How trendy experiments in music and liturgy have led to the triumph of bad taste, banality, and a deflated sense of the sacred

Composer and Catholic James MacMillan writing in a recent issue of Standpoint:

In the 1970s many well-intentioned types thought that such 'folk' music and pop culture derivatives would appeal to teenagers and young people and get them more involved in the Church, when the exact opposite has happened. It is now thought that these trendy experiments in music and liturgy have contributed to the increasing risible irrelevance of liberal Christianity, and that liturgy as social engineering has repulsed many. Like most ideas shaped by 1960s Marxist ideology it has proved an utter failure. Its greatest tragedy is the willful disingenuous, de-poeticisation of Catholic worship. The Church has simply aped the secular West's obsession with 'accessibility,' 'inclusiveness,' 'democracy,' and anti-elitism, resulting in the triumph of bad taste, banality and a deflation of the sense of the sacred in the life of the church."

Maybe this is the sort of trendy banality he had in mind -- gone-to-seed, perhaps?




Well, the choreography of the latter is almost good enough to serve for the closing "Christmas-in-Heaven" performance in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, if that's not being overly generous. The horror of it all is just the philistine assumption that any of this belongs to the worship of Almighty God.

Even this supporter of Teilhard de Chardin finds Massimo Faggioli's and James Martin's effort to rehabilitate him "weird"

Read especially the last parts of Mark Lambert's "I may surprise you with a defence of Teilhard de Chardin" (November 23, 2017).

... his reputation as a bit of a rebel means that an approval of a proposal asking for Pope Francis to remove the monitum has almost inevitably, drawn support from Pope Francis merry band of theological nitwits & cheering boys. The fact that such people as Fr. James Martin and Massimo Faggioli are cheering for the petition to remove the monitum (warning) against the writings of Teilhard... well... it speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Ii could easily be argued that the central error of our times is evolutionism taken as a paradigm for the whole of reality, including God, revelation, tradition, and morality. As Father Z puts it, if Teilhard's writings were ambiguous and seriously erroneous when the monitum was imposed, then surely they still are? ...

... I can't help but be disappointed by this constant desire to forego the practice and common sense of the past and re-write everything in the ink of modern secularism. Isn't this glib jostling for attention intellectually drab and dishonest?

Yes I defend Teilhard de Chardin's extravagant and audacious writings. I love them! As a scientist he wanted a free-ranging, peer review of his work. His ideas should be challenged, but not demonised. But I don't mistake them for the teaching of my Church, and I don't regret or seek to revoke the very valid monitum placed on them in 1962. Fr Teilhard de Chardin accepted the Holy See's censure, & he would have accepted the monitum as a just act by the teaching authority of the Church, just as he accepted the censure of his superior in 1925. The fact that Faggioli and Martin are seeking to rehabilitate him somehow is weird (given he is pretty much old hat these days), and strikes me as just another anti-orthodoxy bandwagon for them to jump on.

[Hat tip to J.M.]

Wham! The confusion of morality with manners!!!

Matthew Schmitz, "Fr. Manners" (First Things, August 22, 2017):

Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. I fell asleep at your book talk . . .

Were Fr. James Martin, SJ to appear opposite me in the confessional, I would be tempted to make this frivolous admission—and if his agenda prevails in the Church, I will have reason to make it. Catholics distinguish between violations of manners and of the moral law. Fr. Martin, in ways trivial and grave, does not. In his account of the faith, the sin that Christians once called sodomy is no more serious than my nodding off as he spoke gentle words at the Church of St. Francis Xavier on a warm June afternoon.

There's much more to this article, which Guy Noir - Private Eye, had the courtesy of calling my attention to via a message sent again by carrier pigeon. I suppose that was somehow à propos.

Contra Ivereigh: not just 'converts' are worried about the Church

Dan Hitchens, "It’s not just converts who are worried about the Church" (Catholic Herald, August 10, 2017):

In the last few years, many Catholics have become uneasy about statements coming out of Rome, and about the general direction of the Church. But which Catholics? According to a recent article in the Vatican newspaper, the “main obstacle” is “a good part of the clergy”. Then again, an article in Crux last year identified those “going against the Pope” as “almost always lay”.

Some believe that the issue is geographical: Massimo Faggioli describes an unease about the Church changing its style “from a Western one to a global religion”. Conversely, Cardinal Walter Kasper has said that the recalcitrant tend to be African or from “Asian or Muslim countries”....

This brings me to Austen Ivereigh’s latest piece suggesting that the epicentre of current anxiety is neither priests nor the laity, neither Westerners nor Africans, but converts. Ivereigh diagnoses “convert neurosis” in a range of writers, from “elegant commentators such as Ross Douthat” all the way down to “ex-Anglicans in my own patch such as Daniel Hitchens of the Catholic Herald.” Our neurosis reveals itself in disproportionate anxiety at the state of the Church; a horror of doctrinal development beyond our favourite period of Catholic history; and a failure to trust that “the Holy Spirit guides” Pope Francis. In sum, “their baggage has distorted their hermeneutic”.

I’m wary of this kind of psychologising: it is hard, even with those we know best, to say how their psychological issues affect their opinions. And in this instance the psychoanalysis seems needless, since there are at least as many cradle Catholics who have the same worries as us converts....

... I’m sorry to go over this again, but it seems worthwhile, since there is a determined effort in some quarters to change the subject. The concerns are about the sacraments and about doctrine. Nothing on this earth is more beautiful and precious than the sacraments, and it is natural for Catholics to be alarmed about the abuse of them. Scarcely anything is as necessary for our happiness as sound doctrine, and it is normal for Catholics to worry that doctrine is being contradicted or confused. There have been as many saints who were relaxed about heresy as there have been saints who despised the poor.

So of course converts and cradle Catholics will be dismayed by sacramental abuses and doctrinal confusion. And it is hard not to use such terms when we read Malta’s bishops claiming that avoiding adultery may be impossible; when we hear of priests, bishops and even cardinals abandoning the Church’s practice on Communion; when papal teachings are used – without contradiction from Rome – to justify novel approaches to divorce, euthanasia and extramarital relationships....

[Hat tip to JM]

Spadaro and Figueroa in La Civiltà Cattolica: Eeeek! The FUNDAMENTALISTS are coming!!!

But wait! Do they even know what a 'Fundamentalist' is? Of course not! And here is Frank J. Sheed to prove it in "Reading is Fundamental!" (July 21, 2017).

[Hat tip to JM]

Fr. James Martin, "bridges," and the triumph of the therapeutic mentality

"One would think that in a book about human sexuality, an author writing from a Catholic perspective would identify the specific sexual struggles of the moral life in Christ as the sixth commandment bears upon them, and the corresponding sexual sins against chastity. But no, they receive no attention; they do not figure in this book at all."

Eduardo Echeverria, "Fr. James Martin, 'bridges,' and the triumph of the therapeutic mentality" (CWR, June 16, 2017).

Echeverria's article carries the following quote as a welcome caveat given the disposition of Fr. Martin's book:

“There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith” (CCC, no. 89).

He begins with definition:

By the therapeutic mentality I mean a subjectivist philosophy in which a feeling of well-being, feeling good about oneself, is the only, or dominant, criterion by which we measure what is acceptable or not to us. A good example of this mentality is found throughout the recent book by James Martin, SJ, Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity (New York: HarperOne, 2017; hereafter, BB).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 2357; hereafter, CCC) teaches: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’.” Fr. Martin doesn’t cite this passage. I’ll return to this matter below. All he cites is the phrase found in CCC that the homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered” (no. 2358). After this, we see the therapeutic mentality at work in the following remark. “The phrase relates to the orientation, not the person, but it is still needlessly hurtful. Saying that one of the deepest parts of a person—the part that gives and receives love—is ‘disordered’ in itself is needlessly cruel” (BB, 46-47).

Fr. Martin doesn’t say that the problem with this term is solely with the language used that otherwise correctly describes the homosexual condition. So, let’s just change the language to describe an expression of human brokenness as a consequence of man’s fallen state. He doesn’t consider whether the term is morally right about homosexual practice; or even whether it is, however inadequately, getting at the reality of the homosexual condition.

Rather, he only considers how the term leaves one feeling about himself, hurt or abused verbally. That’s it. Read more >>

"What, then, remains of Luther?"

In the early part of the twentieth century there were prominent Protestant theologians like Reinhold Seeberg of Berlin and Wilhelm Braun of Heidelberg who lamented the bitter fruits of the Reformation. Fr. Joseph Husselein, S.J., writing in "What, Then, Remains of Luther?" in America, Vol. IX, No. 14 (July 12, 1913), p. 320, suggests that nowhere is this Protestant chagrin over the bitter fruit of the Reformation more faithfully reflected than in an article written by the Protestant theologian Braun for Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, March 30, 1913. Braun, upon reading the historical and theological exposés of Luther by Father Heinrich Denifle, O.P. [photo below left], in Luther und Luthertum and by Fr. Hartmann Grisar, S.J., in Luther, asked "What, then remains of Luther?" After candidly admitting the superior facilities possessed by the Dominican and Jesuit authors over Protestant theologians and historians in the field of Luther research (p. 169), Braun draws up the following remarkable summary of his impressions:

The reading of Grisar should afford food for reflection to us Evangelical theologians. With strips cut from our own skin the Catholic author has pieced together his 'Luther.' How small the Reformer has become according to the Luther studies of our own Protestant investigators! How his merits have shrivelled up! We believed that we owed to him the spirit of toleration and liberty of conscience. Not in the least! We recognized in his translation of the Bible a masterpiece stamped with the impress of originality -- we may be happy now if it is not plainly called a 'plagiarism'! ... Looking upon the 'results' of their work thus gathered together, we cannot help asking the question: What, then, remains of Luther?

Considering the bitter legacy of the Reformation -- a Christendom shattered into a thousand pieces -- these eminent Protestant scholars considered that it would be more appropriate for Protestants, rather than celebrate the fourth centenary of Luther's Ninety-Five Theses, should do penance in sack-cloth and ashes. But then, that was a century ago.

"Shack" Theology

Gavin Ortlund, "The god of William Paul Young" (TGC, April 28, 2017):

Paul Young’s The Shack has sold 20 million copies, inspired a major motion picture, and generated a lot of spiritual reflection and conversation. Some have appreciated its depiction of faith and suffering. Others have been uncomfortable with its theological eccentricities. More than a few have used the “h word” to describe it (heresy). But the fact that The Shack (and Young’s other books) are novels has made it difficult to know exactly how to place them.

Now, with the publication of his first non-fiction work, Lies We Believe About God, Young gives a more propositional, concrete expression of his beliefs. Although this book casts itself as tentative and conversational (20–21), it definitely advocates theological positions, often quite energetically. Its 28 chapters are each devoted to exposing a “lie” we believe about God, and expounding the corresponding opposite truth.

Unfortunately, the theology espoused in this book represents a wide and unambiguous deviation from orthodox Christian views. I mean no personal animus to the author in saying this, nor do I question his intentions. But the reason categories like “orthodoxy” and “heresy” arose in church history is because Christians have maintained there are right and wrong ways to think about God, and that pointing out the difference matters. When a book departs from historic, mainstream Christianity, it’s important to make the differences clear. Read more >>

Our underground correspondent, Guy Noir - Private Eye, who called our attention to this review asks whether this represents where a portion of modern Catholicism in America and Europe is positioning itself under the rhetoric of Pope Francis. They could never officially condone it, he says, but they don't need to: "Non-condemnation or equivocation is its own endorsement in these knee-jerk, social media times. Dissent non-condemned becomes a legit option. And those voicing concern become uptight haters."

Ensconced in his "Evangelical Catholic" perspective, Weigel "positively hysterical" over Rome's SSPX overtures

[Disclaimer: Rules ##7-9] P. J. Smith, "George Weigel and the SSPX" (Rorate Caeli, April 28, 2017):

George Weigel, in his most recent column, has decided that the Holy See should not offer the Society of St. Pius X a personal prelature. It appears from statements by Archbishop Guido Pozzo, secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society, that a personal prelature is the current offer. More than that, it seems that the Holy See is not insisting on the Society’s submission to every jot and tittle of every document of the Second Vatican Council. This is wonderful news.

Many informed commentators noted that the 2012 negotiations between Rome and the Society were torpedoed at the last moment by the sudden insistence of the Roman authorities on such submission. Archbishop Pozzo has conceded in public interviews that there are levels of authority in the documents of that “pastoral council,” and that total assent may not be necessary. And Weigel is positively hysterical at the prospect. Read more >>

A faithless retired Episcopal priest's demythologized Easter 'homily'

Harry T. Cook, "On Easter, an alternative approach to resurrection" (Detroit Free Press, April 15, 2017):

The Easter story is not the work of journalists. No good can come from torturing it into news, good or otherwise. It is a story with meaning. What is its meaning? It cannot be that a convicted revolutionary who was executed on a Friday walked out of his grave on Sunday to the profound amazement of his followers. Is it possible that the meaning of the story is that while you can kill a human being, you cannot kill what he or she has been or done?

Pitiful. Pitiful that good people ever come to believe such complete nonsense. Pitiful in the way St. Paul says that we would be of all people most to be pitied if Jesus hadn't been raised from the dead as claimed (providing an intricate logical syllogism to that effect in 1 Corinthians 15).

Even on empirical grounds, how pitiful is it to believe that miracles "can't happen" because, well, just because "miracles don't happen." Even if all the stars in the heavens arranged themselves so as to spell "Jesus saves," such individuals would probably respond: "Why, goodness me! What a remarkable coincidence! It almost looks as if someone has played some sort of optical trick on us."

There are accounts of other resurrected deities? Like Dionysus? Yeah, so what? Where have they left a paper trail of witnesses and martyrs like Jesus has? The Apostles must have been deceived about Jesus' resurrection? You think? One can be deceived about lots of things, but some things are just too big to be deceived about. A resurrected man is one of these. I doubt one could be anymore deceived about a man being resurrected from the dead than be deceived into thinking that exactly 37 pink pigs with wings are hovering in the air like hummingbirds just outside one's window.

But it could have been in the Apostles' self-interest to believe the Jesus rose from the dead. True. But it could also be in your own self-interest to believe that exactly 37 pink pigs with wings are hovering in the air like hummingbirds just outside your window if I offered you $1 million to believe that. Trouble is, our honest beliefs aren't quite under our control the way our ordinary choices are. I can't really bring myself to believe something just because someone offers to pay me money to believe it.

If course, I could say I believed it, even if I didn't. So maybe the Apostles conspired to lie about Jesus' resurrection? You think? When each of them (except for John) went to his martyrdom knowing that all he'd have to do is refuse to go along with the lie anymore, to just break and tell the truth and admit that Jesus didn't rise from the dead? Furthermore, each of these conspirators would have known that each of his fellow conspirators was lying through his teeth in the face of terrible persecution, torture, and the threat of death, and all that would have to happen if for one of them to break and tell the truth, and the whole resurrection story would go down in flames as a failure not worth being martyred for.

So we have a story people just can't be mistaken about of someone rising from the dead, and a story that the Apostles' couldn't possibly have conspired to lie about, given the fact that each of them (except John), knowing that it is human nature to break under torture, nevertheless willingly gave his life as a martyr for the authenticity of the story with not one of them throwing in the towel and denying its authenticity. Not to mention centuries of martyrs and witnesses to lives changed, relationships redeemed, bodies and souls healed in expectation of life eternal.

Pray for Harry T. Cook. Poor man. Pitiful.

Signposts in the historical erosion in French and Québécois Catholicism

Jean Louis Clement:

"The French bishops in the interwar years have favored the elaboration of a political theology which up to 1930, they rooted in the sovereignty of God, Creator of the Universe, and which later on, they built on the idea of the human person, at the service of which stand both society and State. They endeavored to promote that theology since 1919, but very specially in the thirties, in the thick of the parliamentary crisis. In the hope of countering the blossoming of political doctrines scorning the concept of 'person' the Assembly of Cardinals and Archbishops offered the faithful a political catechism drafted by the Abbe Daniel Joseph Lallement under the Daladier government. The episcopate entered into negotiations for a project that aimed at rooting in the conscience obedience to the Authority."

Anthony Sistrom:

Prior to the forties Cardinal Louis Billot, SJ spoke for the bishops. Vide his scathing article, "Liberalism" online in English. In the wake of the condemnation of Action francaise, personalism became the philosophy of the moment. No one has more eloquently critiqued personalism than Charles de Koninck (the only lay peritus at Vatican II). His article "On the primacy of the Common Good against the Personalists" (1943) is online. The date is important because the Quebec bishops had just introduced a marriage preparation program based on personalism that would spell the end of the Quebec traditional family.

THIS makes George Carlin's 'Buddy Christ' seem 'traditionalist'

You all remember how George Carlin played a bishop in the movie Dogma and announced that the crucifix, though a time-honored symbol of our faith and highly recognizeable, was being retired by Holy Mother Church as a wholly depressing image of our Lord crucified. Christ didn't come to earth to "give us the willies," says the bishop. He came "to help us out." "He was a booster." And with that take on our Lord, he introduces and unveils a new, more inspiring image of ... 'The Buddy Christ.'


And now, in the spirit of retrieving a Gospel for our time that will titillate and hopefully avoid boring us (like all those boring traditional -- >yawn< -- liturgies and doctrines), here comes the prancing priest: Ecce homo!


Honestly, is there anything remotely Catholic or even Christian about this, anymore than fluffy Care Bears or prancing My Little Ponies?

"To Hell with Accompaniment"

Douglas Farrow, "To Hell with Accompaniment" (First Things, March 2017, via Abyssus Abyssum Invocat, February 9, 2017):

Is the pope Catholic?” used to be an answer, not a question. Alas, it has become a question; or rather it has become five questions, in the form of the dubia put to Pope Francis by four of his cardinals. In good Jesuit fashion, Francis seems to be making his reply by other means—since responding directly to dubia is apparently distasteful, as even the Prefect of the Holy Office Gerhard Cardinal Müller has now said. Thus far, the replies (comments about pharisaical doctors of the law, and that sort of thing) are not very reassuring. Actually, very little one hears from the Vatican these days reassures.

This leaves those of us who are struggling with “discernment of situations” (to use the phrase from Familiaris Consortio that was taken up by Amoris Laetitia) in some perplexity, not so much in the matter of marriage and family life as in the life of the Church herself. Reckoning with a pope whose own remarks seem somewhat erratic is one thing. But how are we to reckon with a situation in which the administration of the sacraments, and the theology behind their administration, is succumbing, with his blessing, to regionalism? In other words, how are we to reckon with a situation, nicely timed to the quincentenary of the Reformation, in which being Catholic begins to look quite a lot like being Protestant?

The trauma of the two synods on the family, which led to Amoris and to the dubia, is a trauma for which Francis himself is largely responsible. The ongoing rebellion against Humanae Vitae and Veritatis Splendor is something that he has permitted, if not encouraged. And the flaws in Amoris are of his making. His unwillingness to respond directly to the dubia is not, then, a matter of taste only. In any event, the very fact that the dubia have been put—and they have been well put, whether or not they should have been put publicly—has carried the whole difficulty beyond matters of taste. Cardinal Müller’s denial that there is a doctrinal problem here is unconvincing.

Read more >>

Ethicist says ghostwriter's role in 'Amoris' is troubling

"It turns out that the most important footnote in 'Amoris Laetitia' may be one that's not there, because a key passage of the document is lifted almost verbatim from a 1995 essay in theology by Archbishop Victor Fernandez -- raising troubling questions about Fernandez's role as ghostwriter, and the magisterial force of his ideas."

Read more: Michael Pakaluk, "Ethicist says ghostwriter's role in 'Amoris' is troubling" (Crux, January 15, 2017)

[Hat tip to Janet Smith]

Diaster upon diaster, and now Malta!

Ed Peters, "The Maltese Disaster" (In the Light of the Law, January 13, 2017):

The bishops of Malta, in a document that can only be called disastrous, repeatedly invoking Pope Francis’ Amoris laetitia, have directly approved divorced and remarried Catholics taking holy Communion provided they feel “at peace with God”. Unlike, say, the Argentine document on Amoris which, one could argue, left just enough room for an orthodox reading, however widely it also left the doors open for abuse by others, the Maltese bishops in their document come straight out and say it: holy Communion is for any Catholic who feels “at peace with God” and the Church’s ministers may not say No to such requests. In my view the Maltese bishops have effectively invited the Catholics entrusted to them (lay faithful and clergy alike!) to commit a number of objectively gravely evil acts. That their document was, moreover, published in L’Osservatore Romano, exacerbates matters for it deprives Vatican representatives of the ‘plausible deniability’ that they could have claimed (and might soon enough wish they could claim), as it becomes known that the Maltese bishops went beyond what even Amoris, if interpreted narrowly, seemed to permit. Read more >>

Ivereigh sees Holy Spirit's hand in October Synod and Amoris Leititia, and faithless dissent in the dubia of the four cardinals

In an article that would leave spinning the head of even Cardinal Newman, the exponent of doctrinal development, Austen Ivereigh, "As anti-Amoris critics cross into dissent, the Church must move on" (Crux, December 11, 2016), launches a diatribe against critics of the Kasper doctrine that assumes a view of doctrinal development that looks like a recipe for synthesizing Styrofoam from Silly Putty and Play Dough.

The article has to be read to be believed. "Cardinal Burke, it is worth remembering," says Ivereigh, "was removed as head of the Vatican’s highest court because he rejected any reform to the annulment process - a reform sanctioned by the synod - on the grounds that it would undermine marriage." Unbelievable. 'Reform' is one thing. Baptizing the practice of serialized polygamy is another.

Again, he writes: "By rejecting the process of the synod and its fruits, the critics of Amoris Laetitia, led by four protesting cardinals, have crossed a line, and look increasingly like the dissenting lobbies under John Paul II who accused him of betraying Vatican II. Meanwhile, the Church is moving on."

"Moving on ..." where? Quo vadis? Twisting the Magisterium into a pretzel?

In addition to further confusing the faithful, such statements will have the added effect of confirming the opinions of those like the respected Bishop Athanasius Schneider that a bizarre schism, an 'anti-Gospel,' already exists within the Church. -- See Michael Chapman, "Catholic Bishop: 'We Are Witnessing Today a Bizarre Form of Schism' in the Church, an 'Anti-Gospel'" (CNS, December 8, 2016).

In fact, if those like Ivereigh continue to assert that their novelties represent a "hermeneutic of continuity" with Vatican II, this may have the unwanted effect of (1) increasingly undermining the confidence of conservative Catholics in many of the formulations of Vatican II particularly charished by the likes of Walter Kasper and their fellow champions of revisionism, as well as (2) emboldening Pelosi/Biden-type liberals to think that they have no vested interest whatsoever in keeping faith with foundational doctrinal traditions of the Church.

"Reform of reform" is "an error," says Francis; "True love is not rigid"

"IMPORTANT: In interview, Pope Francis questions Traditional Catholics and their motives; Ends 'Reform of the Reform' for good" (Rorate Caeli, November 11, 2016):

The excerpt is translated by Rorate from the interview published in the past few days in Italy -- the interview was conducted by the editor of the official journal of the Holy See (Civiltà Cattolica), Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SI, as part of a book containing homilies of the Pope when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires:

***
The simplicity of children makes me also think of adults, with a rite that is direct, participated intensely [translator's note: reference to notion of 'actuosa participatio'], of parish masses experienced with so much piety. What comes to mind are proposals that encourage priests to turn their backs to the faithful, to rethink Vatican II, to use Latin. I ask the Pope what he thinks of this. The Pope answers:

[Pope:] "Pope Benedict accomplished a just and magnanimous gesture [translator's note: the motu proprio 'Summorum Pontificum'] to reach out to a certain mindset of some groups and persons who felt nostalgia and were distancing themselves. But it is an exception. That is why one speaks of an 'extraordinary' rite. The ordinary in the Church is not this. It is necessary to approach with magnanimity those attached to a certain form of prayer. But the ordinary is not this. Vatican II and Sacrosanctum Concilium must go on as they are. To speak of a 'reform of the reform' is an error."

I ask him: "Other than those who are sincere and ask for this possibility out of habit or devotion, can this desire express something else? Are there dangers?"

[Pope:] "I ask myself about this. For example, I always try to understand what is behind those individuals who are too young to have lived the pre-Conciliar liturgy, and who want it nonetheless. I have at times found myself in front of people who are too rigid, an attitude of rigidity. And I ask myself: how come so much rigidity? You dig, you dig, this rigidity always hides something: insecurity, at times perhaps something else... [sic] The rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid."

I insist: what about tradition? Some understand it in a rigid way.

[Pope:] "But no: tradition blooms!" he responds. "There is a Traditionalism that is a rigid fundamentalism: it is not good. Faithfulness instead implies a growth. Tradition, in the transmission from one age to the next of the deposit of the faith, grows and consolidates with the passage of time, as Saint Vincent of Lérins said in his Commonitorium Primum. I read it always in my breviary: 'Ita etiam christianae religionis dogma sequatur has decet profectuum leges, ut annis scilicet consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate' (Also the dogma of the Christian religion must follow these laws. It progresses, consolidating with the years, developing with time, deepening with the age.)"

[Pages provided by Mr. Andrew Guernsey]

*****

Rorate's comment (in the form of a Tweet):

St Paul: "The sure foundation of God stands firm"
Pope Francis: "These firm, rigid, Catholics are insecure, and are hiding something!"

I can't believe First Things ran this ad

Were my eyes deceiving me? I saw this full page ad in First Things (Nov. 2016 issue, p. 15) advertising a book entitled A Retreat with Teilhard de Chardin by Rev. Donald Goergen, O.P., Ph.D. (Aquinas Institute of Theology):

Experience the towering mysticism of Teilhard de Chardin in this one-of-a-kind retreat that you can experience in your home or car.

Presented by gifted professor, author, and contemplative retreat leader Rev. Donald Goergen, O.P. A Retreat with Teilhard de Chardin will capture your spiritual imagination and deepen your life with Christ. There conferences are life-changing [Yeah, I bet!].

Trained as a scientist and ordained as a Jesuit priest, Teilhard had a mystical vision of the world was [sic.] both universal and deeply personal. This moving retreat will lead you to discover how this vision can shape your spirituality today [Shirley Maclaine would love this!]. Let Teilhard accompany you and offer wise guidance in your journey to eternal life.

Oh, brother!

Collusion of National Catholic Reporter with Wikileaks-exposed anti-Catholic agenda organized by Podesta

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, "Fishwrap rots from the head down" (Fr. Z's Blog, October 14, 2016):

I am sure that by now you have heard about how the anti-Catholic Clinton campaign’s anti-Catholic manager John Podesta helped foment dissent in the Church and revolt by establishing anti-Catholic, catholic organizations. HERE Undermine the Church as a moral force, push her to squander her moral capital by getting her pastors to water down Catholic teaching and you remove an obstacle to garnering by hook or crook more votes for dem candidates. It’s a tried and true method. I saw today an interesting email released by Wikileaks about Podesta’s efforts, through one of his minions. HERE It mentions some interesting catholic entities. Read the whole thing. Take note of the prominent role of the Fishwrap and Commonwelt.

"I can't understand why Trump is doing so well"

Greg Krehbiel, "I can't understand why Trump is doing so well" (Crowhill Weblog, September 30, 2016):

Me: Really? I’m surprised that you don’t. You’re a fairly perceptive fellow.

Him: How can people support a man like this? He’s a serial adulterer, a flagrant liar, he’s bombastic and nasty, he can’t speak in complete sentences, he doesn’t know basic facts about the government …. He is the most unqualified man to ever run for the office.

Me: I think you’re not considering the mood of the people and how fed up they are. A large percentage of the population thinks the system is rigged and corrupt from top to bottom and needs to be completely disrupted.

Him: They’re delusional, but even so that doesn’t excuse asking this horrible man to do it. He’s going to make a mockery of the United States in front of the whole world.

Me: I see. So you expect somebody who’s going to buck the political establishment of both parties, defy the 24-7 scorn of the media and the Internet cry bullies — basically to be at war with almost every social institution in this country — and also be a nice guy?

Him: I don’t want anything of the kind. I don’t think the system is entirely rigged and corrupt, and I don’t think Trump could fix it if it were.

Me: And that’s why you don’t understand why Trump is doing so well.

[Hat tip to JM]

Background soundtrack for reading this post: Master of Puppets, by Metallica.