No--She SAYS She's Catholic

( N.B. Fonts are messed up today. My apologies.)

I don't know if anyone here knows anything about journalism, but if so, I could use some help. It involves how the media misidentifies Catholics, and in so doing misrepresents that Catholic faith. Case in point: a quotation from this article, which is headlined "Catholic Melinda Gates defies the Vatican over Birth Control Funds":

Melinda Gates, billionaire philanthropist and practising Catholic, yesterday laid down the gauntlet to the Vatican by vowing to dedicate her life to improving access to contraception for women in the developing world.

My question here is how the article simply assumes that Gates is Catholic. It seems to me in many other articles the reporters hedge. For instance, “A marksman stopped the van, driven by a man who says he is a member of the English DefenceLeague,” or “Thourot,who says he is a member of the National Rifle Association, continues his support of guns,” or “The Taliban said it seized a doctor, three nurses and their driver on March 27 in Kandahar province” (my italics in all cases).

            I will here give reporters the benefit a very serious doubt (since I don’t believe that all, or even most, reporters are consciously anti-Catholic, although some most certainly are) and assume that their constant identification of Melinda Gates, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, etc. as Catholic is not designed to damage or scandalize the faith. In that case, why don’t they hedge about this? Do they take Gates’s (or Pelosi’s, or whoever’s) word for it? Do they call and check to see if they’re registered at a parish? Do they at least attempt to verify it?

            The point is that, intentional or not, every time one of these dissidents (probably heretics) is unequivocally described by a third and ostensibly unbiased party as Catholic, it does damage the Catholic Church. (For the definition of Catholic, I’ll refer you to an earlier post, but the short version is that you have to be baptized, and you have to accept both the Catholic Faith and the authority of the hierarchy.  As Ludwig Ott puts it in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, a reference work that should be on the shelf of every theologian and canonist, “Public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is to the legal commonwealth of the Church” (p. 311). Of course, this refers to membership in the Church, not the label Catholic, so there may be some wiggle room here.

            So if I’m correct and Melinda Gates isn’t Catholic, yet she’s described as a Catholic, who’s at fault? If not the reporters, the only other candidates are 1) Gates herself and 2) her pastors (i.e., her parish priest, or his bishop, or the pope), since they refuse to publicly correct the record in light of the proper, doctrinally-defined understanding of membership in the Church. Three highly suspect entities: the heretic herself, or the media that does have an anti-Catholic bias, or members of a Church hierarchy infected with modernism. Take your pick, but whoever is to blame, every time this happens the Church takes another body blow because the following truth is once again obscured: You cannot be Catholic and at the same time dissent from Catholic doctrine.

Religious Liberty vs. Religious Tolerance

I have posted this in the comments over at Southern Orders, but I want to expound a bit on the last point.

Since we have all been praying for it these past few weeks... Here is the Catholic teaching on "religious liberty":

Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange:

"Liberty of religions allows us to frame an argument ad hominem, against those, that is to say, who profess liberty of religions yet harass the true Church and directly or indirectly forbid its worship. That argument ad hominem is correct, and the Catholic Church does not disdain it but rather urges it in defense of her rightful liberty. But from that it does not follow that liberty of religions, considered in itself, can be defended unconditionally by Catholics, for in itself it is absurd and wicked: truth and error cannot have the same rights."

Pope Pius XII:

"The annual celebration of this feast (of Christ the King) will remind States that magistrates and rulers are bound, just like citizens, to offer public worship to Christ and to obey Him.... For His royalty requires that the whole State be governed by the commandments of God and by Christian principles in its legislation, in the way it does justice, and also in training youth with sound doctrine and good moral discipline."

"We shall not delay here to repeat that it is a serious error to affirm that this separation [of Church and State] is licit and good in itself."

Pope St. Pius X:

"That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God..."

Pope Leo XIII:

"Justice forbids and reason itself forbids the State to be godless, or to adopt aline of action which would end in godlessness -- namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow on 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 [that is, the Catholic religion]."

"And since the people is declared to contain within itself the spring-head of all right and of all power, it follows that the State does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty towards God. Moreover, it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the true one; or to prefer one religion to all the rest... but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal right to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief.... [T]his most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice, and this in the same thing as Atheism, however it may differ from it in name."

Condemned by Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors:

CONDEMNED - Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.

CONDEMNED - The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. 

CONDEMNED - In our day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion be acknowledged as the one State religion to the exclusion of other forms of worship.

CONDEMNED - Praise is due to certain nominally Catholic countries where the law has provided that strangers coming to live there shall enjoy the public exercise of their particular religions.

In Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council explicitly states, "[This Council] leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ." Therefore, we know that everyone I cited above, which is taken entirely from the ordinary Magisterium of the Church (except for the bit from Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange) is binding upon Catholics.

Summary: Non-Catholic "religions" are merely tolerated where the civil consequences and potential difficulties of stamping out false religions might create a greater evil.  

Actually, say what you will, but Abp. Lefebvre makes an excellent point on this in his Open Letter to Confused Catholics while explaining why we should maintain this teaching in modernity: 

And yet in practice the Church does not prescribe blindly and intransigently regarding the expression of false religions in public. She has always said that they could be tolerated by the authorities in order to avoid a greater evil.  That is why Cardinal Ottaviani preferred the term 'religious tolerance.'

If we put ourselves in the position of a Catholic state where the religion of Christ is officially recognized, we see that this tolerance can avoid troubles which may be harmful to the whole. But in a secular society professing neutrality, the law of the Church will surely not be observed. Why, you will then ask, maintain it?

First of all, it is not a question of a human law that can be abrogated or altered. Secondly, abandoning that very principle has its consequences.

So, what are those consequences? Take a look at what Abp. Lefebvre says:

We cannot insist upon the freedom of all religious societies, within human society, without at the same time granting them moral liberty. Islam allows polygamy; Protestants--depending on the particular sect--have more or less lax positions on the indissolubility of marriage and on contraception. The criterion of good and evil is disappearing. Abortion is no longer illegal in Europe, except in Catholic Ireland. It is impossible for the Church of God to condone these abuses by affirming religious liberty.

Precisely! Is this not precisely what we have seen - an increase of abortion and contraception, divorce rates increased, indifferentism toward religion and a society tending toward Atheism. This is what the American Bishops are up against - they did it to themselves by promoting false religious liberty for the last 60 years and now they are trying to solve the problem by appealing to the very "liberty" they themselves have espoused!

Kyrie eleison

There is no slippery slope...?

According to this article in the Huffington Post (shared with me courtesy of my wife, who presumably likes to see me disgruntled), California (where else?) lawmakers are considering a law that would allow children to have multiple legal parents.

I can see a possible good aspect to that law for those who are divorced and remarried, who live in situations where a child might have parents and step-parents.  That seems legitimate, although we could debate whether that sort of situation requires any additional legislation than that already provided.

The more interesting and subversive element to this potential law is that it might allow people to "create" any sort of "family" design they like.  And, obviously, this is a law that tends toward polygamy.

This is the result of the slippery slope we have seen in the rapid process of redefining the meaning of terms in modern society.  It is also the product of overly active legislators who no longer see their job as creating the boundaries within which society must operate, but as setting aside all boundaries via legislation. 

As Anonymous 5 points out in reference to the Catholic Church, the Church (acting as God's lawgiver on earth) sets out the guardrails in which we must conform our conduct.  That is generally true for legislation in the civil realm as well.  You may not drive more the 70 miles per hour, you may not drive after drinking, you may not shoot at other people. 

This sort of "activist" legislation is not prescribing a boundary -- it is redefining terms that are already defined in a manner heretofore considered ridiculous.  So, you may not drive more than 70 miles per hour, but 70 does not necessarily, in all cases, mean what you think 70 means, it means what we say it means.  And the same goes for miles and hours. 

You see, this is the slippery slope of relativity... and all this has happened in our lifetimes.  Where are we headed?

An Analysis of the Supreme Court Obamacare Decision

For those of you who are scratching your heads regarding the Obamacare decision, I’ll write this overview for you. 

First, some proper names. While commonly called Obamacare, the name you’ll normally see in the opinion is the Affordable Care Act. And the case that the Supreme Court decided today is National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. You can read the opinion here. Interestingly, at the time of this writing, the Supreme Court website still hasn’t put a formal link to the opinion up. I just happened upon it. (Makes me look forward to the efficiency of government health care.)

Next, the lineup. Four justices--Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan—voted to uphold the entire act, and would have done so on Commerce Clause grounds. I.E., in their view, the federal government can force individuals to engage in commerce, and then impose any regulations it wanted, and thus the individual mandate is OK. (The dissenters pretty accurately claimed that had this come to fruition, federalism would be dead, and I agree with them. If there’s any bright spot in this ruling, it’s that the Supremes (narrowly, by a single vote) failed to expand the commerce power in this fashion. In fact, quite the opposite: The Roberts/Scalia opinions together constitute the third major limitation on the Commerce Power in the past 70 years. As Scalia wrote:

The striking case of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), which held that the economic activity of growing wheat, even for one’s own consumption, affected commerce sufficiently that it could be regulated, always has been regarded as the ne plus ultra of expansive Commerce Clause jurisprudence. To go beyond that, and say the failure to grow wheat (which is not an economic activity, or any activity at all) nonetheless affects commerce and therefore can be federally regulated, is to make mere breathing in and out the basis for federal prescription and to extend federal power to virtually all human activity. (Scalia, dissenting, slip opinion at 2-3.)

On the other side of the lineup were Scalia, Kennedy (surprisingly), Alito, and Thomas, who in the dissent uncategorically stated that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety. (That’s the surprising thing about Kennedy’s vote. Nothing swingy about that at all. Of course, dissenters have the liberty to be expansive in their denunciations.) 

Then there’s Chief Justice John Roberts. Let’s review for a minute. Nominated by one of the most conservative presidents we’ve had in living memory (George W. Bush), and one of the few judges in living memory to come to the Supreme Court with a proven conservative track record, heartily approved of by the Right. (Of course, we may define conservative in many ways, including not only political positions but matters of judicial activism versus judicial self-restraint.) Roberts wrote a separate opinion. In that opinion he agreed with Scalia et al. on Commerce Clause grounds. But in the key to the whole case, he found the individual mandate to pass constitutional muster on the grounds that it was an Article I Section 8 tax. Since the four justices of Ginsberg et al. also thought the act constitutional (though largely on different grounds, i.e. the Commerce Power), they joined Roberts on the Tax Power ruling, giving the ACA the magic five votes it needed to survive, in its entirety. 

I read in a couple of places immediately after this lineup became clear that several people had foreseen this Roberts decision. Interesting that I heard no hint of that prior to that instant. I think that this came as a shock to everyone, friend and foe of ACA alike. It certainly shocked me, and so I read Roberts’s opinion as soon as I got my hands on it. 

So what’s my analysis of that opinion? Well, if you grant the premise that this is a tax, then Roberts is on pretty solid ground that under the Tax Power, Congress can do this. But that’s a big, and very problematical “if,” and here's where Roberts’s opinion really falls apart. Badly. It reads like something that Rehnquist would have written. I have read some Rehnquist opinions in which a single crucial sentence would have me almost literally banging my head against the wall trying to figure out what it means. There comes a point when someone has to go out of his way to make a meaning obscure, and Rehnquist was good at that. 

Robert’s opinion isn’t quite like that. Instead, it’s just self-contradictory. This is a big problem when you’re attempting to give rational reasons (is that redundant? Apparently not for Roberts) for a decision, which judges are supposed to do. 

I’ll explain. There’s a law on the books from the 1860s called the Anti-Injunction Act. In short, it says that a taxpayer can’t challenge the constitutionality of a tax prospectively. He must wait until he actually has to pay it. Thus, if the individual mandate is mandating a tax for non-insurance buyers, but not for another couple of years, it cannot be challenged yet and the Court can’t give relief in this case. So to hear and rule on this case, Roberts HAD to find that the mandate doesn’t impose a tax. 

The easiest way to do that is to find that what the individual mandate does is to impose not a TAX, but a PENALTY, for failing to buy insurance. That would mean that the Anti-Injunction Act isn’t applicable, because that act speaks only to TAXES. So far so good. 

The problem with finding that the  individual mandate imposes a PENALTY is that Congress has no constitutional power to impose PENALTIES. It may only impose TAXES. So if Roberts declares the mandate to impose a PENALTY, the mandate clears the hurdle of the Anti-Injunction Act only to die as an unconstitutional law that Congress had no power to pass. 

So what did Roberts do? He played word games, plain and simple (if word games can be said to be plain and simple). He said that Congress’s use of the term PENALTY to describe the mandate showed that it didn’t intend the Anti-Injunction Act to apply, even though the so-called PENALTY is actually a TAX. (I’ll call this the “What’s in a Name?” rationale.) I'm not sure where he got the idea that by using the term "penalty," Congress meant to avoid applying the Anti-Injunction Act to the ACA. He just states in a throwaway line "It is up to Congress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to any particular statute, so it makes sense [WHY?] to be guided by Congress's choice of label on that question." (Slip opinion at 33). (Waitaminute! I thought that you were ignoring labels, Chief! Now all of a sudden a mere label is dispositive of the Anti-Injunction Act issue?!)

Then Roberts went on to cite and discuss (slip opinion at 33-35) the 1922 case of Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922). In that case, Congress imposed a what it called a TAX of 10% of a company’s income if the government discovered that company to be employing children. In that case, the Court said it doesn’t matter what you call it (and in that sense it, too, uses the “What’s in a name?” rationale, which is why Roberts cited it. So far so good for Roberts.). If it forces people to either do something or pay money, it’s a PENALTY. In the Drexel Court’s words: 

Does this law impose a tax with only that incidental restraint and regulation which a tax must inevitably involve? Or does it regulate by the use of the so-called tax as a penalty? … If it were an excise on a commodity or other thing of value, we might not be permitted under previous decisions of this court to infer solely from its heavy burden that the act intends a prohibition, instead of a tax. But this act is more. It provides a heavy exaction for a departure from a detailed and specified course of conduct in business. …Taxes are occasionally imposed in the discretion of the legislature on proper subjects with the primary motive of obtaining revenue from them and with the incidental motive of discouraging them by making their continuance onerous. They do not lose their character as taxes because of the incidental motive. But there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment. Such is the case in the law before us.

(259 U.S. at 37.) The place where Roberts screws up is that the Drexel Court, which he quotes with approval for his “What’s in a name?” approach, finds that the TAX is really a PENALTY. BUT the ACA meets the Drexel Court’s definition of PENALTY. And Congress can’t impose PENALTIES. So under Drexel, the individual mandate should be ruled unconstitutional.
Thus Roberts distorts, and cheats with, the Drexel decision by refusing to note that it compels exactly the opposite conclusion that he reaches. (Of course, that's not so. The Drexel case means exactly what Roberts says it means, since his is the rationale that counts. As Warren Burger once told my father, "We're (i.e., the Supremes) always right.")

So of course Roberts disagrees with my characterization. He notes that the Drexel Court cited three things that convinced it that the Drexel TAX was actually a PENALTY. 1) It involved a bigger tax (or is it penalty?) than the mandate does. 2) It required actual knowledge of violation. 3) The Department of Labor, and not the Treasury, was in charge of enforcement, so it obviously couldn’t be a tax. But there are tons of problems here. The biggest is that under Drexel, these things didn’t make the TAX a PENALTY: they were only evidence that the TAX was a PENALTY. (Again, Roberts would and does disagree with that statement.) The crucial thing for the Drexel Court was that the tax/penalty’s purpose was to make companies do something, just like in the mandate. To quote the Drexel Court (my italics): “In the light of these features of the act, a court must be blind not to see that the so-called tax is imposed to stop the employment of children within the age limits prescribed.” 

Scalia et al. pick up on this, and are far more logical than Roberts. (Scalia always writes good logical opinions, in my view, even when I don’t like the outcome.) In answer to Robert’s “It’s only a little penalty and so it’s OK” rationale, Scalia blows him away. “[W]e have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty.” (Slip opinion at 19.) The dissent also notes that strict knowledge isn’t a requirement for a PENALTY, and that PENALTIES are often imposed for strict-liability offenses. (Slip opinion at 24.) (Frankly, Scalia should have provided some examples here, but he provides none at all.) As for the Drexel Court’s observation that the penalty/tax was collected by Labor and not Treasury, Scalia hoists Roberts with his own structural petard. The individual mandate’s PENALTY, Scalia points out, isn’t found in the ACA’s revenue provisions (Title IX), but in the core section of Title I. 

In short, Roberts has engaged in a self-serving interpretation and mischaracterization of Drexel, talking too much about the Drexel trees and ignoring the Drexel forest. My guess is that he wanted to go down in history as the man who gave us national health care, and he was willing to engage in sloppy reasoning to do it. In doing so, he’s done a disservice to both the Court and the Constitution; he’s also chosen a path that is certain to enrage conservatives to the point of apoplexy. 

This is not a good decision. This law was a perversion of the democratic process from the beginning. The Democrats shut the Republicans completely out of the process; there was no bipartisan support at all, which makes it unique among major social welfare legislation in this country, and perhaps all major legislation. In the end it passed only through the operations of rules mechanics, when the election of Scott Brown restored the filibuster to the Republicans. It’s being used as the basis for an HHS regulation that is blatantly unconstitutionalunder the First Amendment and RFRA, and it will redistribute health care in this country to a uniformly low level. It’s a tragedy that the final chapter to this lamentable path to passage would consist of such bad legal reasoning. Upholding it on Commerce Clause grounds would have been more constitutionally damaging, but more coherent. And, given Obama’s blatant refusal to order the enforcement of federal laws he doesn’t like, such as DOMA and immigrant deportation laws, Democrats will have no room for objection when a Republican President simply refuses to enforce Obamacare.

Cool.

Vampires.

The Battle of Midway: 70 Years Ago Today

 Today is the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Midway and Admiral (then Rear Admiral) Raymond A. Spruance's celebrated victory and finest hour. Relatively junior and untested in carrier warfare, he went up against the Japanese varsity, in the persons of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto and Vice Admiral Chūichi Nagumo, and (figuratively) handed them their heads. One of the most important moments in American military and naval history.  I personally rank it as one of the five most important battles in American history (the others being Saratoga, New Orleans, Vicksburg, and Gettysburg).  Let's remember Spruance, a largely unsung hero, along with all those who fought and died at Midway, especially the brave pilots of VT-6 and VT-8. 

UPDATE: The Purpose of the Law

UPDATE: According to Rorate Caeli, the letter from PCED is discussing a chapel not affiliated with the SSPX, which would explain the PCED's position today vis-a-vis the previous position.  It would appear that this is a case that is distinguishable from the prior PCED ruling - that is, as we stand today, the SSPX Masses do indeed fulfill the Sunday obligation according to the PCED's opinion.  Anyway... I will leave my original post because I think it is still pertinent and, quite frankly, it took me a bit of time to write it, so I do not want to delete it!

If you keep up with news on Traditionalist Catholic blogs, you are probably aware that a private letter from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei to a particular person was released publicly (not by PCED) today.  One possible reading of that letter is that the faithful do not fulfill their Sunday Mass obligation by assisting at Masses of the Fraternity of St. Pius X.  If today's letter says that, it is a reversal of an earlier letter from the PCED that said precisely the opposite.

At any rate, in addition to all the other comments one could make about that, I would like to focus on the logical conundrum into which today's letter leads (which I think is pretty funny, by the way).  Bear with me while I throw down some logic...

1. Under Canon Law § 1247, the faithful may fulfill their Sunday Mass obligation "by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic Rite...."
2. The PCED has determined the faithful do not meet their Sunday Mass obligation by assisting at an SSPX Mass.
3. The PCED has therefore determined the SSPX do not celebrate the Mass according to a Catholic Rite.
4. Therefore, the SSPX is not Catholic. 

1. Normally, in order for absolution to be valid during the Sacrament of Penance, the absolving priest must have jurisdiction from the local bishop.
2. However, under Canon Law § 844.2, the faithful may receive the Sacraments, including the Sacrament of Penance, from a non-Catholic minister whose Sacraments are valid (that is, a schismatic). 
3. Therefore, schismatic priests require no jurisdiction from the local bishop to validly absolve. 

1. The SSPX has valid Sacraments, but according to the PCED are not Catholic.  Therefore, they are schismatic.
2. Since the SSPX priests are schismatic, they need not have jurisdiction from the local bishop to validly absolve.
3. Therefore, confession to an SSPX priest is valid and the priest validly absolves.

Of course, I am saying this somewhat in jest to point out that the law loses meaning when the ultimate purpose is forgotten.  In this case, the purpose of the law is the salvation of souls.  Does it not behoove the PCED to say that SSPX Masses fulfill the obligation because then more people are meeting their obligation and avoiding sin?  Does it not make sense for SSPX priests to validly absolve so that more people have their sins forgiven?

Anyway, some pointed out that the PCED is not even the proper authority to make determinations about the intricacs of Canon Law.  That right belongs to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.  Frankly, I have not looked deeply into the issue and I do not really care to do so. 

One thing is certain: the Holy Father is the earthly lawgiver, so he has the final say on this and every other Canon Law issue.  He has said nothing either way.  Since the law is construed for the benefit of souls... well, I think the SSPX Masses meet the obligation.  But, I am not going to bet my eternal salvation on my logic skills!

Let us pray that His Holiness Benedict XVI will step in to clarify whether the faithful fulfill their Sunday Mass obligation by assisting at SSPX Masses. 

Islam: The Religion of Peace

I'm so glad the political Left has got the number of those crazy religious fundamentalists.
Wait a minute--they're Muslims? Oh, that makes it OK. (I thought they were Catholics.) Disregard.

We Need to Pray for the Pope

His Holiness the Pope - Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Jesus Christ - Successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles - Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church - Patriarch of the West - Servant of the Servants of God - Primate of Italy - Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province - Sovereign of Vatican City State -  Benedict XVI

According to the accounts of those closest to the Holy Father, he is "saddened" by recent events and betrayals by those in the Curia.  We need to keep the Holy Father in our prayers!  We can do so particularly during the Whit Embertide, in which we currently find ourselves. 

Orémus pro beatíssimo Papa nostro Benedicto.

Dóminus consérvet eum, et vivíficet eum, et beátum fáciat eum in terra, et non tradat eum in ánimam inimicórum ejus.

A Word about Battleships

On a subject that has nothing to do with Catholicism or the Gothic, but which is very historical--and because I'm a battleship fan--USS Iowa is underway for her new home at San Pedro. Click the links below for the story and for some great photos.

http://www.pacificbattleship.com


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0527-iowa-20120527,0,3477701.story

http://framework.latimes.com/2012/05/13/battleship-iowas-final-journey/#/0

Catholic Bishops

I know you can't judge a book by its cover, but I was struck by this photo of His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX.  Doesn't His Excellency just look like a Successor of the Apostles should look?  

The SSPX does not have a monopoly on exuding this sort of demeanor (Did anyone catch the FSSP ordinations I posted about?).  But, many bishops seem to have forgotten that they are custodians of an office that demands they act the part, which certainly includes the outward signs of respect and regality.  Perhaps if the SSPX is "reconciled" with the Church, they will be the leaven that leavens the batch in this and many other regards.

In fact, Bishop Fellay said that very thing in his Pentecost sermon: "It seems clear that, if we are wanted, it is to re-introduce Tradition in the Church, if we can speak like this."  [Taken from the translation available on Rorate Caeli].

Important News! This Just In! Ecumenical Councils!

You might want to sit down for this: It has been recently discovered that there are 21 Church Councils accepted as ecumenical by the Roman Catholic Church.  Shockingly, only one of those councils is the one commonly referred to a Vatican II.  It does happen to be the most recent, but it is also the only one to have been deemed "pastoral" in nature.  It is the only Council ever to definitively not define any new doctrine.  It was not called in reaction to a crisis or particular heresy.  It did not anathematize anyone and any idea.

And yet... it is the only ecumenical council that can be simply referred to as "the Council."  If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you will likely notice that "the Council" is the main source of citation. 

I would like to do more research about the history of ecumenical councils prior to "the Council."  There is no question that the first 7 councils were very important.  The First Council of Nicea in the 4th Century determined that the faithful should not kneel during the Liturgy on Sundays.  Heck, one Council (Constatinople III) even posthumously excommunicated the Pope!

It turns out, the first seven Councils, which sorted out important issues relating to, among other things, Christology, were not called by the Pope and really had no involvement from the Bishop of Rome.  In fact, the first seven Councils involved mainly bishops from the Eastern Churches.  The first Council called by the Pope was Lateran I in the 12th Century. 

After the first seven Councils, educated minds seem to disagree about their importance (and their ecumenicity - for the non-Catholics, anyway).  You have a few "pseudo-councils" and "robber councils."  You have a few ecumenical councils that really did very little and were never implemented.  There are ecumenical councils that dealt mainly with political issues about legitimate princes.  Councils attempted to heal the Great Schism between East and West, they discussed purgatory (or not), icons (or not), leavened bread for Holy Communion (or not)... 

Of course, the Council of Trent is the most important Council since the original seven.  The Council of Trent responded scholastically to the major tenets of Protestantism and set the course of scholasticism in the Western Church. 

The history of the councils is very interesting.  I hope to read more about it in the future.  Perhaps, when I have done so I will post more thoughts on this interesting subject.

Universal Healthcare?

I noticed this interesting article on today's Vatican Information Service.  I'm posting this specifically so our reader and my friend Gene (formerly pin) will notice it and comment on it.  I'll post it in its entirety below with some of my comments embedded Fr. Z style.

THE CHURCH IS COMMITTED TO UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE COVERAGE

Vatican City, 24 May 2012 (VIS) - Archbishop Zygmunt Zimowski, head of the Holy See delegation to the sixty-fifth World Health Assembly, yesterday delivered an address before that gathering, which is being held in Geneva, Switzerland, from 21 to 26 May. Speaking English, the archbishop reaffirmed the Holy See's support for Resolution WHA64.9 on "sustainable health financing structures and universal coverage", which urges member States to aim for affordable universal coverage [Quod Apostolici Muneris and Rerum Novarum, where art thou?] and access for all citizens on the basis of equity and solidarity [and what about subsidiarity, the third pillar of Catholic Social Teaching?].

He also recalled how Benedict XVI has emphasised the importance of establishing "real distributive justice which, on the basis of objective needs, guarantees adequate care to all. [Absolutely - that is certainly one of the Church's goals.  However, it is a goal historically acheived through Church run hospitals and clinics, not through the State.] Consequently, if it is not to become inhuman, the world of healthcare cannot disregard the moral rules that must govern it".  [And what of the moral rules regarding Socialism?  Leo XIII had this to say about this sort of "equality": "Their habit (Socialists, that is), as we have intimated, is always to maintain that nature has made all men equal, and that, therefore, neither honor nor respect is due to majesty, nor obedience to laws, unless, perhaps, to those sanctioned by their own good pleasure."  That teaching is juxtaposed with the doctrine that "there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner."]

Archbishop Zimowski noted that "more countries, especially those with emerging economies, are moving towards universal coverage", thanks also to "good policies that promote equity. ... Therefore my delegation strongly believes that in the endeavour to promote universal [universal = Socialist] coverage, fundamental values such as equity, human rights and social justice [ugh!] need to become explicit policy objectives", he said.

The archbishop made an appeal for high-income countries to show greater solidarity towards poorer nations in order to overcome funding shortfalls in health. In this context he quoted the Encyclical "Caritas in veritate" in which Benedict XVI writes: "More economically developed nations should do all they can to allocate larger portions of their gross domestic product to development aid, thus respecting the obligations that the international community has undertaken in this regard".  [The Church teaches charity, not redistribution.  Again Leo XIII: "[T]he Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate."]

In conclusion the head of the Holy See delegation affirmed that "progress towards universal coverage [There's that word "universal" again] cannot be the effort of State machinery alone. It requires support from civil society. ... With over 120,000 social and healthcare institutions worldwide, the Catholic Church is in many developing countries one of the key partners of the State in healthcare delivery, providing services in remote areas to rural low-income populations, enabling them to access services that would otherwise be out of their reach. The efforts and contribution of such organisations and institutions towards universal access, merit the recognition and support of both the State and the international community, without obliging them to participate in activities they find morally abhorrent" [Well, there's something about conscience clauses at least].

Here is the teaching set forth quite plainly in Rerum Novarum:

[I]f a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth.  In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop.

The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found.

 My comments:

Basic healthcare is important and should be provided to those who need it.  Catholic social teaching indicates that such services should first be provided by those who are wealthy and own capital - that is, employers.  Indeed, in American society, this is the case.  Moveover, hospitals and doctors routinely offer their services for free or at a reduced rate.  That is the basic charity called for by that profession.  In America, if one needs healthcare, one gets healthcare even in the absence of a State-run system.

I am unqualified to say whether this is the case in developing countries, but I would guess that it is not.  Therefore, the State may have a duty to "force" such charity from employers and medical professionals. 

That said, universal healthcare as envisioned by Socialists (including those running America these days) is not in accordance with Catholic social teaching.  It may behoove those making public speeches on behalf of the Holy See to stop using phrases like "universal healthcare" because of its Socialistic implications... 

Pro-Aborts and Counterproductivity

Based on this Gallup Poll, two spikes have occurred in the past several years that have put pro-life supporters ahead of pro-abortion supporters numerically. One was in May 2009; the other is right now.


What happened in May 2009? President Obama's highly controversial (except among the mainstream media) commencement address at the University of Notre Dame, at which the university and its misguided president, John Jenkins, added injury to insult by conferring an honorary degree on the president despite the objections of a number of bishops.


And what's happening now? The legal battle over the HHS mandate issued by so-called Catholic Kathleen Sebelius heats up, together with a highly controversial appearance of said Sebelius at another dissident Catholic school, in this case Georgetown. And this time the bishop's smackdown of Georgetown, though slow in coming, had even more bite than the criticism of Notre Dame did (although it's still just talk; the bishops are still scared to do anything more than "view with concern.")


By the way, isn't it ironic that the second spike is a direct result of a policy that showed the president's speech about "common ground" during the first spike to be at best empty words and at worst a bald-faced lie? (I wonder if he'd have talked about finding common ground between abolitionists and slaveowners if he'd been president in 1861, or between the Allies and the SS in over the "Jewish Question" if he'd been president in 1943.)


It's also ironic that the HHS secretary had the temerity to discuss "separation of church and state" in her speech when 1) her insurance rule violates this concept that she says is so important and 2) she doesn't even understand the concept, by her own admission.


So, my request to leading political pro-aborts and their allies, so-called Catholic universities: Do keep up this high-profile assault on Catholicism and human rights, guys, in the name of your rage-driven Lebensunwertes Leben pseudo-feminism. Please. Be my guest. The more you do, the more people apparently catch on.


P.S. Democratic voters bring to this poll minds "not to be changed by place or time." Of Republicans, independents, and Democrats, the latter's numbers changed the least. At least the good Fr. Jenkins has finally seen what everyone else saw three years ago. Better late than never, although if he's listened at the time he could have avoided scandalizing the faith.


P.P.S. Oops, I just realized that I insinuated in this post that the president is a liar. I'd better be careful or I might get arrested for that, according to this high school teacher, who apparently thinks that you can make bad statements that include profanity about Republican Presidents  but that all criticism of Democratic presidents must be suppressed by state action. (I am no Republican, but I do believe in applying the law equally.) At least the school board suspended her, but only after a lot of bad press.

Latest on the SSPX

From this morning's Vatican Information Service email news brief:

Communique on the Society of St. Pius X

Vatican City, 16 May 2012 (VIS) - Early this afternoon, the Holy See Press Office issued the following communique regarding the Society of St. Pius X:

"As reported by news agencies, today, 16 May 2012, an Ordinary Session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith met to discuss the question of the Society of St. Pius X.

In particular, the text of the response of Bishop Bernard Fellay, received on 17 April, 2012, was examined and some observations, which will be considered in further discussions between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X, were formulated.

Regarding the positions taken by the other three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, their situations will have to be dealt with separately and singularly".

SSPX Internal Letter Removed

I have removed the previously posted letter from His Excellency Bishop fellay to the other three bishops of the SSPX in accordance with the wishes of the SSPX General House. The following is from the US District website regarding this leaked letter situation: "Its publication will encourage those who are fomenting division; the Society of St. Pius X asks its priests and lay faithful not to respond except by redoubling their prayers, so that only the will of God may be done, for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls."

FSSP Ordinations Viewable on the Internet

Assuming the internet is still up and running on Saturday, May 19, 2012, at 10 a.m., the excellent site LiveMass.net will be showing the Ordinations to the Sacred Priesthood of the Fraternity of St. Peter from Nebraska.  This will also be available through the iMass App for iPhone and iPad.

His Excellency Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, part-time friend of Traditional Catholicism, will confer the Sacrament of Orders upon five candidates. 

I believe the assistant priest from St. Francis de Sales in Mableton, Georgia, Fr. Matthew McCarthy will be assisting at the Ordination.  For more information, check out the Fraternity's news feed.

Is Recognizing the SSPX Questioning the Council?

The following analysis was posted to the homepage of the SSPX United States District website and emailed to the SSPX email list yesterday.  It explains precisely what the Society's position is vis-a-vis the Second Vatican Council.  I highly recommend reading it as it is short and easily understood.  For convenience, I will paste it below in its entirety and exactly as presented by the SSPX (with their original empases).  Here you go:

From the recent media flurry about Bishop Fellay’s anticipated (and now given) second response to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith concerning the Doctrinal Preamble, there is a general noteworthy item. Many journalists have recognized that this event concerning the SSPX is of great importance to the entire Church, labeling it a “historic moment”, one “crucial for the Church”, and even a “turning point” which will have long-lasting effects for the Catholic world. One excellent commentary on this aspect comes from the keyboard of Inside the Vatican’s editor, Dr. Robert Moynihan:

But more important than the effect on the historical judgment of this pontificate, the way this matter is resolved will have a profound impact on the Church herself, on how she views herself and her mission in the world, in time, in history, and, therefore, on how the Church orients her activity and life with regard to the secular world outside of the Church.[1] [sspx.org emphasis]

Dr. Moynihan does not merely stop here¾he gives the reason why this will occur:

The matter at issue is the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X… but the deeper question is the Second Vatican Council and how that Council should be interpreted.[2] [sspx.org emphasis]

This gets to the root of the matter: What level of authority does the Second Vatican Council possess? How does one reconcile certain conciliar teachings that are out of sync with the pre-conciliar Magisterium?

Adding to such questionnaires made by Msgr. Brunero Gherardini and Roberto de Mattei, Dr. John Lamont[3] published on Chiesa[4] a careful analysis[5] of the written debate between Rome’s Msgr. Fernando Ocariz[6] and the SSPX’s Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize[7], which also asked similar crucial questions. Dr. Lamont clearly expresses the SSPX’s doctrinal position on Vatican II vis-à-vis the authentic Magisterium:

The first question that occurs to a theologian concerning the SSPX position concerns the issue of the authority of the Second Vatican Council. [Msgr. Ocariz’s article] …seems to claim that a rejection of the authority of Vatican II is the basis for the rift referred to by the Holy See. But for anyone familiar with both the theological position of the SSPX and the climate of theological opinion in the Catholic Church, this claim is hard to understand. The points mentioned by Fr. Gleize are only four of the voluminous teachings of Vatican II. The SSPX does not reject Vatican II in its entirety: on the contrary, Bishop Fellay has stated that the society accepts 95% of its teachings.

With irony Dr. Lamont adds:

This means that the SSPX is more loyal to the teachings of Vatican II than much of the clergy and hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

It is relevant that the texts of Vatican II that are rejected by the SSPX are accepted by the groups [liberals¾Ed.] within the Church that reject other teachings of that council.

Continuing his analysis:

One might then suppose that it is these specific texts—on religious liberty, the Church, ecumenism, and collegiality—that are the problem. The rift between the Holy See and the SSPX arises because the Society rejects these particular elements of Vatican II, not because of an intention on the part of the Holy See to defend Vatican II as a whole…

(…)

The latter group [liberals¾Ed.] simply holds that certain doctrines of the Catholic Church are not true. They reject Catholic teaching, full stop. The SSPX, on the other hand, does not claim that the teaching of the Catholic Church is false. Instead, it claims that some of the assertions of Vatican II contradict other magisterial teachings that have greater authority, and hence that accepting the doctrines of the Catholic Church requires accepting these more authoritative teachings and rejecting the small proportion of errors in Vatican II. It asserts that the actual teaching of the Catholic Church is to be found in the earlier and more authoritative statements.

Dr. Lamont raises another question: “how can there be any objection to the SSPX upholding the truth of magisterial pronouncements of great authority?”

This question really answers itself. There can be no such objection. If the position of the SSPX on doctrine itself is to be judged objectionable, it must be claimed that this position is not what these magisterial pronouncements actually teach, and hence that the SSPX falsifies the meaning of these pronouncements. This claim is not easy to sustain, because when these earlier pronouncements were promulgated, they gave rise to a very substantial body of theological work that aimed at their interpretation. The meaning that the SSPX ascribes to them is derived from this body of work, and corresponds to how these pronouncements were understood at the time they were made.

The author then logically asks these final questions:

This fact gives more point and urgency to the third question that occurs to a theologian: what do these pronouncements actually teach, if it is not what the SSPX say that they teach?

...what is the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on the points that are in dispute between the SSPX and the Holy See?

Dr. Lamont concluded his analysis with this statement, underlining the universal significance of the SSPX’s relations with Rome:

The nature of the teaching of the Catholic Church on religious freedom, ecumenism, the Church, and collegiality, is of great importance to all Catholics. The questions raised by the discussions between the Holy See and the SSPX thus concern the whole Church, not merely the parties to the discussion.

Certainly it is pleasing to read such reflections about the Council’s teachings and the Church’s future, however, more can be done as suggested by Dr. Moynihan:

[Pope] Benedict now finds himself at the center of many very powerful interests who will wish to sway his judgment as he decides this matter. For this reason, he will need our prayers.[8]

To this end, the providential deadline of our Rosary Crusade (Pentecost Sunday, May 27) becomes more relevant and urgent.

What is the Smoke of Satan?

And here we have already some of the artifices employed by Modernists to exploit their wares. What efforts do they not make to win new recruits! They seize upon professorships in the seminaries and universities, and gradually make of them chairs of pestilence. In sermons from the pulpit they disseminate their doctrines, although possibly in utterances which are veiled. In congresses they express their teachings more openly. In their social gatherings they introduce them and commend them to others. Under their own names and under pseudonyms they publish numbers of books, newspapers, reviews, and sometimes one and the same writer adopts a variety of pseudonyms to trap the incautious reader into believing in a multitude of Modernist writers. In short, with feverish activity they leave nothing untried in act, speech, and writing. And with what result? We have to deplore the spectacle of many young men, once full of promise and capable of rendering great services to the Church, now gone astray. It is also a subject of grief to Us that many others who, while they certainly do not go so far as the former, have yet been so infected by breathing a poisoned atmosphere, as to think, speak, and write with a degree of laxity which ill becomes a Catholic. They are to be found among the laity, and in the ranks of the clergy, and they are not wanting even in the last place where one might expect to meet them, in religious communities If they treat of biblical questions, it is upon Modernist principles; if they write history, they carefully, and with ill-concealed satisfaction, drag into the light, on the plea of telling the whole truth, everything that appears to cast a stain upon the Church. Under the sway of certain a priori conceptions they destroy as far as they can the pious traditions of the people, and bring into disrespect certain relics highly venerable from their antiquity. They are possessed by the empty desire of having their names upon the lips of the public, and they know they would never succeed in this were they to say only what has always been said by all men. Meanwhile it may be that they have persuaded themselves that in all this they are really serving God and the Church. In reality they only offend both, less perhaps by their works in themselves than by the spirit in which they write, and by the encouragement they thus give to the aims of the Modernists.

(Pascendi Dominici Gregis 43, 1907)

Pope Paul VI's actual statement on "the smoke of Satan"

     One section of the lost post (see entry below) referred to the “smoke of Satan” entering the sanctuary. Some of my statements in the lost post could have been taken out of context to try show that I was advocating schism or even sedevacantism. (Such isn’t the case. I advocate neither.) I replied with the “smoke of Satan” quotation to show that a post VII pope shared my grave concerns.

     This led me to run down the provenance of the quotation to see if it was real. It is, so I present the formal version for you here, direct from the Vatican Website. It’s found in one of Paul VI’s 1972 homilies.

     As the original is in Italian only, you should be able to click here for a Google English translation. (If it doesn't work, I'm sure you can figure out how to run the translator yourself.)

     From the translation, which is a bit rough, the indications are that Paul VI believed that secular society constituted the smoke—that it’s a case of Church versus world and that we listen to the world rather than the Church. But what is modernism but a secular philosophy? And the point of his quotation, after all, is that the smoke isn’t just without but  within the Church.

     Other quotations from this same homily are equally interesting. For instance: “He [i.e., Satan] entered the doubt in our minds, and came to the windows who were to be opened to light.” And another: “In the Church this state of uncertainty reigns. It was believed that after the Council there would be a sunny day in the history of the Church. It came a day instead of clouds, storm, darkness, research, and uncertainty.”

     So there you have it.