"Old Timey Catholic Muscle"

Boniface, "Old Timey Catholic Muscle" (Unam Sanctam Catholicam, February 5, 2017):

Have you heard that the Auxiliary Bishop of Newark was assaulted and punched in the face while celebrating Mass in his cathedral last week? If you missed this it is not surprising - the media was dominated that week by Trump news and this really fell though the cracks. Apparently Bishop Manuel A. Cruz of Newark was celebrating some sort of commemorative Mass when, according to the report:

"...a man wearing a white robe over a red suit shambled up to the altar from the crowd, reached Bishop Cruz and struck the 63-year-old in the face, knocking him backwards until he fell on the altar...several Essex County's Sheriff's police officers [who were present] ran onto the altar and handcuffed the man. One officer at the scene who saw Cruz after he was struck commented to another officer that several of the bishop's teeth had been loosened in the attack."

The incident is documented here at TAP into Newark, a local news outlet who actually had reporters present at the attack. [Video here]

It sounds like the attackers was probably mentally deranged or something. But what really struck me about the story was this little detail from the above mentioned article:

"Inside the cathedral immediately after the attack, the shock of the assault stunned the crowd. Many in the pews ducked when Cruz was first struck, not knowing what further to expect from the assailant. Others among the approximately 75 people assembled stood and screamed."

I understand not knowing whether the assailant had a gun. But the statement that many of the people "stood and screamed" seemed indicative of the weakness of contemporary Catholicism in the face of aggressive anti-Catholic violence. Gray-haired parishioners standing and screaming helplessly as the successor of the Apostles is pummeled. The modern Church wringing their hands helplessly as radical Islam continues its anti-western jihad unabated. The Christian west everywhere standing and doing nothing as civilization is dismantled. It is a very apt and powerful symbol.

There was a day when the very approach of a threatening stranger to the altar would have been greeted with a rush of angry Catholics eager to defend the bishop. To lay hands on the bishop himself or any sacred item in the Church would have been to risk one's life. Three hundred years ago, if this would have happened, the bishop would have had to forcibly restrain his flock from lynching the assailant from the nearest tree.

Catholics used to take physical attacks on their faith very seriously. In 1099, the event that finally gave the Crusading army the impetus to storm Jerusalem was the rage caused by seeing the Muslim defenders of the city desecrating crosses upon its walls. This insult was too much for the Franco-Norman army to endure, and their subsequent berserker assault upon the walls led to its downfall.

In 1131, the iconoclastic heretic Peter of Bruis was burning crosses in a gigantic bonfire near St. Gilles in France. At the site of the Lord's cross being profaned, the locals were so incensed that they picked up Peter and tossed him into his own bonfire. And that was the end of that.

In 1844, when anti-Catholic "Know Nothings" went on a riot in New York City and threatened to burn down the city's Catholic Churches, Archbishop John Hughes hastily assembled a mob of rugged Irish-Catholic laymen armed with bats, chains, and all sorts of maiming instruments and had them stand shoulder to shoulder around St. Patrick Cathedral (these are the sorts of fellows that we would say "had balls" in modern parlance). Then he threatened the Mayor of New York that if one single Catholic Church was burned he would turn the city into another Moscow - a reference to how the Russians burned Moscow rather than let it fall into the hands of Napoleon's army.

I know Cardinal John O'Connor of New York was not always the best exemplar of a traditional Catholic bishop, but I will never forget his bold stand against the homosexual lobby when the latter insisted on representation at the St. Patrick's Day parade; what a contrast to Cardinal Dolan's jovial collaboration with the gay lobby and Bishop Barron's sad acquiescence to the new norm.

Old timey Catholicism was not afraid to flex its muscles when threatened with blatant thuggery. Vandalizing a church or punching a cleric was likely to get you whacked in the skull with a board or taken out behind the church and roughed up by a group of half-sober Irishmen with big faith and bigger fists. But now white-haired Q-tips stand in place and scream.

I am not saying the people who witnessed the attack are blameworthy; in the moment of confusion, you don't know if the assailant has a gun or what. Good thing he didn't though, because this congregation would have been useless. But I do think this scene of parishioners standing there helplessly yelling while the successor of the Apostles is assaulted at the altar is an apt symbol for the current impotence of the west.

In this connection, I (Pertinacious Papist) have always liked the following story about St. Louis de Montfort at Roussay:

"The sick old priest arrived at Roussay to preach a mission. He mounted the pulpit in the parish church, and after a brief prayer, began to speak. This tiny town in the west of France consisted of several dilapidated buildings, most prominent of which was this church with a rowdy bar right next door. As the preacher raised his voice, the drunkards could hear the sermon, and the parishioners could hear the raucous noise coming from the bar.

Knowing this, the denizens of the bar tried to disturb his sermon by screaming insults at the congregation and mocking them for their cleaner habits. The priest very calmly finished the sermon, gave the people his blessing and exited the church. As he left, though empty handed and alone, he walked directly into the bar. An eyewitness describes what happened next:

“Father said nothing, except with his fists. For the first time since he came to Roussay, men had a chance to see how big, and to feel how hard, those fists were. He struck them down and let them lie. He overturned tables and chairs. He smashed glasses. He walked over the bodies of stunned and sobered hoodlums, and went slowly back up the street.”

Shapiro: some excellent debate points on transgenderism and abortion

Note: I didn't say every one of his points was good. He doesn't understand the arguments against contraception. But he's got some terrific points on transgenderism, in particular.

Incarnation: why matter matters in theology

S.M. Hutchens, "Jesus Christ Come in the Flesh" (Touchstone, November 30, 2015):

If the old stories are true, what offends and angers Satan more than anything else is the act of God wherein spirit becomes incarnated.  He hated the creation of man not as a mere animal, but in no less than the image and likeness of God, who treacherously breathed the nephesh chayyah into this thing of dust.  The Serpent had his way with the first Adam in Eden, thinking to destroy him.  Most of all he hates the second Adam, that vessel of clay that has the spirit without measure, with whom he had his way at Calvary, once again thinking to destroy him, and through him all mankind.  The spirit clothed in flesh must be execrable filth to the rebellious who are in substance fastidiously pure spirit, and the Incarnation of God so inexplicable, so hateful, and so enraging, that they cannot bring themselves to confront it as reality, thus providing a way that their loyalties, and those of their followers, can be tested right through the veil of their deceit and self-representation as angels of light.  (Do not look for mere hatred of the West at the deepest spiritual stratum of Islam, but of what the West stands for in the offended mind of its Principalities.)

We can easily understand the old and rather simple heresies–Gnosticism, Docetism, and the like–where a denial was clear, but have difficulty seeing those of our own day because they are more subtle and indirect.  Classical liberal theology, for example, does not deny outright the Incarnation or the Passion or the bodily resurrection of the flesh of Jesus, but treats these as stories for those with a pre-scientific view of reality (that is, who believe they really happened), and regards these beliefs about the flesh of Christ not as referring to actual events with cosmic and eternal significance, but mere symbols of abstract virtues like hope, courage, patience and renewal.  To identify the articles of the Creed, however, as “pre-scientific” is another way of calling them false when presented as statements of historical truth. 

Likewise the egalitarians, in their preoccupation with the equality of the sexes, eliminate the cosmic and eternal significance of the sex of Christ by consistently emphasizing that it was his generic humanness and not his male humanness–that is, the actual flesh of his incarnation–that signifies, thus identifying their ideology as another Satanic attack on Jesus Christ come in the flesh.  Both egalitarianism and theological liberalism refuse to make the required positive confession of the whole truth of the reality.  The First Epistle of John tells us an actual denial is not necessary for identification of the spirit of Antichrist, only an inability or refusal to confess.  The most effective ways to do this require the assistance of religion.

If the old stories are true, what offends and angers Satan more than anything else is the act of God wherein spirit becomes incarnated.  He hated the creation of man not as a mere animal, but in no less than the image and likeness of God, who treacherously breathed the nephesh chayyah into this thing of dust.  The Serpent had his way with the first Adam in Eden, thinking to destroy him.  Most of all he hates the second Adam, that vessel of clay that has the spirit without measure, with whom he had his way at Calvary, once again thinking to destroy him, and through him all mankind.  The spirit clothed in flesh must be execrable filth to the rebellious who are in substance fastidiously pure spirit, and the Incarnation of God so inexplicable, so hateful, and so enraging, that they cannot bring themselves to confront it as reality, thus providing a way that their loyalties, and those of their followers, can be tested right through the veil of their deceit and self-representation as angels of light.  (Do not look for mere hatred of the West at the deepest spiritual stratum of Islam, but of what the West stands for in the offended mind of its Principalities.)

We can easily understand the old and rather simple heresies–Gnosticism, Docetism, and the like–where a denial was clear, but have difficulty seeing those of our own day because they are more subtle and indirect.  Classical liberal theology, for example, does not deny outright the Incarnation or the Passion or the bodily resurrection of the flesh of Jesus, but treats these as stories for those with a pre-scientific view of reality (that is, who believe they really happened), and regards these beliefs about the flesh of Christ not as referring to actual events with cosmic and eternal significance, but mere symbols of abstract virtues like hope, courage, patience and renewal.  To identify the articles of the Creed, however, as “pre-scientific” is another way of calling them false when presented as statements of historical truth.

Likewise the egalitarians, in their preoccupation with the equality of the sexes, eliminate the cosmic and eternal significance of the sex of Christ by consistently emphasizing that it was his generic humanness and not his male humanness–that is, the actual flesh of his incarnation–that signifies, thus identifying their ideology as another Satanic attack on Jesus Christ come in the flesh.  Both egalitarianism and theological liberalism refuse to make the required positive confession of the whole truth of the reality.  The First Epistle of John tells us an actual denial is not necessary for identification of the spirit of Antichrist, only an inability or refusal to confess.  The most effective ways to do this require the assistance of religion.

- See more at: http://touchstonemag.com/merecomments/2015/11/jesus-christ-flesh-2/#sthash.7OouvMvS.dpuf

If the old stories are true, what offends and angers Satan more than anything else is the act of God wherein spirit becomes incarnated.  He hated the creation of man not as a mere animal, but in no less than the image and likeness of God, who treacherously breathed the nephesh chayyah into this thing of dust.  The Serpent had his way with the first Adam in Eden, thinking to destroy him.  Most of all he hates the second Adam, that vessel of clay that has the spirit without measure, with whom he had his way at Calvary, once again thinking to destroy him, and through him all mankind.  The spirit clothed in flesh must be execrable filth to the rebellious who are in substance fastidiously pure spirit, and the Incarnation of God so inexplicable, so hateful, and so enraging, that they cannot bring themselves to confront it as reality, thus providing a way that their loyalties, and those of their followers, can be tested right through the veil of their deceit and self-representation as angels of light.  (Do not look for mere hatred of the West at the deepest spiritual stratum of Islam, but of what the West stands for in the offended mind of its Principalities.)

We can easily understand the old and rather simple heresies–Gnosticism, Docetism, and the like–where a denial was clear, but have difficulty seeing those of our own day because they are more subtle and indirect.  Classical liberal theology, for example, does not deny outright the Incarnation or the Passion or the bodily resurrection of the flesh of Jesus, but treats these as stories for those with a pre-scientific view of reality (that is, who believe they really happened), and regards these beliefs about the flesh of Christ not as referring to actual events with cosmic and eternal significance, but mere symbols of abstract virtues like hope, courage, patience and renewal.  To identify the articles of the Creed, however, as “pre-scientific” is another way of calling them false when presented as statements of historical truth.

Likewise the egalitarians, in their preoccupation with the equality of the sexes, eliminate the cosmic and eternal significance of the sex of Christ by consistently emphasizing that it was his generic humanness and not his male humanness–that is, the actual flesh of his incarnation–that signifies, thus identifying their ideology as another Satanic attack on Jesus Christ come in the flesh.  Both egalitarianism and theological liberalism refuse to make the required positive confession of the whole truth of the reality.  The First Epistle of John tells us an actual denial is not necessary for identification of the spirit of Antichrist, only an inability or refusal to confess.  The most effective ways to do this require the assistance of religion.

- See more at: http://touchstonemag.com/merecomments/2015/11/jesus-christ-flesh-2/#sthash.7OouvMvS.dpufIf the old stories are true, what offends and angers Satan more than anything else is the act of God wherein spirit becomes incarnated.  He hated the creation of man not as a mere animal, but in no less than the image and likeness of God, who treacherously breathed the nephesh chayyah into this thing of dust.  The Serpent had his way with the first Adam in Eden, thinking to destroy him.  Most of all he hates the second Adam, that vessel of clay that has the spirit without measure, with whom he had his way at Calvary, once again thinking to destroy him, and through him all mankind.  The spirit clothed in flesh must be execrable filth to the rebellious who are in substance fastidiously pure spirit, and the Incarnation of God so inexplicable, so hateful, and so enraging, that they cannot bring themselves to confront it as reality, thus providing a way that their loyalties, and those of their followers, can be tested right through the veil of their deceit and self-representation as angels of light.  (Do not look for mere hatred of the West at the deepest spiritual stratum of Islam, but of what the West stands for in the offended mind of its Principalities.)

We can easily understand the old and rather simple heresies–Gnosticism, Docetism, and the like–where a denial was clear, but have difficulty seeing those of our own day because they are more subtle and indirect.  Classical liberal theology, for example, does not deny outright the Incarnation or the Passion or the bodily resurrection of the flesh of Jesus, but treats these as stories for those with a pre-scientific view of reality (that is, who believe they really happened), and regards these beliefs about the flesh of Christ not as referring to actual events with cosmic and eternal significance, but mere symbols of abstract virtues like hope, courage, patience and renewal.  To identify the articles of the Creed, however, as “pre-scientific” is another way of calling them false when presented as statements of historical truth.

Likewise the egalitarians, in their preoccupation with the equality of the sexes, eliminate the cosmic and eternal significance of the sex of Christ by consistently emphasizing that it was his generic humanness and not his male humanness–that is, the actual flesh of his incarnation–that signifies, thus identifying their ideology as another Satanic attack on Jesus Christ come in the flesh.  Both egalitarianism and theological liberalism refuse to make the required positive confession of the whole truth of the reality.  The First Epistle of John tells us an actual denial is not necessary for identification of the spirit of Antichrist, only an inability or refusal to confess.  The most effective ways to do this require the assistance of religion.

[Hat tip to JM]

Fr. Eduard Perrone on St. Joseph and spiritual virility

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" (Assumption Grotto News, March 22, 2015):

In my brief sermon for the feast of Saint Joseph this past Thursday, I quoted a few words from an old hymn to the Saint that we learnt in our Catholic school. For the life of me I could not remember the title of it on the spot. I had to look it up after Mass. I found it in the old Saint Basil Hymnal, a collection of Catholic hymns published in the 1920s. As I mentioned in my little talk, the hymn’s not a specimen of high art, but it did manage to stick (at least partially) in memory all these years. I quoted the final words of the first stanza–inaccurately, as it turned out–“Sweet Spouse of our Lady, we lean safe on thee.” The text was composed by Father Faber, a writer of considerable talent, though this may not be the finest evidence of his talents. My quotation of this hymn text was meant to point to the towering figure of Saint Joseph as a pillar of strength. One ‘leans’ on someone who lends strength. Of the many ways we may profitably invoke Saint Joseph, his moral and spiritual strengths must not be overlooked.

The kind of power exemplified in Joseph is surely of a spiritual kind. Images of the Saint usually show him to be a man with a solid physical build. That’s appropriate enough since he was a carpenter, the head of the home and a caretaker for his beloved Bride and foster Son. His physical stature however corresponded to his many virtues. Scripture laconically speaks of him as “a just man,” that is, a man who kept the Law of God in its entirety. No accident that divine providence selected him to be the spouse of the holy Mother of Christ. The fullness of virtue which Joseph possessed made him well-suited as a husband for the Virgin Mother Mary and as the father-figure for the Son of God incarnate.

As I mentioned, again in my weekday sermonette, there is in the rectory a piece of sculpture that I have often admired (reproduced [temporarily] here). It’s a single block of marble out of which the artist (unknown) chiseled out the three figures of the Holy Family, with the infant Jesus in the arms of Mary, Joseph’s body bent over them in protective shelter. That’s how I think of Saint Joseph. Strong, manly, protective. The excellence of this art lies in its portrayal of Joseph as a human, guarding shield while, at the same time, indicating his loving gentleness in the way he cares for his family. That combination of virile tenderness and dutifulness makes Saint Joseph, to my mind, the ideal patron saint for every man. (Be not offended, dear ladies. His virtues are plentiful enough for you as well.)

The sore greatly smarting the Church (and the body of civil society as well) is receding masculinity, by which I don’t mean a lesser number of men in the world, nor the banishment of the muscleman or the playboy. These latter images abound and are more often caricatures of manly men than exemplars of them. It’s the responsible, dutiful, diligent and determined man of virtue that’s vanishing from families, society and from the Church. Whenever this happens we get a parody of manliness: violent aggression, destructiveness, cool detachment and unconcern for important matters: reactions due to the absence of true manly qualities. Readily available pornography is ruining the male psyche for its many users, disabling them from becoming good men. This ever-growing problem will probably mean more troubled marriages, more misery for families, fewer dedicated priests, and more troubled men and women in the time to come.

The hymn text which almost eluded my memory says, in part, “bleak sands are all round us.” The reference to the desert sands through which Saint Joseph led the Holy Family on their flight into Egypt was surely meant. The cultural desert sands of our time call out to Saint Joseph to be a patron for our fathers, our single men and our boys, to teach them how to become “just” in the eyes of God, virtuous men and boys. God gave the perfect exemplar of all the Christian virtues in this one great Saint. His time has come for this role particularly.

In honor of Blessed Joseph and in keeping with a long-standing parish tradition we will have the Italian (actually, it’s Sicilian) dinner in the gym after the noon Mass today. Meatless fare is the tradition. All are welcome to join in the festivities. There’s no specified cost, but donations help the parish.

Fr. Perrone

10 Blog Blow-bys for Your Consideration

Quality rare gem select, from Guy Noir - Private Eye:

• Carl Olson, "Abp. Cordileone: 'Catholic schools exist to help young people attain holiness in their lives...to become saints.'" (Catholic World Report, February 9, 2015). G.N.:

  "IN SAN FRANCISCO, NO LESS!!! Read the lines about Chastity and the Handbook. Clarity .... from a Bishop....I am almost confused!! I wonder if they need any teachers!"

• Nathaniel Givens, "The LDS Church and Gay Rights" (First Things, February 10, 2015). G.N.:

  Read the comment by the guy who points out that Christans ARE anti-gay.
  
  The the subsequent comment in the box: Christians continually talk about opposition to same-sex marriage, but that is a secondary and resultant from their opposition to homosexuality itself. (But "inferior," no, and "immoral" only if indulging in their sexual desires. At least that's the Christian perspective, not one I expect nonbelievers to share). Hence speaking of 'Gay' as an identity sets them up to loose the argument, since 'gay' and homosexual activity are hard to separate.

• Ross Douthat, "Obama the Theologian" (New York Times, February 7, 2015). G.N.:

  Douthat good as usual.

• Maureen Mullarkey, "Beauty Bits & Pieces" (First Things, February 9, 2015). G.N.:

  From what patch of Heaven comes this woman dispatched to tweak the ears of 60s theologians and Millennial posers?! I don't know or care, but another great piece.

• D. G. Hart, "Humbly Separate Church and State In the Name of Christ (of course)" (Old Life, February 9, 2015). G.N.:

  Oh no! I agree with Michael Sean Winters! "I confess I am very wary of the Pope’s addressing Congress." Then again, you have to be a fool to not be!

• Anthony Esolen, "Treasure in the Basement" (The Catholic Thing, February 10, 2015). G.N.:

  Esolen cavetching again, and right. I do not oppose book-burnign in extreme cases. Extreme cases include 50 Shades of Grey and Gather In.

• "Balloons Replace Doves at the Vatican" (That the bones you have crushed may thrill, January 26, 2015). G.N.:

  Perfect

• Damian Thompson, "The march of the new political correctness" (The Spectator, February 7, 2015). G.N.:

  A nice counterpoint to the current blather.

• Carl E. Olson, "A Tale of Two Bishops" (Catholic World Report, February 9, 2015). G.N.:

  Olson says there is so much he could not share. He shares enough.

• Carl E. Olson, "More on Merton" (Catholic World Report, February 8, 2015). G.N.:

  Fr. Barron engages in so many imprudent speculations that even his fan club occasionally feels compelled to reign him in. Given their esteem for the man, that's really something. But this was, and is, necessary and helpful.

Let the Burke-haters cue up ...

Our undercover correspondent we keep on retainer in an Atlantic seaboard city that knows how to keep its secrets, Guy Noir- Private Eye, recently sent me a shivering courrier with the following telegram:

I am not always a Tony Esolen fan. He has his many moments. But I also think he can over-reach and take some overly-wide swipes. But then again, so can Voris and I really appreciate him.

So there is this piece, which I was ready to dismiss as breast-beating but is instead very on target when it comes to the gender problem in the Church. JPII may have OK'd altar girls, but that doesn't make the idea all that A-OK. Here are some very prescient reasons why...

Anthony Esolen, "More Ways to End the Vocations Crisis" (Crisis, February 5, 2015). Very good.

My recent article on the self-inflicted crisis of vocations to the Catholic priesthood engendered a lot of discussion, from which I conclude that my suspicion is correct. Many Catholics are content with strategies of suicide, because they do not really want the Church to prevail in her war against a world deranged. Since in our day the derangement is most obviously about things having to do with marriage, sex, children, the family, and those differences between men and women that are attested and variously respected by every culture that has ever existed, in every geographical area and at every stage of technological development, that means that they want the sexual revolution to change the Church rather than the Church to defeat the revolution. They are anti-missionaries, come to preach the gospel of chic hedonism. In our time, when someone says, “I don’t agree with all of the teachings of the institutional Church,” you can bet your house that the disagreement has nothing to do with three Persons in one God, but rather two persons in one bed.

Do the obvious things that will attract men. You want men? Go get them. Tell them that you need them to do the job, which is true. Set up a men’s reading group, and read real works of theology and Catholic philosophy, works that are daunting in their significance for a deadening secular world....

Let them forge friendships in the vicinity of the sacraments. Announce a monthly meeting for men, for confession, discussion, and fellowship. Make sure there is food and beer.

The hymnals have been neutered. Get rid of the neutered hymnals. If you do not have the funds to replace Worship III, Gather, Glory and Praise, and others of that ilk with real hymnals, then incorporate into your worship some of the old manly hymns of the Church militant. We have copier machines; this can be done. At least once a month, sing one of those hymns. That is not much to ask! Sing Soldiers of Christ, Arise, or Fight the Good Fight, or Rise Up, O Men of God. The women will be happy to sing these too, if truth be known.

Return all attention at Mass to the action of Christ. What good and true man wants to give his life to a coffee klatsch? And Mass is not a coffee klatsch. It is not a comfy gathering of nice people with a taste for spirituality. It is the sacrifice of Christ, reenacted by the priest in persona Christi; it is the single holiest thing in the world. When J. R. R. Tolkien was writing to his son Michael, during the dark days of the German bombing of Britain, he told him to bind his heart to the Eucharist: “Out of the darkness of my life, so much frustrated, I put before you the one great thing to love on earth: the Blessed Sacrament … There you will find romance, glory, honour, fidelity, and the true way of all your loves on earth, and more than that: Death.” Yes, Death, which on earth ends all, but whose foretaste in the Eucharist, says Tolkien, gives the dimension of depth and reality to all that we seek and love on this side of the grave.

So put the tabernacle where it belongs, in the central place of honor. Get every layman out of the sanctuary after the prayer of the faithful. Put the chair of the priest on the side. Get the singers out of the view of the aud –, I mean, the congregation. If you don’t have baritones, find one.

Semper fidelis. If you are teaching in RCIA, and you do not warmly embrace the doctrines of the Church, moral and theological, then you need to do plenty of praying on account of your confusion, and you should recuse yourself immediately....

You have to remember what boys are. If your worldly business depended for its survival upon attracting them, you would not be so foolish as to dismiss what your eyes tell you, not to mention the entire human race. You would say, “Since this is the job to be done, these are some clear measures to take.” Take them. The Lord who chose twelve men to be His apostles, and knew how to do it, will bless you.

Huzzah!! Read the whole article! There's even more that's better!

Post-Epiphany blues, Cardinal Burke, pornography, and the recovery of a healthy masculintity in the Church

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" [Temporary link] (Assumption Grotto News, January 18, 2015):

Are you suffering from those proverbial post-Epiphany blues? Well, that may not be the name of the malady but it’s a common experience. After the excitement of the Christmas season we’ve had to resume the humdrum of life, though many of you may do this with greater equanimity than your less temperate pastor. The duties of every day, the far-away distance of fulfilling goals, the length of winter with its often dreary skies can leave one in a rather sour mood. There is a spiritual lesson hidden in this, as there is in so much else of life. We are ordinarily perfected by the regularity of life, by the faithful fulfillment of our daily duties, uneventful as they often seem. Recall the commendatory words our Lord directed to the dutiful, “Well done, good and faithful servant, since you have been faithful in small matters you will be awarded greater.” And so: patience, forbearance. Better days inevitably come. This can be said confidently by the virtue of hope.

Cardinal Raymond Burke has apparently been under fire for restating what would be considered, in a more sane age, ordinary Catholic teaching. His Eminence seems not to notice or care about the reaction to what he says. He speaks the truth as his high office and calling demand of him, though many of his peers, sad to say, do not follow his example. Recently he voiced his concern over the feminization of the Church, an undue emphasis on so called women’s issues, to the detriment of the men of the Church. The Cardinal cited the neglected issues of concern as the importance of fatherhood, the masculine character of the priesthood, virility in general, and a man’s self-sacrificial devotion to work for the sake of the family. The outcome of the eclipsing of the masculine presence and manner of conduct is that children now often suffer growing up without that sense of stability, responsibility and discipline which are–no matter how poorly exemplified in practice–characteristic of the husband-father of a home and communicated through him. (The corresponding aggressive assertiveness of women has further exacerbated the diminishing manliness.) This remaking of the male may not be noticed, masked by the apparent brutish power of ubiquitous pornography which can seem so manly but which is actually a pitiful weakness. Manly character is essentially something spiritual, though it may also be manifest in the body. It takes fortitude to be a good man (and, of course, the same virtue, manifest in different ways, is needed for good women as well). Clear Catholic teaching and upright Christian living produces healthy people, psychologically speaking. I know that the contrary is being asserted over and over again, but falsehood does not become true by repetition. “The culture in which we live is bankrupt and young men, especially, recognize the brokeness of the culture... We have to be very clear with men about purity, chastity, modesty and even the way men dress and present themselves...in a way that is respectful to themselves, to women and children.” Needless to comment that such frank talk bristles those who have compromised their sexual identities or evaded the duties inherent in them.

Cardinal Burke is also convinced that the way Mass is celebrated reflects (I might add, in a somewhat mysterious, subliminal way) the basic psychological reality of our human constitution, as men and women. And so it is that men often drop out from the ‘burb Masses of good feeling and sentimentality. Not only do real men resent them but well-adjusted women do as well.

Whether it is the effect or the cause, I don’t know, but porn is a real nemesis with which we must contend today. Whatever its more essential evils (mortal sin, damnation for the unrepentant, the ruination of marriages, etc.), produces sissies. It weakens, enfeebles manliness and reviles true womanliness. Again the Cardinal: “We are so blessed God gave us this gift of being a man or being a woman. It’s a matter of us to respond to God’s will to develop our gifts of being a man or a woman.”

Wimpy translators of papal tweets?

The underground correspondent we keep on retainer in an Atlantic seaboard city that knows how to keep its secrets, Guy Noir - Private Eye, also sent us the following disturbingly-amusing remarks today: "I am sorry, but I laughed. But there was this comment too:

'You should look at the latin versions of the pope’s tweets. They are much more interesting. Other than the whole Mary thing, I’m beginning to think a big part of the problem with the Vatican in English is the wimpy translators.'"

The piece that provoked Noir was a post by the Evangelical blogger, Doug Wilson, entitled "As Gay As a Pope Tweet" (Blog & Mablog, December 8, 2014):

One of our central problems today is that Christian men have been maneuvered (and/or bludgeoned) into thinking that ungodly and sentimental softness is a biblical virtue.... It comes down to a “softer than thou” sort of posturing. The corruptions of feminism have gotten into everything .... The end result is that evangelical men, taking one thing with another, are gayer than a pope tweet.

And lest this seem like a random insult — instead of an incredibly apt metaphor — let me just say that Pope Francis (@Pontifex) takes sentimentalist sap to new and majestic heights. “Advent begins a new journey. May Mary, our Mother, be our guide.” “Advent increases our hope, a hope which does not disappoint. The Lord never lets us down.” “There is so much noise in the world! May we learn to be silent in our hearts and before God.”

It didn’t always used to be this way. It almost makes one yearn for the days of the badass popes. For example, Pope Urban VI ordered the torture and execution of five of his cardinals, responding to their screams with his taunt of “weak old women!” That also would be a bad hash tag, but at least it wouldn’t be so insipid and boring . . . okay then, all right. I changed my mind. I am prepared to grant the effeminate Francis is an improvement, but still . . .
#DeathByBromide.

But I got distracted from the point anyhow. The problem we are discussing is evangelical men who do not know what gentleness is. They do not know what men are for. They do not understand how tenderness is supposed to work....

Thence, he launches into a Bible study of the virtues of masculine gentleness and tenderness and how those virtues equip a man for war. Interesting.

It may be that the author fails to understand that Marian piety, among other things, wasn't historically regarded in the Catholic tradition as something the least bit effeminate or wimpy. Then again, I've often personally found some of the papal prayer intentions regularly communicated throughout the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, as well as Francis, rather banal-sounding. Maybe that's one reason I enjoy the absence of "General Intercessions" or what the English call "Bidding Prayers" in the usus antiquior. I certainly get the #DeathByBromide bit. We could all use a bit more "masculine" clarity in religion and less sentimentalism.

[Hat tip to G.N.]

"The Bishops and the Catholic 'man-crisis'"

Matthew James Christoff, "The Bishops and the Catholic 'man-crisis'" (CWR, December 15, 2014). "The Extraordinary Synod held in October failed to adequately mention, address, and encourage two groups of Catholics.... Shocking Omission 1: Men; Shocking Omission 2: Intact Families."

Is Catholic culture feminine? Is Evangelical culture masculine?

Upon reading Mark Shea's "Masculine and Feminine, Evangelical and Catholic" (NCR, December 11, 2014), Guy Noir immediately picked up his sharpened quill and wrote:

Heaven help me, but this piece by Mark Shea is actually very good. Even if I still find him to be a jackass.

Also, I think it ignores a rather key factor, and that is Scripture, in its presentation of prayer, certainly seems to favor a masculine approach. That does not mean Marian prayer is thus anti-scriptural, but it does mean the gender classification, though interesting, may be somewhat artificial. I think Fulton Sheen and JPII's prayers seem Marian and rather masculine. The other element he plays fast and loose with is this: Catholics do not worship Mary, but we pray to her. Essentially. For Protestants, that is basically the same thing as worship. Lastly, if Catholic culture is feminine, we would have to ask, "Why?!" Especially given an all male priesthood. If its focus is Christ, and not Mary, and we pray to God the Father, and the priests are all male, how on earth could it be construed as a feminine spirituality?

Meanwhile, given I still think the piece is pretty good, does this mean I might have found Louis Bouyer a jackass?! I hope not! I mean, he was French. I cannot imagine him not finding Shea painfully bourgeoise. I have no room to talk, but still, I laugh ...

"Men will completely disappear from Church by 2028"

Aaron Taylor, "Fatherless Churches" (First Things):

Almost fifty years ago, when the Catholic Church unveiled its new rite of Mass in the Sistine Chapel, Cardinal John Heenan, then Archbishop of Westminster, remarked that if the Church used the new liturgy in ordinary parishes it would “soon be left with a congregation mostly of women and children.” In 1967, Heenan could proudly assert that in his country “not only women and children but also fathers of families and young men” regularly attended Mass.

Whether or not the liturgy played any role in subsequent patterns of church attendance, Heenan’s predictions have come true, and the drop in male church attendance has not been confined to the Catholic Church. Extensive research on English churchgoing habits, for example, shows that 65 percent of the average church congregation is made up of women and 35 percent of men, with the gap widening. In 1980, congregations were 57 percent female and 43 percent male, and since 1990, almost half of men under 30 have left the Church. If the current rate of loss continues, men will completely disappear from the Church by 2028.

[Hat tip to G.N.]

"The Devirilization of the Liturgy in the Novus Ordo Mass "

Midnight Mass, 1916
Fort Douaumont, Verdun (France)
Fr. Richard G. Cipolla, Ph.D., D. (Oxon.), "The Devirilization of the Liturgy in the Novus Ordo Mass [Exclusive article]" (Rorate Caeli, June 26, 2013) -- [This is a long and scholarly article, well-worth reading. Click on the "Read more" link at the bottom of the post to access the whole article.]:

The correspondence between Cardinal Heenan of Westminster and Evelyn Waugh before the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass is well known, in which Waugh issues a crie de coeur about the post-Conciliar liturgy and finds a sympathetic, if ineffectual, ear in the Cardinal.[1] What is not as well known is Cardinal Heenan’s comment to the Synod of Bishops in Rome after the experimental Mass, Missa Normativa, was presented for the first time in 1967 to a select number of bishops. This essay was inspired by the following words of Cardinal Heenan to the assembled bishops:

At home, it is not only women and children but also fathers of families and young men who come regularly to Mass. If we were to offer them the kind of ceremony we saw yesterday we would soon be left with a congregation of women and children.[2]

What the Cardinal was referring to lies at the very heart of the Novus Ordo form of the Roman Mass and the attendant and deep problems that have afflicted the Church since the imposition of the Novus Ordo form on the Church in 1970.[3] One might be tempted to crystallize what Cardinal Heenan experienced as the feminization of the Liturgy. But this term would be inadequate and ultimately misleading. For there is a real Marian aspect of the Liturgy that is therefore feminine. The Liturgy bears the Word of God, the Liturgy brings forth the Body of the Word to be worshipped and given as Food. A better terminology might be that in the Novus Ordo rite of Mass the Liturgy has been effeminized. There is a famous passage in Caesar’s De bello Gallico where he explains why the Belgae tribe were such good soldiers. He attributes this to their lack of contact with the centers of culture like the cities. Caesar believed that such contact contributes ad effeminandos animos, to the effeminizing of their spirits.[4] But when one talks about the effeminization of the Liturgy one risks being misunderstood as devaluing what it means to be a woman, womanhood itself. Without adopting Caesar’s rather macho view of the effects of culture on soldiers, one certainly can speak of a devirilization of the soldier that saps his strength and resolve to do what a soldier has to do. It is not a put-down of the feminine. It rather describes the weakening of what it means to be a man.

This is the term, devirilization, that I want to use to describe what Cardinal Heenan saw that day in 1967 at the first celebration of the experimental Mass.[5] In its Novus Ordo form, what Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio: Summorum Pontificum somewhat cumbersomely, if understandably, calls the Ordinary Form of the Roman rite, the Liturgy has been devirilized. One must recall the meaning of the word, vir, in Latin. Both vir and homo mean “man”, but it is vir alone that has the connotation of the man-hero and is the word that is often used for “husband”. The Aeneid begins with the famous words: arma virumque cano. (“I sing of arms and the man-hero.”) What Cardinal Heenan presciently and correctly saw in 1967 was the virtual elimination of the virile nature of the Liturgy, the replacement of masculine objectivity, necessary for the public worship of the Church, with softness, sentimentality and personalization centered on the motherly person of the priest.

... On one of my many stays in Italy I noticed that many of the baby strollers were built such that the baby sat in his seat and faced his mother who was pushing the stroller. This seemed strange to me, since in the United States the baby faces the same way as the mother who is pushing the stroller. When I asked a friend about this she told me that too many Italian mothers want to keep constant eye contact with the baby and to be able to smile at the child, talk in baby talk, to make sure the bond is always there between mother and child. The classic mother-child relationship is heightened almost in a perverse way by this perceived need of the mother to constantly engage her child face to face lest contact with the outside word, with “the other” will damage the relationship.

Without pretending that the above analogy is exact or complete, I would assert that the radical innovation, never mandated by the Council or by any liturgical book, of celebrating Mass with the priest facing the people, has transformed the priest’s role at the Mass from the father who leads his people to offer Sacrifice to the Father, to the mother whose eye contact and liturgical patter- banter with the people and whose sometimes deliberately silly behavior, as if the people are infants, reduces his role as priest to that of the mother of an infant. This reduction of the congregation to infants who are forced to look at the mother-priest prevents them from seeing beyond him to God who is being worshipped in the presence of the cosmic sacrifice of Christ.

... Before turning to the important question of the continuity of the Novus Ordo rite with the traditional Roman rite from the viewpoint of the devirilization of the liturgy, I want to offer comments on two practical results of the devirilization of the liturgy and of the priest. The first is this: the music that the Novus Ordo has produced, both for Mass settings and songs to be sung at the liturgy, is at best functional, at worst sentimental junk that makes the old Protestant evangelical hymns sound like Bach chorales. When Mass is reduced to a self-referential assembly, then music becomes merely functional at best, at worst something to rouse the feelings of the people. This functionalism is a mark of the chilling, outdated and anti-liturgical stance of the liturgical establishment that still controls much of the liturgical life of the Church in the Roman dicasteries, in seminaries, in dioceses and therefore in parishes.[15]
Read more >>

God and gender

A concise resume by Taylor Marshall, "Why God is Father, not Mother" (Canterbury Tales, June 17, 2013).

400 men, standing ovation for Voris at "Testosterone Central" in MN

Every month, several hundred Catholic men gather for an evening of "Muscular Catholicism" at the Argument of the Month Club, the Men's Forum for Catholic Apologetics, in Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN. The convocation may evoke congeries of ancient Scandinavian tribal Folkmoot gatherings of meaty Conan-the-Barbarian-type blond beasts emerging from saunas and sweat lodges amidst a cacophony of Shreckish grunts, but the facts are a bit more heart-warming. Have a look:


According to the above-linked website, whose feature article carries the banner: "Standing Ovation for Michael Voris on Tuesday, January 10th!":

Once again Michael Voris packed the AOTM hall with men ready to hear how to fight for the soul of Catholicism! He came out swinging and pulled no punches. His message was clear and spoken with passion for the Truth. That message of truth was received with a standing ovation! Four Hundred men standing and cheering for the Truth!

Related

• "Masculinity and Catholicism" (January 17, 2012)
  
  
• "Catholic Men and the Church" (January 18, 2012)

'Mother,' 'Father' Changing to 'Parent One,' 'Parent Two' on Passport Applications

Here we go again, from the same people who brought you plural third person pronouns as substitutes for third person singular (gasp!) masculine nouns.

I used to teach Japanese business executives English in Tokyo. I used to wonder what went through their minds when they read wrenchingly illogical American convolutions such as: "If ANYONE needs to use the men's room, THEY can find it at the end of the hall." And now we have the iniquitous folly of "Parent One" and "Parent Two." While they're at it, why not add "Three" and "Four"? And replace "Son" and "Daughter" with "Child One" and "Child Two"?

Would anyone like to hazard a guess what's really behind this desire to neuter language? And please don't anyone be so boorish as to say "the civil rights of gays"!

Totalitarian lesbiocracy?

Thomas F. Bertonneau, "World Without Men: The Forgotten Novel of Totalitarian Lesbiocracy by Charles Eric Maine" (The Brussels Journal, August 17, 2010):

The blurb on the thirty-five cent Ace paperback likens Charles Eric Maine’s 1958 novel World Without Men to George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Ordinarily – and in consideration of the genre and the lurid cover – one would regard such a comparison skeptically. Nevertheless, while not rising to the artistic level of the Orwell and Huxley masterpieces, World without Men merits being rescued from the large catalogue of 1950s paperback throwaways, not least because of Maine’s vision of an ideological dystopia is based on criticism, not of socialism or communism per se nor of technocracy per se, but rather of feminism. Maine saw in the nascent feminism of his day (the immediate postwar period) a dehumanizing and destructive force, tending towards totalitarianism, which had the potential to deform society in radical, unnatural ways. Maine grasped that feminism – the dogmatic delusion that women are morally and intellectually superior to men – derived its fundamental premises from hatred of, not respect for, the natural order; he grasped also that feminism entailed a fantastic rebellion against sexual dimorphism, which therefore also entailed a total rejection of inherited morality.

* * * * * * *
The crumbling Ace paperback of Maine’s novel from which I quote contains a Publisher’s Postscript. It reads in part as follows: “While the manuscript of WORLD WITHOUT MEN was being prepared for publication, the staff of Ace books were startled to see… a story in the New York Times, for Oct. 16, 1957. This told of the announcement at a meeting of a ‘planned parenthood’ society of advanced work on a ‘synthetic steroid tablet’ to be taken orally to create a limited period of sterility.” According to the Postscript, this story and one other “unexpectedly underline the credibility of Charles Eric Maine’s novel.” About Maine himself, information remains scarce. Charles Eric Maine was the penname of David McIlwain (1921 – 1981), who served in the Royal Air Force in World War Two and became a writer after the war. He seems to have published fourteen novels, most of them, to judge by their titles, in the science fiction genre. (Apart from World Without Men I have read none of them.) An early effort, Spaceways (1953) became a film under the same name the year after its publication.

[Hat tip to F.R.]

Inagoddada Godself

"For God so loved the world, that God gave God's only Child that whosoever should believe in God should not perish but have Inagoddadavidababy Godspell Godself."

This perversion of John 3:16 sometimes comes to mind when I hear the gender-bender utterances that sometimes pass for politically correct theological language these days. The ugliness of it is enough to make one's head explode: "Enough already!" That is precisely what seems to have happened to Gilbert Meilaender in an article last year entitled "Enough of God" (Touchstone, May 2007). The article, which is not available online, carries the subtitle: "Gilbert Meilaender on Losing Him in Translation." Losing HIM indeed. Here are some excerpts:

Recently I had occasion to read again portions of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Discipleship. It is known to many English readers as The Cost of Discipleship, the title of an earlier English translation published by Macmillan. But as volume four of the English Edition of Bonhoeffer's Works now being published by Fortress Press, it is simply Discipleship (translating Bonhoeffer's German title, Nachfolge).

That is all well and good, and the English edition of the Works contains useful introductions, footnotes, and bibliographies -- each of which helps readers more fully to understand the text. In this way the scholarly life makes progress.

The Progressive Limit

For human beings, though, progress seldom moves in a straight line and is seldom divorced from the unfortunate limits of a particular age. And, as I read along in Discipleship, I was struck by a certain kind of limit -- indeed, a limit that appears precisely where the editors and translators no doubt assume themselves to be most progressive. Moreover, this particular defect results in ugliness. Let me illustrate.

Here are just a few sentences from the new translation in the English edition of the Works:

God once created Adam in God's own image. In Adam, God sought to observe this image with joy, as the culmination of God's creation, "and indeed, it was very good." In Adam, God recognized the divine self.

Here are those sentences in the earlier translation, published by Macmillan in 1963:

When the world began, God created Adam in his own image, as the climax of his creation. He wanted to have the joy of beholding in Adam the reflection of himself. "And behold, it was very good." God saw himself in Adam.

Now, imagine reading page after page of Discipleship, translated in the style of the first of these translations. After a while one just wants to say, "Enough of God -- nbo more please." To be clear, the issue I raise here is not accuracy of translation. The issue is, first of all, ugliness.

Suppose we talked and wrote this way not just about God but also about others. "Ugly" would be too weak a word to describe the product. Consider the following sentences from a scholar who is a master of English prose. In his biography of St. Augustine, Peter Brown writes:

The emotional tone of the Confessions strikes any modern reader. The book owes its lasting appeal to the way in which Augustine, in his middle-=age, had dared to open himself up to the feelings of his youth. Yet, such a tone was not inevitable. Augustine's intense awareness of the vital role of 'feeling' in his past life had come to grown upon him.

Suppose we wrote of Augustine the way Bonhoeffer's translators write of God.

The emotional tone of the Confessions strikes any modern reader. The book owes its lasting appeal to the way in which Augustine, in Augustine's middle-age, had dared to open up Augstine's self to the feelings of Augustine's youth. Yet, such a tone was not inevitable. Augustine's intense awareness of the vital role of 'feeling' in Augustine's past life had come to grow upon Augustine.

And then imagine reading Peter Brown's entire biography written in such a style. Few would want to endure it. Yet, theologians and preachers now routinely subject us to such prose when speaking of God. If they are not read, who shall we blame?

Meilaender goes on to discuss the argument that such language not be extended horizontally to our fellow creatures, but be reserved for God. However, he describes the nearly lost capacity of contemporaries to distinguish between characterizing God as male and speaking of God as masculine -- making a hash of the Lord's relation to Israel as the lover who woos her and the husband who remains faithful to her, not to mention Christ's relationship to the Church as her Bridegroom.

The idiocy of this Gnostic attempt to get behind the revealed language and images for God and get at some deeper reality is that it ends up offering a repulsive, grotesquely etiolated, hideous deformity instead.

Meilander concludes that our best hope may lie where he began -- in aesthetics: "The sheer unnatural ugliness of gender-free language about God means that considerable effort is needed to socialize us into such patterns of speech. Perhaps Beauty may come to the aid of Truth."

Well, I see what he means; but I'm not counting on it. Whether one considers clothing fashions, church architecture, popular music, cinema, or what passes for art these days, the signs seem to point in the other direction: the love affair of post-modernity with ugliness. Still, that doesn't prevent traditional forms from retaining their objective qualities of beauty or prevent us, who can, from enjoying them.

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever should believe in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

[Acknowledgement: Gilbert Meilaender, "Enough of God," is published in the print edition of Touchstone (May 2007), pp. 12-14. Hat tip to E.E.]