evangelization. In an address to the People of Asia while he was visiting the Philippines he reminded the Church that “Wherever she is, the Church must sink her roots deeply into the spiritual and cultural soil of the country, assimilate all genuine values, enriching them also with the insights that she has received from Jesus. Given the mission entrusted to it by our Lord, the Church’s priority is always the evangelization of all peoples and therefore of all cultures. Inculturation is a means of evangelization, being at the same time its consequence.”

With all of this laid as a foundation, we can see what role, if any, Pachamama would play in legitimate inculturation. Those who defended it treated it as something that could simply be taken up (literally) as an authentic human value. But worship of a false god, however seemingly benign or how “spontaneously” it arises (how do we know if something arises spontaneously or at the prompting of demons?), is not a true human value. Nor is that something that can be purified but instead must be something that is rejected. Pachamama may have crossed the Tiber after it was tossed in the Tiber, but it was only because certain churchmen lacked both the faith and charity towards the Amazonian people to give them the saving truth of Jesus Christ. As St. John Paul II, who was not immune to failures in authentic inculturation, told the people of Cameroon, “the Gospel message does not come simply to consolidate human things, just as they are; it takes on a prophetic and critical role. Everywhere, in Europe as in Africa, it comes to overturn criteria of judgment and modes of life; it is a call to conversion.” Never once was the call to conversion issued to the worshipper of Pachamama.

The great missionary saints, whether it was St. Paul, St. Patrick, St. Francis Xavier, or St. Isaac Jogues, were all masters of inculturation not because they were clever but because theirs was a call to conversion even if they translated them into colloquialisms. It was because they were holy men that they were up to the task. As John Paul II put it, “Only those who truly know Christ, and truly know their own cultural inheritance, can discern how the divine Word may be fittingly presented through the medium of that culture. It follows that there can be no authentic inculturation which does not proceed from contemplating the Word of God and from growing in likeness to him through holiness of life”.

Keeping Your Hands Off

February 5, 2020Church, Church Authority, Church Fathers, Eucharist, Magisterium, SacramentsCommunion in the Hand, Communion on the Tongue, John Henry Newman, Liturgy, Mass, Real Presence, Spirit of Vatican II, Vatican IItwowingstogod@gmail.com

It has been alleged that in the early years of his revolution, Martin Luther was in the practice of celebrating “Mass” by omitting the words of consecration while still elevating the bread and chalice. This was done so that those gathered would not realize that Luther was doing something novel. His act of deceit reveals not only his own lack of faith in Transubstantiation, but the power of the signs that surround the Sacrament. He knew that if he were to eliminate the sign completely, he would quickly be branded as a heretic and his revolution would be dead on arrival. But if he could make small, subtle changes, it would be much easier to eliminate faith in the Eucharist. Applying this law of anti-Sacramental gradualism the Protestant Revolutionaries also introduced the practice of distributing Communion in the hand as a subtle attack not only against the Real Presence but also the ministerial priesthood. Wise as serpents, they knew that to attack these foundational beliefs head-on was reformational suicide, but if they changed the practice, toppling belief would be easier.

This lesson in ecclesiastical history is instructive because it relates to one of, if not the biggest, crisis facing the Church today—a diminishment in belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Through a certain Protestantization, namely Communion in the hand, a back door into the Tabernacle has cleared a path for the removal of Christ from the Eucharist. It is only by reintroducing this practice that we can hope to reverse the rising tide of unbelief.

How We Got Here

For at least a millennium and a half, the Eucharist was always and everywhere received on the tongue. In 650 we find the Synod of Rouen issuing condemning Communion in the hand as an abuse revealing that at the very least it was common practice at the time to receive It on the tongue. This remained the norm until just after the Second Vatican Council. After because the Council Fathers never made mention of altering the practice. Instead the false “Spirit of Vatican II” that grew out of the yeast of ambiguity and loopholes, found permission in Pope Paul VI’s 1969 instruction Memoriale Domini. Despite the declaration that “This method[Communion on the tongue] of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist”, the Pope left a loophole for those who had “special circumstances” to introduce or continue the practice. Granting a loophole enabled the principle of anti-Sacramental gradualism to infect the entire Church.

What We Can Do About It

Unlike the great need to change the orientation of the Priest during Mass through the re-introduction of ad Orientem masses, the laity can do something about this directly by receiving only on the tongue. By receiving on the tongue, rather than in the hand, the faithful witness directly to the Real Presence of Christ. How this is so we will discuss presently.

When a family sits down for a meal, platters are set out and each person is served food on their plate. From their plate they then feed themselves. A similar thing happens in Mass when the “minister” serves the Host to each person and they then feed themselves. This is all fine and good if the Host were simple food. But if the Host is not ordinary food, then how we eat Him ought to reveal this. By receiving the Host in a manner that is wholly unique to anything else that is eaten, namely on the tongue, the believer is testifying to the truth that it is no ordinary food, but instead Jesus Christ Himself. In fact we would be killing two birds with one stone by also obscuring the “family meal” interpretation of the Eucharist that has persisted over the last half century.

The use of scare quotes around the word minister above anticipates another important aspect of the practice. Just as the Protestant Reformers used Communion in the hand to diminish belief in the ministerial priesthood, a similar fascination with the priesthood of all believers has allowed this practice to thrive. By receiving the Host directly from the hands of a Priest, the same Priest whose hands were consecrated so that he could touch the Eucharist, testimony is given to the sacredness of the Host. Just as Mary Magdalene was chastised for touching the Body of Christ after His Resurrection, while the Ordained Apostle Thomas was not, the laity should avoid touching the Eucharist. This, again, would not only have the positive effect of reducing the number of (Extra?)Ordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, but will also help to avoid even the smalles particle of the Eucharist (of which Jesus is truly present) from being dropped or desecrated. One way to insure that doesn’t happen is to limit the number of touches.

Older is Better?

It is worth dealing with what amounts to the most common objection, namely that it was the ancient practice of the Church to receive Communion in the hand.

There are a number of theologians which have addressed this question and it is not entirely clear that there was a universality in the reception of Communion. To dive into this question historically however misses the point. Because the Church is a historical reality governed by the Holy Spirit, we should have no desire to “go back” because doctrine, being living and active, develops. As the understanding of the Deposit of Faith deepens, practice, especially liturgical practice, adapts to reflect that. For example, the understanding of Confession, especially its power to remove sin, was not something that the Early Church had a firm grasp on. That it forgave sins was never in question, but how and when was not understood. Could this be done only once or many times? If only once then you would want to save it, or even better save Baptism until there was an emergency or until you were about to die. If many times, then how could you prevent its abuse? From within this setting, Public Confession was widely practiced.

The point is that as doctrine developed public Confession went away. To have any desire to go back to public Confession would be to try to erase all of that development. So unless the “older is better” crowd are willing to go back to that practice, then they should not desire to do something similar with the Eucharist. All that we now know about the Real Presence of the Eucharist can’t be put back in the storehouse of the Deposit of Faith. The practice reflects this understanding as we have shown above. Orthopraxy goes hand in hand, or perhaps hand to tongue, with orthodoxy.

In short, antiquarianism is really innovation and ultimately degradation. This is a point that St. John Henry Newman made in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Using a false analogy, the antiquarians reason that just as a spring is clearest at its font, so too divine Revelation. But Newman gone to great lengths to show that development admits of growth in clarity as it moves from the source. As Pope Pius XII cautioned, we should not favor something just because it has “the flavor of antiquity. More recent liturgical rites are also worthy of reverence and respect, because they too have been introduced under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, who is with the Church in all ages even to the consummation of the world . . .the desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy.”((Pius XII Mediator Dei). Communion in the hand ultimately then is a corruption and needs to be stopped immediately.

Why We Shouldn’t Dare to Hope

December 28, 2019Apologetics, Church, Church Authority, Church Fathers, Devils, End Times, Last Things, MagisteriumAquinas, Augustine, Balthasar, Bishop Barron, Dare We Hope, Hell, Hope, Leo the Great, Lex Orandi Lex Credenditwowingstogod@gmail.com

In a previous post, a theological and anthropological defense of the permanence of hell was offered. A brief mention was made of the need to avoid hell in the right way—not by means of an infernal gymnastics, one that stretches the imagination and explains it away. But the denial of hell’s everlastingness is only one of its manifestations. There is another, perhaps more popular, strategy that could be called the “Dare We Hope” approach. First put forward by Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar in the 1980s, Bishop Robert Barron has taken the baton and run with. According to the Bishop, this approach posits two things:

Given what God has accomplished in Christ through the power of the cross, we may reasonably hope that all people will be saved.
The Church has never claimed to know if any humans are in hell, which leaves open the theoretical possibility of universal salvation.

We will deal with each of the two points and then discuss why, ultimately, to adopt does great harm to the Church’s salvific mission.

Hope or Optimism?

At first glance, there is nothing objectionable to the first point. Nevertheless, it doesn’t exactly pass the Catholic smell test, especially when it is combined with the second. That is because it suffers, like most modern theological statements, under the veil of ambiguity. By using the theologically charged word “hope” it lends itself to being easily misunderstood and therefore misapplied. Theological hope is something that is virtually certain based upon the merits of Christ and is not conditional in any way upon human response. In his book, Balthasar says that there are only two responses to the question of whether there will be some men who refuse God’s gift of salvation.

“To this there are two possible answers: the first says simply ‘Yes.’ It is the answer of the infernalists. The second says: I do not know, But I think it is permissible to hope (on the basis of the first series of statements from Scripture) that the light of divine love will ultimately be able to penetrate every human darkness and refusal.”
Dare We Hope, p.178

Notice that the hope that Balthasar is describing is dependent in no way upon human actions, but instead upon the power of God. Under this viewpoint any soul that is lost is a failure on God’s part and so it must be certain rather than a mere desire for all men to be saved.

To be fair, Bishop Barron does take the time to define how he is using the term hope in the FAQs on his website: “we should recognize hope to mean a deep desire and longing, tied to love, for the salvation of all people, but without knowing all will be saved, thinking all will be saved, or even expecting all will be saved.” Bishop Barron says he is using the term in the human sense meaning merely as desire. It is puzzling why, if the Bishop simply means that out of love for God and neighbor he desires that all individual men be saved then why he doesn’t just say that. It seems that he brings a whole lot of extra baggage into the discussion by uniting it with von Balthasar. Because Balthasar appears to be using the term in the deep theological sense, Bishop Barron is wedding himself to the Balthasarian position. He is indissolubility united to Balthasarian hope. He says as much later on in the FAQs when he says that von Balthasar’s position reflects his own (“he does agree with Balthasar’s main thesis, affirmed by the Catechism, that we can pray and hope hell is empty of people.”).

Part of the reason why Balthasar muddies the waters of salvation is because he rejects the classic distinction between God’s antecedent and consequent will. He reads 1 Tim 2:4, “God our savior who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” as an absolute statement that does not depend upon a human response. The Church has long made the distinction between the fact that God wills all men be saved (called His antecedent will) and His consequent will which comes about because He also willed men to have free will that could choose something other than saving grace. This viewpoint is based upon Scripture (c.f. Sirach 15:14-17, “God in the beginning created human beings and made them subject to their own free choice. If you choose, you can keep the commandments; loyalty is doing the will of God. Set before you are fire and water; to whatever you choose, stretch out your hand. Before everyone are life and death, whichever they choose will be given them.”) and leads directly to the Church’s belief that, despite the objective power of the Cross to save all men, not all men will receive it. A summary view was presented by the Council of Trent:

“But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.”
Session 6, Ch. III

The Theoretical Possibility of an Empty Hell

This leads naturally to the second proposition, namely that, because the Church has never claimed to know if any humans are in hell, universal salvation remains a theoretical possibility. The problem is that the Church has consistently believed that there will be at least two human beings in hell. The first is the Antichrist who is described in Revelation 20:10 as being “tormented day and night forever and ever.” One could also reasonably assume, given the principle of biblical typology, that all of the Antichrists described by St. John in his first letter as well as those who have been historically considered types of the Antichrist also suffered a similar fate.

The other example is Judas. Although the Church is not in the habit of declaring reverse canonizations, the witness of Scripture offers no other interpretation than that Judas ended up in hell. In Matthew 26:24, Our Lord declares that “would be better for that man[that betrayed Him] if he had never been born.” In John 6:70 he calls Judas “a devil” and in 17:2 He says that “none of them was lost except the son of destruction.” None of these could be true if Judas was counted among the Blessed.

In his FAQs, Bishop Barron says that “The Church has made no authoritative declaration, based on this passage or any other, that any person whatsoever is in hell.” This statement again is highly misleading. The Church may never have solemnly declared that Judas is in hell, but solemn declarations are not the only way in which Catholics determine whether something is to be definitively held. There is a consensus among the Fathers of the Church that Judas is in hell. In a 5^th Century homily, Leo the Great placed the “Son of Perdition” in hell saying,

“The traitor Judas did not attain to this mercy, for the son of perdition (Jn. 17:12), at whose right hand the devil had stood (Ps. 108:6), had before this died in despair; even while Christ was fulfilling the mystery of the general redemption… The godless betrayer, shutting his mind to all these things, turned upon himself, not with a mind to repent, but in the madness of self-destruction: so that this man who had sold the Author of life to the executioners of His death, even in the act of dying sinned unto the increase of his own eternal punishment.” Sermon 62, On the Passion of the Lord

St. Ephrem (4^th Century) and St. Augustine (5^th Century) say the same thing. St. Thomas, writing 8 centuries later also sees Judas in hell as well as St. Catherine of Siena.

As a side note both Balthasar and Barron claim that St. Catherine of Siena share their position. This is very difficult to reconcile with her Dialogue where the Father tells her that Judas was “punished with the devils, and eternally tortured with them” (Dialogue, 37). This would call into question the authenticity of her entire Dialogue, something I am not sure they would be willing to do.

Adding to the witness of Scripture and to Tradition is the law of the liturgy, lex orandi. In the liturgy for Good Friday the Church’s Collect traditionally portrayed Judas as receiving eternal punishment.

“O God, from whom Judas received the punishment of his guilt, and the thief the reward of his confession: grant unto us the full fruit of Thy clemency; that even as in His Passion our Lord Jesus Christ gave to each retribution according to his merits, so having cleared away our former guilt, he may bestow on us the grace of His resurrection: Who with Thee liveth and reigneth.”
Traditional Roman Missal

Why We Must Get this Right

Beliefs, like the ideas underlying them, always have consequences. Balthasar (and presumably Bishop Barron) was concerned that the traditional view of hell as heavily populated ultimately drove people away from God. He said that, “One really has to ask oneself how, given an eternally valid bifurcation of mankind like this, simple human love of one’s neighbor, or even love of one’s enemy in Christ’s sense could still be possible.” This reeks of the false spirit of Vatican II in which a pastoral concern, namely a zeal for souls such that we truly desire that each person we meet be saved, demands a obfuscation of doctrine. Clarity especially about the Last Things is a vital necessity for true zeal. The fact that hell remains a real and likely possibility for each and every one of us ought to spur each one of us to work not just for our own salvation but the salvation of everyone we meet. The Dare We Hope approach destroys zeal for souls by making evangelization seem completely unnecessary.

The Social Construct Myth

November 20, 2019Anthropology, Church and State, Church Authority, marriageAristotle, Hobbes, Liberalism, Natural Marriage, Rousseau, Social Nature, Virtuetwowingstogod@gmail.com

Marriage, according to conventional wisdom, is a social construct. Governed by cultural norms and expectations, the institution of marriage is completely malleable. This view of marriage was front and center in the debate over same-sex marriage, but the battle against traditional marriage was won long before that when divorce, especially in its no-fault variety, became an acceptable norm. Divorce, or at least its cultural acceptance, is what changed marriage making it a social construct. To say divorce made marriage a social construct is to suggest that things once were otherwise so that if we are to grasp how we got here, we might simultaneously find a remedy.

Anthropological Roots of Divorce

Deeply imbedded within the Western mind is the notion of man as a rugged individual. Naturally solitary and free, man forms a social contract either to escape the anarchy of the state of nature (Hobbes) or its noble savagery (Rousseau). All social institutions become “social constructs” in which men and women freely enter and freely leave according to their own will. From within this paradigm of liberalism, marriage like all other social institutions are “social constructs” in which men and women freely associate and equally as freely disassociate. Only the State remains a permanent fixture so as to protect the individual from other individuals infringing upon their rights, even if it too is ultimately a social construct.

Civil divorce grew out of the soil of 18^th Century liberalism because it, like all other private contracts, was completely voluntary and always in danger of one of the contracting parties dissolving the contract. In order to protect this freedom, the State adopts the stance of arbiter and enforcer and is empowered to dissolve what was previously thought indissoluble. Given the power to dissolve, the State must also then have the power to define and decide what marriage is and who should be married.

There is a certain irony surrounding the fact that marriage was not always thought to be a social construct. The “social construct” viewpoint replaced the natural view of marriage. For millennia, marriage was considered to be a natural institution that formed the foundation of the family which was the building block of society as a whole. It is the natural view of marriage that would preclude either divorce or gay marriage. By combining them into a single issue it avoids reducing the argument to mere biology.

It is not any mere external circumstances that draws man into society, but his nature. Man is by nature a social animal. In order to fulfill his nature, he must have a society of other men to do that. Because they are absolutely vital for fulfillment, the family and the State are natural societies.

In order to grasp this truth, we must also see that men and women fulfill their nature by becoming virtuous. Virtue is what perfects all our natural powers. Marriage is the bedrock of virtue. Only within the framework of the family are both the spouses and children perfected in their gift of self and unity. It is where the children are educated in the cardinal virtues as they prepare to give themselves in service to society as a whole. It is where siblings learn how to live as a community of equals. It is where parents learn to shed ego. As statistics repeatedly show, those who divorce or are victims of divorce severely handicap their chances at fulfilling their nature.

It is the Author of human nature, and not the State, that is the Author of marriage. Marriage, because it is a complete union of persons in all their dimensions—bodily, spiritual and temporal—and thus naturally indissoluble. The State does not make marriage but only provides an occasion for consent and works to protect and promote it. The State in its role as guardian of the common good, may act to protect and promote marriage, even by dissolving legal bonds between spouses, but is powerless to dissolve the marriage itself. In truth a civil divorce is worth no more than the paper upon which it is printed.

Marriage, because of its indispensable and irreplaceable role in fulfilling human nature, is a natural institution and not a social construct. Understanding the roots of the errors that led to its demise helps us to go back and correct them.

Taking Down the Firewall

November 2, 2019Apologetics, Church Authority, Communion of Saints, End Times, Last Things, Protestantism, Purgatory, ScriptureApocrypha, Penance, Praying for the Dead, Sola Scriptura, St. Francis de Salestwowingstogod@gmail.com

When Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Wittenberg Cathedral, the Augustinian priest ignited a firewall that continues to separate Catholics and Protestants down to this day. At the heart of his question was the abuse of indulgences, but he ultimately attacked the firewall upon which the doctrine was built—Purgatory—in order to make his point. Unfortunately, the debate still rages today, not necessarily because of Purgatory itself but because of all of the ancillary issues attached to it: Atonement, Penance, Tradition, Development of Doctrine, and Authority. In an age of exaggerated ecumenism, we tend to ignore those doctrines like Purgatory that ultimately lead to division. Ignoring the truth is never a good idea, especially when the truth is a practical one. Purgatory is perhaps the most practical of doctrines; many of those who don’t believe in it now will experience it first-hand in the not too distant future. But it also is important to have a ready explanation for it because it is also a “head-pin” doctrine; knock it down and many of the aforementioned obstacles will fall with it.

The most common argument against it is that it is not Scriptural. We have spoken any number of times in the past about the rule of faith being implicit within Sacred Scripture and the need for Tradition to make it explicit. In other words, doctrines like Purgatory need not be explicit in Scripture only implicit. We will not traverse that well-worn path yet again. It is mentioned because we need not necessarily have this discussion regarding Purgatory. If we dig a little deeper into Scripture then we will find that Purgatory is a common theme, so much so that we can offer a strictly Scriptural defense of it.

St. Thomas said that, when arguing with an opponent, we should always argue using terms and sources of authority that they agree with. For example, when discussing some aspect of morality with a non-Christian, we should not cite the Bible but instead Natural Law. We can certainly show how the Bible agree with that source of authority, but to obstinately stick to the Bible when they think it mythical is foolish. A similar thing happens with Catholics and the doctrine of Purgatory. Second Maccabees (2 Maccabees 12:39-46) clearly points to a belief in Purgatory. The problem is that Protestants don’t accept that book as inspired. By referencing them it seems to only prove their point that Purgatory is a Catholic fabrication, yet it still remains the go-to texts from the Old Testament.

St. Francis de Sales and the Argument from Scripture

Throughout post-Reformation history, there is perhaps no one better than St. Francis de Sales at converting Protestants. Some estimate that he was responsible for over 70,000 conversions in his lifetime. It is therefore instructive to look at how he presented this divisive doctrine. He did not argue from Tradition or even mention 2Maccabees, but instead gave a strict Biblical defense using Protestant accepted texts. Given his success rate and the fact that most of these texts are rarely cited, it is educative to review what he said (Catholic Controversy, Appendix II).

It without saying that Catholics and Protestants both agree that Christ’s Blood is the true purgatory. But the question still remains how and when that purgation is applied. For the saintly Bishop of Geneva and the thousands he converted there was a simple reasoning process: if there are passages which speak of purgation after death then there must be a place (call it Purgatory since the name is never given us) where this purgation occurs for purgation can happen neither in hell (where “the worm does not die” Mk 9:48) or in heaven (where “nothing unclean may enter it” Rev 21:27).

St. Francis begins where many of the Fathers of the Church, those who spoke the great Amen to God’s Revelation, began, in Psalm 66. There the Psalmist speaks of being led out into the spacious place by passing through fire (Ps 66:12). Likewise, Isaiah 4:4 speaks of being cleansed by a spirit of burning.

St. Francis also refers to Christ’s teaching on the Sermon of the Mount where he cautions about the punishments attached to anger (Mt 5:22-26). Our Lord suggests different levels of punishment, with only the latter meriting hell. For the other two, Jesus speaks of a prison of sorts that one can leave saying, “truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny” (5:26). Building on this theme, St. Paul refers to a man who is saved “as through fire” (1 Cor 3:11-15).

Praying for the Dead

All of this points to a time and place of purgation, but, absent a connection to Tradition, one could argue that this purgation occurs in this life. The problem with that interpretation however is the abundance of Scriptural examples of people praying for the dead. St. Francis begins by referring to David’s prayer and fasting for Saul and Jonathan after their deaths—”And they mourned and wept and fasted until evening for Saul and for Jonathan his son and for the people of the LORD and for the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword” (2 Sam 1:12). Likewise, we find St. Paul praying for his departed friend Onesiphorous (1 Tim 1:16-18).

He also explains two other often problematic texts by referring to Purgatory. The Mormons often justify their habit of literally vicariously baptizing the dead by referring to Paul’s text in the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians (1 Cor 15:29). St. Francis says that when Paul speaks of being baptized for the dead he does not mean it in the literal sense, but as an exhortation to offer sufferings for the dead. He says that St. Paul is using Baptism in the same manner as Christ did when He speaks of His baptism of afflictions and penances undertaken in Luke 12:49-50—I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing! There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!”. Notice how Our Lord references to a fire in this rather clear passage.

Perhaps his most convincing passage prooftext is the last one he refers to: Philippians 2:10. St. Paul says that that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth”. In particular, St. Francis is concerned with a proper interpretation of those “under the earth”. To assume that refers to those in hell would contradict Scripture— ”For there is no one in death, that is mindful of thee: and who shall confess to thee in hell?” (Ps 6:5, c.f. Isaiah 38:18). Instead those “under the earth” refers to “holy souls in Purgatory”, that is the Church Suffering. St. Paul’s hymn is making reference to the Church in all her members in heaven, on the earth and in Purgatory. Ultimately then, there is no firewall between the Church’s members nor should there be between Catholics and Protestants.