Abbey-Roads2

Bad moon arising…

I hear hurricanes ablowin’

I hear the voice of rage and ruin. - CCR

The news seems to be filled with omens - so who needs to look at the moon or the stars, or even apparitions to foretell the future?  “Hypocrites!  If you can interpret the portents of earth and sky, why can you not interpret the present time?” - Luke 12: 56

All righty then.

Gustav is coming - fears for New Orleans are high.  Michael Moore claims this proves there is a God in heaven - although some Christians see such proof another way; and yet nothing will squelch the Grand Old Party scheduled in Minneapolis/St. Paul all next week:  ‘We have been planning this convention for 18 months, and the gavel will go down on Monday.’  (They are not kidding either.)

Russia’s surprising moves continue with the announcement of the Kremlin joining South Ossetia to the One United Russian State - I wonder if Russia will be called the U.S.R. now?  Just one “S” away from the Soviet Union.

While the world is distracted by ostentatious over-spending - focused first on the Chinese Olympics, and then the successive partisan political conventions, following the unprecedented, expensive, and unbearably long campaigns by contenders for the presidential nomination - the U.K. reveals the economy is the worst it has been in 60 years, and that the government is failing to communicate with voters.  Sounds like the United States, huh?  “It’s gonna be a longtime gone.” - A Long Time.

Not to worry though - Iran is keeping the peace - “A senior Iranian military commander has warned that any US or Israeli attack on the Islamic republic would start a new world war,  the state news agency IRNA reported on Saturday.”  Although, are they sure it hasn’t begun already? 

And do not forget Orissa burning…  From one of the martyrs:

Carry on.

My week in review.

Tony Snow died.

He was a good man.  Prayers for him and his family.

It has been a weird week.

I want to try to start living as if I am dying - which means going to confession more frequently and being a lot nicer and kinder, and not getting all worked up about stuff I have no control over.

“He laughs the proud to scorn.”

I have fallen into that egotistical trap of taking myself way too seriously again.  Did you realize every sin stems from pride?  Of course, of course, we all should know that - at least intellectually - but to really realize it is quite another matter.  As Meister Eckert said, “God laughs and plays” - and so it seems today, “He laughs the proud to scorn”, as the psalmist says.  So I’ll be going to confession, please pray for me.

Fairy tales are only based on reality.

I should note that my Tales From the Cloister about the errant nun was written for a very sensitive young person who plans on entering a monastery, and it was NOT about any particular religious I know… although I did combine data from several religious I have known to create the fairytale.  That’s all. 

Man bites dog.

Now I did read another priest’s post who wrote a wonderful warning to critics of priests whom trad Catholics may feel are not as Catholic as they are.  (I posted about it here.)  The priest had a very stern warning against attacking God’s anointed.  He is right of course.  However, I couldn’t help but wonder, “Now does this mean an anointed may critique and denigrate another anointed, say a liberal bishop or liberal priest?  Or that lay people who are good solid Catholics may do likewise - only if the culprits are against the TLM of course?   If so, is it only traditional and conservative priests one risks the wrath of God for if they criticise them?”

Don’t bite the hand of the man.

I don’t know, but I think it is better not to denigrate any priest or bishop - in any way - in the spirit of St. Francis of Assisi - who demonstrated devotion for the priesthood, no matter how immoral the priest.  That said, although the tone was rather imperious, the good father’s reprimand certainly is appropriate.  It caused me to reflect on the many times I have gone to confession to dissident priests - some were even gay - and yet they followed the rubrics for absolution perfectly, and my sins were forgiven.  Can I turn and criticise these priests who ministered to me and brought the grace of God to me?  How about the more hip priests whose Masses may have been a tangled mess, yet they confected the Eucharist properly, and I was able to receive Holy Communion?  Who dares to condemn these except their superiors?

Taking it to heart. 

It may be a good lesson for everyone to take to heart, especially priests who publicly criticse or denigrate their fellow priests and bishops - in the media or in conversation with their flock.  These priest-critics may not realize it, but they have already set the example by what they’ve said, and written. 

After the French-worker priests retired…

This past week I also read an article about the Church in France concerning the extreme shortage of priests, abandoned parishes, and how the remaining faithful have little to no opportunity for Mass or the sacraments in the provinces.  Astonishing, isn’t it.  We ought to be grateful for the priests we have - pray for them and for more of them.

Have a nice Saturday.  

Not the saint.

I like reading Athanasius Contra Mundum- he’s a very smart fellow.  When I first read him a long time ago I got angry because he actually dared to be critical of John Paul II, while he had the audacity to claim he was more Catholic than the Pope.  He was joking about the more Catholic than the Pope bit, but he was serious in his opinion of JPII.  When I settled down, I realized he did indeed have some valid points, and best of all, I understood I did not have to endorse all of them.  Very often, his thoughts can help introduce a more sober perspective upon Catholic issues and “trends” such as the cult of celebrity which surrounded the “personality” of JPII.

A trad crying out in the wilderness.

Athanasius is a true Traditionalist and recently he wrote on the small “t” Traditionalism, which happens to be a very important part of the whole.  (And also may be why he is not fond of the addition of the Mysteries of Light to the Rosary.)  It is a lot to digest, but well worth the read, I can’t do it justice to discuss it myself, so I suggest you read his essay here.  

Within the body of the article, Mr. Athanasius touches on some issues I have often thought about but was never quite able to articulate.  (See the difference between someone really smart and someone barely literate.)  Anyway, I’ll post a few tidbits of his stuff that I wish I had said…  Athanasius’ words are in italics.  (And after reading this, don’t say mean things about him because I like him.  You can say mean things about me though.)

I wish I said that.

Well - not this first paragraph so much - but the fact Mr. Athanasius sees something off on post-Angelica EWTN resonates with me:

People think I’m nuts when I say I find EWTN kind of liberal. There was one point in my life when I changed all of my tv watching to EWTN, maybe when I was 19 or 20. By the time I was 22, and nearly a full fledged Trad, I dropped all television period. So it has been 7 or 8 years since I paid attention to EWTN, but that is how I look back on the programing once Mother Angelica left, as left leaning. So when I listened to more or less the same apologists who were on the tv years ago, or whose books I read years ago, I have made note of some things I find disturbing and only confirm my original analysis.  - Mr. Athanasius

EWTN hype.

First off, there are announcers who try to “hype” up certain apologists in ways reminiscent of the cultish atmosphere surrounding athletes and secular stars. One program announcing Tim Staples called him”The Church’s foremost apologist today”. In deference to Mr. Staples, he is a good apologist and he did not say that. But the commercial makes a pretty bold and in my opinion preposterous claim… I want it to be clear that my polemic is not against the apologist in question, namely Tim Staples, but of EWTN for making such an absurd claim. - Mr. A.

Putting the knife to the heart of the matter:

Second, and more disturbing to me personally, is the belittling of “t” Tradition by virtually every apologist who appears on EWTN radio, and who has been on their television or writes books in the neo-conservative mainstream of modern Catholics.

This is basically the position of Karl Keating, and Jimmy Akin, as well as Dave Armstrong and Mark Shea, not to mention some others, who are converts separated from historical Catholicism by the modernism pervading the Church since the Council. In a minute I will define what I mean by historical Catholicism.  Mr. A.

Twist that knife.

…There are people who conform their worldview to what this or that apologist writes. Consider those who remained completely in favor of the Iraq war, just as the mainstream of neo-conservative apologists were, when their hero, John Paul “superstar” condemned it? You get a situation where I, one of the late Pope’s critics, agree with him, and your ever faithful apologists opposed him! Yet no claims of disobedience arose, and when confronted with it they will ignore you or say they just cut the Pope some slack by not criticizing him. Seriously, is that not private judgment? To decide that the Pope’s consistent and impassioned pleas against the war have no merit because we trust our elected leaders? The same ones who enabled abortion contrary to the late Pope’s message of a gospel of life? - Mr. A.

Those lay apologists.

…The ministry of lay apologetics is precarious at best. They are filling a void which our Bishops and Priests ought to be filling in terms of real and true teaching. The problem and the danger, not unlike what everyone is always whining about with blogs, is when they get looked upon as a counter magisterium. Mind you, not when they try and usurp that for themselves, although such is theoretically possible, I’m not aware of lay apologists doing that. Yet, when you have a radio show hailing this or that apologist as the foremost thinker in the Church, on no other grounds than that network’s credibility to make such a claim there is a great danger, and when they are wrong there is an even greater danger. If I’m wrong on a medium which requires patience and thought (while siting sources), I can be corrected or refuted. What do you do about thousands of Catholics who don’t know any better and follow this disconnect from historical Catholicism that various ex protestants seem to carry with them to the faith? This is to me something highly problematic, even where the thinker is technically a good Catholic. - Mr. A.

I wonder what he thinks about Dawn Eden?

[Photo at top of man with a pipe - that's Mr. Athanasius.  Photo of cat at bottom, the family pet, Mr. Quilly.]
    

And hate crimes.

Reading the blogs again, I came across some new bishop-bashing comments (and posts) concerning our own Archbishop Nienstedt  and St. Louis’ Archbishop Burke.  (Archbishop Burke happens to be a doctor of canon law, hence the title of the post.)   A few weeks ago a Catholic men’s group wrote a letter to San Francisco’s Archbishop Niederauer  telling  him what to do to correct a mistake he made in giving communion to transvestite nuns in early October. 

I find it strange that many Catholics have so little respect for the apostolic office of bishop that some will publicly attack and dictate to the bishops what they feel the bishops should be doing.  (I’ve been guilty of this in the past as well.)  To be sure, there have been abuses by bishops in office in the past, nevertheless, bishops deserve a modicum of respect due to the dignity of the office.  After all, as laity, we are not on the level of the apostle Paul of whom it is often said, “rebuked Peter to his face.”  (Galatians 2:11)

Catholic protestants.

Although the most worrisome of the bishop-bashing really seems to come from the progressive Catholic side; from those who insist that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is guilty of teaching doctrinal matters - which in their view  - rise to the level  of hate crimes.  We know who these people are; the women who seek ordination to the Roman Catholic priesthood, active homosexuals who seek the church to reverse its teaching on same-sex relations and allow gay marriage, and those who attack the Church for teaching against artificial contraception, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia.

These opponents of the Catholic hierarchy not only write audacious letters of rebuke, they stage open protests at cathedrals and rallies, attack the Church in media, and soon will attempt to make a federal case out of these matters.  It is happening in other countries and most likely will be coming to a U.S. court near you.

Yet who is persecuting who? 

Nevertheless, what fascinates me about the secularists who protest the authentic Magisterium of the Church when they teach on faith and morals (which indeed is the bishop’s duty), is that these “progressivists” are often hostile, venomous opponents of not only the Catholic bishops,  but Catholic Church doctrine itself.  Which begs the question, who is really being hateful in these situations - who is persecuting who?

[Photo credit: From the television series, "Burke's Law"] 

You say you want a revolution…

Everyone likes to blame the baby-boomers for all the liberalism we have become accustomed to in the Church today.  Few realize it all started long before the boomers were even capable of expressing a revolutionary thought.  How many young people today understand that the push for liturgical reform, modernizing the liturgy, and using the vernacular was a desire experimented with before the Council?  How many people realize that it was Pius XII who called for women religious to modify their habits to adapt to the demands of modern life, such as the nuns who drove cars or worked in medicine?  (Although later, many modified themselves out of the habit entirely.)

When I was in grade school, the nuns taught us - way back then - songs such as ”Kumbaya” - and we listened to the Congolese Missa Lubaand had to sing Negro spirituals.  (Although black kids in the class were disciplined until they spoke without an “accent”.)  I think it was probably the missionary sisters who came back to the motherhouse with stories of how fervent the African Catholics were, and how much the native people enlivened the liturgy with their exuberant participation and singing, which motivated the sisters to jump on board as regards the reform of the liturgy.  When Vatican II came along, it was a dream come true for a good share of them.

I di’n't know nothin’ ’bout Civil Rights.

Then in the very late 1950’s, early 1960’s the nuns began to get deeply involved in politics - in and through the Civil Rights movement.  (Of course, we had a Catholic President then as well.)  The nuns marched alongside priests and ministers, protesting segregation and demanding the right to vote for black people.  Without doubt it was a good thing, except, in the mid-’60’s the revolutionary spirit suddenly crept into the convent, along with a strong feminist understanding of power, individualism, and independence.  Which happens to be another reason why we have the American Catholic Church we have today.

“Yes Sister, whatever you say Sister!”

So don’t put all the blame on boomers - blame the Sisters of St. Joseph of Margaret Sanger, and the other storm trooperorders who taught us.  (After all, many of them were from the same generation as my parents and your grandparents.)  Funny, what they subsequently failed to realize, their habits spoke louder than words.

(Disclaimer:  The religious women who taught us are to be highly praised for their sacrifice and dedication, no doubt about it.  Just as they ought to be commended and honored for their heroic work in the Civil Rights struggle.  This has been my personal reflection on what, in part,  may have contributed to the decline of religious life in the U.S., as well as an offering towards understanding why the American Catholic Church got to be so liberal.) 

[Update: 7/31/07 - I just found a post at Cafeteria is Closed on this subject; an article by Benedict Groeschl in First Things, discussing the theological and psychological dynamics at work in the decline of established religious communities in the U.S..] 

Public sinners. 

In the history of the Church, there have been many public conversions of notorious sinners and atheists, going back to the Magdalen - if you accept she was the woman caught in adultery - anyway, you get the idea.  Among the “greats” in my saints who were sinners gallery are Margaret of Cortona, the Jewish convert Alphonse Ratisbonne, and the former alcoholic Matt Talbot, to name a few.  In the case of St. Margaret, she was held back from entering the Third Order of St. Francis for three years, to test the authenticity of her conversion.  Alphonse Ratisbonne became a priest, while Matt Talbot led a very hidden, humble life.

What characterizes most public and private repentant sinner’s lives, is a reluctance to speak about their sins, instead they most always praise God for his mercy when they make any reference to their conversion.  Two exceptions come to mind; they would be St. Augustine, who wrote his “Confessions” and Teresa of Avila, who wrote her Autobiography - under obedience and not for public consumption.  Generally, sinners don’t ‘celebrate’ their sins after they repent.

Public conversions.

In the Gospel, Jesus tells us that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than many righteous who have no need to do so.  Hence, we know the great joy that envelops the soul of the repentant sinner, and the glory this gives to God.  However, the experience of conversion is an ongoing process, not just a one time deal.  Our conversion of manners evolves, often amidst many temptations to return to our former way of life.  We are often tried and tested when we come to serve the Lord.  To celebrate one’s conversion publicly can be dangerous, if not precipitous, no matter how dramatic the event.

Very simply, if a reversal, or any backsliding occurs, the person is not only publicly embarrassed, but others may be scandalized, and it may occasion scorn and mockery from unbelievers.  (This has happened to a few high profile Christians in the recent past.)  The other danger is that the individual can take such delight in their own conversion and the honors they receive on account of it, that they become impressed with their own celebrity, albeit minor, or reputation for holiness.

The thrill of the conversion.

Today we have the example of Dawn Eden, author of “The Thrill of the Chaste”.  It is an extremely relevant book as regards chastity for contemporary men and women, no doubt about that.  The great thing about the book is that it may reach the otherwise unreachable ”urban” woman with a message that could liberate her from the dissatisfaction of an unchaste life.  Ms. Eden has received a great deal of notice for the book, as well as her blog, which pretty much chronicles her day to day life and opinion.  This type of personal testimony on her part is typical of the times, nevertheless, it sometimes seems rather indiscreet, as well as lacking the test of time - that is, perseverance in a way of life that is relatively new to her.  This isn’t a criticism, but an observation.

She has not been a Catholic for very long, and her path to Catholicism has been a mosaic of various spirituality’s and religious views.  Her mother, who was a convert to Catholicism is now a member of another Christian denomination.  The danger here, is that Roman Catholicism could simply be just another trend in a trendy life.  I know many people who were once extremely devout and enthusiastic Catholics - for a time - wherein they enjoyed a certain “lime-light” due to a remarkable conversion, although later, left the Church.

Staying power. 

One of the women I refer to was born and raised in the Jewish faith, experimented with Protestantism, and then became Catholic.  She had been fawned over by priests and nuns, only later to leave the Church and became Protestant.  Another woman, strongly into Wicca, mesmerized a priest and his following because of her dramatic conversion, only to return to the “Craft” after her popularity waned.  What does the parable of the sower and the seed tell us about this phenomenon?  The seed that sprouts quickly, dies off due to the various obstacles it encounters in its growth.  Which happens to be my point here.

I’m not criticizing Ms. Eden’s conversion, nor her book - although it reads pretty “Sex In the City” - other’s have called it vulgar - but that is popular culture, and Ms. Eden is writing for that audience.  God bless her for it, because she can reach many people through this book.

Nevertheless, I’m often surprised by her fans and the celebrity they accord her, as well as her apparent delight with her new-found career in the God-business.  We live in a time when our religious and spiritual lives have become a marketable commodity.  Undoubtedly, Paul’s words to Timothy ring true today - “There is great gain in religion…”  Contemporary writing is certainly a vibrant form of witness to the faith, yet in some instances it can seem to approach a tendency towards immodest self-promotion. 

Marketing and pop-Cath icons.

Practicing Catholics are not immune to the cult of celebrity, nor the marketing of religious writers who fit into all the Catholic trends.  Dawn Eden seems to tell the world you can indeed be hip and Catholic - or, that it is hip to be Catholic.  A few popular Catholic writers seem to suggest the same thing.  It’s not a bad thing, since many people may thus be attracted to the Catholic faith in and through their writing.

Dawn Eden has an interesting interview on Busted Halo, in which we get a pretty good glimpse into her life and journey to the Catholic Church.  It is well worth the read.  Will success spoil Dawn Eden’s faith?  Let’s hope not.  However, I think she can surely use our prayers more than awards.