MAY 2008 $4.45 “Instaurare omnia in Christo” A JOURNAL OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION FORGING FATHERHOOD BISHOP FULTON SHEEN was one of the most prominent American bishops of the 20th century. He pioneered the use of mass media in spreading the Faith and his Life is Worth Living series was viewed by millions. A gifted speaker, he brought countless high-profile individuals into the Church.. Sadly, like many others, he was affected by the Second Vatican Council and its destructive aftermath. Many of his later works are tainted with modernist ideas. The vast majority of his books, however, are excellent and deserve a place on the shelves of traditional Catholics. Angelus Press is building a large selection of the best orthodox works of Bishop Sheen. We believe you will appreciate these works as many millions of Catholics have in better days. Here are the first nine fruits of this endeavor. Old Errors and New Labels The World’s First Love Bishop Sheen said in 1931, “This book is an attempt This moving portrayal of the Blessed Virgin is one of the best ever written; combining spirituality with history, philosophy and theology. Mary’s whole life is lovingly portrayed in this book that is a never failing source of information, consolation and inspiration. While considering the different phases of Mary’s life, Sheen discusses various problems common to mankind of every age and reveals clearly that every problem can be resolved by recourse to her. Fulton J. Sheen Fulton Sheen to judge contemporary ideas in the field of morals, religion, science, evolution, sociology, psychology and humanism in the light of...‘common sense.’” There is no sympathy shown for those who believe that everything that is modern is best. What is often called “modern” is only a new label for an old error, and that what is called “behind the times” is really “beyond time” and outside of fashions because it is an expression of eternal truth. 222pp, softcover, STK# 8260 $14.95 276pp, softcover, STK# 8264 $14.95 Peace of Soul Calvary and the Mass Written in 1949, Sheen offers a way for man to bring peace to his soul. He asks us to stop blaming our subconscious for all our ills and to examine instead our conscience; to turn away from the psychoanalyst and turn to God. He defines Freudianism as a revolution against the restraining influences of society. He tears the masks from the false gods of rationalized selfindulgence and misguided social reform, and explains spiritual discipline and Divine authority as means to true freedom. In this 1936 work, Sheen takes Our Lord’s seven last words from the Cross and correlates them to appropriate parts of the Mass. A fascinating book that will give you a new perspective on the Mass: 1) The Confiteor: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” 2) The Offertory: “Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.” 3) The Sanctus: “Woman, behold thy son...behold thy mother.” 4) The Consecration: “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me!” 5) The Communion: “I thirst.” 6) Ite, Missa Est: “It is finished.” 7) The Last Gospel: “Father, into Thy hands I commend my Spirit.” Fulton J. Sheen Fulton J. Sheen 280pp, softcover, STK# 8261 $14.95 71pp, softcover, STK# 8214 $8.00 Three to Get Married Characters of the Passion Sheen sets out the Church’s beautiful understanding of marriage in his trademark clear and entertaining style. He presents the causes of and solutions to common marital crises, and tells real-life stories of people whose lives were transformed through marriage. Covers practically every aspect of marriage with a view to clarifying its proper role and purpose from the standpoints of philosophy, theology and morality including the “three basic tensions in marriage.” He emphasizes that Jesus Christ is at the center of every successful marriage. Hence, THREE to Get Married. Ideal for engaged or married couples. Recognizing that modern society makes it difficult for many to maintain their faith, Sheen takes you back to Calvary where he dramatically brings to life brief but penetrating characterizations of those who played important roles in the Passion. Their stories teach us about trust, despair, egotism, power, politics, doubt, love, and repentance. To those who may be wavering in their beliefs, Sheen brings comfort and strength. To others, he reaffirms the knowledge that the true Faith is the most powerful weapon in the world today. Written in 1946. Fulton Sheen Fulton J. Sheen 216pp, softcover, STK# 8262 $9.95 94pp, softcover, STK# 8258 $9.95 Lift Up Your Heart Family Retreat DVD “The search for pleasure is a sign of emptiness which the Divine alone can fill,” says Bishop Sheen. In one of his most popular books, Sheen strikes at the heart of humanity’s universal predicament: overcoming the roadblocks to union with God. Written to help all those who struggle to ascend beyond the natural level to reach the supernatural. With clarity, Sheen provides guidance in solving the problems caused by the stress of living in our modern world. Simple, practical advice. “One of Bishop Sheen’s very best books!” –Rev. Fr. Christopher Brandler, SSPX This is the only retreat by Archbishop Fulton Sheen recorded on video. He gives 12 conferences to an audience of all ages on the following topics: ● Confession ● The Devil ● Love ● The Mass ● Making the Right Choice ● The Our Father ● Youth and Sex ● “Wasting Your Life for Christ” ● Our Lady ● Kenosis ● “Old Pots” ● The Cross. Preached before a live audience in a church toward the end of Sheen’s active life. In this moving presentation, the Archbishop speaks about topics that apply to everyone. Listen to the Archbishop as he treats, in his usual thorough, articulate and humorous manner, each of these topics. Fulton Sheen 280pp, softover, STK# 8259 $14.95 Fulton J. Sheen DVD, color, running time 6:04, STK# 8265 $19.95 T “Instaurare omnia in Christo—To restore all things in Christ.” Motto of Pope St. Pius X The ngelus A Journal of Roman Catholic Tradition 2915 Forest Avenue “To publish Catholic journals and place them in the hands of honest men is not enough. It is necessary to spread them as far as possible that they may be read by all, and especially by those whom Christian charity demands we should tear away from the poisonous sources of evil literature.” —Pope St. Pius X May 2008 Volume XXXI, Number 5 • Kansas City, Missouri 64109 English-language Editor and Publisher for the International Society of Saint Pius X letter from the editor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fr. Kenneth Novak PublisheR Fr. John Fullerton Editor Fr. Kenneth Novak Assistant Editor Mr. James Vogel operations manager Mr. Michael Sestak Editorial assistant Miss Anne Stinnett Design and Layout Mr. Simon Townshend MARKETING Mr. Christopher McCann comptroller Mr. Robert Wiemann, CPA parents and children headed for trouble . . . . 3 James A. Stenson finding the masculine genius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Dr. Anthony Esolen Piety and fatherhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Dr. Anthony Esolen how to divorce-proof your marriage . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Michael J. Rayes growth of the missions in india .Christendom . . . . . . .NEWS . . . . . . . . . . 19 Angelus Press Edition Interview with Fr. Nély from Christendom catechism of the crisis in the church . .Part . . . . . . 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Fr. Matthias Gaudron customer service Mrs. MaryAnne Hall Mr. John Rydholm Miss Rebecca Heatwole information technology consultant Mr. Cory Bosley Shipping and Handling Mr. Jon Rydholm THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT Religious Liberty and the Ordinary Magisterium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 book review: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 The Mass by Fr. Joseph Dunney Mr. Anthony Cornwell he said, she said “What ’cha Thinkin’?” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Hammond requiem for common sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Fr. Yves de la Roux Questions and answers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Fr. Peter Scott The Angelus (ISSN 10735003) is published monthly under the patronage of St. Pius X and Mary, Queen of Angels. Publication office is located at 2915 Forest Ave., Kansas City, MO 64109. PH (816) 753-3150; FAX (816) 753-3557. Periodicals Postage Rates paid at Kansas City, MO. ©2008 by Angelus Press. Manuscripts are welcome and will be used at the discretion of the editors. Postmaster sends address changes to the address above. march 2008 writing contest winning entry . . . . . 43 The Angelus Monthly photo writing contest . . . . 44 The Angelus Subscription Rates 1 year 2 years 3 years US $35.00 Foreign Countries (inc. Canada & Mexico) $55.00 $65.00 $105.00 $100.00 $160.00 All payments must be in US funds only. Online subscriptions: $15.00/year (the online edition is available around the 10th of the preceding month). To subscribe visit: www.angelusonline.org. Register for free to access back issues 14 months and older plus many other site features.  Letter from the Editor I want to quote to you some recent correspondence sent Angelus Press from His Excellency Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX. In reply to my question, “Which books do you think are most essential for the faithful in these days?” he gave this answer: 1) For all, their missal and their catechism. 2) For young men, books on the social kingship of Christ. 3) For young ladies, books on cooking, sewing, and how to furnish a home. As to the first, Angelus Press is covering the bases with a variety of age-appropriate missals and prayer books by which the youngest to the eldest are able to best assist at Mass. (Our latest is a vestibule give-away titled For the Visitor at Mass, for newcomers to the 1962 Latin Mass.) Ditto for choices of catechisms. As to the third, I share His Excellency’s conviction that the feminine arts need teaching and cultivation among girls and ladies of Catholic Tradition; the Latin Mass all by itself has never been a guarantor of feminine identity and beautiful Catholic womanliness for those who live a double life in contradiction to it, who listen to popular anti-culture as their spiritual advisor, confused by parents who fail to educate genuine femininity in their girls. It is in anticipation of June’s Fathers’ Day that this Angelus addresses the second directive of His Excellency, that is, to have our young men learn their necessary role in the civic order to be re-established under Christ its King. Domination of the civic order is their thing, and I’ve invited the articles of two authors to explain: Mr. James Stenson and Dr. Anthony Esolen. It’s not that the Editor approves of everything they’ve ever written (because I’m not aware of the full bodies of their work), nor am I a closet numerary of Opus Dei for publishing Mr. Stenson. Simply, what has been published here from these men is the truth. For those who have eyes to read, let them read; those who google, let them google. The point is that, antecedent to Bishop Tissier de Mallerais’s directive, any boy must know what it is to become a man if he is to locate his manhood in the society he must overhaul for Christ. In the first of the three lead articles (pp.3-7) to address the forging of men, Mr. Stenson discusses why parents and children of the “consumerist family” are headed for trouble. This is the state of the question: “What does it mean to fail in regards to my parenting and my children, and why?” Next (pp.810), Dr. Anthony Esolen looks for the “masculine genius” to rediscover manhood as manhood. Enough already, he writes, of the Oprah-talk on the “feminine genius.” Lastly (pp.11-14), Dr. Esolen treats piety and fatherhood; piety, that virtue which is to love God in the manner we love our earthly fathers. What image of God the Father does any earthly father project to his children, especially his sons? Talk to me about Christ the King and you’re talking about the hierarchy of beings, from God to angels to mankind to brute beasts to plants to rocks. The higher the being, the higher the honor and authority it has along with responsibility for those beings ordered beneath it. The authority of mankind is to be used to supernaturalize the creation beneath it, with men and women having generally different spheres to supernaturalize. Writes Dr. Esolen: For instance, though men are certainly wilder creatures than women–the source of both their dynamism and their destructiveness–it is men, not women, who create the civil order, as it is women, not men, who create the domestic order. Who wouldn’t agree that Our Lord was dynamic in his ways to the “destruction” of the petrified order and its resurrection to a new...or Archbishop Lefebvre, “wildly dangerous” as the unique episcopal threat to practical and petrifying liberalism yet the preserver of all that is “ever ancient yet ever new”? And where do we find the place of Our Lady and the other great heroines of which she is supreme? Generally, women take care of the home while men take care of Church and State. If there is some overlap of duty, it is precisely because of the distinction. A man, therefore, rules Church and State in three spheres of action. The first is that of Worship, where men lead the prayer, the music, and the sacrifice, publicly. The second sphere is Politics, which, broadly speaking, is his mandatory involvement in promoting the greatest possible good for the most people, predisposing society towards the Catholic Truth in its institutions of law, medicine, education, statesmanship, and economics. (No man is to be merely a breadwinner or ballplaying buddy for his son.) The third sphere of influence over which men must govern is the Land and its fertility, by which his brow sweats to his sanctification. All essential goods come from the land: food, clothing, and shelter. Its wealth may be processed elsewhere, but the land is always the first provider of these elemental goods. (With the US experiencing the worst food inflation in 17 years, which man among us doesn’t wish he knew more about successful gardening, or had sufficient land of his own to garden? That’s not “Gardenism”: that’s just being plain smart, gentlemen.) As Marcel de Corte and Bishop Williamson told us in The Angelus in May, common sense, repeats Fr. Yves Le Roux (p.41), is no longer common. I think that it may be too abstract for modern minds to wrap themselves around. That’s why I think the bluntness and directness of Stenson and Esolen will strike you men harder. Let’s call it common sense by bullets. Look for some of the Stenson books Angelus Press is now offering. (See inside back cover.) A priest told me that he recently asked his sixth-grade class of boys to name their heroes. One said Jesus Christ, another said Archbishop Lefebvre, others answered to impress Father with names from history. No boy answered, “My dad.” Instaurare Omnia in Christo, Fr. Kenneth Novak  Parents and children headed for trouble J a m e s B . S t e n s o n Let no head of family nor his wife be ignorant of danger signs in their parenting or in the kind of children they are forming or malforming. Clearly, something is seriously wrong in today’s society. For some reasons, large numbers of parents around us are failing to form character in their children. We look around in our workplaces and neighborhoods and see young people in their 20’s who are immature and irresolute, soft and irresponsible, uneasy about themselves and their futures. They may be technically skilled in some field and hold down decently paying jobs, but their personal lives and marriages are a wreck. In their conduct and attitudes, these young people seem permanently stuck in adolescence, that dangerous mixture of adult powers and childlike irresponsibility. Some are crippled or destroyed by substance abuse. But even if they remain drug-free (what a strange term!), many see their professional work as mere ego gratification or (an adolescent attitude) just drudgery endured for the sake of “spending money.” Great numbers of them live as heartless narcissists, caring little or nothing about their parents or their children, if they choose to have any. They retain within themselves, sometimes tragically, www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • May 2008 4 the flawed attitudes and habits of childhood. For some reason, they never quite grew up. It’s clear, certainly, that many young people like this were wounded by a childhood spent in dysfunctional families: drug and alcohol dependency, physical and sexual abuse, hopeless poverty. But what is striking today, and more to our point here, is the huge percentage of seriously troubled youths from normal families. It seems that in our society the distinction between normal and dysfunctional has blurred. Or, to put it another way, some sort of subtle dysfunction is corroding large numbers of typical, middle-class homes. We see the results of this all around us. Children today grow up in busy families where father and mother live together, life is comfortable and physically secure, everyone enjoys the bountiful pleasures of a prosperous suburban lifestyle. Yet later on in adolescence and young adulthood, their lives are ravaged by alcohol and other drugs, grievous and ongoing marital discord, childish irresponsibility, lack of ideals or even goals in life, professional aimlessness and instability, reckless pleasure pursuit, trouble with the law, shapeless self-doubt and self-loathing, even murder and suicide. Consider this disturbing fact: The suicide rate among young people in the United States is directly proportional to family income. It is kids from our wealthy and middle-income suburbs, not our poorest inner-city neighborhoods, who most often take their own lives. What is going wrong in our supposedly normal middle-class families today that could account for these problems? What is happening at home–or not happening–such that children grow older without growing up, that they arrive at adulthood without enough judgment and will and conscience to set their lives straight? Let’s approach the problem this way: Normal American families seem to fall into two broad categories. One we could call the self-absorbed consumerist family; the second is the character-forming sporting adventure family. In the self-absorbed family, parents do not set out, on purpose, to form character in their children. They treat family life like a picnic, a passive pleasurecentered experience, and their kids often meet with later trouble. In the sporting adventure family, by contrast, parents do set out to form character, and they work at this for years. As a result, their family life becomes an idealdriven adventure, a great sport, and their kids largely turn out well. Why is this? The ANgeLus • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org Let’s look at the self-absorbed family first. In the following chapters [of Compass: A Handbook on Parent Leadership], we’ll contrast it with life in the sporting adventure family–where things, it seems, are done right, where the parents direct themselves and their children with a moral compass, where character is imparted for life. Consumerist parents are self-absorbed and unconcerned with growth in character strengths (i.e., virtues), whether for themselves or their children. So they make family life mostly a steady series of pleasant diversions. Life for parents and kids centers around leisurely enjoyment, fun-filled entertainment–a seamless array of sports, abundant food and drink, TV shows, computer games, movies, music, parties, shopping. Boredom, it seems, is the consumerist family’s enemy, to be shunned at all costs. So children in families like this are kept relentlessly busy, constantly amused. The parents’ rules in the house, if any, aim mainly at damage control: keeping squabbles and hassles to a minimum, keeping the kids out of trouble, keeping the kids from wrecking the place. Consequently, in consumerist homes children are steadily apprenticed through childhood as consumers, not producers. Every day, they avidly practice living as self-absorbed enjoyers and shoppers. Not surprisingly, youngsters from such picnic-like homes see life as mostly play, a lifetime entitlement to happy amusement. The life of grown-up work (as they dimly understand it) is solely for piling up “spending money”–we work in order to spend, we produce in order to consume. Who can blame them for this life-outlook? After all, this is all they experience in family life; and, as we’ve seen, children learn character mostly from personal example and repeated experience. Sooner or later, of course, any picnic dwindles down into boredom; people get up and amble on to more alluring diversions. And the same happens in the picnic-like consumerist family. Starting in their middle-school years, an appalling number of self-absorbed kids grow bored with juvenile amusements and avidly turn to novel kinds of powerfully pleasurable sensations: alcohol, drugs, the erotic and increasingly violent rock culture, vandalism, reckless driving, recreational sex. Kids raised to see life as play will treat the automobile as a toy, and so will be prone to kill or cripple. Because their life has centered on things, they’re disposed to put things ahead of people–to treat people as objects, mere tools and toys for their use or  amusement. Related to this, they see sex as a toy, a high-powered form of recreation, and so fall headlong into promiscuity, cohabitational “relationships,” unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and disastrous marriages. This is no exaggeration. It happens literally every day. l The Consumerist Family: A Composite Picture It’s worth our while here to look more closely at the consumerist family’s typical traits. What follows below is a composite picture of those unfortunate normal homes where children are poised for later trouble. That is, if you looked back to the childhood of many troubled adolescents and young adults, as described above, what traits of their family lives would you see over and over again with striking regularity? Even with plenty of variations in detail, this is the pattern of consumerist families. Let’s look at the parents first, then the children. l Parents Headed for Trouble l Consumerist parents live divided lives. They live as producers at work but consumers at home. In fact, to their children they seem to work only in order to consume. Their home, far removed as it is from the real-life world of responsible adult achievement and ethical interpersonal dealings, is a place arrayed with entertainment gadgets, a site devoted to comfort, relaxation, and amusement. But this universe of comfortable delight is all that their children see–and for children, “seeing is believing.” This cocoon of pleasant escapism wholly envelopes children and shapes their sole experience with life. It becomes the ambiance within which they fashion their deepest attitudes and habits, indeed their whole outlook on life: “Life is all about pleasure.” l Being self-absorbed and centered mainly on the present, consumerist parents seldom think about their children’s futures–that is, what sort of men and women their children will grow up to become. Their time horizon stretches, at most, only a few months or couple of years ahead. Almost never do they picture their children as grown men and women in their late 20’s with job and family responsibilities of their own. When the parents do think of their kids’ futures, they think in terms l l of career, not character. They think of what their children will do, not what they will be. The parents seem to expect–in fact, utterly take for granted–that their children will naturally grow up OK as long as they’re kept busily amused and shielded (more or less) from outside influences. In other words, they think that adult-level ethics, conscience, and sound judgment will just gradually form in their children in a natural and unaided way, along with the children’s physical stature. When the parents think of character at all, they think it’s something to be maintained in children, not formed from scratch. The parents come down to the children’s level, as indeed all parents should–but (and here’s the point) they stay there. By their own evident devotion to a “hassle-free” existence at home, off the job, they neglect to raise their children to grown-up levels of responsible thinking and acting. They do little to prepare the children for later life and lead them toward responsible service. Indeed, their children seem to have no concept of what “adulthood” means–except for what they see in movies and TV dramas. The parents seem clueless that they have a job to do, an action to take, a change to make in their children’s minds, hearts, and wills: to strengthen each child’s conscience and character for life. Both parents give in readily to children’s wishes and “feelings,” even when they judge that this might be a mistake. Very often in family life they permit what they disapprove of. That is, they let children’s pleas and whining override their parental misgivings. The parents are moved by their children’s smiles, not their welfare, and so they will give in on many issues to avoid a confrontational “scene.” Unwittingly, through their example of giving in, these parents teach their children to let strong desires, or even whims, routinely override judgments of conscience. So the children fail to distinguish between wants and needs; to the children, wants are needs. As a result, “feelings,” not conscience, become a guide for action. (So, what happens later when the kids are tempted by the powerfully pleasurable sensations of drugs, alcohol, promiscuous sex? What is there to hold them back?) The father is a weak moral figure in the home. He does not teach right from wrong in a confident, purposeful way, and he does nothing to prepare his older children for their later lives outside the home, especially in moral matters. He defers www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • May 2008  “children’s things” to his wife. To his kids, he appears mostly as an amiable, somewhat dull figure, even a sort of older sibling. In family life, the kids see him wrapped up entirely in his own leisure activities (like watching TV, playing sports) and minor repairs. Since they never see him work, they have no idea how he earns his living, or even what this term means. Moreover, he seldom shows much outward respect and gratitude toward his wife–so she, too, seems a weak figure to the children. l Parents are minimal in the practice of religion. Though the family may attend a house of worship from time to time, even regularly, this is done as thoughtless social routine. Family life includes little or no prayer, not before meals or at any other time. So children never witness their parents living a sense of responsibility toward God or some strong internalized ethic. “God” is just a word (sometimes an expletive), not a person, certainly not a friend. In the children’s eyes, parents do not seem answerable to anyone or anything, except a relentlessly busy calendar. l Parents watch television indiscriminately and they allow “adult entertainment” into the home. Though they may restrict, more or less, their children’s access to inappropriate material, they are driving home a powerful message: “When you’re old enough, anything goes.” Consequently, to the children, the right-wrong dichotomy becomes strictly a matter of age: “Whatever’s wrong for kids is OK for grown-ups, so just wait till I turn 14!” Children Headed for Trouble l At first glance most children from consumerist homes don’t seem seriously troubled at all. Typically they’re cheery and well scrubbed, pleasant and smiling, often very active–but only for things they enjoy. They’re habituated to pleasant sensations. They like to be liked, and in fact they expect to be liked no matter what they do. Since they’re used to treating adults (including their parents) as equals, they appear naïvely lacking in respectful good manners. With some troubled exceptions here and there, they seem entirely carefree. Indeed most of them really are carefree, for now. l Children have a low tolerance for discomfort or even inconvenience. They are horrified by physical pain, however slight, or even the threat THE ANGELUS • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org l l l l l of it. They successfully plead and badger and stall their way out of unpleasant commitments and “hassles”–promises and previous agreements, music lessons, homework, chores, appointments, deadlines. Children believe that just about anything may be done for a laugh. If a prank or ridiculing remark toward someone amuses them and their peers, they blithely indulge in it no matter who gets hurt. They think their entitlement to fun must shove aside other people’s rights and feelings. Indeed, the existence of other people’s rights and feelings almost never enters their minds. Their outlook on life remains unchanged from infancy: “Me first!” Children enjoy an abundance of spending money and leisure time. As a fixed habit, they overindulge in soft drinks, sweets, and junk food. They spend countless hours wholly absorbed in electronic sensations (computer games, television, the Internet) and other types of amusement. They are generally free to consume whatever they want whenever they want it, and this they do. Kids show little or no respect for people outside the family: guests, their parents’ friends, teachers, salespeople, the elderly. They seldom, if ever, display good manners in public. Please and thank you are missing from their speech. On birthdays or holidays, children rip through a mound of presents, but they neglect to write or call to say “thank you” to relatives–and see no reason to. In some instances, children may be superficially pleasant to people (as long as this costs them nothing) but have zero concern for others’ needs or interests. Ironically, for all the parents’ efforts to provide a pleasant home, the children hold little or no respect for them. The kids view their parents as “nice,” and they’ll admit they “like” Mom and Dad most of the time. But they simply do not esteem their parents as strong, and therefore emulable, people. When asked whom they do admire, they rattle off a long list of entertainment figures, especially comedians and rock performers. Children know next to nothing about their parents’ personal histories, and nothing at all about grandparents and forebears. So they have no sense of family history and moral continuity, that is, how they are the latest in a long line of mutually loving people who struggled, often heroically, to serve each other and stick together through good times and bad.  l The children have no heroes in their lives, no real people or historical or literary figures who surpassed themselves in service to others and, by fulfilling duties, accomplished great deeds. In the absence of heroes to imitate, the kids admire and pattern themselves after coarsely freakish media “celebrities” and make-believe cartoonish figures. (As someone wise once said, “If kids have no heroes, they’ll follow after clowns.”) l Children don’t care about causing embarrassment to the family. Often they don’t even understand what that might mean, for they have no framework for grasping what’s shameful. They are unmoved by any cultivated sense of “family honor.” If children’s dress and public behavior cause shame to the parents, that’s just too bad. l Children complain and whine about situations that can’t be helped: bad weather, reasonable delays, physical discomfort, moderately heavy workloads, personality differences, and the like. Their most common word of complaint is “boring.” Since their lives at home are micromanaged rather than directed, they’re accustomed to having their problems solved by oversolicitous grownups. They’ve found through experience that if they hold out long enough, someone will eventually step in to make their troubles go away. Consequently they learn to escape problems, not solve them. They learn to shun discomfort, not endure it. l Children have no serious hobbies except television watching, computer games, surfing the Web, and listening to music (mostly rhythmic noise). Their lives seem entirely plugged in to electronic devices and they don’t know what to do without them. Their thinking is dominated by the entertainment culture; in some senses, they believe in it. They know the words to dozens of songs and commercials, but they know nothing of the Ten Commandments. l Children (even older ones and teens) tend to form opinions by impulse and vague impressions. They are scarcely ever pressed to rely on reasons and factual evidence for their judgments. Thus they’re easily swayed by flattery, emotional appeals, and peer-group pressures. They fail to recognize claptrap–as in advertising, pop culture, and politics–when they see it. They follow the crowd wherever it goes. They loosely sense that something is “cool,” but they cannot express why. l Children never ask the question “Why?” except to defy directions from rightful authority. They are intellectually dull, even inert, showing little curiosity about life outside their family-schoolplayground universe. In school, moreover, they’re often incorrigibly poor spellers and sloppy writers. That is, they are careless in work and do not take correction seriously. For them, nearly all enjoyment comes from escapist amusement, not from work well done, serious accomplishment, fulfillment of duty, serving others, or personal goals achieved through purposeful effort. If a task isn’t “fun,” they’re not interested. l Children have little sense of time. Since they hardly ever have to wait for something they want, much less earn it, they have unrealistic expectations about the time needed to complete a task. They estimate either too much or too little. Consequently, large tasks are put off too long or small jobs appear mountainous. Even older children approaching high-school age have virtually no concept of deadline or of working steadily within a self-imposed time frame. The children seem to drift along in a free-floating, everpresent now–and this state of mind continues well into adolescence and even young adulthood. l Throughout high school and college, they view school as one last fling at life, not a preparation for it. Graduation looms as a poignantly sad event, for they see the best part of life as behind them, not ahead. What lies ahead is trouble–the “hassles” (as they put it) of real-life work, responsible commitments, day-to-day routine, budgets and bills, two-week vacations, sharply diminished freedom, and a decline in their standard of living. So who looks forward to this? Who can endure it? Why grow up? As explained already, this picture of a family headed for trouble is just a composite sketch, not a comprehensive description. Certainly there are gradations among families; some families will show some of these characteristics, but not all of them. Nonetheless, over and over again, the features listed here show up in the personal histories of troubled adolescents and young adults who have come–we must stress this again–from apparently normal homes. James Stenson is a Catholic educational consultant specializing in family life and family-school relationships. He has written several books for parents and regularly gives conferences throughout the world. Article reprinted with permission from his book, Compass: A Handbook on Parent Leadership. While we believe Mr. Stenson has many good and worthwhile things to say, a word of caution: He is a supporter of Opus Dei and in this, we must disagree. (See our booklet on Opus Dei. Available from Angelus Press. Price: $3.00.) See the inside back cover of this issue of The Angelus for a few of James Stenson’s books. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • May 2008 8 findinG the Masculine Genius d r . A n t h o n y E s o l e n Men must make company with other men for the sake of the Church, of women, and for the good of the world, says this Catholic author and English professor. What does it mean to men and boys to know their masculinity. In your recent articles you have discussed masculinity and manhood. How do you see your own understanding of these differing from the way others use these terms? When a virtue falls by the wayside, when it is no longer a lived reality recognized by a community in its manifold forms, we recall only a scrap of it here or there, or we can only imagine a gaudy caricature of it. The ANgeLus • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org That, I think, is the case now for both manhood and womanhood. Many millions of boys in America, for instance, are growing up in homes without fathers, so they find “fathers” of their own on the streets or in the diseased and silly fantasies of mass entertainment, musclemen who can take down a city, or charismatic gang leaders who move caches of drugs and make exciting things happen. 9 They miss the more subtle fortitude of moral vision and farsighted self-sacrifice. Male heroes in popular literature for boys 80 or 90 years ago might be all right with a gun or a sword, but they might also be bespectacled dons like Mr. Chips, whose discipline was a form of love. I see manhood as the drive to lead–to serve by leading, or to lead by following loyally the true leadership of one’s father or priest or captain. The man exercises charity by training himself to be self-reliant in ordinary things, not out of pride, but out of a sincere desire to free others up for their own duties, and to free himself for things that are not ordinary. The man also must refuse–this is a difficult form of self-sacrifice–to allow his feelings to turn him from duty, including his duty to learn the truth and to follow it. A man loves his own family, but he also loves his family by refusing to subject the entire civil order to the welfare of his family; he understands that if he performs his duty, other families besides his own will profit by it. A man must consider his life dispensable for the sake of those he leads; he must obey his legitimate superior; if and only if he does so will he become really necessary and really worthy of the obedience he claims, with scriptural authority that need not embarrass anyone. Books on manhood, such as Wild at Heart by Christian author John Eldredge, have been gaining popularity recently. What is it about our society and Church that is making men look at new ways of understanding their manhood? Men are lonely–and they are also not universally fooled by the androgyny that is preached to them every day, in school, at church, in the workplace and in the media. Unfortunately, I don’t think they are finding “new” ways of looking at their manhood. They are finding very old ways of looking at it, or rather, they are finding a strange and finally unsatisfying version of those old ways. Really, the human race has not changed since the days of Homer and Moses; men and women have not changed. And the mysteries of manhood and womanhood have been probed in literature for thousands of years. So we need to step back a little, take a look at that literature, or take a look at what men within our own lifetimes used to do. For instance, though men are certainly wilder creatures than women–the source of both their dynamism and their destructiveness–it is men, not women, who create the civil order, as it is women, not men, who create the domestic order. Our inability to distinguish between these orders, and our neglect of both of them in the pursuit of individual “dreams,” has left us with a poor and thin domestic life, while in most places in America and probably Europe a vibrant civic life is hardly a memory. There has been a lot of discussion based upon Pope John Paul II’s discussion of “the feminine genius.” What about “the masculine genius”? Men have a passion for the truth, and they seek that truth not generally by means of the affections, but by complex structures of various sorts. These may be structures of authority or intellect, so you have the great university system invented by the friars and the student guilds in Europe, whose curriculum was often a kind of Euclidean geometry or Newtonian calculus of theological and philosophical propositions. Men fashion “grammars”–means of organizing and understanding almost impossibly disparate phenomena. Even the humble back of a baseball card, with its grid work of subtle statistics, testifies to this fascination. Without this literal “discernment,” I mean the clear separation of what may be predicated of a thing and what may not, with systematic means for judging the matter, there can be nothing so intricate as law, the government of a city, higher learning, a church–not to mention philosophy and theology. Even men who do not possess powerful intellects naturally fall in with such structures of order, and here the affections do play a vital role; men will fall in admiration of a leader, with a powerful combination of loyalty and friendship, as naturally as they will fall in love with a woman they may wish to marry. If a society does not train boys to become such men, or if it does not allow mature men to form such natural alliances with other men for the benefit of civic life, it will degenerate. I won’t claim that this is a theory. It’s a fact borne out by American and European cities right now. What could men learn from Christ, the ultimate man, in terms of developing masculinity? The first thing they could learn is not to be embarrassed by their manhood. It is holy! It has been created by God, and for a reason. Then they might notice that Jesus is not the cute boyfriend that many of our churches make him out to be, the one who never goes too far–forgive me if that is a little coarse. www.angeluspress.org The ANgeLus • May 2008 10 Jesus loves women, as all good men must; Jesus obeys his mother at Cana; but Jesus does not hang around the skirts of women; he speaks gently, but as a man speaks gently, and when he rebukes, he rebukes forthrightly and clearly, as a man. His closest comrades are men, though they are not necessarily the people he loves best in the world. He organizes them into a battalion of sacrifice. He is remarkably sparing in his praise of them; certainly, as is the case with many good and wise men, he is much more desirous that they should come to know him than that they should feel comfortable about themselves. From his apostles he seems to prefer the love that accompanies apprehension of the truth, rather than love born of his own affectionate actions toward them. In fact, they respond to him as men often respond: They admire and follow with all the greater loyalty the man who rebukes them for, of all things, being frightened when it appears their ship will capsize in the stormy Sea of Galilee! Men can learn from Jesus to seek the company of other men, at least in part for the sake of women, and certainly for the sake of the village, the nation, the Church and the world. They can learn that there are two ways at least in which man is not meant to be alone: He needs the complementary virtues of woman, and he needs other men. A soldier alone is no soldier. From your study of ancient and medieval works, such as Dante, what remedies could be applied to the many relational ills that plague society, such as high divorce rates, low birthrates and high numbers of children born out of wedlock? A good question. People can learn from both the Catholic and the Protestant literature of the past an appreciation for the wonder of the body, and of the virtue of chaste love. They can learn from Dante that the love of man and woman is a glorious motif in the symphony of love fashioned by him who moves the sun and the other stars. From Torquato Tasso and Edmund Spenser they can learn that the typical sin against love, occasioned by unchastity, does not so much stoke the flame of desire as it dampens it, making both the heart and the mind feeble, ineffectual. From Spenser they can learn that marriage is not a private matter–one of our greatest and silliest The ANgeLus • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org errors–but a deeply social bond that unites those two fascinatingly different sorts of creatures, man and woman, in such a way as to link them to the families who have gone before them and to the families that will be born from their love. If you have a view of marriage that does not include all mankind, all the natural world, the physical cosmos, heaven and earth, the dawn of time and its consummation in eternity, then your view of marriage is a cramped and hole-and-corner affair. So at least the old poets teach. Maybe the most important thing they teach, though, is the delightfulness of the good: the lovely and modest woman–Miranda in Shakespeare’s Tempest–and the brave and gentle young man–Florizel in Shakespeare’s Winter’s Tale. Our children’s imaginations now are a war zone, or what is left of fields and hills after the bombs have blasted them and the poison gas has infested them for 15 years. Even fairy tales, those deeply Christian and incarnational folk parables of the West, have been poisoned by feminist revisers. So I guess I am saying that we will cure none of those ills, not one, unless we rediscover the virtue of purity, and we will not rediscover that virtue unless our imaginations are engaged by its beauty, and that from our childhoods. Are there things you are doing to raise your own son that are different from the way men of your own generation were raised? My son, my greatest blessing from God, is autistic. He can talk to you all day about computer systems and then take your computer apart with screwdrivers to fix it. Most of these troubles of our time cannot touch him, especially since we teach him at home. I’ll say that the public schools in America are so poor, and are so universally slanted against both how boys learn and what they enjoy learning, that I would move heaven and earth rather than place a son of mine in any of them. We desperately need single-sex schools for boys, and we need not apologize for them, either. Boys thrive in them, and unless the boys thrive, our society is finished. Dr. Anthony Esolen is a professor of English at Providence College and a senior editor of Touchstone Magazine. He has recently translated and edited Dante’s Divine Comedy, in three volumes, for Modern Library. His book Ironies of Faith is available from ISI Press. This interview with ZENIT was given on April 23, 2007, and is © Innovative Media, Inc. Reprinted with permission. 11 Piety and Fatherhood D r . A n t h o n y E s o l e n Impiety is a disease that starts with an attitude toward our father which spreads to become an attitude of dishonor and dismissal towards God the Father. Father Aeneas is arming on the morning of what he hopes will be his last battle to establish his refugee people on the Italian mainland. Ever since he could bear the arms of a man he has fought, and fought well. For ten long and sad years he helped to defend the walls of Troy against the Greeks. On the terrible night of destruction, when the hatch of the wooden horse was opened and the Greeks let their comrades pour through the city gates, Aeneas did his best to die for Troy, to go down fighting in that lost cause. But when the gods instruct him instead to lead some few survivors and their defeated gods to a new land, Aeneas makes his way through a burning city to reach his father’s house, which he will never see again. There he takes up his crippled old father, Anchises, upon his shoulders, and leads his son Ascanius by the hand, with Anchises clutching to his breast the forms of uncle and grandfather and the forebears of old. Theirs are the faces that would look silently upon a child from the hearth; they are the household gods. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • May 2008 1 Anchises, “best of fathers,” as Aeneas has called him, died on the voyage. Aeneas’ wife, Creusa, never made it out of the burning city. Aeneas himself has watched in patient fortitude as others have died for their people–his trusty pilot, old friends, young men, an Italian prince who looked up to him as to a father. He has won mainly heartache and disappointment from his travels, nor is it prophesied that he will live long in the place where the Trojans will settle. But his duty has rooted him firmly in both the past and the future. Because he gives due honor to those who came before him, he can also give a chance for glory to those who will come after. In that sense his life is of a far wider span than his days on earth. It is not eternal life–but it is at least a partial answer to man’s deep and natural longing, that his life should not be forgotten utterly. That most of Aeneas’ days will not be happy only makes him the more admirable in our eyes. Says he to the lad Ascanius, as he readies for the fight: Manhood and hard work learn from me, my son; Good fortune you can learn from someone else. Indeed it will be the last day of the fighting–for now. Does that quiet moment between father and son still have the power to move us, even now? If so, it’s a testimony to Virgil’s poetry and the naturalness of piety. For we are a deeply impious people, so impious that we hardly know it, as people who lie in the ditch every night fail to notice the smell of the filth on their tattered clothes. I might go so far as to say that impiety is the essential feature of modern life: its economy, its politics, its flattened education, its few and fractured families. What do I mean by our impiety, and what does the scene with Aeneas have to do with it? Consider the forgotten or sentimentalized commandment, “Honor thy father and thy mother.” It is the first commandment that refers explicitly to our duties toward others. But it does not refer to them by mentioning any specific good or specific harm. It does not prohibit our taking oxen from our parents, or lying to them, or killing them. Rather it commands honor. In doing so the commandment serves as a bridge between our devotion to God and our love of neighbor. The foundation of our social life is the honor–note, not affection, not sweetness, as fine as those things may be–we give to those who brought us into being. And the important natural virtue that gives that honor the flesh and blood of action is piety. We believe, perhaps, that our piety is made manifest in saying the rosary on occasion, going to The ANgeLus • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org Mass, receiving the Eucharist, and not cheating too badly on our tax returns. But we should recall the dictum of Thomas Aquinas, that grace presupposes nature and brings it to perfection. If the piety we show to God our Father and to Jesus our Lord is the summit of that virtue, that does not mean there are no natural objects of piety, for Christian as well as pagan. Nor does it mean that we can ignore that piety, as if we had climbed, as Americans or Christians, far beyond its lowly and humiliating requirements. What are those requirements, then? The old catechisms used to teach them, but Virgil will do almost as well here. The leader of the Trojans is called “pious Aeneas” because, regardless of his personal desires, he submits to duty: to his father, his country, his ancestral gods, and the great gods. He prays to Jupiter to assist him when the seas are in tumult and his ships may go down to the bottom; he defers always to the advice of his good father Anchises; he takes care that his son should grow up in turn as a manly and pious prince. Piety, in other words, is that virtue that binds us to duty in relationships that are both hierarchical and deeply personal. Scripture teaches us the same. We care for our father, even when his mind fails. We do not hide away money so as to evade having to care for our parents. We train our sons in the way of the Lord, that they may not leave it when they grow up. We remember Jerusalem, even in exile, and would gladly fight and die for her. We look for instruction to the noble heroes of our past, the patriarchs Abraham and Noah, and the high priest Melchisedek. What is most controversial for us, we observe a right order in marriage, with wives giving their husbands what they most need, obedient reverence, to assume their rightful place as head of that small and irreplaceable platoon called the family, and husbands giving wives what they most need, selfsacrificing love, that they might assume their rightful place at the heart of that family, beloved and honored by their children. As a gracious extension of this piety we treat other grown men and women as if they too were fathers and mothers, and we treat boys and girls in ways most fitting for the family duties they may one day assume. All this, before we even show up at the church to kneel before the Father, falls under the classical definition of piety. It should be pretty easy to see, then, that in the nations of the West piety is now in short supply. It hasn’t been wiped out utterly. There are still plenty of young men who wish to become soldiers not for the self-serving opportunities the army pretends to 1 provide for them afterwards, but mainly because they love America–its mountains and lakes, its boisterous games, its old customs, and its vestiges of genuine liberty. They know that if men like themselves all decline the honor of the service, the nation must soon be no more. And there are still plenty of people who do well by their aging parents, living with them, spending whole days with them at the homes where they often must go, even performing for them the same lowly duties that their parents once performed, when they were little babies and could neither feed nor clean themselves. And yet–let us look more closely. In our world now, planned obsolescence is not simply for refrigerators or computer systems. It is for people, too. It is the law of our ways, intensely hostile to culture, tradition, and the family. Look, for example, at what has happened to our founders. They have been deposited into the nearest memory hole, never to be heard of again. How many college students, never mind starry-eyed schoolboys, have heard of John Paul Jones, who cried out from the deck of the Bonhomme Richard, “I have not yet begun to fight!” Not many; for the devil of impiety hates the hero, and would level us all down to the same equality of selfishness, cowardice, and ingratitude. Heroes rouse the imagination precisely because they are beyond us, and because they are so few. We recognize that they have risked everything–their family, their sacred names, and their lives–to give us what we enjoy in ease and comfort. Therefore we pay them heed when they speak to us–or we should. Witness that we are in the midst of a presidential election and no one has seen fit to remind us of what a Madison or Hamilton once said. Our attitude toward them is hardly more reverent now than if their names were Lycurgus and Hammurabi. They lived and died before the invention of the latest computer chip, or before reality television, and therefore they can have nothing to say to us. We ignore them. Don’t suppose that this political impiety can be kept safely cordoned off from community and family life. The disease jumps many a fence. Most American towns have lost the old Memorial Day parade. Those that remain, as far as I have witnessed, are ragged and depressing affairs, silly, chatty, and juvenile. Why keep your mouth shut and your hand over your heart for a fallen hero, when there are no heroes, or when everyone is a hero, or when America is just as good or just as bad as any country, and commands no particular love? But then, why visit the grave of a grandfather who died long ago? Why listen to your father, and heed his commands, against the blockheaded wisdom of the world? Why honor your mother when she serves the family, against the vicious scorn of both men and women who say that a woman who places the welfare of her children before her designs for a fashionable career is a fool or a traitor? Whom do we reward in our schools? Not the lad who learns both carpentry and reverence from the patient instruction of his father Joseph, in the home at Nazareth. We reward instead people like ourselves, who enjoy revealing to the world the errors and vices of that father Joseph. We reward Noah’s son Ham, who found his father drunk with wine, stripped off the old man’s cloak, and called his brothers in to snicker at his nakedness. We do not forgive the errors of our forebears. We take an unseemly glee in exposing them, exaggerating them, even inventing a few that did not exist. We equate tradition with quaint folly, or downright bigotry. The disorder has surely invaded the family. Among the wedding traditions of the Eastern rites, the bridegroom and bride are crowned as it were king and queen of the home they will build; and that means that their children will be inheritors of that royal state. Such is the tradition. What is the reality? Where are the husbands who treat their wives as ladies, in the old aristocratic sense, and the wives who treat their husbands as lords? A dull familiarity, breeding contempt, has swept through all the family relations, leaving them the natural sentiments, but little structure and order to uphold those feelings in times of trouble. Children love their parents, meaning that they feel generally pleasant feelings for them; but they have little intention of obeying them beyond taking out the trash once in a while. They will move far away, as I myself did, though in a land as wealthy as ours there seems very little need to do so. Indeed their parents will not be half displeased to see them move away, as they themselves may have no intention of remaining in the homestead. In fact, there are no homesteads. And that means there are no genuine communities, either, because there will be no long memories, from one generation to the next. What has the Church done, in this collapse of that natural virtue? In America, it has done nothing at all. It has, rather, worked hard on the other side. Now I’m not arguing for a return to any particular form of devotion that was popular before 1965. I’m instead noting that a general impiety, Latin Mass or no, has been part of the Catholic Church’s operation for two generations. Need I list the specifics? www.angeluspress.org The ANgeLus • May 2008 14 Few new prayers met wide acceptance in those years, but plenty, a precious heritage of devotion, were buried in some ecclesial crypt. Unearth a few of them from an old missal and you will see. An Easter Vigil rite was revived, with some revisions; but for the most part, special feasts were written out of the calendar, and valuable devotionals were eliminated. Some Catholic adults who have gone to Mass every Sunday have never seen a benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. Did it matter that for generations mothers would send their children to church on the Feast of St. Blaise, bishop and martyr, to have their throats blessed? Foolish mothers; let them bless the throats themselves if they were so hot to do it. Then there were the whitewashed murals, the deposed saints, the mauled statues, the jackhammered altars, all part of a great march into the future, which was of course nothing more than an impious rebellion against our forebears in the faith. We were ungrateful children, no more, who did not want to be told what to do. We are urged by our hierarchs to “respect life,” meaning to oppose abortion, and so we faithful Catholics do, but as for genuinely respecting life or anything else, how can we learn that at our churches? What is respected there? Hardly the fatherhood of the priest. He is either the unseemly and unfatherly showboat at the pulpit, or he is what I’d like to call a Quintorotarian, the required Fifth Wheel for the faithful, who have turned the commandments of Christ into a comfortable permission to do whatever they like, so long as it can, by a lazy stretch of imagination, be called “love.” Is Christ’s sacrifice upon Calvary an object of devotion, at the typical Mass? We mouth the words, “Lord, I am not worthy,” but do we really believe it? If we did believe it, then why would we sing show tunes that celebrate our being the Bread of Life? Why would we croon and moan about our so wonderful feelings? When feminism came storming in to thrust the father from the headship of his family, what were our Church leaders doing, if not the same thing, essentially, in their demotion of the fatherhood of God? When the technocrats of the state came to consolidate school districts and steal from families and communities the authority to oversee their children’s education, what were our Church leaders doing, if not the same thing, in detaching the people’s worship from that of their mothers and fathers, and the people who had sacrificed so much to build those impressive churches, not to mention the comfortable rectories? When abortion became the law of the land, as the inevitable and logical consequence of an acceptance THE ANGELUS • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org of the Pill and the false dream of autonomy that the Pill fostered, our leaders waffled, temporized, made common cause with the enemy whenever they could, ignored the sweeping impiety of the sexual revolution, and finally left us where we are now, with hardly a weapon with which to fight a far vaster and more inhuman evil than the snuffing out of innocent life: I mean the reduction of human life to the products of an assembly line. I recall a certain glacial hilltop in Pennsylvania, where I used to go with my dog on wintry afternoons, to look over the quiet snow, and see the smoke rising from chimneys for miles in either direction. That place has now been leveled by the bulldozer, and cookie-cutter mansions been built above it, for professionals without children. Yes, I understand that all things lie in the providence of God, and that nothing on earth may remain forever. But it is bitter to hasten oblivion, nor do I think that Jesus, who looked to the Father for what he must do, who observed all the traditions of his people, and who fulfilled them all in the end, would be pleased with us. From the Cross itself he remembered his Mother, and gave her into the care of John, giving us all at the same time to be cared for by her. On the night before he died he solemnly instructed his friends, who kept that moment blazoned in their minds, to eat the hallowed bread and drink the wine in remembrance of him. When he left them on the hill in Bethany, he told them not to go forth in admiration of the twaddle of the day, but to baptize all men, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and to know that he would be with them until the end of time. And from that time until this, in an unbroken succession, men have assumed the croziers of the apostles, to remind us, who always need reminding, that the sacred truths of the faith do not change, because they point to the One who is the First and the Last, the Selfsame. Pagan Virgil did not know that God, but wrote as if he might have understood, had the truth ever been revealed to him. We do know Him. We have been invited to glimpse, even on earth, the heavenly Jerusalem. If only we could treat it, and our faith, our priestly fathers and our fleshly fathers, our mother the Church and our mothers in the home, our land of pilgrimage and our land of rest to come, with the same honor that his hero Aeneas once treated the Rome he would never live to see. Dr. Anthony Esolen is a professor of English at Providence College and a senior editor of Touchstone Magazine. He has recently translated and edited Dante’s Divine Comedy, in three volumes, for Modern Library. His book, Ironies of Faith, is available from ISI Press. 1 hoW to diVorce-Proof your MarriaGe M i c h a e l J . R a y e s Clearly, traditional Catholics are affected by the modern divorce epidemic. Divorce is scary, unnecessary, costly, and traumatizing. And I should repeat the unnecessary part. The only possible reason for separation (not necessarily divorce) is the physical danger of one of the spouses. Other than that, things can be worked out. Catholics should completely remove the word “divorce” from their vocabulary. It should not even be a thought. “Annulment” should neither be considered if the couple is still living together. In 1968 there were 338 annulments in the US. By 1998–one generation later– there were 50,498.1 That’s not a typo: annulments really went from around 300 to more than 50,000 in 30 years. How can you, as a practicing Catholic, ensure your own marriage stays healthy and lasts until death do you part? There are two methods that need to be used together. These two methods, if followed faithfully every day, will make your marriage absolutely divorce-proof. MeTHoD oNe: Pray Together Do not just assume you’ll stay together in your old age like your parents did. There are plenty of couples who break up when the youngest child graduates from high school! Think of your marriage as a highmaintenance investment. It must have regular deposits of love credits from both spouses. This basically means that each partner in the marriage should make an effort to do loving things for the other. “Love credits” are simply loving acts, whether taking out the garbage in the rain or massaging tired muscles, that endear your spouse to you. Love credits aren’t the only way to invest in your marriage, however. The best way to invest in your marriage is to pray together. Consecration Do not rely on your own efforts to have a long-lasting marriage. You and your spouse need a www.angeluspress.org The ANgeLus • May 2008 16 relationship with God. The prayer a marriage needs is not to simply ask God for something. No, your Catholic marriage must be consecrated to God and the Blessed Virgin Mary. If you already did this on your wedding day, that’s great! You can renew the consecration yourself, in your own home. Just use your own words and pray together with your spouse, offering up your relationship to Jesus and Mary. Better yet, ask a Catholic priest to bless your marriage and your home. I will give you two practical examples that involve a priest. One is the enthronement of Christ the King in your home. This is done by having the priest bless an image of Christ the King that you have prominently displayed in your house. The entire family should be present for the enthronement and a celebration should follow. Another example is a ritual called the “churching of women” in the old Missal. After the arrival of a new baby, the husband kneels beside his wife while the priest prays over her. Getting back to the idea of consecrating your marriage, a consecration is more than a prayer. It is a total offering, a gift of something that is now owned by the one who receives the gift. Your marriage belongs to Jesus and Mary if you consecrate it to Them. The Blessed Virgin Mary gave us a sneak peek at how she operates at the wedding at Cana. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre explained in one of his sermons that she “deemed it right to discreetly intervene”2 when the stewards ran out of wine. She will also discreetly intervene when you run out of something needed in your marriage, whether it is patience, charity, or any other virtue. St. Ignatius of Loyola wrote about this idea of offering our lives to Christ in his Spiritual Exercises. “Man is created,” wrote the saint, “to praise, reverence, and worship God our Lord, and by this means to save his soul. All other things on the face of the earth are created for man to help him fulfill the end for which he is created.”3 What does this mean for your Catholic marriage? Naturally, marriage is “created for man to help him” get to Heaven. This is why it should be consecrated. Daily Maintenance After your marriage is consecrated, you also need to spend time in prayer with your spouse every day. This is separate from, or in addition to, prayer with your children. When you pray, end your prayer by thanking God for your spouse. The husband should always lead spousal prayer, no matter what his temperament or personality inclines him to do. The man of the family is the spiritual leader of the house, regardless of his ability to speak in public or be a leader in other areas of his life. St. Paul writes that “the husband is the head of the wife” (Eph. 5:23), and he exhorts men to love their wives.4 THE ANGELUS • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org The Sacramental Goal of Marriage If you’ve studied a little theology on marriage, you may know that there are two purposes or “ends” of marriage: to procreate children, and to unite the spouses in love.5 But let’s spend a minute thinking about the sacramental end of marriage. Dr. Rudolph Allers, one of the first Catholic psychologists to reject Freud and form a true psychology consistent with the teachings of the Church, wrote: The purpose of matrimony is not only the procreation and education of children and the satisfaction of natural desires...it is the mutual sanctification of the married couple.6 The sacraments are ways to get to Heaven. They are visible signs of invisible grace acting in the soul to make men holy.7 The sacraments are means we use on earth to acquire sanctifying grace (baptism), renew that grace (penance), or sustain grace (the Eucharist). Now for the good news: Marriage is a sacrament! This means your Catholic marriage can get you to Heaven. How? By the life-long process of loving another person and completely giving of yourself for your family. St. Thomas Aquinas once said that “perfect married life means the complete dedication of the parents for the benefit of their children.”8 This is enough to sanctify anybody, if he or she keeps trying to do better and remembers that God is the final goal. Remember the catechism: “Who made you?–God made me. Why did God make you?–To know, love, and serve Him in this life, and to be forever happy with Him in the next.” This means, as St. Paul said, your purpose in life is to “with fear and trembling work out your salvation” (Phil. 2:12) that “you may be blameless” (v.15). To work out your salvation. For those of us who are married, it means your relationship with your spouse, and the duties you have toward your family, can get you to Heaven. But you must keep trying so one day you will be “blameless.” God wants you to keep up the fight. Make a daily habit of praying together with your spouse. At first it may seem awkward, but keep it up! Eventually you may want to add a few prayers or pray together more than once a day. The important thing is to make it a daily habit and to adapt a new attitude right now about your spouse. You are serving Christ by loving, praying, practicing patience, and communicating with your spouse. Method Two: Mutual Understanding Married couples do not drift together. But they do drift apart. Why? Three reasons: l They don’t spend enough time together. l They don’t communicate. l They don’t have mutual interests. To divorce-proof your marriage, you and your spouse must gain mutual understanding. In other words, 17 the two of you must be able to understand each other’s emotional needs. The three reasons cited above are all symptoms of not meeting each other’s emotional needs.9 Let’s take a look at each reason and see how, once they are fulfilled, their combination forms a mutual understanding between husband and wife. Time Holly Pierlot, a popular Catholic speaker and expert on motherhood and homeschooling, quoted an old priest in her book A Mother’s Rule of Life. The priest once told her: [H]usbands tend to place their provider role above all else, often spending too much time (in mind as well as in body) at the office, while women tend to place their parenting role above all else, often not leaving enough time for their own needs, or their husbands.10 These are good-willed errors of excess. In other words, the husband and wife try so hard to do the right thing, they end up not having the proper balance in life they need to maintain a healthy and happy marriage and family life. Oftentimes, bickering and a lack of trust can be resolved simply by spending more time together. When a man is gone a long time, his wife begins to wonder. Seeds of doubt and mistrust enter the feminine mind. A woman needs continual reassurance that her husband loves her. If the couple is away from each other for a long time–say, the husband works a lot of overtime–one way to compensate is to talk on the phone. A husband who works a lot should call his wife every day, and perhaps more than once a day. The husband should ask how she is doing, or even simply say the following when she answers the phone: “Hi, Honey, it’s me. I was thinking about you and I’ve got a minute or two before I have to get back to work. How are you feeling?” This reassures her that her husband loves her. The call may only take a couple minutes, but it breaks up her long day and maintains the bond of marriage. Busy couples should also plan for time together. Do not just let life happen. Plan to spend time together. Set aside an evening where the two of you stay at home together. If you have a lot of vacation time accrued at work, don’t keep waiting to take a week off all at once. Start using it now by taking a day or even a half-day every two weeks. (Even better are four-day weekends.) Spend that time with your spouse! Time together lays the foundation for a mutual understanding between the marriage partners. The continual, recurring patches of time together are better for a marriage than a week or two of vacation after hardly seeing each other for months. Communication When you hear about communication as the key to a healthy marriage, it isn’t about simply talking to each other. Communication means for each spouse to tell the other his or her feelings, dreams, and needs, and for the other spouse to listen without interruption. Here is what communication looks like: When each spouse feels that what is important to him or her has been communicated to the other, and the marriage partner understands what is important, true communication and mutual understanding have taken place. Listening is a skill. It comes easier to some than to others. It also comes easier in certain circumstances. It is a lot easier to listen to your wife after you’ve eaten a good meal than when you are hungry. It’s a lot easier to listen to your husband at a small table in a coffee shop than in your own kitchen, with little hands tugging at your skirt. Communication also means you do not make assumptions about what your spouse is thinking or what their needs are. You must ask. You must both actually speak to each other and explain what your needs are, even if you’ve already been married for 20 years. (The next 20 years will be a lot more fulfilling if each of you learns to speak your needs and listen to one another, I promise!) Mutual Interests Once upon a time, Boyfriend and Girlfriend had a lot of fun together. Their time together was filled with mutual activities that were fun for them both. Girlfriend looked up to Boyfriend, and Boyfriend thought Girlfriend was a lot of fun. So they got married and became Husband and Wife. Now, Husband and Wife spend time together bickering about the bills. They don’t spend a lot of time with each other, but when they are together, they only talk about what is stressful because they have responsibilities. Husband tells Wife what she isn’t doing right. Wife nags Husband about all the things he should be doing. When they want to have fun, they do it with “the guys” or “the gals” or they go off alone for “alone time.” Boyfriend and Girlfriend liked each other and then they fell in love. Husband and Wife love each other, but they don’t like each other. They didn’t fall out of love, but they fell out of like. Men and women form emotional attachments to members of the opposite sex with whom they spend enjoyable time together.11 In other words, your tennis partner should be your spouse, not someone else. As the Catholic psychologist Rudolph Allers put it, Marriage is life companionship. Therefore an education for marriage is an education for companionship in general.12 www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • May 2008 18 It is ludicrous to divorce someone you really enjoy being with. No one ever says, “We really liked each other, so we divorced.” Find a mutually agreeable hobby or activity and enjoy it together. Think about it: you have some form of legitimate and wholesome escape that you rely on to mitigate the stress of life. A problem may be that the recreational escape is done alone, without nurturing the marriage. For all practical purposes, this means that Husband and Wife only spend stressful time together. Fun time is spent away from the spouse. Change your recreational habits and come to a mutual understanding of each other through a rewarding activity. You’ll rediscover your spouse and will be well on your way to reawakening the love and respect your marriage once enjoyed. Mutual Understanding Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote that mutual understanding of the spouses is possible because of the complementary nature of the two sexes. The fact that the two natures are ordered toward each other enables a mutual understanding of the deepest kind. A man will accomplish more in the spiritual transformation of a woman, as will a woman with a man....It is precisely the general dissimilarity in the nature of both which enables this deeper penetration into the soul of the other, a stronger seeing-from-the-inside, an ultimate openness toward the other, a real complementary relationship....[T]hey have been given the specific ability to understand each other. This fact not only constitutes the spiritual foundation for marriage but also...the possibility for deeper, closer, more radiant communions of a purely spiritual nature than are ever possible within one sex.13 Coming to this mutual understanding is not difficult. Yes, it takes work, but so does anything worthwhile. Use the three areas in this article to meet each other’s emotional needs and you will realize one day that you and your wife have reached a mutual understanding you did not posses before. That, and prayer together, will divorce-proof your marriage. What About NFP? Some say that the best way to divorce-proof your marriage is to utilize Natural Family Planning (NFP). This is a very popular viewpoint put forth by many in the Novus Ordo and especially in family-life programs in Catholic dioceses across the country. It is true that the divorce rate among NFP couples is lower than among couples using artificial contraception. Why? I believe this phenomenon is not so much because of NFP itself, but because of the sincerity of the couples. A couple who tries NFP is interested in following the teachings of the Church. This means they are willing to try harder than most couples to make their marriage work. Also, NFP forces a couple to communicate about their needs. This communication does strengthen the marriage. THE ANGELUS • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org Nevertheless, changing to NFP is often stressful to a marriage. This is because in most cases the contraceptive mentality is still present when couples utilize NFP: they are still trying to avoid birth. Their method may be different from artificial forms of contraception, but the intent is often the same. Most Catholic couples in the US today, especially if the wife is healthy, do not have a serious enough reason to warrant abstention from the marital embrace during the woman’s fertile cycle. They would be better off not using any method of birth control, natural or unnatural family planning, abstention, or other means and instead let the babies come whenever God and nature blesses them. This is the traditional way of married life: it is the most noble, it gives the man a morally correct outlet for his physical tension regardless of the time of month, and it fulfills a deep, unspoken emotional need in the woman. If a Catholic couple believes that NFP is a necessity for them due to their situation, they must discuss the issue with their pastor. It is a decision not to be made lightly, and the training and objectivity of a priest is therefore necessary. Under no circumstances should a Catholic couple decide to travel the road of NFP on their own deliberation. If both partners in the marriage are of good will and they are at a functional level of mental health, the two methods I described in this article remain the best way to ensure a lifelong, divorce-proof marriage. Michael J. Rayes writes from Arizona, where he lives with his wife of 21 years and their seven children. He is the author of Bank Robbery!, a Catholic children’s mystery story. 1 Kenneth C. Jones, Index of Leading Catholic Indicators (Fort Collins, CO: Roman Catholic Books, 2003) pp.70-71. 2 “Homily of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, 8 Dec. 1972” (Society of St. Pius X: District of Asia) online at http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Feast_the_ Immaculate_Conception.htm, §9. 3 Anthony Mottola, Ph.D., trans., The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image Books, 1964) p.47. 4 For a good discussion of the differences between the sexes and the role of the husband, cf. Ed Willock, “The Family Has Lost its Head” in Fatherhood and Family, Volume 3 from Integrity Magazine (Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press, 1999) pp.60-61. 5 Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 7-10. Also cf. Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 12. N.B.: Pope Paul did not make it clear in his encyclical that the procreative end is primary and the unitive end is secondary, which is the traditional teaching of the Church. 6 Rudolph Allers, M.D., Ph.D., Sex Psychology (1937; reprint, Fort Collins, CO: Roman Catholic Books, n.d.) pp.263-64. 7 Nicholas Halligan, O.P., The Administration of the Sacraments (Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1964) p.3. 8 Francis Johnston, The Voice of the Saints (Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, 1986) p.102. 9 Willard F. Harley, Ph.D., His Needs, Her Needs (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell/Baker Book House Company, 2002) pp.17-19. 10 Holly Pierlot, A Mother’s Rule of Life (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2004) p.18. 11 Willard F. Harley Jr., Ph.D., “The Recreation Enjoyment Inventory” (online at Marriage Builders, http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi4505 rei.html). 12 Allers, Sex Psychology, p.259. 13 Dietrich von Hildebrand, Man and Woman: Love and the Meaning of Intimacy (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 1992) pp.91-92. 19 Growth of the Missions in Christendom NEWS Angelus Press Edition INDIA Interview with Fr. Alain-Marc Nély, SSPX, Second Assistant to Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General Father, you are coming back from your first visit to India. What was your initial impression of the country? An impression of great confusion and deafening cacophony! The traffic in the New streets goes in every direction in a jumble of Delhi Lucknow vehicles, human beings and animals. I was Jaipur struck immediately by the contrast between Kanpur the elements of modernity and a life which is almost ancient. You find cows roaming freely in the financial district of Bombay! The streets are littered with heaps of refuse, in which cows, goats, dogs and poor people come to rummage Nagpur in the hope of finding something to eat or to sell. As soon as you take your first steps out of the Vasai (Bassein) airport, you find yourself in a different world. Bombay You also discover immediately that India is a pagan, but deeply religious country. You find temples and grimacing idols everywhere. Yet, as a rule, Indians are very respectful towards the Goa priest and willingly greet him. Cuddapah INDIA Bangalore Channai (Madras) Tuticorin Trichy Palayamkottai Nagercoil Calcutta 20 Could you give us a quick summary of your visit? Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, who recently joined the mission in India, welcomed me at Bombay airport. I visited our three Mass centers in the Bombay area. On the first day, I offered Mass in Malad, in a little chapel below the apartment generously placed at our disposal for our ministry in and around the city. I also visited a small orphanage (St. Gonsalo Garcia Ashram) in Vasai, a village about an hour-and-a-half drive from Bombay. Vasai is a former Portuguese fortress. The director of this orphanage for some 80 children called upon the Society for Mass and spiritual help. I celebrated Mass for the children and the villagers in the orphanage chapel, and gave them a conference. Then I went with Fr. Pfeiffer to Bandra, where I gave another conference to some 60 faithful. Bandra is one of the most Catholic districts of Bombay. Still in Bombay, I visited two large Catholic schools and met with their rectors, who gave me a very warm welcome. Fr. Chazal joined us after having said the Sunday Masses in Dubai and Chennai, and our two confreres took me Bombay Bombay is has become one of the top ten financial centers in the world. Cooking Christmas dinner at the priory. Nativity scene at the priory. THE ANGELUS • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org St. Anthony’s Chapel, Singamparai. 21 The orphans of Bassein Fort line up for a blessing from Fr. Nély. In India a blessing is given by a sign of the cross on the forehead. . The Three Kings. A day out at the beach for the boys. Bombay, a center of poverty. to Mountain Mary Shrine, the great Marian shrine of Bombay, like Lourdes in France. On Wednesday morning, I got up very early to catch the 3:30am plane for Chennai (formerly Madras, the capital of the state of Tamil Nadu) where I took the only daily connecting flight for Tuticorin. Fr. Brucciani, the prior of Palayamkottai, was waiting for me at the airport. He drove me to the priory, where I celebrated Mass in the evening. From December 20 to January 1, I stayed in Palayamkottai and shared the life and apostolic work of our confreres. On December 21, in Nagercoil (south-east of Palayamkottai), I sang a solemn High Mass in honor of St. Thomas, the Apostle of India. From the priory to Nagercoil it is a two-hour drive on very bad roads, and we arrived back at the priory very late at night. On Sunday, December 23, I celebrated Mass in Palayamkottai and gave a conference to the faithful. On the 24th, I offered the midnight Mass at the priory and had the joy of baptizing Gemma, the 6-yearold daughter of one of the employees of the orphanage. We spent Christmas day at the priory, where I prepared lunch with the help of some boys from the orphanage who showed great interest in Western food. December 26th was devoted to the children: we took them for a hike and showed them a film. In the evening, www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • May 2008 22 Veritas Academy Fr. Brucciani had planned some fireworks; unfortunately they were all wet. It was a catastrophe, but we had a good laugh all the same! I also visited the Mass centers of Christurajapuram, Tuticorin, and Singamparai. I took advantage of my stay in Tamil Nadu to meet with one vicar general and one bishop. In both cases, I was kindly welcomed, even warmly so by the bishop. From January 1 to 4, we took the children of the orphanage to Kerala, at the Bethsaida Carmelite Monastery for a short vacation by the seaside. We went back to this Carmelite Friars Monastery for the priests’ retreat which I preached from January 6 to 11. On the evening of January 12, the orphans presented a Nativity play followed by some songs. It was a farewell ceremony since I was leaving the next day. On January 13, I was in Chennai, and in the afternoon I was able to go and visit the “Great Mount,” the spot where the Apostle St. Thomas was martyred. In the evening, I sang Mass in Chennai for some 100 to 120 people, to whom I also gave a conference. And the next morning at 3:00am I was in the plane taking off for Frankfurt. In Frankfurt, I took the connecting flight for Zurich, where two of our Sisters were kindly waiting to take me home to Menzingen. THE ANGELUS • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org (L F Mass at the orphanage in Bassein Fort. The SSPX has only one priory in India, in Tamil Nadu, in the south of the country? Yes, we now have four priests stationed there. The prior is British, Fr. Robert Brucciani. He is assisted in the apostolate by Fr. Chazal, a Frenchman; Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, an American; and Fr. Devasahayam, an Indian. Two future Indian brothers, John Peter and Anistas, live at the priory while waiting for their visas for Australia, where they will enter the novitiate at the seminary in Goulburn. A young Indian from Bombay, Marcus, who has spent 11 years in England, is staying at the priory until March, when he will begin his first year of study at the seminary of Goulburn. I will meet them all again then since I will preach the retreat for the beginning of the academic year at Holy Cross Seminary. From Palayamkottai, our confreres minister to about 20 Mass centers, one of them in Colombo, the capital of Sri Lanka. Of course, all these centers do not receive the visit from the priest every Sunday. We are also helped by three Indian priests: Fr. Pancrace takes care of Christurajapuram, where we have a church and a little school with some 40 Fr A 23 students, and two elderly priests help us by offering Mass in Tuticorin and Chennai. What is the size of the Mass centers? I only visited 9 Mass centers. In the Bombay area, Vasai, and Bandra have about 100 faithful. Malad (where the priests usually stay) only has about 40 faithful. I would think that, as a rule, the groups are between 40 people for the smallest centers, and 100 to 120 for the largest. Is there hope for Tradition in India? There is certainly potential everywhere. The arrival of a fourth priest at the priory makes it possible to develop the apostolate in the north. Up to now our apostolate was mainly concentrated upon the State of Tamil Nadu. (Left to right) Seminarian Dr. Suneel, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Brucciani, Fr. Francis, Fr.Valan, and seminarian Rev. Mr. Gregory Noronha. Fr. Nély drives the Ambassador. What difficulties do you meet with in the apostolate in India? As everywhere else, we do not have enough priests, and the places where we celebrate Mass are at a fair distance from the priory—this does not make the apostolate easier. What is more, in this country, the roads are most of the time in a dilapidated state, and people drive crazily without paying heed to any road rules. We only have two cars at the priory: an old Ambassador, the mythic car in India, and a small Tata, far too fragile, in my opinion, to compete with the famous “T-Rex” (trucks and buses) who impose their law on the roads in India. I suggested the purchase of a four-wheel drive, which would make traveling easier, and a lot safer. The climate is very hot during six months of the years. My visit took place in winter, and I can tell you it was already quite hot, between 75°F and 85°F. The insalubrious living conditions are dangerous for Westerners, who often find it hard to adjust to the country. You must constantly be careful about water and food. Many people’s health does not stand up to it. As I told you at the beginning, India is a pagan country yet a very religious one. As a rule, Catholics are very much attached to their parishes and very few understand the problem of the crisis of the Church inasmuch as most of them are very simple and uneducated. However, there is much inculturation in parishes. You see pictures and statues of Christ in the Lotus position everywhere. The religion of Vatican II does not establish the necessary rupture between paganism and Christianity, hence many Catholics yield to the general atmosphere of religiosity and touch and kiss the statues, just as the pagans do with their idols. It is of the utmost importance to instruct and to educate www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • May 2008 24 people in the Faith in order to make a clear distinction between Catholicism and paganism. There are gods everywhere, and people are confused. The priory of Palayamkottai was built by an American, Fr. Blute, who made it look like the White House... Inside, however, it is not quite American comfort. There is no hot water; you must take cold showers. Power cuts are frequent–one morning I had to shave with the light from my cell phone. It was still dark and there was no electricity. My confreres were highly amused. The installation is very basic; in the bedrooms there is only a bed, a table and a chair, no closet or wardrobe, just some plaster shelves. It is truly a mission house. However, it is well designed. In the center of the house you have a lawn in the open, and all around the rooms open onto the lawn or onto balconies overlooking the lawn. T pr T Six helpful shop assistants with Fr. Nély. What is the apostolate at the priory? It concentrates mainly on the school and the project of a boarding school for the boys of the orphanage. The orphans, 14 boys and 11 girls age 7 to 15, receive their schooling at the priory. The eldest boys also stay at the priory on occasion. The orphanage? Yes, I think most of your readers already know a little about Swarna, a young Indian woman who opened an orphanage in the State of Uttar Pradesh. She discovered Tradition and moved her orphanage near our priory in order to have Mass and the spiritual assistance of our priests. She is presently a novice with the Consoling Sisters of the Sacred Heart in Italy. Before leaving, she entrusted the direction of the orphanage to a young French woman who is assisted by a Sister from the Institute of the Consoling Sisters of the Sacred Heart THE ANGELUS • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org 25 Mr. J. Francis and his son standing in front of their new, freshly painted and blessed truck. In India the faithful are proud to display their faith. This cobra was discovered in front of the priory (it is the deadliest of all snakes). The boys captured the cobra! Frs. Nély and Pfeiffer above the main gate of Bassein Fort. and by four young Indian women, companions of Swarna, who are postulants in the same Institute. They also take care of a few elderly or handicapped people. At present, they are renting an old house, but they have purchased a piece of land and are about to begin building their orphanage. The Sisters plan on keeping the orphan girls, and we are considering building a boarding school at the priory to accommodate the boys. You were on the camp with the children. What are these young Indians like? They are very affectionate, very sweet, very pious, and very generous in prayer and for the service of Mass. They take good care www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • May 2008 Fr.26 Couture digs the first clod of dirt for the new school building. Frs. Couture,Valan, and Chazal after the retreat. Proposed School Building for Veritas Academy at Palayamkottai of the chapel. I was edified by their good behavior and spontaneous piety. When you ask our young orphans what they want to be, all the boys tell you they want to be priests, and all the girls want to become Sisters! At the priory, we have a 15-year-old boy of outstanding piety, and we are hoping to be able to send him to one of our schools in the United States next year, so that he may get a good education with a view to the priesthood. You preached a priests’ retreat… Six priests followed the retreat, four SSPX priests and two priests who are friends and help out with the Masses in Tuticorin. What are the reactions to the Motu Proprio in India? I have only a very limited knowledge of the question. As a rule, the clergy of Bombay are very THE ANGELUS • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org poorly informed concerning the Motu Proprio. The archbishop of Bombay simply did not speak about it. As in many other dioceses throughout the world, priests and bishops seem to be rather uneasy about this Motu Proprio. Some did not hide their hostility and determination not to take any account of it. On the other hand, a bishop considered that the pope had spoken and that we should submit. I also met a priest who has an important responsibility and whose ideas are rather close to ours. He had studied for the priesthood in France and is reading much about the Mass. I believe he is looking towards the Society. That is about all I could gather from my contacts, but Fr. Brucciani could certainly tell you more on this subject. This article reprinted with permission from Christendom (Jan.-Feb. 2008), published by DICI, the international news bureau of the SSPX. It is available on line at www.dici.org. PART 12 27 F r . M a t t h i a s G a u d r o n Our serialization continues with the chapter of the Cathechism devoted to ecumenism. Many ramifications of the Church’s view of false religions are considered, including what kind of knowledge non-Christians might have of God. Catechism Of the Crisis In the Church (Question 47–continued from The Angelus, April 2008) l Can it not be argued, however, that there are degrees of error, and that a religion that, while being false, recognizes the existence of one God and imposes on its adherents a certain moral code is better than doctrinaire atheism and absolute amorality? There are degrees of error, but, paradoxically, it could be argued that a system that incorporates many truths is more dangerous than one containing fewer. A chair with just three legs is more dangerous than a two-legged chair no one would think of sitting on. A very good counterfeit bill is more dangerous than a less skillfully executed fake. l Can you give an example? It has been said quite justly that Islam is the religion that, having known Christ, refused to acknowledge His divinity. If it is true that the worst form of falsehood is that which least contradicts the truth, then the falsehood that consists in saying all the good possible about Christ except that He is God is the most redoubtable.1 In fact, missionaries have always had much more trouble converting Muslims than Animists. l What should we make of the argument that God is at work in the non-Christian religions because good can be found there, and good can only come from God? This reasoning is a sophism that relies upon a failure to distinguish between the natural order and the supernatural order, for it is obvious that when we speak of the action of God in a religion, we understand an action that leads to salvation. God saves by supernatural grace, while the good referred to in the other religions (at least the non-Christian religions) is only a natural good. In these occurrences, God acts as the Creator who gives being to all things, and not as the Savior. The Second Vatican Council’s desire to disregard the distinction between the natural and the supernatural orders yields its worst fruits in the domain of ecumenism. People start thinking that any religion www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • May 2008 28 is able to procure the greatest gifts of the good Lord. This is an enormous deception. l By stimulating man’s religious sentiment, are not all these religions nonetheless doing good? What is the good of urging someone down the wrong path? Far from leading to God and life eternal, the non-Christian religions turn people away. l Does Hinduism turn people away from eternal salvation? By preaching reincarnation, Hinduism removes the seriousness of our earthly existence. It is no longer the decisive test upon which our eternity depends, but rather a simple stage since the soul must be reincarnated–in a rat, a dog, or some other thing–as often as necessary to expiate its faults. For the same reason, Hinduism is devoid of mercy (even if today it tries to imitate the beneficent works of Christianity). It coldly passes by the poor and suffering, deeming that they justly bear the weight of their past sins. l Does Buddhism turn people away from eternal salvation? Buddhism is a religion without God. Man believes that he can save himself, and this salvation consists in entering nothingness, Nirvana. Buddhism does not look forward to an eternal life in union with God, but only at the end of suffering in the dissolution of existence itself. l Does Islam turn people away from eternal salvation? Islam rejects as blasphemy the Holy Trinity and, consequently, the divinity of Christ. It encourages cruelty (praising the murder of a Christian as a good work) and sensuality (encouraging polygamy and promising men a paradise of sensual delights). To give some examples, let us quote from a few passages of the Koran: ...The Christians say, “The Messiah is the Son of God.” That is the utterance of their mouths, conforming with the unbelievers before them. God assail them! How they are perverted!2 When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads.3 As for Paradise, besides the “wide-eyed houris as the likeness of hidden pearls” (Sura LVI, 22, etc.) there are also immortal youths to be found there.4 l What can be said definitively about these nonChristian religions? The words of St. Peter must be repeated incessantly: “For there is no other name [than that of Jesus] under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). THE ANGELUS • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org l May one hope, in spite of everything, for the salvation of non-Christians? The Church has always admitted that nonChristians can have implicit baptism of desire (if they are in a state of error without personal fault and accept the grace of God), but she has not been optimistic about the number of those saved in this way. Blessed Pope Pius IX denounced as an error this proposition: Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.5 48) Do the non-Christian religions honor the true God? The non-Christian religions do not honor the true God. The true God, in effect, is the Triune God who was revealed in the Old Testament and especially in the New Testament by His Son Jesus Christ. “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father” (I Jn. 2:23). “No man cometh to the Father, but by Me” ( Jn. 14:6). l Might it not be said that the Jews and the Muslims have a correct but incomplete idea of God, and that consequently they honor the true God? This was the case for the Jews of the Old Testament. To them, the Blessed Trinity had not yet been revealed. They did not believe this dogma explicitly, but neither did they reject it. Today, the Mohammedans and the Jews expressly deny the Holy Trinity revealed by our Lord Jesus Christ. They pray to a God who would be but a solitary person. But such a God does not exist. l Yet the Jews and the Muslims mean to honor the one God that exists, the One who created heaven and earth, the One who revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; so doing, are they not addressing the true God? The non-Christians are able to have a certain natural knowledge of God as the author of nature, and even as the author of certain revelations (to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, etc.) to which they adhere by a purely human faith. But this purely natural knowledge leaves them as strangers to God. Only supernatural faith enables its possessor to glimpse into the divine intimacy and enter into familiar relations with Him. l But in the 11th century, did not Pope Gregory VII write to a Muslim king that Christians and Muslims have the same God? Indeed, in a letter to King Anzir,6 Pope St. Gregory VII did write: We and you, who, while in a different manner, believe and profess one God; who daily praise and venerate Him as the Creator and ruler of the world....7 29 l What exactly does this passage mean? This sentence of Pope St. Gregory VII means this: Christians and Muslims believe, profess, praise, and venerate the one God, but in the case of the Christians, this faith and love are supernatural virtues that make them adhere to God, whereas for the Muslims, it involves a virtue of natural religion that leaves them far from the true God.8 Thus it can be said in a certain sense that only the Christians possess or attain the true God, and that only they honor Him truly because they are in an intimate relation with Him. l Does not a person who prays to God in virtue of a merely natural knowledge of Him accomplish a good action? Such a prayer would be a good action in and of itself (though devoid of supernatural value), if it were not mingled with errors or superstitious rites that, far from honoring God, insult Him. The Muslim who, several times a day, affirms that God neither begets nor is begotten, blasphemes the God he pretends to honor. Ultimately he may be excused for this blasphemy because of his invincible ignorance, just as someone who engages in false worship, but, in fact, it is not an act of religion that is being performed, but of superstition (and even idolatry). l Have these fundamental truths been challenged since Vatican II? During the retreat that Cardinal Wojtyla, the future John Paul II, preached at the Vatican in 1976 for Pope Paul VI, he developed an absolutely modernist conception of faith and, subsequently, the thesis according to which all men, regardless of the religion to which they belong, pray to the true God. l Can you quote these modernist statements of Cardinal Wojtyla? Cardinal Wojtyla declared: The itinerarium mentis in Deum emerges from the depths of created things and from a man’s inmost being. The modern mentality as it makes its way finds its support in human experience, and in affirmation of the transcendence of the human person.9 l What makes these statements modernist? These statements are modernist because faith is not understood as man’s response to divine revelation, but as a search for God issuing from the depths of man’s soul.10 l What did Cardinal Wojtyla say about prayer in the false religions? A little further on, the Cardinal states: ...This God is professed in his silence by the Trappist or the Camaldolite. It is to him that the desert Bedouin turns at his hour for prayer. And perhaps the Buddhist too, wrapt in contemplation as he purifies his thought, preparing the way to Nirvana. God in his absolute transcendence, God who transcends absolutely the whole of creation, all that is visible and comprehensible.11 l What can be said about these statements? This way of thinking is completely foreign to Holy Scripture. The Old Testament is full of the wrath of God against the false religions; the Chosen People is often punished for worshipping false gods. l Is the same vision of things to be found in the New Testament? St. Paul writes in a trenchant phrase: “The things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God” (I Cor. 10:20). l A non-Christian cannot honor the true God, then? God is surely attentive to the good dispositions that Jews, Muslims, or pagans have when they set about to pray. It is even possible that, pushed by grace, some of them really honor God in their hearts, but that happens despite the false ideas their religion gives them. The false religion itself is not addressed to God, but to an illusion; of itself, it does not lead its adherents to God, but turns them away from Him. Translated exclusively for Angelus Press from Katholischer Katechismus zur kirchlichen Kriese by Fr. Matthias Gaudron, professor at the Herz Jesu Seminary of the Society of St. Pius X in Zaitzkofen, Germany. The original was published in 1997 by Rex Regum Press, with a preface by the District Superior of Germany, Fr. Franz Schmidberger. This translation is based on the second edition published in 1999 by Rex Regum Verlag, Schloß Jaidhof, Austria. Subdivisions and slight revisions made by the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé have been incorporated into the translation. 1 Joseph Hours, “The Christian Conscience before Islam” [French], Itinéraires, 60, 121. 2 The Koran Interpreted, a translation by A. J. Arberry (version online at arthursclassicnovels.com), Sura IX, 30. 3 Ibid., Sura XLVII, 4. 4 Suras LXXVI, 19; LII, 24; LVI, 17. See J. Bertuel, L’Islam, ses véritables origines (Paris: NEL, n.d.), p.187. 5 Syllabus of Errors, Proposition 17 (DS 2917). 6 This Berber prince (En Nacir Ibn Alennas) reigned over the former Roman province of Mauritania...from 1062–88. Gregory VII could consider him as being influenced by the Christianity of his ancestors, and perhaps even secretly Christian since the prince had sent presents to the Pope, had asked him to consecrate a bishop, and had released Christian prisoners, as he explained at the beginning of the letter. Pope Gregory VII’s letter might have been written to sound out the king’s thinking, which would explain his unusual turn of phrase (it is the only letter of this kind prior to Vatican II). 7 “...Nos et vos...qui unum Deum, licet diverso modo, credimur et confitemur, qui eum creatorem huius mundi quotidie laudamus et veneramur....” 8 Except for those that may have received baptism of desire, in which case they would no longer be acting as Muslims but as Christians. 9 Karol Wojtyla, Sign of Contradiction (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979), pp.15-16. 10 See Question 11, The Angelus, June 2007. 11 Ibid. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • May 2008 The Angelus English-Language Article Reprint Let your speech be “Yes, yes: no, no”; whatever is beyond these comes from the evil one. (Mt. 5:37)  May 2008 Reprint #81 Religious Liberty and the Ordinary Magisterium F r . J e a n - M i c h e l In a book published in March 2007, Fr. Bernard Lucien1 devoted six studies to the question of the authority of the Magisterium and its infallibility: What we maintain, which many so-called “traditionalist” authors deny, is that the infallibility of the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church applies to the central affirmation of the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae. Religious Freedom: Infallible? Fr. Lucien asserts that the teaching of Vatican II on religious freedom is infallible because it is the equivalent of a teaching of the universal and ordinary Magisterium. We know that the pope can exercise the Magisterium infallibly and that he can do so whether alone or with the bishops. Three unique circumstances in which the supreme authority enjoys infallibility can be distinguished: 1) an act of the physical person of the pope speaking ex cathedra; 2) an act of the moral person of an ecumenical council, which is the physical assembly of the pope and the bishops; and 3) the body of acts, unanimous and simultaneous, that emanates from all the pastors of the Church, the pope and the bishops, but dispersed and not gathered together. The teaching of the pope speaking ex cathedra and that of 30 G l e i z e an ecumenical council correspond to the infallibility of the solemn or extraordinary Magisterium, while the unanimous teaching of all the bishops dispersed, under the authority of the pope, is the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. This ordinary and universal Magisterium is the subject of the dogmatic constitution Dei Filius of Vatican I. It states that: Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.2 And in the letter Tuas Libenter of December 21, 1862, Pope Pius IX speaks of the “ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world” (Dz. 1683). During the First Vatican Council, in a speech of April 6, 1870, the official representative of the Pope, Msgr. Martin, gave the following clarification to the text of Dei Filius: The word universal means about the same thing as the word used by the Holy Father in the apostolic letter Tuas Libenter, namely the Magisterium of the whole Church spread throughout the world. THE ANGELUS • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org It is clear, then, that the ordinary and universal Magisterium is to be distinguished from the Magisterium of an ecumenical council, just as the Magisterium of the pope and the bishops dispersed is distinguished from the Magisterium of the pope and the bishops assembled. On one hand, Vatican II is an ecumenical council. But on the other hand, Pope Paul VI twice stated that this council had refrained from pronouncing with its extraordinary teaching power any dogmas bearing the note of infallibility. The Council simply intended to vest its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary Magisterium, which is clearly authentic [By the expression “authentic Magisterium,” theologians today commonly mean non-infallible teaching–Ed.]. While Vatican II, as any legitimately convoked ecumenical council, could have been the organ of a solemn teaching of the Magisterium, it did not desire to exercise its authority as such, and that is why, as Paul VI stated, its teachings do not have the weight of solemnly defined dogmas. But neither are they teachings of the ordinary and universal Magisterium since by definition an ecumenical council does not correspond to this category of the Magisterium. Fr. Lucien claims the contrary. According to him, the infallible ordinary and universal Magisterium can be exercised when the bishops and the pope are dispersed as well as when they are assembled in council. According to his hypothesis, an ecumenical council can exercise both types of infallible teaching authority: that of the solemn or extraordinary Magisterium and that of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. The declarations of Paul VI exclude the possibility of a teaching of the extraordinary Magisterium at Vatican II. Therefore, if one is to maintain that the teachings that issued from Vatican II are infallible, they can only be so by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. This is what remains to be examined. Rupture or Continuity? The declarations of Vatican I and of Pope Pius IX show very well that there is a radical difference between the infallibility of a council and that of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. But there is something even more serious. The present successor of St. Peter, Benedict XVI, recognizes this opposition between Vatican II and Pius IX in the epilogue of a book he published in 1982, Principles of Catholic Theology.3 While still cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger stated, “with the vigor and theological clarity for which he is renowned,”4 this formal and irremediable opposition. Explaining how the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) “has come to be increasingly regarded as the true legacy” of Vatican Council II,5 the future Pope Benedict XVI remarked: “If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text as a whole, we might say that it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus.”6 Indeed, “the www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • May 2008 text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.”7 Fr. Lucien constructs his reasoning to show that, far from there being a rupture, there is an integral continuity between Vatican II and Pius IX, between the teaching of the Council on religious freedom and the antecedent Tradition. St. Vincent of Lerins’s Rule to the Rescue of Vatican II? If one wishes to assert such continuity, it becomes necessary to see in the teachings of Vatican II a development of truths that would have been heretofore held in a vague and implicit state in the Church’s preaching.8 Fr. Lucien develops at length the question of the passage from implicit to explicit in the Church’s teaching. The reader cannot but become aware of it by seeing the care and the abundance of references he uses over some 20 pages9 in order to establish the real import of the canon of St. Vincent of Lerins. This is precisely the crux of the problem our author has set himself to resolve: in order to deny the contradiction between Pius IX’s Quanta Cura and Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae, he must see in the latter document a development of the former. Vatican II would thus have taught not different truths, but the same truth presented in different, more precise, terms. Fr. Lucien desires to prove that the teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty is a dogmatic clarification of the teaching of Pius IX, a teaching perfectly homogeneous with Tradition. The Real Meaning of St. Vincent de Lerins’s Rule The labor is in vain. St. Vincent’s canon is undoubtedly of great interest. It is not for a mere nothing that Cardinal Johann Baptist Franzelin devoted Theses 23 and 24 of his celebrated treatise On Divine Tradition to the exegesis of the Lerinien rule. It is true that it is possible to misunderstand its true import: it is not as easy to read as it may seem. Fr. Lucien thinks that the traditionalists have misread this text, and that the correct reading would condemn their refusal of the Council. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even if one has grasped the true significance of the Commonitorium, there is nothing in it that would justify seeing in Vatican II a legitimate development of traditional teaching. Quite the contrary, the criterion “always and everywhere” perfectly justifies the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre and all of those who have decided to refuse the Council’s teachings. THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT 31 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT In his Thesis 9, Franzelin sums up St. Vincent’s Rule this way: St. Vincent’s Rule St. Vincent of Lerins enounces his famous rule in these terms: In the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic”....This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent.10 Cardinal Franzelin argued that this rule could be understood both affirmatively and exclusively of the whole truth, and only the truth, believed everywhere, always, and by all. But in the spirit of St. Vincent of Lerins, this adage must be understood only in an affirmative sense, and not in an exclusive sense, of truths believed explicitly. All the truths that today demand explicit belief by the members of the Church have been believed everywhere, always, and by all; but they have been so in one manner or another, either explicitly or implicitly. It does not follow that only the truths that have been explicitly believed everywhere, always, and by all can and must oblige explicit faith in the Church today. Other truths were at first believed only implicitly and not always nor everywhere nor by all in an explicit manner before becoming the object of an explicit and unanimous belief. This is, for example, the case of the truth of the Immaculate Conception. Cardinal Franzelin Franzelin explains in detail the difference between explicit and implicit belief in Thesis 23: There is a difference between revealed truths, and this shows that it is neither necessary nor desirable that all revealed truths be contained in one and the same manner in the preaching of the apostles and in the course of tradition.11 The truths which had to be believed explicitly from the start were preached and transmitted from the apostolic age in an explicit manner. These are the principle mysteries of the Catholic Faith, which correspond to the twelve articles of the Creed. But, Franzelin remarks, these explicitly revealed truths possess a great fecundity: They can correspond in an infinite number of ways to the exigencies of different epochs. They oppose very different errors which human weakness or perversity can invent. Thus the matter is clear: none of the revealed dogmas was proposed or enounced by the apostles in a manner to make clear all these different modalities, which would have been morally impossible. That was unnecessary, since, as Christ had promised and instituted, the successors of the apostles were to receive the charism of infallibility at the same time as they received the doctrine, so as to be able to respond to the demands of every age by proposing and explaining revealed truths. 32 The teachings of Tradition that all must believe explicitly have always received a perfectly unanimous assent. However, objective revelation can contain points of doctrine which, at one time or another, have not elicited a clearly expressed unanimity or which in reality have not received unanimity. That is why it is impossible for a revealed doctrine, after being unanimously defended and explicitly professed among the successors of the apostles, to be denied within the Church. And reciprocally, it is impossible for a doctrine, after having been denied and condemned unanimously, to be defended. But it may happen that a perfect unanimity will arise only after a doctrine has elicited different opinions.12 This gives us a negative criterion: the Church’s current explicit teaching cannot contradict previous explicit teaching. Example: Religious Freedom Freedom of conscience and worship did not receive explicit condemnation in the documents of the Magisterium until the time when human weakness and perversity had perfected this pernicious error. Pope Gregory XVI was more or less13 the first to denounce this error in the Encyclical Mirari Vos of August 15, 1832. From that moment, it was incumbent on faithful Catholics to adhere explicitly to the condemnation. The successors of Gregory XVI in the 19th century, from Pius IX (with Quanta Cura) to Leo XIII (with Immortale Dei) constantly reiterated this teaching.14 The Encyclical Quanta Cura of December 8, 1864, (DS 2896) corresponds to an act of the solemn [or extraordinary] Magisterium, bearing the notes of ex cathedra infallibility.15 From this moment at which the Magisterium proposed a truth with all the requisite clarity, Cardinal Franzelin observes, the question having been clarified, this dogma henceforth belongs to the body of explicit Catholic belief and plain teaching. With this clear consensus and explicit teaching, the dogma can no longer be the object of a disagreement or “obscuring” within the Church.16 No consensus that might develop in opposition to this explicit belief could ever prevail. Here we can apply the rule expressed above by Franzelin: “It is impossible for a doctrine, after having been denied and condemned unanimously, to be defended.” Fr. Lucien’s Sophism This example illustrates why we cannot follow Fr. Lucien’s analysis. The explanation he gives of St. Vincent’s Rule is taken from Franzelin’s treatise; this is uncontested. But far from parrying the argumentation of the Society of Saint Pius X, it serves rather to confirm it. The teaching of Vatican II on religious freedom as it figures in the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae is in formal opposition to the constant, explicit teaching of the THE ANGELUS • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org Church since Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX. It can in no way serve as the basis of a legitimate consensus nor prevail against the traditional doctrine. The presentday unanimous consensus of the explicit teaching of the Church is what defines the acts of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. But the teaching that issued from Vatican II cannot claim to represent this consensus, since it contradicts what has been believed explicitly always, everywhere, and by all. The Ordinary Universal Magisterium, Organ of Tradition One might however object that for the last 40 years, the entire Teaching Church dispersed in the episcopal college comprising the Pope and the bishops in their dioceses unanimously teaches the principle of religious freedom. Would this not constitute the expression of the infallible ordinary universal Magisterium? The infallible teaching of the post-Council would thus be the echo of the authentic teaching of the Council. In order to respond fully to this objection, let us remark that, in order to be universal, the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the college of bishops dispersed throughout the world must fulfill two conditions: there must be current universality in space, or unanimity; there must also be universality in time, or continuity. These two factors are required for the universality that formally defines the ordinary Magisterium. Unanimity and Continuity Actual universality in space concerns the teaching subject. The ordinary universal Magisterium is, from this perspective, the preaching of the episcopal college; the unanimity from which it results is the unanimity of the bishops of the present moment in history. If, by considering the viewpoint of the subject, one should say that the Magisterium is the unanimity of all the bishops and all the popes from St. Peter and the apostles, one would destroy the very notion of the ordinary Magisterium. Continuity concerns the object taught. It refers to a universality that is not only in space but also in time. The ordinary universal Magisterium is the proposition of revealed doctrine. This doctrine is substantially immutable, which means that it remains unchanged both in time and in space, not only from the ends of the earth, but also from one end of history to the other. The ordinary Magisterium is by definition a traditional Magisterium: it is a Magisterium that preaches today and cannot be in disagreement with the Magisterium of yesterday, as St. Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians,1:8-9: say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. These two constituent properties are observable in reality: they are evident to the faithful and enable them to recognize the infallibility of a teaching. That is why the current unanimity and continuity are not only elements that enter into the definition of this teaching; they are also criteria of visibility. But there is an order between the two, for the criterion of current unanimity depends on the criterion of continuity. If the pastors are currently unanimous, it is because their teaching is the constant teaching of one and the same unchangeable deposit of faith. Current Unanimity Current unanimity in space, at the level of the teaching subject, constitutes a criterion of visibility. Franzelin explains in Thesis 9: Once the existence of the authoritative, continuously living Magisterium, which is the organ established for conserving Tradition, has been ascertained, it suffices to demonstrate that unanimity of faith among the successors of the apostles has materialized at one time or another in order to be able to solidly establish that a point of doctrine belongs to divine revelation and the apostolic tradition. We have an example of the use of this criterion with Pope Pius XII’s proclamation of the dogma of the Assumption. In the Bull Munificentissimus Deus of November 1, 1950, defining the dogma, the Pope alludes to the consultation that took place beforehand on May 1, 1946, during which he tried to verify that the truth of the Assumption was the object of the unanimous, present-day preaching of the pastors in the Church: This “outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful,”17 affirming that the bodily Assumption of God’s Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church’s ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly. This criterion is first of all negative: the doctrine is not contested by anyone within the Church, and there is no divergence among the prelates. But this criterion is also positive: the pastors all employ the same expressions; they all quote the same authoritative sources; they quote one another mutually; and in particular, they all refer to the same teaching of the Sovereign Pontiff given in a reference work. Through all these signs, unanimity can be observed and the infallible But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • May 2008 33 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium ascertained. The Criterion of Continuity the Magisterium is constant when traditional The teaching of the ordinary universal Magisterium cannot be reduced to a teaching subject. An act of teaching presupposes both a teaching subject—the teacher—and an object taught—the doctrine. And the object taught must obey very precise rules. For the act of teaching with the Church’s Magisterium has an essential property: it must be traditional. It must be a teaching in which the teacher always proposes the same substantial object. That is why, if we consider things not only in relation to ourselves but as they are in themselves, universality as regards the object—continuity through time—precedes and governs universality as regards the teaching subject—unanimity in space—because it is the object taught that defines an act of teaching. The Church’s Magisterium is a function of a very particular teaching, for its purpose is to conserve and hand down without substantial change the unalterable deposit of truths already revealed and attested by Jesus Christ. This reality has two consequences. Firstly, the traditional Magisterium of the Church differs from the teaching authority of science, for the latter advances through research, and its goal is the discovery of new truths, whereas the former does not seek to discover new truths, but must rather hand down definitively revealed truth, without possibility of substantial change. But secondly, the traditional Magisterium of the Church is also different from the foundational Magisterium [teaching authority] of Christ and His apostles. Christ attests the truth for the first time, for He reveals it, which is why His word alone is authoritative and cannot be judged in relation to a preceding testimony. Contrariwise, the Church’s Magisterium attests the truths already attested by Christ and the apostles; it bears witness to a witness, and that is why its word holds true if and only if it remains faithful to the word of Christ and His apostles, already well known by all, at the very least in the Apostles’ Creed and the catechism. the criterion of continuity, touchstone of current unanimity This is why the bishops cannot be actually unanimous, in formal agreement as bishops, in such a way as to constitute the infallible teaching body of the ordinary universal Magisterium, unless they are in agreement with all the past explicit Tradition by their continuing to hand down the same revealed deposit. If one can observe in the teaching of churchmen that “a 34 change has been introduced in the profession of faith that was till then the object of universal assent, the yes replacing the no or vice-versa,” by that very fact this preaching “is no longer that of the Church of Christ.”18 The continuity of the teaching is the basis of the unanimity of the teachers. And we see very well that at the time of the Second Vatican Council (and ever since) the Decree on Religious Freedom did not establish unanimity among the pastors. This continuity of a substantially immutable teaching can be ascertained by simple natural reason. Thus a break or discontinuity in this teaching can also be ascertained by reason following the simple rules of logic: even a non-Catholic journalist is perfectly capable of recognizing one, should the pope innovate by contradicting his predecessors. In fact, many observers, even non-Catholics, grasped the import of Vatican II’s aggiornamento when they hailed the Declaration on Religious Freedom as an unprecedented novelty: at last, they crowed, the Church is abandoning its reactionary obscurantism and recognizing the claims of the modern world. Was this not also the observation of Cardinal Ratzinger in his Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), detailed above, when he employed the expression “countersyllabus”? The faithful Catholic too, whose mind is enlightened by faith, is quite capable of perceiving the rupture. not Protestant private judgment The application of this rule does not constitute an exercise of private judgment in matters of faith. Protestant private judgment establishes an antagonism between the current judgment of the faithful and the current judgment of the Magisterium; reversing due order, Protestantism holds the private judgment of the believer as the rule of the magisterial judgment in every period of history. What we are saying is something completely different: the conflict we observe (which is the one St. Paul spoke of) is occurring between the past and the present, between the Magisterium of yesterday and the new Magisterium of today. Consequently there is a rupture in the teaching of the Magisterium, and the faithful merely makes a note of it. It is true that the object vouched for as such cannot be the criterion making known the validity of the testimony that guarantees it. But the object proposed by the Church’s Magisterium is not like other things guaranteed by some authority, for it is not an object guaranteed for the first time by the Magisterium. Rather, it is an object already vouched for by Christ and the apostles once and for all because divinely revealed. The Magisterium cannot change the fundamental, initial testimony of the Word Incarnate. That is why an object already guaranteed for the first time by Christ and the apostles is the rule according to which the object proposed by the Church’s Magisterium must be judged. A Catholic can therefore perfectly judge the teaching of the present because, if THE ANGELUS • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org he judges the present, he does not do it like a Protestant, according to his own lights. The Catholic can and even must judge the teaching of the present because he does so by the light of past teaching. It is the past that judges the present, because it is the truth already revealed by Christ and handed down by the Magisterium of yesterday that governs the Magisterium of today. the intelligibility of dogma In other words, even if it is incomprehensible and obscure (because it is vouched for and not evident), dogma is intelligible. It is presented as a logical proposition in which a predicate is attributed to a subject. Even though the faithful does not understand the link between the two, he knows that if this link exists, the proposition is true and thus the opposite proposition is false. He also knows that the Magisterium cannot contradict itself by sometimes affirming that the link exists, and sometimes denying it. If faithful Catholics are denied the ability to compare current doctrine with the doctrine of all time and to verify the continuity of the Church’s teaching, then they are forbidden to understand what they are saying when they make a profession of faith; a blind obedience to pure formulae devoid of meaning would be required of them. But the Catholic Church has never professed such a nominalism. a negative criterion We can say that a negative criterion exists: the absence of continuity in explicit teaching is a criterion by which one can conclude that current teaching does not belong to the deposit of faith and thus no longer reflects the exercise of an authentic ecclesiastical teaching authority faithful to its function. This negative criterion is well summed up in certain expressions of St. Paul. As Cardinal Billot remarked: St. Paul speaks of false doctrine as “strange” doctrine. “...thou fulfillest the charge I gave thee, when I passed into Macedonia, to stay behind at Ephesus. There were some who needed to be warned against teaching strange doctrines...” (I Tim. 1:3)....If from one age to another someone gives an explanation of a dogma of faith that is different from the one previously given, this explanation will be considered heterodox, in opposition to orthodoxy, and it can easily and without private judgment be recognized as an heretical affirmation from the simple fact that it is absolutely new, that is, if it introduces a meaning different from the meaning received from Tradition.19 Vatican II Condemned by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium With this negative criterion we return to the rule enounced by St. Vincent of Lerins as explained by Cardinal Franzelin–and, following his lead, Fr. Lucien himself: That which has been believed explicitly, continually in time, everywhere, and by all is a www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • May 2008 truth of Catholic faith, against which no contemporary consensus can ever prevail. The religious liberty preached since Vatican II goes against the explicit, constant, and unanimous teaching of the Church; it is the chief manifestation of the new “heresy of the 20th century,” the modernist heresy. Translated exclusively by Angelus Press from the Courrier de Rome (Feb. 2008, pp.1-6). Abridged 25% by James Vogel, Assistant Editor on the staff. Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, a Frenchman, a graduate of the French École Nationale des Chartes, was ordained in 1996 at Écône, and has been professor of philosophy and theology at the seminary there ever since. 1 Fr. Bernard Lucien (b. 1952) was ordained a priest at Ecône in 1978. He left the Society of Saint Pius X to join the sedevacantists. In a study published in 1988, he demonstrated the contradiction between the traditional teaching of popes (Gregory XVI and Pius IX) and the doctrine of Vatican II on religious freedom. In 1992, he abandoned sedevacantism to join the “Ecclesia Dei” groups and justify the teachings of Vatican II. After having been a member of the Institute of Christ the King, and having taught at the Fraternity of St. Peter and at the Barroux Monastery, he is now a priest of the archdiocese of Vaduz in Liechtenstein. In conservative conciliar circles, Fr. Lucien is looked upon as an expert on the Magisterium and infallibility. He can be reproached with the same reproach Archbishop Lefebvre made of all the sedevacantist priests who left him, several of whom subsequently adopted the attitudes of Vatican II diametrically opposed to sedevacantism: his analysis is the work of a pure theoretician (trained in mathematics), always torn between two extremes (either Vatican II is wrong and Paul VI was not pope, or else Paul VI was pope and Vatican II is right. 2 Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, tr. by Roy J. Deferrari from the 30th ed. of the Enchiridion Symbolorum [hereafter abbreviated Dz.] (1955; reprint, Loreto Publications, n.d.), 1792. 3 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Theologische Prinzipienlehre (Munich: Erich Wewel Verlag, 1982); English version: (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), pp.365-93. 4 Fr. Bernard Lucien, The Degrees of Authority of the Magisterium [French] (La Nef, 2007), p.178. 5 Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p.378. 6 Ibid., p.381. 7 Ibid., p.382. 8 The thesis of Father Basil, O.S.B., of the Barroux Monastery goes along this line. 9 Lucien, The Degrees of Authority, pp.137-58. 10 St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, online at www.newadvent.org/ fathers. 11 Cardinal Johann Baptist Franzelin, De Divina Traditione, 4th ed. (Rome, 1896), pp.259-60. 12 Ibid., Thesis 9, corollary 2, p.82. 13 Pope Pius VII had already condemned the same error in his Apostolic Letter Post tam Diuturnitas of April 29, 1814. 14 See Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned (Angelus Press, 2002), pp.22-31. 15 See Cardinal Louis Billot, De Ecclesia, 4th ed. (Rome, 1921), Q.14, Thesis, 31, §1, n.2, p.635; Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, s.v. “Infaillibilité”; Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned, pp.29-31. 16 Franzelin, De Divina Traditione, Thesis 9, corollary 1, p.82. 17 The Bull Ineffabilis Deus, in the Acta Pii IX, pars 1, Vol. 1, p.615. 18 Franzelin, De Divina Traditione, p.82. 19 Cardinal Louis Billot, “Tradition et modernisme: De l’immuable tradition contre la nouvelle hérésie de l’évolutionisme,” Courrier de Rome, No.61, p.45. THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT 35 BooK ReVieW TITLE: The Mass AUTHOR: Fr. Joseph Dunney PUBLISHER: Angelus Press DISTRIBUTOR: Angelus Press. Price: $19.95 REVIEWER: Anthony Cornwell SUMMARY: A book suited for the clergy and laity alike. It is an authoritative explanation of the Roman liturgy, explaining every part of the Mass carefully and in depth, including a discussion of vestments, Church architecture, etc. Loaded with examples from Holy Scripture and the lives of the saints, O n Christmas Day 1889, his last Christmas on earth, John Henry Cardinal Newman experienced enormous difficulty in celebrating Mass; afterwards, he was heard to mutter the words “Never again.” Aged 88, his eyesight almost faded, his memory impaired and his movements unsteady, he was no longer willing to put at risk the tender care and devotion with which he had habitually celebrated Mass over the previous 40 years. Thereafter, he said by heart a “dry” Mass without the consecration. This he found a severe penance, as he indicated in a letter dictated to a priest friend on 10th March 1890: “...thinking of you with a sort of sad and almost keen sense of the intensity of the contrast to you who have had given you those great privileges which I have not myself” (L & D, XXXI, 283). Consciously or unconsciously, he was echoing the thoughts of Thomas à Kempis, “Great is this mystery, and great the dignity of priests, to whom that is given which is not granted to angels” (The Imitation of Christ, IV, 5). It is, then, fitting that the book under review should be prefaced by a quotation from Newman’s fictional work about conversion, Loss and Gain, published in 1847, some two years after his own submission to the Catholic Church. The opening runs as follows: To me nothing is so consoling, so piercing, so thrilling, so overcoming, as the Mass, said as it is among us. I could The ANgeLus • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org attend Masses forever, and not be tired. It is not a mere form of words–it is a great action, the greatest action that can be on earth. It is not the invocation merely, but, if I dare use the word, the evocation of the Eternal. He becomes present on the altar in flesh and blood, before Whom angels bow and devils tremble. (II, XX) It was precisely to bring as wide a range of readers as possible to a realisation of the unique genius and mystery of the Roman Rite that, in 1924, Fr. Joseph Dunney of the Archdiocese of New York published his book entitled The Mass. In addition to his scholarship, Fr. Dunney had considerable pastoral experience, both of which are reflected in his writing. The work had been out of print for more than half a century until the Angelus Press was inspired to make it available once again. In a new Foreword, Fr. Daniel Cooper, SSPX, reminds us that there is “a hidden depth and meaning to the Latin Mass that many Catholics have never grasped or have forgotten” (p.xi). The present book is the remedy. How does Fr. Dunney set about his task? In 36 chapters, each treating a part of the Mass in sequence, he provides a full, clear, informed and systematic commentary, by turns historical, liturgical, doctrinal and devotional. Each prayer of the common and each part of the proper, taken from the second Mass of Christmas, are given in Latin with a facing translation. Two additional chapters are appended on the respective subjects of Mass Vestments and the Mass of the Catechumens, and the whole is illustrated by more than 120 small engravings. Further, as the foreword emphasises, every chapter reads like a meditation on a part of the Mass.... It has also many lessons for life on virtue and character; it is loaded with examples from the Holy Scriptures and the lives of the saints. (pp.xii-xiii) This rich storehouse of treasures offers an extensive knowledge of the historical and liturgical development 37 of the Mass of the Roman Rite, a deep appreciation of its doctrinal significance and an evocation of appropriate dispositions. Selective exemplification will best demonstrate the merits of the work. The brief exclamation of welcome, Dominus vobiscum, occurs no fewer than eight times; on four of these occasions the priest faces the people with arms extended, on the other four occasions not; on each occasion the greeting is returned by the server with the words Et cum spiritu tuo. This leads to a consideration of the Mystical Body of Christ, the metaphors of head and member, vine and branch and the need to be faithful in giving good example in the Lord’s service. While it is true that the Latin noun collecta means a gathering of people, usually those taking part in a penitential procession to one of the Station churches in Rome, its other meaning, a gathering together of the petitions of the people for inclusion in the prayers, more closely accounts for the name collect given to the prayer recited immediately before the Epistle; some collects were composed by the fifth-century Popes Leo and Gelasius. Fr. Dunney pertinently comments on the characteristics of the collects: economy of expression, symmetry, contrast, variation and rhythm. An example occurs in the collect for the Friday of the third week of Lent: “ut, sicut ab alimentis abstinemus in corpore, ita a vitiis ieiunemus in mente–that, just as we deprive ourselves of food for the body, so we may abstain from an intention to sin.” Similar features characterise the prayer Deus, qui humanae substantiae said by the priest as he pours wine and water into the chalice in preparation for the Offertory–eius divinitatis consortes is perfectly balanced by humanitatis nostrae particeps. Immediately before the Secret prayer, the priest turns towards the people with arms outstretched and recites silently, apart from the opening words, the Orate Fratres in a kind of leave-taking, since from then until the Communion he remains steadfastly facing the altar. It is a prayer which emphasises the unity of action by priest and people, as together, after Christ Himself, they offer the Holy Sacrifice. It is a theme taken up most noticeably in three of the prayers preceding the Orate Fratres–at the offertory of the chalice (offerimus), in the prayer In spiritu humilitatis, as he places the chalice on the altar (suscipiamur and nostrum) and in the prayer to the Trinity after the Lavabo, suscipe sancta Trinitas (offerimus, nobis and agimus) and later in the opening prayer of the Canon, Te igitur (rogamus ac petimus). The triple invocation of the Sanctus and the glad Hosanna of welcome accompanied by the ringing of the bell create a sense of anticipation and awe at the imminent arrival of Christ Himself on the altar at the Consecration. Hushed reverence and words whispered by the priest create the setting for the homage the people pay as they gaze upon the elevated host and chalice and silently invoke the words of the Apostle Thomas, no longer incredulous, “My Lord and my God.” Mention of the elevation leads to an account of its liturgical history: before the year 1210, the priest would elevate the host and the chalice only slightly, making it difficult for the people to see and venerate; moreover, since this slight elevation coincided with the whole of the words of consecration, the people were unable to be certain whether at a particular point they were venerating a consecrated or an unconsecrated host. Hence, the change to an extended and visible elevation which not only satisfied the insatiable desire of people to direct their gaze towards the consecrated host, but also emphasised the Church’s opposition to the dualist heresy of the Albigenses, prevalent at the time in the south of France, which denied belief in the sacraments and particularly in the divine presence in the Eucharist. The Greek derivative embolism, meaning simply “an insertion,” is the name given to the prayer Libera nos which immediately follows the Pater Noster, the final petition of which it elaborates as a liturgical epilogue. It asks for deliverance from all evils past, present and to come (ab omnibus malis, praeteritis, praesentibus, et futuris) through the intercession of the Mother of God and all the saints. An early patristic description of the dispositions for receiving Holy Communion–cum amore ac timore (with love and awe)–characterises the two sets of triple invocations preparatory to Communion. The Agnus Dei, with its allusion to Christ the Paschal Lamb who atones for our sins, expresses wholesome fear and humility and sorrow for sin, reminiscent of the attitude of the publican in the temple. Similar sentiments are conveyed by the prayer of the centurion, Domine, non sum dignus, said by the priest at the altar silently, apart from the opening words, and again, aloud in its entirety, as the priest faces the people before distributing Holy Communion. Because it is recited inaudibly and occurs immediately before the final blessing, the short prayer to the Trinity, Placeat tibi, tends to be overlooked. The priest begs that, despite his own unworthiness, his offering may find acceptance and grant forgiveness to himself and to those for whom he has made the offering. This is a comprehensive work which has much more to offer than a restricted selection can encompass. Fr. Dunney has succeeded admirably in his purpose. No serious reader of his book can fail to acquire a deeper understanding and appreciation of the prayers and ceremonies of the Mass of the Roman Rite; this, in turn, will lead to an increased devotion and to a desire to be present as frequently as possible at what Jeremias, Archdeacon of Cleveland in the 12th century, referred to as “The worthiest thing, most of goodness, in all this world, it is the Mass” (The Lay Folk’s Mass Book [EETS, 1879], p.2, lines 1-2). Mr. Anthony Cornwell taught Latin and Greek at Cardinal Newman’s foundation, the Oratory School, now situated in Oxfordshire, England. He also holds a degree in Patristic Theology from the University of Oxford and is a regular reviewer for the journal Recusant History. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • May 2008 38 He said She said M r . D e n n i s M r s . H a m m o n d C o l l e e n H a m m o n d This is another installment of a regular contribution featuring the male and female understandings of real-life situations encountered in the sacrament of matrimony. “What ’cha Thinkin’?” Christians have been fed to lions. I’ve read about martyrs being drawn and quartered, burned at the stake, and subjected to various other tortures and torments. I’ve seen men knocked unconscious on athletic fields and hideous auto accidents. It’s all frightful stuff. So, what is it that happens to me when I hear this question from my wife? “Honey, what ’cha thinkin’ about?” Why does this question make me uneasy? Is there really a correct answer to that question? We men are embarrassed to admit that too often not very much fills our heads. We know we ought to be solving the world’s problems and making all around us better. We know time is short THE ANGELUS • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org and we’ve been told to be aware of the more lofty things. But we are what we are. Creatures of the flesh. We are too familiar and comfortable with relaxation and leisure. Too many times, perhaps, our thoughts are of nothing too consequential. So, this question put me on the spot. When my wife asked me The Question, we were sitting in front of a flickering fire sipping wine. Does Colleen want to hear about the NCAA matchups? Does my wife care about my latest work sagas? Then I recalled that mortgage rates had fallen and thought it might be time to refinance. So, I poked at the fire and said something about considering refinancing. ?” 39 Refinance? Dennis knows that women are taperecorders for discussions. My mind raced. Had my husband mentioned this to me before? Nada. Zip. Nuthin’. My puzzlement grew into irritation. “But we talk about everything,” I thought to myself as I fingered my glass. “How could Dennis think about doing something so monumental and not discuss it with me?” Granted, I wasn’t opposed to discussing refinancing because the rates were going down. But I was miffed that my husband might make such a financial move without at least discussing it with me. Looking back, it was silly to be upset. Dennis hadn’t actually made a move but only thought about it. My real annoyance came from feeling neglected because I hadn’t been consulted. In retrospect, I know it was my pride getting in the way. My emotions had left the station and were gaining speed. Forgetting about the power of a smile, irritation oozed into my tone of voice. “Refinance, Dennis? How could you think about something like that and not talk to me about it?” Why is my wife so chilly about this, I thought. It’s silly for Colleen to be upset. I hadn’t done anything wrong. I thought myself responsible to think about bettering our financial position. It’s good stewardship. I am looking out for the good of our family and the community. Besides, I had said I was only thinking about refinancing, hadn’t I? Colleen’s apparent lack of common sense irritated me. I was asked a question; I gave an innocent answer; now, my wife’s upset. How illogical is that? I put down the fire poker and coolly explained the three or four reasons why refinancing made all the sense in the world and that I had everything under control. I threw in a couple of reasons why my wife shouldn’t be upset. “Don’t worry about it,” I said, settling next to Colleen on the sofa. “It’s no big deal.” Like a roller coaster climbing its first hill, my irritation grew to exasperation. “Oh, really?” I replied. “You think it’s ‘no big deal?’” I was hurt because my husband seemed to be dismissive of–and indifferent to–my feelings. My anger really wasn’t about refinancing or being neglected; it was about Dennis trivializing my emotions. During the “honeymoon” years of our marriage, I would bite my tongue and pretend things didn’t bother me. I would often back off and apologize to avoid an argument. Now I understand that “backing off” is not honest and would lead to my being resentful. If women don’t share their thoughts and discuss them, resentment will mount. When a heated discussion or outburst is over, men forget about it and move on. Women, however, never forget, and less virtuous women seek revenge either by pouting, the silent treatment, or worse. That’s not a healthy pattern for people married for life nor is it what the sacrament of marriage is all about. At this point, I had a chance to nip my rash judgment in the bud. To grow in patience and charity. To smile softly and explain my wounded feelings to my husband. But as I crested the hill of my emotional roller coaster, I prepared to inform Dennis of how big of a deal this really was. I took a deep breath, tried to count to ten, then let it out. I’m not sure I remember exactly what my wife said, although Colleen probably will. How do women remember all of that stuff; like what we were wearing, where we were standing, and what the weather was like that day? It’s a wonderful gift that God has given women, until it’s used against me. At this point I didn’t care about refinancing one way or the other. I was just angry that my wife was so upset. Colleen expects me to handle the money and then disapproves of the way I do it? I’m only thinking about choices, not making them. Doesn’t Colleen trust me? I want my wife to be protected from any burden of financial anxiety to be able fulfill her vocation of mother, homeschooler, and heart of our household. Doesn’t Colleen appreciate what I do and how I protect her from unnecessary fears and anxiety? Have I become untrustworthy? Doesn’t my wife know I have our family’s best interests in mind and that there is no reason for her to be upset? Unless Colleen calms down, I’m going to get real angry. Actually, I guess I already am. “Honey, you need to calm down,” I said. “Calm down”? Pardon me?! My emotional roller coaster was now whooshing downhill in full blown anger. How could my husband be blind to the fact that I had every right to be angry? Dennis hadn’t consulted me, then belittled my feelings and told me to squelch them. Then my husband blamed me for everything even though Dennis started it! I glanced at the man I married. Where was my hero who consoled me through my trouble spots? The one who helped with the newborns when I was overwhelmed? The man who cared for me during my illnesses? As I glared at his profile in the firelight, I suddenly saw an uncaring and inconsiderate brute. Emotions. They make us forget the details and contribute to things blowing out of proportion. Fiddling with my wine glass, I realized that I had let all my thoughts center around myself. Not once had I considered the viewpoint of my husband. Knowing a touch of guilt, I took a sip of my Chianti and wondered how I could gracefully exit our discussion. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • May 2008 40 Somehow, the refinancing issue was no longer the point. My wife and I were arguing about the way we were arguing. How did this happen? I thought I had been challenged. I was backed into a corner, distrusted, even disrespected, and my competitive nature kicked in. I was wounded and fought back. Determined to triumph, I had focused more on being right than realizing how my wife may have heard me. Maybe my wife hadn’t really challenged me. What if I was the one to start the argument? I thought Colleen resisted my point of view, so I defended its merits (and mine, too). Never had I paused to acknowledge the possibility of hurting her feelings. My logic and reason, which I carried like sword and shield, didn’t do me much good here. My approach made things worse. A log fell into the fire. My husband’s apology was endearing, especially since I had been so defensive. The masculine nature deals better with ideas than with people. Because of this emphasis, any woman expressing ideas or emotions needs to remember that a man may misinterpret her behavior. If a wife tells her husband she’s upset about something, he’s likely to think she’s confronting him because she thinks he’s to blame. But most of the time a wife just needs to vent her thoughts and emotions. She doesn’t need a problem solved; she just needs to “get it out” to make her feel better. The real test of married love is to forgive each other and overlook daily limitations and imperfections. It’s easy to love someone who is perfect, but the only perfect people are in Heaven. As Catholics, we forgive other people as we hope they will forgive us. That same charity begins at home. My husband’s tone of voice sounded callous and saddened me. At the same time, I regretted the demeaning tone of my voice and choice of words. I hadn’t upheld Dennis as my knight in shining armor. I had doubted Dennis and rejected his care for the family. Less angry now and contrite, I prayed for the right thing to say. Over the years of our marriage, I’ve learned not to minimize nor rationalize away my wife’s emotions. I have to keep “Mr. Fix-It” at bay. And if she’s upset, I take a breath and find out why. I listen, without explaining, defending, or solving–which Colleen needs from me to help validate her feelings. Frankly, it helps me, too, because I can understand where she’s coming from. If I avert my attention from what my wife is saying and instead defend myself or play Mr. Fix-It, Colleen feels dismissed, unimportant, and ignored. I resist the urge to list the logical reasons why my wife should not be upset. I hear her out. It’s a guaranteed way to have Colleen know I love and cherish her, need and protect her. As a man, I find it easier than my wife to restrain and dismiss my emotions. The phlegmatic part of my personality makes it even easier to do so and “remain calm.” To my wife this sometimes comes across as being aloof and callous. It’s easier for me to dismiss the emotions and needs of others, and that sometimes includes my beloved. That is not what Colleen needs nor deserves. That neither spouse is loved nor appreciated by each other in such situations is at the core of most arguments, and certainly it was the case for this one. We just weren’t listening to each other. My grandmother always told me that I had two ears and one mouth and should use them in that proportion. So, I must remind myself to listen. Real listening is charity in action. Too busy defending myself, I hadn’t sifted through Colleen’s verbal clues and missed my tip offs about what she was feeling. A first step is to remember that emotions are not reason, logic, or math; they are. What we do with emotion is what counts. The second step is to stop and listen. Understanding these has helped Colleen and I discuss things calmly even though emotions may be raw. We acknowledge the emotions and then set them apart from the matter at hand, like refinancing or whatever. When a woman’s emotions are dismissed or minimized, they don’t go away– they escalate. I said a quick prayer and turned to my wife to apologize. THE ANGELUS • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org When my emotions in a discussion escalate, I need to remember to look inside myself and reflect on how I may have contributed to the argument. And yes, there are times when I do need to calm down. When someone is pushed, they tend to push back, so how can I expect Dennis to really hear what I’m saying about how I’m feeling unless I do so calmly and gently? I need to remember that mistakes happen. Why should I worry? My husband needs me to support him and any anxiety I build up is from me and me alone. Smiling at Dennis, I let him know how much I appreciate the things he does for the family, and that I accept him and trust him. Totally. Really, it’s not that bad to sit and listen. When I do, I won’t stiffen when Colleen asks, “Honey, what ’cha thinkin’ about?” Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Hammond are the parents of four children, the eldest just having entered high school. Dennis is a freelance writer, part-time public speaker, and works in Executive Marketing for IBM. Colleen is the author of the bestselling book Dressing with Dignity.The family lives on ten acres outside Fort Worth, Texas, and assists at the Latin Mass. 41 F r . Y v e s l e R o u x Dear Friends and Benefactors, Common sense is no more, destroyed by the monstrous god of modern technology. The famous saying of Descartes, asserting that “common sense is the most shared thing in this world,” makes us smile today! What is, indeed, the use of this saying when man learns how to use a computer even before learning the rudiments of grammar and arithmetic? The computer screen is, for the child, not only a physical reality: it cuts him off, often permanently, from the indispensable tools of knowledge which will allow him to judge and understand the reality that surrounds him as an adult. Caught up in technology, man becomes secretly its slave by subjecting himself to the poor binary language of computers, by unconsciously adopting it as the language of his own thought. Any idea of fine distinctions becomes foreign to him. This is a carica­ture of real truth, which, in its simplicity, takes into account all the complexity of the real world. The technological bent of our world has created an artificial man, cut off from re­ality. Master of the world in front of his screen (without even thinking that the screen per­forms its own role of “screen” or filter, separating him from the real world!), man lives no more in the concrete world, where he must necessarily submit himself to a higher or­der. He drifts in an imaginary world, where his desire for domination can infinitely ex­pand itself without risk–thus becoming god and master. At least he believes it to be so! But he is only a sad individual used to having the world revolve around his grandiose person–we see here the perfect and unbearable type of a tyrannical individual making grotesque demands. This imaginary world has its own laws, its own morals, its own criteria of truth. Each man moves within a universe that is rigorously personal. This solitary isolation is only the last misadventure of a civilization dying by asphyxiation. When men are no longer subject to an order superior to themselves and when they maintain between each other only spasmodic and extremely minimal relationships, society itself is not far from its breakdown. We already live in this strange world, a world that the philosopher Marcel de Corte accurately called “dissociety,” where man, reduced to the solitude of his poor individuality, becomes foreign to the world and to himself. Man, indeed, locked up in his world because of the omnipresent tyranny of images which do not leave him time to reflect, each day loses the vital contact with reality, source of balance and...of common sense! The essential link between man and the concrete reality that surrounds and domi­nates him grows blurred, in favor of an imaginary world that is violently imposed upon him by the proliferation of modern means of communication and information. Man finds difficulty in establishing a living relationship–let us dare to use the term, a carnal rela­tionship, a relationship of flesh and blood–with the real world which has become foreign to him. This loss of contact with reality is tragic. Reality, by raising a barrier against man’s morbid inclination to egotism, is the only protection man has against himself. This barrier was nothing other than common sense. A man who knew that he was naturally dependent did not have the insane yearning to rise above himself. He fit with ease in the order of the universe and drew from it his force and his balance. But times have changed: now is the reign of disproportion, in which man, intoxi­cated by his technical successes, lives in a disincarnated world that tries to delay its un­avoidable defeat by attempting a dazzling and dazing escape into the future. The barrier that was common sense is now broken. Man has become nothing more than a frail raft, tossed around at the media’s whims. The Mass has been said: it was a requiem Mass. We take note of it; painfully, because the disappearance of common sense is only the twilight that heralds the disappearance of man. From the March 2008 newsletter of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary. Fr. Yves le Roux was ordained for the Society of Saint Pius X in 1990 and is currently Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, where he also teaches Introduction to Philosophy, Ethics, Acts of the Magisterium, and Liturgy. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • May 2008 42 F R . How should a Catholic react to a government that is openly hostile to the Faith? p e t e r This question is always a topical one, since it is really the application of Our Lord’s words: “Render, therefore, to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s” (Mt. 22:21). This application is all the more difficult as Caesar himself is established by and dependent upon Almighty God, and yet constantly enters into contradiction with the Almighty. Hence there have always been persecutions, and always will be, as St. Pius X once stated, considering that persecution can be considered the fifth mark of the Church, and a sign of its refusal to compromise with the world. Throughout the 19th century it was the freemasonic revolutionary governments that attacked the Church, her religious and her priests. Throughout the 20th century it was the various Communist regimes. Now open government hostility to the Faith is entering into our so-called “free” countries. Many examples could be given for the 21st century. Recent legislation in Canada and the U.K. has made it obligatory for Catholic adoption agencies to provide children for adoption to homosexual couples, without discrimination. Such a law is immoral and cannot possibly be observed, even if it means that the Catholic adoption agencies cease all activity. The same is the case in Victoria, Australia, where a proposed law would give legal recognition equivalent to marriage to “couples in a relationship who are not married, including providing marriagelike legitimacy to same sex intimacy,” which legal recognition would have to be recognized by Catholic social organizations. This amounts to a redefinition of marriage as opposed to the natural law, which is the law of God Himself. The same could be said of the proposed legislation presently before the Colorado legislature, which would bar charitable agencies from receiving state funding if they discriminate on the basis of religion in personnel policies, for example, when a Catholic agency hires Catholic employees. This is opposed likewise the to divine law, that requires that acts of charity be an expression of the unity of the Catholic Faith. The Catholic principle in fighting against all such iniquitous laws is that of passive resistance (Prummer, Man. Th. Moralis, II, § 601). This resistance is called passive, for although Catholics must constantly refuse all obedience to laws that contradict the divine law, they must also acknowledge that all legitimate authority receives its power from God, and respect it as much as possible. This is the teaching of St. Peter when he says: “Be ye subject therefore to every human creature for God’s sake…for so is the will of THE ANGELUS • May 2008 www.angeluspress.org R . s c o t t God that by doing well you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.” St. Paul teaches the same thing when he states: “He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation” (Rm. 13:2). Yet resistance there must be, whenever the civil law contradicts the divine law or ecclesiastical law. The Catholic will consequently willingly choose imprisonment or martyrdom rather than to observe a civil law that is opposed to the law of God. However, the resistance is passive and not active, provided that the governmental authority is legitimate. For active resistance is armed combat against the government, and it is clearly taught by Pope Pius IX that Catholics may never rebel against a legitimate leader (Syllabus, Prop. 63). Such was the case of the Theban legion under St. Maurice in present-day Switzerland, in the 3rd century. Although the 2,000 armed men could have resisted, they put down their weapons and allowed themselves to be slaughtered rather than compromise the Faith. However, this does not preclude all legitimate means of defense of the Church and of God’s laws, such as peaceful demonstrations, books, pamphlets, the Internet and the like. Nor does it preclude all the just means at the disposition of Catholics, such as pressure on elected representatives. It is in fact obligatory in conscience to use these means, as much as it is in our power to do so, to defend the law of God, the authority of the Church and the Social Kingship of Christ. Yet the Catholic is not a revolutionary, and must maintain his respect for legitimate authority even when it commands something immoral. He may, however, cease the special activity in question, in order to avoid the sanctions foreseen by law. However, in so doing he caves in to the pressure for secularization and for removal of the Church from all charitable work and social activity, a part of the denial of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is also permitted to cooperate with such unjust laws, provided that there is no sin involved, if it were considered the lesser evil and the most prudent thing to do. This could, perhaps, occasionally apply to the hiring of non-Catholics, but not as a regular practice for Catholic charities and schools, and certainly never to the providing of children for adoption by homosexuals, for this would be tantamount to recognizing homosexuality, which is directly opposed to the divine law, as a Catholic alternative. Fr. Peter Scott was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. After assignments as seminary professor and the US District Superior, he is currently the rector of Holy Cross Seminary in Goulburn, Australia. Those wishing answers may please send their questions to Q & A in care of Angelus Press, 2915 Forest Ave., Kansas City, MO 64109. 4 John Croy Dickinson/North Houston, Texas wrItIng contest march 2008 wInner At the Second Vatican Council many bishops went right along with it, some opposed it, and some simply didn’t know how to react. It was primarily the latter group that composed the assembly in a rather old theater just outside of Rome in 1963. As the weather was blistering hot indoors and out, everyone was suffering and there was general disorder. This continued until a familiar high-pitched squeal filled the room. It was silenced by a gentle tap on the podium microphone. All eyes turned to the tapper. He was an older man, a bishop; he wore an episcopal ring on his finger and a clownish smile on his face. “My dearest brothers and sisters in the mystical fraternity of Jesu,” he said, “There are many who wish to disobey his most Supreme Holiness the Pope in his most infallible decrees. I have come to warn and comfort you amid such grievous scandal.” I dare not try to repeat what he said for the next three hours, so full as it was with hyper-ambiguous terms. Anything that could be understood was just plain sophistry. All through his talk, the very air seemed filled with the aroma of cotton candy. When the next speaker ascended the podium, the atmosphere was drastically transformed. All became still and as rigid as steel; the audience seemed to sense something solid was to be served. A priest wearing a cassock and Roman collar spoke. “My fellow Catholics, it is indeed a serious thing to disobey or even contradict the Pope. One must have a very, very good reason to do so. And, if I have done so, my reason is this.” He opened a suitcase and, with the greatest care and reverence, pulled out a painting of Mary and the Christ Child. It had several bullet holes in it and it was obviously very old. “This is one of the many holy paintings that were defiled by the Russian communists earlier this century. Yet, the Pope wishes to reconcile all beliefs to the Church, including Communism! He wishes to confuse error with truth, but, as this painting shows, the two are incompatible. Truth is like this painting; error is like the bullet holes.” “You are anti-progressive,” squealed the Bishop. “With all due respect, Your Excellency,” came the reply, “so was Pope St. Pius X.” www.angeluspress.org The ANgeLus • May 2008 The Angelus monthly photo writing contest Any member of a household aged 10-18 whose family address has a current subscription to The Angelus (either in print or online) is eligible. There may be more than one entry per address if more than one child is eligible. (Please include your family’s address and phone number, especially if you are a contestant writing from a boarding school.) Pricing for The Angelus is found at the bottom of the “Table of Contents” page. The Angelus is offering $150 for a 250-word creative writing composition on the above picture. (This may include, but is not limited to, any poem, dialogue, short story, song lyrics, script, explanation, etc.) If none is deserving of the prize, none will be awarded. The winning essay may be published if there is a winner. An extra $50 is available if one is a member of the SSPX Eucharistic Crusade (verified by your chaplain with your entry). Entrants must submit a creative-writing composition in their own words about the featured monthly picture. Submissions must be handwritten and will be judged on content, legibility, and creativity. The essays will be judged by parties outside of Angelus Press. Essays must be postmarked or faxed by may 30 and be addressed to: Attention: The Angelus Monthly Photo Writing Contest 2915 Forest Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64109 FAX: 816-753-3557 (24-hour dedicated line) ne th fe es s FATHERS’ DAY (JUNE 15) DR. JOHN SENIOR’S SUCCESSFUL FATHERS: The Death of Christian Culture The Subtle but Powerful Ways Fathers Mold Their Children’s Characters James Stenson Dr. Senior deals with the root causes of how and why Christian culture is dying. An indepth study of literature, culture, history, and religion alerts men of what they stand to lose, especially as education ceases to be about the truth, and becomes merely an exercise in “ticket-punching.” Ultimately, Senior warns that the treasures of classical and Christian civilization must be preserved and lived, lest they be lost forever. It takes hard work to become a good father, and one thing lacking is good guidance on fatherhood. This booklet gives men much-needed directions on problems fathers face, and reveals “twelve commandments of successful fathers.” Learn how to defuse adolescent boys’ defiance and how to form positive father-daughter relationships. He details what fathers must do–and not do–in order to instill the Faith in their children. 191pp, softcover with dust jacket, STK# 8252 8252✱ $17.95 64pp, 4" x 7 ¼" softcover, STK# 8270 $2.99 PREPARING FOR PEER PRESSURE: A Guide for Parents of Young Children James Stenson Restoration of Christian Culture “Dare we hope for a restoration?” In this Want to teach your little ones to maintain Catholic values in a contrary culture as they grow into adulthood? You have to start early, and here’s how: this book gives you a framework for instilling values in your children before they reach age twelve. He shows you how to avoid common mistakes, explains how to detect signs of character weakness in your children, and helps you form your children’s character while respecting their legitimate freedom. compelling “sequel” to The Death of Christian Culture, Dr. Senior answers with a resounding “yes!” He warns of the extinction of the cultural patrimony of Greece and Rome and medieval Europe, owing to the bureaucratization, mechanization, and standardization of life today. He offers ideas for recapturing and living the cultural traditions of classical and Christian civilization by bringing the wisdom of Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas into touch with the social, political, and personal life of “modern man.” 64pp, 4" x 7 ¼" softcover, STK# 8269 $2.99 PREPARING FOR ADOLESCENCE: A Planning Guide for Parents James Stenson 142pp, softcover with dust jacket, STK# 8256✱ $21.95 “Why don’t you trust me?” “Why do you tell me what I can’t wear?” “Why do you always correct me?” If you’re hearing those kinds of questions from your children–or if you think you might–you need this book. Explains how you can keep your children’s adolescence from being dominated by rebellion and conflict, and how to give your children clear moral direction. Includes a Q & A to help you plan for troubles before they arise. Fatherhood and Family Vol.3, The INTEGRITY Series Fathers are essential for a Catholic America.The question is, “What do fathers do?” Forward-thinking INTEGRITY Magazine gives answers: ● Men, Mary, and Manliness ● The Family Has Lost Its Head ● Economics of the Catholic Family ● Afraid to Marry? ● Glorifying the Daily Grind ● The Heroism of the Big Family ● Bringing the Church into Work ● and MUCH more, all in short easy to read article-chapters. 72pp, 4" x 7 ¼" softcover, STK# 8268 $2.99 The Christian Father What He Should Be and What He Should Do Fr. W. Cramer Explains the honor and responsibility of Fatherhood and its necessary virtues. His God-given role cannot be stressed enough. Fathers will understand the great obligation of their vocation which they will be asked to render an account of, and will turn to this book time and time again for important advice on raising children, heading their family, and setting a good example. Includes the prayers a father should pray for himself and his family. 208pp, embossed hardcover, 24 illus., STK# 8230 $18.99 • CHAPTERS INCLUDE: The Father’s Vocation His Stewardship His Qualifications Visiting Public Places The Christian Mother Alone is Not Sufficient His Obligations Difficulties Dangers to the Faith Practice of the Christian Life Keep Holy the Sabbath Discipline Punishment Choice of a State in Life The Father at Prayer • • • • • • • • • • • • 200pp, softcover, STK# 6721 $12.95 Raising Your Children Vol.2, The I Series NTEGRITY Confusion prevails about the job of bringing up children. INTEGRITY Magazine, a post-WWII journal by lay Catholics for living an integral Catholic life, has been sifted for insightful articles on every aspect of raising children. ● Teaching Children to Pray ● Purity and the Young Child ● Creative Activity ● The Dating System ● Crisis of Faith in Youth ● The Vocation of Parents ● Marriage for Keeps and MUCH more all in short easy to read article-chapters. 256pp, softcover, STK# 6598 $14.95 W E N Intended primarily for newcomers (Catholic or not) to the Mass celebrated in the Extraordinary Form. Forty-seven striking color photos accompany the explanations of every major part of the Mass. Sections include: ● What is the Mass? ● Mass of the Catechumens ● The Introit ● The Gloria ● The Epistle ● The Gospel ● Sermon ● The Creed ● Mass of the Faithful ● Offertory ● The Preface ● The Canon ● The Consecration ● The Our Father ● Holy Communion ● Final Blessing and the Last Gospel ● Prayers after Mass. The photographs are minimeditations in themselves, clearly evoking the nature of the liturgical actions taking place. The explanations are rich in concise spiritual, doctrinal, liturgical and historical insights. Can be read before the Mass as a preparation or read at Mass as you follow along. Priced inexpensively so that they can be freely given to anyone new to this form of the Mass. Most importantly, you will learn to unite yourself to the Sacrifice of the Altar. This is a form of active participation that is little understood today...consequently, this book will deepen the faith of all Catholics regardless of which form of Mass they attend. 48pp, softcover, STK# 8266✱ $3.95 25-PACK STK# 8266X✱ $74.95 #1032 FOR THE VISITOR AT M ASS E-MAIL UPDATES from Angelus Press! If you would like to receive our bi-weekly e-mail, updating you on new titles, sales and special offers (most available only online), simply send your e-mail address to: listmaster@angeluspress.org. You can change your e-mail reception preferences or unsubscribe at any time. SHIPPING & HANDLING USA $.01 to $25.00 $7.50 $25.01 to $50.00 $10.00 $50.01 to $100.00 $12.50 Over $100.00 10% of order Foreign 25% of order subtotal angelus Press 2915 Forest Avenue Kansas City, Missouri 64109 1-800-96ORDER 1-800-966-7337 www.angeluspress.org ● 1-8 00-9 6 6-73 37 Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.