December 16, 2018, 09:34:20 PM

News:

He who labors as he prays lifts his heart to God with his hands. --St. Benedict of Nursia


Recent Posts

Pages1 2 3 ... 10
1
General Discussion / Happy feast of St. Cecilia!
Last post by Geremia - November 22, 2018, 05:57:03 AM
Happy feast of St. Cecilia (and Valerian), the first incorruptible, the only married virgin martyr Fr. Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., lists in his commentary on 1 Cor. 7:5, and the patroness of sacred music (cf. Philharmonia Baroque's Scarlatti Cecilian Vespers, esp. the antiphon Cantantibus organis, which she sung in her heart while marrying Valerian)!

QuoteCantántibus organis, Cæcília virgo in corde suo soli Dómino decantábat, dicens: Fiat, Dómine, cor meum et corpus meum immaculátum, ut non confúndar.
Also from matins today, lectio 4:
QuoteCæcília, Virgo Romana, nobili genere nata, a prima ætate christianæ fidei præceptis instituta, virginitátem suam Deo vovit. Sed, cum póstea, contra suam voluntátem, data esset in matrimónium Valeriáno, prima nuptiárum nocte hunc cum eo sermónem hábuit: Ego, Valeriane, in Angeli tutela sum, qui virginitátem meam custódit; quare ne quid in me committas, quo ira Dei in te concitétur. Quibus verbis commótus Valerianus, illam attingere non est ausus; quin étiam addidit se in Christum crediturum, si eum Angelum vidéret. Cui Cæcília cum sine baptismo negaret id fíeri posse, incénsus cupiditate vidéndi Angelum, se baptizari velle respóndit. Quare hortatu Vírginis ad Urbanum Papam, qui propter persecutiónem in Mártyrum sepúlcris via Appia latebat, veniens, ab eo baptizátur.
 

See also Dom Guéranger's biography of her and Maderno's beautiful sculpture Martyrdom of Saint Cecilia:


Sancta Cæcilia, ora pro nobis!
2
Anti-Modernism / Novus Ordo's eviscerated offic...
Last post by Geremia - October 27, 2018, 03:35:26 PM
QuoteThe Breviary Office of Christ the King

The hymn Te saeculorum Principem of First Vespers has had the following verses omitted:

                    The wicked mob screams out.
                    "We don't want Christ as king,"
                    While we, with shouts of joy, hail
                    Thee as the world's supreme King.
                    May the rulers of the world publicly
                    honour and extol Thee;
                    May teachers and judges reverence Thee;
                    May the laws express Thine order
                    And the arts reflect Thy beauty.
                    May kings find renown in their submission
                    and dedication to Thee.
                    Bring under Thy gentle rule our
                    country and our homes.
                    Glory be to Thee, Jesus, supreme over
                    All secular authorities;
                    And glory be to the Father and
                    The loving Spirit through endless ages.

The hymn Aeterna Imago Altissimi has been transferred from Matins to Lauds, and the following changes made. The last two lines of the second verse stated that the Father had entrusted to Christ, as His right, "absolute dominion over the peoples" (Cui iure sceptrum gentium Pater supremum credidit). This has been replaced by an admonition that we, as individuals, should willingly submit ourselves to Christ (tibi volentes subdimur qui iure cunctis imperas).

The following verses have, not surprisingly, been omitted completely:

                    To Thee, Who by right claim rule over all men,
                    We willingly submit ourselves;
                    To be subject to Thy laws
                    Means happiness for a state and its peoples.
                    Glory be to Thee, Jesus,
                    Supreme over all secular authorities;
                    And glory be to the Father and
                    The loving Spirit through endless ages.

A version of the Vexilla Regis has been abolished completely. Originally found in Lauds, some of its verses read:

                    Christ triumphantly unfurls His
                    Glorious banners everywhere;
                    Come nations of the world, and
                    On bended knee acclaim the King of kings.
                    How great is the happiness of a country
                    That rightly owns the rule of Christ and
                    Zealously carries out the commands God gave to men.
                    The plighted word keeps marriage unbroken,
                    The children grow up with virtue intact and
                    Homes where purity is found
                    Abound also in the other virtues of home life.
                    Beloved King, may the light from Thee
                    That we desire, shine on us in all its glory;
                    May the world receive the gift of peace,
                    Be subject to Thee and adore Thee.

A number of readings from Quas primas itself were included in the Office, and they explained the traditional teaching on Church and State with great clarity. They have all been removed, showing how blatantly the compilers of the new Breviary went about their task of eliminating liturgical references to the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The removal of these readings from Quas primas must certainly be seen as an affront to the memory and the teaching of Pope Pius XI, at whose behest the Office had been composed only forty years earlier, with the specific aim of reminding rulers that they are bound to give public honour and obedience to Our Lord. Could this great Pope possibly have imagined that within four decades he would have a successor who would totally mutilate the Office that he had approved so recently, and that this mutilation would have the objective of removing any suggestion that rulers are bound to give honour and obedience to Our Lord? Pope Paul VI stated explicitly to the rulers of the world that the Church asked no more of them than freedom to pursue its mission.

The thoroughness with which Archbishop Bugnini's Consilium expunged every specific expression of Our Lord's Social Kingship from the liturgy can hardly be denied. Its members did not even miss a reference to Our Lord's Social Kingship in the Good Friday liturgy. The first of the Solemn Collects, the one for the Church, read:
QuoteLet us pray, dearly beloved, for the holy Church of God: that our God and Lord may be pleased to give it peace, keep its unity and preserve it throughout the world: subjecting to it principalities and powers, and may He grant us, while we live in peace and tranquillity, grace to glorify God the Father almighty.

This prayer has been replaced by the following:
QuoteLet us pray, dear friends, for the holy Church of God throughout the World,
that God, the almighty Father guide it, and gather it together
so that we may worship him in peace and tranquillity.

Lest anyone should imagine that an undue significance has been placed upon changes in the Breviary and Missal relating to the doctrine of Christ the King, a comment by Archbishop A. Bugnini, Great Architect of the Liturgical Revolution, should prove very illuminating.
3
Catholic Resources / 1939 Dominican travel missal I...
Last post by Geremia - October 09, 2018, 01:52:52 PM
A Dominican friar recently published a reprint of a 1939 Dominican Rite travel missal! Deo gratias!
4
General Discussion / Catholic Amendments to US Cons...
Last post by Geremia - October 04, 2018, 07:23:39 AM
Quote from: afterword of Charles Coulombe's «Puritan's Empire»Blanshard declared that American Catholics had a hidden agenda to "subject" this nation to the Church's social teachings. We have seen the great outrage this brought about in U.S. Catholic circles, and the resulting dispute between Frs. John Courtney Murray [author of Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanæ] and Joseph C. Fenton regarding relations between Church and State. But Blanshard had outlined what he believed would become of the vaunted American Democracy, did the Catholics gain political power. This was a list of three amendments to the Constitution. [source] The first he called the "Christian Commonwealth Amendment:"
  • The United States [are] a Catholic Republic, and the Catholic Apostolic and Roman religion is the sole religion of the nation.
  • The authority of the Roman Catholic Church is the most exalted of all authorities; nor can it be looked upon as inferior to the power of the United States government, or in any manner dependent upon it, since the Catholic Church as such is a sovereign power.
  • Priests and members of religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church who violate the law are to be tried by an ecclesiastical court of the Roman Catholic Church, and may, only with the consent of the competent Catholic authority, be tried by the courts of the United States or the states.
  • Apostate priests or those incurring the censure of the Roman Catholic Church incurring the censure of the Roman Catholic Church cannot be employed in any teaching post or any office or employment in which they have immediate contact with the public.
  • Non-Catholic faiths are tolerated, but public ceremonies and manifestations other than those of the Roman Catholic religion will not be permitted.
  • The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
This shocker was to be followed up by the "Christian Education Amendment:"
  • American religious education belongs pre-eminently to the Roman Catholic Church, by means of a double title in the supernatural order, conferred exclusively upon her by God Himself.
  • The Roman Catholic Church has the inalienable right to supervise the entire education of her children in all educational institutions in the United States, public or private, not merely in regard to the religious instruction given in such institutions, but in regard to every other branch of learning and every regulation in so far as religion and morality are concerned.
  • Compulsory education in public schools exclusively shall be unlawful in any state of the union.
  • It shall be unlawful for any neutral or non-Catholic school to enroll any Catholic child without permission of the Church.
  • Since neutral schools are contrary to the fundamental principles of education, public schools in the United States are lawful only when both religious instruction and every other subject taught are permeated with Catholic piety.
  • The governments of the United States and of the States are permitted to operate their own schools for military and civic training without supervision by the Roman Catholic Church, provided they do not injure the rights of said Church, and provided that only the Roman Catholic Church shall have the power to impart religious instruction in such schools.
  • With due regard to special circumstances, co-education shall be unlawful in any educational institution in the United States whose students have attained the age of adolescence.
  • The governments of the United States and of the states shall encourage and assist the Roman Catholic Church by appropriate measures in the exercise of the Church's supreme mission as educator.
Then at last came the "Christian Family Amendment:"
  • The government of the United States, desirous of restoring to the institution of matrimony, which is the basis of the family, that dignity conformable to the traditions of its people, assigns as civil effects of the sacrament of matrimony all that is assigned to it by the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church.
  • No matrimonial contract in the United States that involves a Catholic can be valid unless it is in accordance with the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church.
  • Marriages of non-Catholics are subject to the civil authority of the state, but all civil laws that contradict the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church are hereby declared null and void.
  • All marriages are indissoluble, and the divorce of all persons is prohibited throughout the territory of the United States: provided that nothing herein shall affect the right of annulment and remarriage in accordance with the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church.
  • Attempted mixed marriages or unions between members of the Roman Catholic Church and non-Catholics are null and void, unless a special dispensation is obtained from the ecclesiastical authority of the Catholic Church.
  • Birth Control, or any act that deliberately frustrates the natural power to generate life, is a crime.
  • Direct abortion is murder of the innocent even when performed through motives of misguided pity when the life of a mother is gravely imperiled.
  • Sterilization of any human being is except as an infliction of grave punishment under the authority of the government for a crime committed.
This supposed "Catholic Master Plan" for America received much criticism from Catholic and non-Catholic critics of Blanshard alike. But Blanshard rightly defended it, declaring (p. 305):
Quote from: BlanshardI remember a verse from Job which is appropriate at this moment: "If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me." That is meant for Catholic liberals whose temperature has been rising while they have been reading these three amendments. As most of my readers have doubtless guessed, there is not a single original word in my entire three Catholic amendments. They are mosaics of official Catholic doctrine. Every concept, almost every line and phrase, has been plagiarized line by line from Catholic documents. The most important phrases are derived from the highest documents [sic!] of Catholicism, the encyclicals of the Popes. The provisions on education come from Pius XI's Christian Education of Youth [Divini Illius Magistri], and those on family life from his Casti Connubii, both of them accepted universally in the Catholic Church as the Bibles of present-day educational and family policy. A few provisions are taken directly from Canon Law, the recent laws of Catholic countries like Spain, and the 1929 Concordat between Mussolini and the Vatican [Lateran Treaty], all of which have been publicly approved by Catholic authorities. Only place-names and enabling clauses have been added to give the Papal principles local application. The sources are listed in the notes.
Get Charles Coulombe's excellent Puritan's Empire: A Catholic Perspective on American History here.
5
Dogma & Doctrine / Casti Connubii's condemnation ...
Last post by Geremia - September 19, 2018, 03:47:11 PM
Pope Pius XI's condemnation of onanism (contraception) in his 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii (spec. §59: "...so long as the intrinsic nature of the [marriage] act is preserved.") is a case study of Fr. Cartechini, S.J's 1951 De Valore Notarum Theologicarum p. 20 regarding ex cathedra pronouncements of morals:
QuoteDe qualificatione theologica sententiæ condemnatoriæ abusus matrimonii in encyclica "Casti Connubii": utrum sit solemnis definitio ex cathedra quod onanismus sit semper peccatum mortale. Quidam affirmabant esse dogma quia Pontifex adhibet verba satis solemnia. Certe ad solemnem definitionem requiruntur hæc elementa: quod loquatur ut supremus pastor et doctor, et quod velit adhibere supremam suam auctoritatem in pleno gradu. Quod hic loquatur ut supremus pastor et doctor patet; inquirendum restat utrum voluerit uti sua suprema auctoritate, ferendo sententiam definitivam. Sed, admisso quod non sit dogma fidei, tamen doctrina ab ea promulgata certe est infallibiliter vera ex hoc capite: quod Papa verbis solemnibus authentice significet doctrinam ex antiquis temporibus ab ordinario et universali magisterio constanter propositam ut tenendam et observandam.

Regarding the theological qualification of the condemnations against the abuses of matrimony in the encyclical Casti Connubii: whether contraception is always a mortal sin is a solemn ex cathedra definition. Some affirm it to be dogma because the Pontiff uses very solemn words. For a solemn definition, these elements are required: that he speak as supreme pastor and teacher, and that he wants to use his supreme authority in its full degree. It is clear that he speaks as supreme teacher and pastor in this encyclical; it remains to inquire whether he wanted to use his supreme authority, giving a definitive pronouncement. But, even if it is not a dogma of the faith, the doctrine he promulgated certainly is infallibly true because the Pope authoritatively and with solemn words expresses a moral doctrine that from ancient times the ordinary and universal magisterium has constantly proposed must be be held and observed.
[my translation with comparison to p. 18 of the Italian]
6
General Discussion / Boccaccio on Church's sanctity...
Last post by Geremia - September 11, 2018, 10:57:43 AM
Boccaccio (fl. 1353)--one of the greatest satirists of Italian literature, although a humanist, but whose "jibes and anecdotes at the expense of clerics did not impair his belief in the teachings of the Church" (J. Dunn)--wrote a story illustrating the sanctity of the Church despite its sinful members in his Decameron day 1, story 2:

QuoteTHE SECOND STORY

Day the First

ABRAHAM THE JEW, AT THE INSTIGATION OF JEHANNOT DE CHEVIGNÉ, GOETH TO THE COURT OF ROME AND SEEING THE DEPRAVITY OF THE CLERGY, RETURNETH TO PARIS AND THERE BECOMETH A CHRISTIAN

Pamfilo's story was in part laughed at and altogether commended by the ladies, and it being come to its end, after being diligently hearkened, the queen bade Neifile, who sat next him, ensue the ordinance of the commenced diversion by telling one[41] of her fashion. Neifile, who was distinguished no less by courteous manners than by beauty, answered blithely that she would well and began on this wise: "Pamfilo hath shown us in his story that God's benignness regardeth not our errors, when they proceed from that which is beyond our ken; and I, in mine, purpose to show you how this same benignness,--patiently suffering the defaults of those who, being especially bounden both with words and deeds to bear true witness thereof[42] yet practise the contrary,--exhibiteth unto us an infallible proof of itself, to the intent that we may, with the more constancy of mind, ensue that which we believe.

As I have heard tell, gracious ladies, there was once in Paris a great merchant and a very loyal and upright man, whose name was Jehannot de Chevigné and who was of great traffic in silks and stuffs. He had particular friendship for a very rich Jew called Abraham, who was also a merchant and a very honest and trusty man, and seeing the latter's worth and loyalty, it began to irk him sore that the soul of so worthy and discreet and good a man should go to perdition for default of faith; wherefore he fell to beseeching him on friendly wise leave the errors of the Jewish faith and turn to the Christian verity, which he might see still wax and prosper, as being holy and good, whereas his own faith, on the contrary, was manifestly on the wane and dwindling to nought. The Jew made answer that he held no faith holy or good save only the Jewish, that in this latter he was born and therein meant to live and die, nor should aught ever make him remove therefrom.

Jehannot for all that desisted not from him, but some days after returned to the attack with similar words, showing him, on rude enough wise (for that merchants for the most part can no better), for what reasons our religion is better than the Jewish; and albeit the Jew was a past master in their law, nevertheless, whether it was the great friendship he bore Jehannot that moved him or peradventure words wrought it that the Holy Ghost put into the good simple man's mouth, the latter's arguments began greatly to please him; but yet, persisting in his own belief, he would not suffer himself to be converted. Like as he abode obstinate, even so Jehannot never gave over importuning him, till at last the Jew, overcome by such continual insistence, said, 'Look you, Jehannot, thou wouldst have me become a Christian and I am disposed to do it; insomuch, indeed, that I mean, in the first place, to go to Rome and there see him who, thou sayest, is God's Vicar upon earth and consider his manners and fashions and likewise those of his chief brethren.[43] If these appear to me such that I may, by them, as well as by your words, apprehend that your faith is better than mine, even as thou hast studied to show me, I will do as I have said; and if it be not so, I will remain a Jew as I am.'

When Jehannot heard this, he was beyond measure chagrined and said in himself, 'I have lost my pains, which meseemed I had right well bestowed, thinking to have converted this man; for that, an he go to the court of Rome and see the lewd and wicked life of the clergy, not only will he never become a Christian, but, were he already a Christian, he would infallibly turn Jew again.' Then, turning to Abraham, he said to him, 'Alack, my friend, why wilt thou undertake this travail and so great a charge as it will be to thee to go from here to Rome? More by token that, both by sea and by land, the road is full of perils for a rich man such as thou art. Thinkest thou not to find here who shall give thee baptism? Or, if peradventure thou have any doubts concerning the faith which I have propounded to thee, where are there greater doctors and men more learned in the matter than are here or better able to resolve thee of that which thou wilt know or ask? Wherefore, to my thinking, this thy going is superfluous. Bethink thee that the prelates there are even such as those thou mayst have seen here, and indeed so much the better as they are nearer unto the Chief Pastor. Wherefore, an thou wilt be counselled by me, thou wilt reserve this travail unto another time against some jubilee or other, whereunto it may be I will bear thee company.' To this the Jew made answer, 'I doubt not, Jehannot, but it is as thou tellest me; but, to sum up many words in one, I am altogether determined, an thou wouldst have me do that whereof thou hast so instantly besought me, to go thither; else will I never do aught thereof.' Jehannot, seeing his determination, said, 'Go and good luck go with thee!' And inwardly assured that he would never become a Christian, when once he should have seen the court of Rome, but availing[44] nothing in the matter, he desisted.

The Jew mounted to horse and as quickliest he might betook himself to the court of Rome, he was honourably entertained of his brethren, and there abiding, without telling any the reason of his coming, he began diligently to enquire into the manners and fashions of the Pope and Cardinals and other prelates and of all the members of his court, and what with that which he himself noted, being a mighty quick-witted man, and that which he gathered from others, he found all, from the highest to the lowest, most shamefully given to the sin of lust, and that not only in the way of nature, but after the Sodomitical fashion, without any restraint of remorse or shamefastness, insomuch that the interest of courtezans and catamites was of no small avail there in obtaining any considerable thing.

Moreover, he manifestly perceived them to be universally gluttons, wine-bibbers, drunkards and slaves to their bellies, brute-beast fashion, more than to aught else after lust. And looking farther, he saw them all covetous and greedy after money, insomuch that human, nay, Christian blood, no less than things sacred, whatsoever they might be, whether pertaining to the sacrifices of the altar or to the benefices of the church, they sold and bought indifferently for a price, making a greater traffic and having more brokers thereof than folk at Paris of silks and stuffs or what not else. Manifest simony they had christened 'procuration' and gluttony 'sustentation,' as if God apprehended not,--let be the meaning of words but,--the intention of depraved minds and would suffer Himself, after the fashion of men, to be duped by the names of things. All this, together with much else which must be left unsaid, was supremely displeasing to the Jew, who was a sober and modest man, and himseeming he had seen enough, he determined to return to Paris and did so.

As soon as Jehannot knew of his return, he betook himself to him, hoping nothing less than that he should become a Christian, and they greeted each other with the utmost joy. Then, after Abraham had rested some days, Jehannot asked him how himseemed of the Holy Father and of the cardinals and others of his court. Whereto the Jew promptly answered, 'Meseemeth, God give them ill one and all! And I say this for that, if I was able to observe aright, no piety, no devoutness, no good work or example of life or otherwhat did I see there in any who was a churchman; nay, but lust, covetise, gluttony and the like and worse (if worse can be) meseemed to be there in such favour with all that I hold it for a forgingplace of things diabolical rather than divine. And as far as I can judge, meseemeth your chief pastor and consequently all the others endeavour with all diligence and all their wit and every art to bring to nought and banish from the world the Christian religion, whereas they should be its foundation and support. And for that I see that this whereafter they strive cometh not to pass, but that your religion continually increaseth and waxeth still brighter and more glorious, meseemeth I manifestly discern that the Holy Spirit is verily the foundation and support thereof, as of that which is true and holy over any other. Wherefore, whereas, aforetime I abode obdurate and insensible to thine exhortations and would not be persuaded to embrace thy faith, I now tell thee frankly that for nothing in the world would I forbear to become a Christian. Let us, then, to church and there have me baptized, according to the rite and ordinance of your holy faith.'

Jehannot, who looked for a directly contrary conclusion to this, was the joyfullest man that might be, when he heard him speak thus, and repairing with him to our Lady's Church of Paris, required the clergy there to give Abraham baptism. They, hearing that the Jew himself demanded it, straightway proceeded to baptize him, whilst Jehannot raised him from the sacred font[45] and named him Giovanni. After this, he had him thoroughly lessoned by men of great worth and learning in the tenets of our holy faith, which he speedily apprehended and thenceforward was a good man and a worthy and one of a devout life."
8
Anti-Modernism / Jews [vs. Catholics] & Abortio...
Last post by Geremia - August 27, 2018, 02:03:04 PM
Chapter Twenty-Eight [of the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit by E. Michael Jones]

Jews and Abortion

In 1967, Jewish gynecologist Bernard Nathanson was invited to a dinner party at which the ostensible topic was James Joyce. During that dinner party, Nathanson met another revolutionary Jew by the name of Lawrence Lader. Lader had been a protege and, some hinted, lover of Margaret Sanger, the recently deceased diva of the American eugenics movement. Lader talked about Joyce, but Nathanson was soon fascinated to learn Lader had just written a book on abortion, a topic even more fascinating to Nathanson than novels by Irish apostates.

Nathanson defines Lader politically rather than ethnically. Lader became involved in radical politics in New York when he went to work for Representative Vito Marcantonio, a man who was rumored to have ties with the communist party, which was largely made up of New York Jews. Lader divorced his wife and became a freelance writer (a vocation financed by the money he inherited from his father) and became an agitator for the sexual politics of Margaret Sanger shortly after his return from World War II. From the moment he met Lader, Nathanson saw him as "brewing up a revolution" and as a result he felt "a growing sense of excitement."¹

Nathanson felt that he came by his own revolutionary fervor naturally--he hints at some "Mendelian mechanism"²--because he was a Jew. Revolution, according to Nathanson, was another word for "chutzpah": "I come by my rebelliousness honestly. As a physician, I doubt that this is a quality passed on by any recognized Mendelian mechanism. But my father had it in abundance, except that in his generation and in the community in which he was brought up they called it chutzpah.''³

Because Nathanson feels "any author on abortion must submit to religious dissection,"⁴ he tells of his schooling in New York City. He went to a "fine private school with virtually 100 percent Jewish students"⁵ and he attended Hebrew School, where he developed an aversion to the Talmud.

Religious instruction in that era meant endless slogging through turgid passages of Hebrew Scripture, mindless memorization of Hebrew prayers for numerous occasions and sanctimonious lectures about the chosenness of the Jewish race.  Preoccupation with Zionism and fundraising left little energy for instruction in Hebrew or any demeaning excursions into the arcane regions of faith.⁶

Nathanson's experience in Hebrew School confirmed him in his aversion to the Talmud as a compendium of meaningless opinions which the rabbis enforced on Jews to maintain their control over them. In this he was not unlike the revolutionary Jews in Russia during its Maskilic period from 1860-1880, when the German Enlightenment destroyed the Jews' allegiance to the Talmud and created the vacuum which was filled by Jewish conversion to messianic revolutionary politics.

Once religion had been discredited in Nathanson's eyes, he had no guide in life other than his own passions. While in medical school, Nathanson had an affair, which led to a pregnancy, which he paid to have aborted. The mother of his child informed Nathanson afterward that "she had haggled down his price to $350 before the procedure." She handed him "the remaining $150"⁷ and disappeared from his life. The experience of procuring the abortion of his own child coarsened Nathanson, causing him to become cynical about what other people considered sacred--"Marriage seemed ludicrous now,"⁸--propelling him further along the road to revolutionary politics.

Nathanson arrived at the revolution via sexuality, but also via the gynecological profession, which he felt predestined to adopt because of the influence of his gynecologist father. Gynecology plus revolutionary fervor in New York in the '60s meant abortion. After having murdered his own child, Nathanson was more disposed to act on his own "natural" Jewish inclination to revolution. He was also more likely to act on the promptings of other Jewish revolutionaries. Nathanson became a crusader for abortion at the time Wilhelm Reich's face and ideas made the cover of the New York Times magazine. Before long any ob/gyn who refused to admit involement in abortion was part of a "loathsome little charade."⁹ Anger begat a desire to change the laws to conform to his behavior:

QuoteI suppose that in fury at my own impotence to aid my patients and particularly in anger at the egregious inequity in the availability of abortions, the germination of an idea began: the need to change the laws. There seemed no time for the luxury of contemplating the theoretical morality of abortion or the soundness of freedom of choice. Something simply had to be done.¹⁰

Because Nathanson considered abortion a revolutionary act and because he considered himself a revolutionary because of the fact that he was Jewish, he became, in his own words, "an enlistee in the Revolution."¹¹ In this, Nathanson was influenced by the Jew from Hibbing, Minnesota, Bob Dylan, who had procured an abortion a few years earlier. He even makes use of lyrics from a Bob Dylan song at one point--"the times they were a changin"--in describing 1967 as the revolutionary annus mirabilis in which he joined with Lader to work for the "total abolition of abortion restrictions."¹²

QuoteI was as enthusiastic and as cooperative a confederate as one could wish for in a revolutionary movement as profound as this one. Larry and I and others were to devote hundreds of hours of our free time to the cause in the coming years. I was almost yearning to be radicalized in a cause. This was 1967. The country was being racked by the Vietnam convulsion and challenges to authority seemed the order of the day, particularly in the intellectual breeding-grounds of the Northeast. Though I was forty, I believe that I secretly longed to be a part of the youth movement that was sweeping the country, demanding justice, pledging change, exalting "love." So my indignation, my rebellious nature, and an undeniable urge to "join the kids," combined to move me into the public arena.¹³

The abortion movement was part of the sexual revolution. The abortion revolution was, nonetheless, unique. It coincided with the rise to cultural prominence of American Jewry in the wake of their breaking of the Hollywood production code and the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War, when it became the opinion of the WASP state department elite that Israel was a strategic asset in America's quest to secure oil in the Mid-East. The abortion movement took on the same configuration as the revolution in Europe when Philip II contested Elizabeth over religious hegemony during the counter-reformation. Like Elizabeth's campaign to drive the Spaniards from Holland, the campaign to overturn abortion laws in New York State was largely an alliance of Protestants and Jews at war with the Catholics.

The list of groups attending a June 1970 meeting of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (later, the National Abortion Rights Actions League) bears this out. NARAL always worked toward "enlisting the Protestant and Jewish clergy"¹⁴ to provide a moral counterforce to Catholics.¹⁵

Karl Marx claimed the revolution would be run by the vanguard of the Proletariat, which he associated with the Communist Party. But former communists like David Horowitz felt Marx's real "vanguard"¹⁶ was the Jews, who had been involved in every revolutionary movement since the fall of the Temple. Although Protestants were involved, Jews were the vanguard in the abortion movement as they were the vanguard of Bolshevism in Russia and of pornography in the United States. The movement to overturn abortion laws in New York was an essentially Jewish movement that saw itself as a revolutionary force against the darkness of Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular. The movement was certainly not exclusively Jewish, but it could not have survived or succeeded without Jewish leadership. The abortion rights movement was a quintessentially Jewish revolutionary movement that mobilized the coalition of Jews and Judaizing Protestants that America inherited from the English anti-Catholic wars of the 16th century.

The ethnic configuration of the abortion movement wasn't coincidental. The ethnically ambiguous Lader was to Lenin what Nathanson was to Trotsky.  Together they carried out a crusade against Catholics. Shortly after meeting Nathanson, Lader explained his strategy of legalizing abortion by attacking Catholics. The proabortion forces had to "bring the Catholic hierarchy out where we can fight them. That's the real enemy. The biggest single obstacle to peace and decency throughout all of history."¹⁷ Nathanson, then no friend of the Church, was taken aback by the vehemence and cosmic scope of Lader's attack. Lader

Quoteheld forth on that theme through most of the drive home. It was a comprehensive and chilling indictment of the poisonous influence of Catholicism in secular affairs from its inception until the day before yesterday. I was far from an admirer of the church's role in the world chronicle, but his insistent, uncompromising recitation brought to mind the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It passed through my mind that if one had substituted "Jewish" for "Catholic," it would have been the most vicious anti-Semitic tirade imaginable.¹⁸

Lader knew "every revolution has to have its villain."¹⁹ Historically, those villains were Catholic, except in Russia, where the Czar was orthodox, the head of an officially Christian country. "It doesn't really matter whether it's a king, a dictator, or a tsar, but it has to be someone, a person, to rebel against. It's easier for the people we want to persuade to perceive it this way."²⁰ In America, Lader told Nathanson, the villain would not be Catholics, who could be divided along liberal and conservative lines, but the Catholic hierarchy, which was a "small enough group to come down on and anonymous enough so that no names ever have to be mentioned, but everybody will have a fairly good idea whom we are talking about."²¹ The strategy shocked Nathanson initially, but it soon made good sense when Nathanson remembered, "That was how Trotsky and his followers habitually referred to the Stalinists."²² When Lader brought Betty Friedan into NARAL, she brought with her the communist tactics she had learned from her youthful work with the party.  Making it seem that women, irrespective of ethnicity, supported abortion was a "brilliant tactic"²³ that corresponded to the "Popular Front" three decades earlier and showed the abortion movement's revolutionary pedigree.

The new popular front included Protestants and Jews, with women as props in televised demonstrations, attacking doctors and hospitals targeted because they were Catholic. One early victim was the Catholic ob/gyn Hugh Barber. Nathanson chose him to target because he "was a practicing Catholic who had stood adamantly against the widening psychiatric indications for action in his department."²⁴ According to Nathanson, "there has been ... no social change in American history as sweeping, as potent in American family life, or as heavily dependent upon an anti-religious bias for its success as the abortion movement."²⁵ By the late '70s, when Nathanson wrote Aborting America, he was "heartily ashamed of the use of the anti-Catholic ploy."²⁶ Nathanson implicated the Jews in this "anti-Catholic ploy" by calling it a "Shandeh jah yidden" ("scandal for the Jews").²⁷ As if admitting the ethnic nature of the struggle, Nathanson converted to Catholicism a few years after converting to the prolife position. The use of anti-Catholic bigotry to promote abortion was more than "a reincarnation of McCarthyism at its worst," it was "a keenly focused weapon, full of purpose and design."²⁸

Lader divided Catholics into liberal and conservative factions and then used the former to control and discredit the latter. The "'modern' Kennedy Catholics," who "were already using contraception," could be browbeaten into a public "prochoice" position without much effort.²⁹ Then "The stage was set ... for the use of anti-Catholicism as a political instrument and for the manipulation of Catholics themselves by splitting them and setting them against each other."³⁰ NARAL would supply the press with "fictitious polls and surveys designed to make it appear as if American Catholics were deserting the teachings of the Church and the dictates of their consciences in droves."³¹

The main public relations weapon, however, was "identifying every antiabortion figure according to his or her religious affiliation (usually Catholic)" while "studiously" refraining from any ethnic or religious identification of those who were pro-abortion.³² "Lader's own religious beliefs" were "never discussed or mentioned," but he identified Malcolm Wilson, the lieutenant governor of New York State in 1970 as "a Catholic strongly opposed to abortion."³³ "Neither I nor Assemblyman Albert Blumenthal," Nathanson continued, "was ever identified as a Jew, nor was Governor Nelson Rockefeller ever recognized as a Protestant," even though the abortion movement was disproportionately Jewish and "from the very beginning of the abortion revolution the Catholic Church and its spokesmen took a considerable role in the opposition."³⁴

Given the media's liberal bias, "it was easy to portray the church as an insensitive, authoritarian war-monger, and association with it or any of its causes as unendurably reactionary, fascistic, and ignorant."³⁵ Nathanson thinks Catholics should have pointed out the religious bigotry at the heart of this double standard; they also should have explained that the proabortion side was overwhelmingly Jewish, and, therefore, un-American because:

QuoteIn the public mind Protestant America is America. and had Protestant opposition been organized and vociferous early on, permissive abortion might have been perceived as somehow anti-American, the spawn of a cadre of wild-eyed Jewish radicals in New York City.³⁶

Instead, there was no Catholic response to the "blatantly anti-Catholic campaign."³⁷ Catholics concentrated on explaining how the fetus was a human being, as if the other side were ignorant of this fact. "There was no Catholic equivalent of the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith or the NAACP.''³⁸ The Catholic Church "confined itself decently (though as it turned out, disastrously) to the issue of abortion."³⁹ By not identifying their ethnic opponents, Catholics lost the war.

The media had no qualms in this regard and were willing to engage in a flagrant violation of the rules identifying crime by race which they had just established. The "mega-press" (Nathanson's term) collaborated because they were controlled by proabortion Jews and Protestants, who encouraged liberal Catholics like the New York Times' Anna Quindlen, eager to make it in a competitive profession. "The media," says Nathanson,

Quotediscreetly ignored the carefully crafted bigotry we were peddling. Many media people were young college-educated liberal Catholics, just the kind we had succeeded in splitting off from the faithful flock, and they were not about to disgrace their newly-won spurs as intelligentsia by embarrassing the liberals with anything as crass as an accusation of prejudice. Prejudice was something evil directed at Jews and blacks. not Catholics. But had our fulminations been anti-Semitic or anti-black there would have been the most powerful keening in the media-strong enough to have destroyed NARAL.⁴⁰

The NARAL strategy was based on chutzpah. "For sheer chutzpah it had no modern parallel."⁴¹ Nathanson calls the "Robert Byrn affair" the "most nakedly bigoted, fecklessly anti-Catholic campaign NARAL ever mounted."⁴² Byrn, a Fordham University law professor characterized by the New York Times as "a forty-year-old Roman Catholic bachelor," went before Justice Lester Holtzman to have himself declared the legal guardian of unborn children threatened with abortion.  True to the ethnic double standard, the New York Times "did not characterize Justice Holtzman as a married Jew."⁴³ When Byrn sued for an injunction against abortions in New York's municipal hospitals, Attorney General Louis Lefkowitz vowed to fight Byrn, but nothing was said about Lefkowitz's ethnic/religious status. When Nancy Stearns, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights tried to have Byrn put up $40,000 bond for each woman forced to have a child, New York Times correspondent Jane Brody, whose ethnic identity remained shrouded in mystery, "failed to describe Stearns as a single Jewess."⁴⁴ Because the Times is the national paper of record, this double standard got repeated across the country. In Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Inquirer repeatedly referred to anti-abortion crusader Martin Mullen as an "arch-conservative"⁴⁵ Roman Catholic, but never referred to Governor Milton Shapp, Mullen's opponent in Pennsylvania's abortion wars, as a pro-abortion Jew. Nathanson notes that Canada's Henry Morgenthaler used his stay in one of Hitler's concentration camps to justify his role as Canada's leading abortion provider. Morgenthaler's clinics violated Canadian law and yet "Morgenthaler ... is adored by the Canadian mega-press" even though he "is quite as devoted to malignant anti-Catholicism as our American exorcist, Lawrence Lader."⁴⁶

In 1967, at around the same time that Bernard Nathanson met Lawrence Lader and NARAL was born, abortion became legal in California. Governor Ronald Reagan signed the nation's first abortion bill into law, but the law was written by Anthony Beilenson, the Jewish representative from Beverly Hills. The ethnic dimensions of the abortion battle were, if anything, even more extreme in California than they were in New York. As in New York, the battle over abortion broke down clearly along ethnic lines. As in New York, Jews generally promoted abortion, and Catholics generally opposed it. From the moment that abortion was legalized in 1967, the abortion battle in California was largely a battle between Catholics and Jews, in much the same way that Catholics and Jews had battled each other over obscenity in the California movie industry 30 years earlier.

Notes:
  • Bernard N. Nathanson, MD with Richard N. Ostling, Aborting America (Toronto: Life Cycle Books, 1979), p. 35.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 1.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 5·
  • Ibid.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 13.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 14.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 23.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Aborting ,p. 28.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p.31.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 60.
  • Bernard Nathanson, MD, The Abortion Papers: Inisde the Abortion Mentality (New York: Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc., 1983), p. 192. Protestant minister and NARAL executive Committee Member, Jesse Lyons of the Riverside Church, assembled clerical abortion promoters, including representatives from: the National Council of Churches, YMCA, Women's Division of the United Presbyterian Church; Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Lutheran Church in America; Women's Division ofthe United Methodist Church; United Church of Christ; United Methodist church; United Presbyterian Church in the USA; Clergy Consultation Service; American Jewish Congress; American Friends Service committee; American Ethical Union, and American Baptist Convention. Interested but unable to attend: Churchwomen United; Episcopal Churchmen of the USA; Unitarian Universalist Association; Women's Federation Episcopal Church; B'nai Brith, and the American Humanist Association. Ibid.
  • David Horowitz, The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America's Future, (New York: The Free Press, 1998), p. 74.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 33.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 51.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 52.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 33.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 61.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 187.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 200.
  • Ibid.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 180.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 181.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 185.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 186.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 186, 188.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 189.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 190.
  • Ibid.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 191.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 192.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 200.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 201.
  • Ibid.
  • cf. E. Michael Jones, Slaughter of Cities.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 213.
9
Dogma & Doctrine / Re: Table of Marriage Validity...
Last post by Geremia - June 20, 2018, 03:04:47 PM
Quote from: Kephapaulos on June 07, 2018, 11:40:17 AM2)Since virginity is more meritorious than married state ..., does that mean a married person can never reach the same highest potential level of merit in heaven itself as the highest potential level of merit in heaven for a celibate person or consecrated virgin?
No, they can. See Summa Theologica II-II q. 152 a. 4 ad 2:
QuoteThough virginity is better than conjugal continence, a married person may be better than a virgin for two reasons. First, on the part of chastity itself; if to wit, the married person is more prepared in mind to observe virginity, if it should be expedient, than the one who is actually a virgin. Hence Augustine (De Bono Conjug. xxii) charges the virgin to say: "I am no better than Abraham, although the chastity of celibacy is better than the chastity of marriage." Further on he gives the reason for this: "For what I do now, he would have done better, if it were fitting for him to do it then; and what they did I would even do now if it behooved me now to do it." Secondly, because perhaps the person who is not a virgin has some more excellent virtue. Wherefore Augustine says (De Virgin. xliv): "Whence does a virgin know the things that belong to the Lord, however solicitous she be about them, if perchance on account of some mental fault she be not yet ripe for martyrdom, whereas this woman to whom she delighted in preferring herself is already able to drink the chalice of the Lord?"
Our perfection consists chiefly in our degree of charity (cf. Theology of Christian Perfection by Royo Marín, O.P.). Marriage is a means toward this end, and continence/virginity/celibacy is a better, safer, more effective means toward this end.

Quote from: Kephapaulos on June 07, 2018, 11:40:17 AM(or the sacrament of Matrimony as such too?)
See St. Robert in De Matrimonio p. 788:
Quotealiud est comparare statum cum statu, aliud, statum cum sacramento. Status continentiæ altior est statu Matrimonii et majoris gratiæ et meriti: Qui enim nubit, bene facit: qui non nubit, melius facit, 1. Corinth. 7. Sacramentum tamen semper auget gratiam, in quocumque statu suscipiatur. Quare continens dum Matrimonium contrahit, in gratia crescit sed si idem continens propter Deum nuptias humanas contempsisset, plus gratiæ apud Deum invenisset

it is one thing to compare a state with a state, another to compare a state with a sacrament. The state of continence is higher than the state of Matrimony and of greater grace and merit: For he who marries [i.e., "giveth his virgin in marriage"] does well: he who does not marry [i.e., "giveth her not" "in marriage"] does better, 1 Corinth. 7[:38]. But a sacrament always increases grace, in whatever state it is received. Wherefore when a continent person contracts Marriage, he grows in grace, but if this same continent person had contemned human marriage for God's sake, he would have found more grace with God
10
Dogma & Doctrine / Re: Table of Marriage Validity...
Last post by Kephapaulos - June 07, 2018, 11:40:17 AM
1)Is civil marriage valid between Catholics in only exceptional circumstances? Like political ones? Where authorized by the Catholic Church? 

2)Since virginity is more meritorious than married state (or the sacrament of Matrimony as such too?), does that mean a married person can never reach the same highest potential level of merit in heaven itself as the highest potential level of merit in heaven for a celibate person or consecrated virgin?

3)When the Scriptures speak of a man leaving father and mother to cling to his wife, does the same principle apply vice versa for women marrying?

4) Although Fr. Heribert Jone, OFM says in his Moral Theology that the wife should live wherever the husband has his job, how is it to be understood where often wives prefer to live close to their own side of the family?

5) What is a good reponse to the claim that many married couples in recent decades have had possibly invalid marriages supposedly due to immaturity, having the mentalities of seven- or eight-year olds, or not knowing what they were doing? (That is the psychological claim I see now.)
Pages1 2 3 ... 10