Life Healthcare Diagnosis Humanae Vitae The Problem of Catholic Contraception July - August 2018 Life is Holy Man was made in the image and likeness of God. This means that he is endowed with intellect and will, and so has the ability to make moral choices. These qualities do not exist in any creature other than man, but they make it possible for him to have communion with God and also to be morally responsible for his actions. Holy Scripture further defines man as composed of that which is material or immaterial. Accordingly, man has a body and he has a soul. In considering the matter of the life of man, the Scriptures record, “The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Gen. 2:7). God reserves Himself all authority over life and death. He causes life to begin and He causes it to end. (Creation of Eve. Portal, Church of St. Zeno, Verona, Italy) Letter from the Publisher Dear readers, Those of us who are not senior citizens can hardly understand what life was like before our generation. The world of the 1960s was marked by profound political and moral changes: no more war, liberation from taboos, the hippie movement, and Vietnam lost to Communism, all culminating in the student protests of May 1968. The Church, too, would have her peace-revolution as she came into harmony with the world. Paul VI, elected pope in 1963, brought the Second Vatican Council to completion in 1965 and ensured its implementation until his death in 1978. He presided over a church in transition from the pre to the post-Vatican II eras. This transition witnessed the most fundamental revision of Roman Catholic liturgy in centuries, a changing priesthood marked by mass defections, a world deeply troubled from the crisis of authority and the liberation of the taboos. In such critical context, Humanae Vitae stood at a sign of contradiction. In the controversy about contraceptives, Pope Paul VI, acting solo against his friends’ advice, produced the momentous encyclical which reaffirmed the age-old objective morality and denounced the pill. Yet, the experience had been excruciating for the liberal pope. Two years of indecision and his moral paralysis to go against his entourage revealed that he was not capable to lead the Church against a world quickly going mad. He seemed paralyzed in dealing with the Dutch catechism scandal, as well as some US prelates, along with a long list of de facto schismatic Episcopal conferences. It is notable that, after Humanæ Vitæ in 1968, Paul VI issued no further encyclicals for the rest of his reign. At one point, he even said that he understood why St. Peter went back to Rome—it was to be crucified. May this 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae see the resurgence of Tradition and traditional teaching in the See of Peter. Fr. Jürgen Wegner Publisher July - August 2018 Volume XLI, Number 4 Publisher Fr. Jürgen Wegner Editor-in-Chief Mr. James Vogel Managing Editor Fr. Dominique Bourmaud Assistant Editor Mr. Gabriel Sanchez Copy Editor Miss Jane Carver Design and Layout credo.creatie (Eindhoven, The Netherlands) Mr. Simon Townshend Director of Operations Mr. Brent Klaske U.S. Foreign Countries Subscription Rates 1 year 2 years 3 years $45.00 $85.00 $120.00 $65.00 $125.00 $180.00 (inc. Canada and Mexico) All payments must be in U.S. funds only. Online subscriptions: $20.00/year. To subscribe visit: www.angelusonline.org. Register for free to access back issues 14 months and older. All subscribers to the print version of the magazine have full access to the online version. Contents Letter from the Publisher 4 Theme: Life ––The Air We Breathe ––Healthcare Diagnosis ––Humanae Vitae ––The Problem of Catholic Contraception ––Fifty Years Later 6 10 17 23 28 Spirituality ––The Incensing of the Altar ––Letter to Pope Francis ––The Sacred Gift of Life ––The Gift of the Father 34 38 42 44 Christian Culture ––Liberalism, Fascism, and Humanae Vitae ––The Anti-Political Systems ––Marxist Revival in the West ––The Sloppy Child ––Questions and Answers 49 54 61 66 68 “Instaurare omnia in Christo” The Angelus (ISSN 10735003) is published bi-monthly under the patronage of St. Pius X and Mary, Queen of Angels. Publication office is located at PO Box 217, St. Marys, KS 66536. PH (816) 753-3150; FAX (816) 753-3557. Periodicals Postage Rates paid at Kansas City, MO. Manuscripts and letters to the editor are welcome and will be used at the discretion of the editors. The authors of the articles presented here are solely responsible for their judgments and opinions. Postmaster sends address changes to the address above. ©2018 BY ANGELUS PRESS. OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE PRIESTLY SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X FOR THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA News from Tradition ––Church and World ––A Matter of Principle ––The Last Word 74 78 87 Theme Life The Air We Breathe by Fr. Dominique Bourmaud, SSPX Lately, with Pope Francis’s latest writing, the question of abortion came up in the front pages of Catholic papers. He explained: “Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned.” Here, I am not interested in discussing the question of immigration and defense of one’s patrimony. I wish only to stress that there is an order of things, a hierarchy of values, and that the protection of innocent life must be given primacy of place over many other issues, however pressing. In a besieged fortress, a failing bastion wall is a risk, but a breach in the citadel means despair and doom. Innocent Life is Sacrosanct Here is one instance of the primacy of “Thou shalt not kill.” Right after the high school Parkland massacre in Florida perpetrated by a 17-year-old student, people have rightly questioned what could be done to stop this avalanche of violence. One interesting article in the Wall Street Journal by Peggy Noonan drew my attention, not only because she is a 6 The Angelus July - August 2018 conservative Catholic, but also because she was pointing the finger at the remote causes of the problem, the mental disease of this country, and especially the teenagers. Here are some items in her plea: “A nation has an atmosphere. It has air it breathes in each day. China has a famous pollution problem: you can see the dirt in the air. America’s air looks clean but there are toxins in it, and they’re making the least defended and protected of us sick. Here is one breath of the air. Two weeks ago, the U.S. Senate blocked a bill that would have banned most abortions after 20 weeks...but Democrats said it was an assault on women’s rights. So far, as the Senate is concerned, you can end the life of a 6- to 9-month-old baby that can live outside the womb that is not only human, but recognizably and obviously human. And I’ll tell you what I think a teenager absorbs about it, unconsciously, in America. He sees a headline online, he passes a television in an airport, he hears the quick story and he thinks: “If the baby we don’t let live is unimportant, then I guess I am unimportant. And you’re unimportant too. Compromise is often good. On gun law, Republicans oppose banning assault weapons such as the AR-15. Democrats oppose banning late-term abortion...The idea: Trade banning assault weapons for banning late-term abortion. Make illegal a killing machine and a killing procedure. In both cases, the lives of children would be saved. Wouldn’t this clean some of the air?” What Mrs. Noonan rightly understood was the connection between two forms of violence. What she stressed especially is that the most violent attacks, however shocking, are just the tip of the iceberg. The problem lies much deeper. It touches on the sacrosanct nature of innocent human life, especially of the helpless ones, fetus and babies and geriatric patients. It also touches on the meaning of life altogether: if the nation sees no point defending the innocent natural life, if living has no higher goal than material life, if there is no more to human life after this life than there is to a cat, if man is not created to know, lose and serve God and be happy with Him forever, then it is not worth our while and effort for growing up and living a purposeless life. And this bleak future can only breed distress and despair, and we know all too well where these sentiments originate. innocent against alleged “rights” of powerful heads of States. Here are some 20th century statements, against the dark backdrop of Communism and Nazism: “We must reprove totally and hold as false and condemned the theory called eugenism, either positive or negative; we must reprove also the means that it teaches for the betterment of the human race, which neglect the natural or divine or ecclesiastical laws concerning marriage and the rights of individuals” (Decree of the Holy Office, March 21, 1931). Likewise, Pius XII, in his Allocution of October 29, 1951), said the following: “Every human being, even the child in the Church’s Teaching on Human Life The Church, which is God’s spokesman on earth, has always protected the weak and 7 Theme Life womb, has the right to life directly from God and not from his parents, nor from any society or human authority. Therefore, there is no man, no human authority, no science, no “indication” at all—whether it be medical, eugenic, social, economic, or moral—that may offer or give a valid judicial title for a direct, deliberate disposal of an innocent human life, that is, a disposal which aims at its destruction, whether as an end in itself or as a means to achieve the end, perhaps in no way at all illicit...Therefore, when this practice was initiated, the Church expressly declared that it was against the natural law and the divine positive law, and consequently that it was unlawful to kill, even by order of the public authorities, those who were innocent, even if on account of some physical or mental defect, they were useless to the State and a burden upon it. The life of an innocent person is sacrosanct, and any direct attempt or aggression against it is a violation of one of the fundamental laws, without which, secure human society is impossible.” For the average American today, it is quite a shock, quite an eye-opening experience to visit a country like the Philippines. People come back saying: “This the happiest country I have ever visited.” People are full of life; joy abounds. Poverty and human misery may reign everywhere, but the Catholic atmosphere, with the sense that God is our Father and that Providence, still gives them peace and hope. Visiting Mexico a few decades ago before the legalization of abortion, gave me the same impression: a young country filled with children, men with deformed arms and legs selling candies on the streets and happy with their lot, a throng of people in plain attire, not very pretty or manicured, but joyous and breathing freely. It gave me to understand that life was taken as a gift in these countries, that each plain and humble soul was wanted and loved by their family and neighbor and that gave them “la joie de vivre”—the joy of life—which seems absent from our sophisticated culture. In our first world countries, any discolored tooth is an embarrassment, any slight bodily deformity a tragedy to children and parents. The “village idiot” or the physically impaired is out of place, unwelcomed and a shame to “normal” people. But 8 The Angelus July - August 2018 this attitudes back fires on society, because, in real life, everyone has issues, whether physical or emotional or other. And so, every person becomes self-conscious and plays the hiding game instead of thanking God for all His blessings despite their human foibles. Away from the sunny and healthy environment of love and welcome, hypocrisy wins and distracts people from the real life issues. The Powers of Darkness Julian Huxley who became the first head of the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) used his power to promote eugenism which he had recommended as “the religion of the future” already in 1927 in Man in the Modern World. Such a policy was so alien to men in the mid 20th century—they vividly remembered that eugenics was connected with Nazism—and that this could not be achieved without insistent forcing of “science” and “education”. Bertrand Russell in 1951 wrote in his The Impact of Science Upon Society: “The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at: first, that the influences of the home are obstructive....When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education, for more than one generation, will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.” “Snow is black” is New Age cryptic language which translates into “evil is good.” This resounds like chilling echoes of the serpent tempting Adam in the earthly paradise. We know all too well that this desire to outdo himself and reach out for the stars, or for being equal to God, led man to experience death. Under the pleasant word of eugenism—happy race—it is innocent and defenseless human life which is sacrificed to the ideology of the perfect race...and to the devil. From a CNN radio program called “The Perfect Child” (2/7/1994), a “Catholic” woman expressed the wish to have “the defective children be killed and offered as a sacrifice to God.” But which God is this? Eugenics has a murderous lust and we know all too well where this originates. Speaking of Satan, St. John warns us: “He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him” (Jn 8: 44). This translated into what we have seen adopted in our so-called civilized nations after WWII: birth and population control, abortion, euthanasia, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. A Modern Hero: Professor Lejeune Professor Jérôme Lejeune, by his discovery of Trisomy 21, has been called the father of modern genetics. John Paul II created him the first president of the Pontifical Academy for Life in 1993. The most dramatic moment of his scientific life occurred on October 1, 1969 when he came to the US to receive the William Allan Award, the first prize for Geneticians. That day, to his contemporaries in San Francisco, he explained his discovery of the Down Syndrome and spoke disturbing truths to their face. He knew full well that US scientists were ready to apply his test to eliminate the unwanted fetus and say: “Die, since you are not like me!” He knew that they would never pardon him because he spoke their own scientific language: “Any student in genetics knows that, at conception, the chromosomic message is already complete, and it is that of a man and not of a duck or monkey. With time, he develops into a fullgrown man but there is no essential change. So, when you request the destruction of a fetus, you know full well that you are suppressing a human being simply because he does not suit your norms! But do not deny him his human nature!” Professor Lejeune was preventing the World Order from peacefully carrying out the dirty job of murdering human fetus in the name of “chromosomic racism.” That same night, writing to his wife, he said: “Today, I lost my Nobel Prize in Medicine.” He knew that he would be treated as a pariah and, even more, that his fight for life was lost before it began. But, this would not stop him from continuing to fight to the end. In 1973, he was striving with main and might to stop the abortion legislation in his country when he rang the doorbell of the Archbishop of Paris. As he was absent, he was received by an auxiliary bishop. The latter heard his plea for the little ones but told him that it was not the business of the Church to get involved in societal matters: “Let the people choose the laws they wish. We cannot teach them and force their choice in such things. And you, by lobbying against abortion, you are simply a poor Catholic!” The Professor surely felt that the wayward bishop had more need of prayers than himself. Abortion, which came on the heels of divorce and contraception, is just another “station” ahead of euthanasia and suicide on the journey to the “Culture of death.” During a conference he gave on euthanasia (March 18, 1993), Professor Lejeune explained the well known strategy of the revolutionaries. He exposed the ternary reasoning or diabolical dialectic: diversion invites you to look elsewhere (“the suffering and the worry of the family”); inversion brings out the opposite of what is really taking place (“to relieve suffering”); perversion ends up committing evil (“suppression of the weak innocent person”). We began this article with the double problem of abortion and immigration which seemed like two opposite fronts to tackle at once. However, it should not be difficult to see that these issues are interconnected. For instance, France legalized abortion in 1973 which sent to death 200,000 human lives. That same year, the country accepted the first wave of 200,000 immigrants. Nature abhors a vacuum! Without the love for life and for God, a nation, no less than an individual, is doomed. A country which does not want to live will necessarily be overtaken by another nation which is young, courageous and prolific. A nation which does not want to do hard labor will be invaded by foreigners. A people which does not want children will be invaded by more prolific immigrants. A country which does not want to defend itself will have an army replete with immigrants. This is the hard law of life: there is no place in the banquet of humanity for the old nations. 9 Theme Life Healthcare Diagnosis Sick and getting sicker; Treatment: A Catholic Prescription by Steven Lantier, M.D. Amidst this very broken healthcare system, I count myself among the most fortunate of all physicians in the United States. Twenty-one years ago now, my anesthesia partner, Keith Smith, and I co-founded the Surgery Center of Oklahoma (SCO). The national notoriety that SCO enjoys stems from our pricing model that is often 6-10 times less than what a typical hospital would charge. Once the claim is made, that our prices are multiples less than the big box hospitals, the incredulity, as well as the how and whys of what we are doing, starts flooding in. I will address this toward the end of the article. One other great personal satisfaction for me though, is that because SCO is owned by doctors and run by doctors, rather than faceless corporations, no immoral procedures have ever darkened our door. 10 The Angelus July - August 2018 As we approach the 50th anniversary of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, issued July 25, 1968, I have been asked to evaluate healthcare today in the U.S., and to keep the myriad surrounding events and implications of Humanae Vitae in our minds as we do so. I will limit this evaluation of healthcare to two general areas of concern, namely the moral and the social aspects. The moral issues will tend to be more global or universal and the social concerns, such as economics will be slightly more particular to our system in the U.S. So in a rough order then, let us begin with a perusal of historical influences and the development of immoral problems, followed by more particular social problems and lastly, conclude with a few attempts at solutions, including the Surgery Center of Oklahoma. In All the King’s Men, Robert Penn Warren writes, “reality is not a function of event as event, but of the relationship of that event to past, and future events.” He is speaking of the importance of ‘context’. We need go no further to understand the danger of not interpreting things in context, than to look at Catholic and Protestant biblical disagreements. The two examples that come readily to mind are: 1) (Mt. 23:9) “Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” and 2) (Mk. 6:3) “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joseph and Jude and Simon?” Taking these two passages out of context, Protestants argue, that it is blasphemy to call our Priests father and that Jesus had siblings. If only they could see the bigger picture. To examine our topic in context then, let us proceed with relevant and related history beginning approximately 200 years before Humanae Vitae was published. Please keep in mind, that even though, all of these examples are nefarious, the purported purpose of all of them was for the health and welfare of the population (healthcare). Moral History: Immoral Progression We will begin with Thomas Robert Malthus, a cleric and economist. In 1798, he writes “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” It is Malthus who firmly plants the deadly seed of population control. He is most well known for his “Malthusian Principle,” that populations increase geometrically, while food production increases arithmetically. He noted that there were two varieties of controls governing population, those that were positive (hunger, disease, war), and those that were negative (abortion, birth control, prostitution, marriage postponement, celibacy). In a nutshell, fast-forward 200 years to the present, and all of these, except celibacy, are thought of as normal parts of society. Charles Darwin is chronicled next on our illustrious list. Darwin was a descendant of the wealthy Wedgewood (Wedgewood China) family and was a partial inheritor of that grand estate. His On the Origin of Species appears 1859. Darwin credits Thomas Malthus for being the source of the concept of “natural selection.” So, Darwin adds the idea of improving the species through controlled breeding, to Malthus’s idea of the necessity of population control. From this point forward, the ideas of population control and anything concerning manipulating or controlling the gene pool, are tightly woven together and almost never separately considered. The Birth of Eugenics Next, Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s half cousin, coins the term “eugenics” in 1883. His definition was, “it is the study of the agencies under social control that improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, either physically or racially.” So, although the definition of eugenics varies widely today, it is generally agreed upon, that the aim is to improve the genetic quality of the human population. Malthus and Darwin claimed what they promoted was for the good of mankind, but at this stage of the game, it is Galton that gives this dark movement the name, eugenics, a word that by it’s construction denotes goodness. The root of “eugenics” is derived from good or well, “good genes.” These ideas are exported to the United States. In 1904, the Cold Springs Harbor Institute was founded on Long Island, with money from the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Under Charles Davenport, It became the Eugenics Record Office from 1910-1939. The Kaiser Wilhelm Society for the Advancement of Science was founded in Germany in 1911. In 1927, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics began, with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. Josef Mengele “the Angel of Death,” served his mentor, Otmar von Vershuer, at this institution for some of 1942 and 1943. Indiana becomes the first state in 1907, to pass forced sterilization laws in the US. By 1912, London hosts the first International Eugenics Conference. Margaret Sanger enters the scene in 1916 by opening the first birth control clinic in the U.S. In 1922, she founds the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned 11 Theme Life The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. (Thomas Malthus) Parenthood Federation of America in 1942. So enamored was Adolf Hitler with these English and American eugenicists, that when he wrote Mein Kampf in 1924, he showered them with praise. The list of notables that were involved in this movement was breathtaking. For instance, 12 The Angelus July - August 2018 Aldous Huxley author of Brave New World and H.G. Wells, author of The Invisible Man and War of the Worlds, believed eugenics would help improve humanity. This is the world in which Pope Paul VI’s encyclical was written. Humanae Vitae is given to the world by Pope Paul VI, July 25, 1968. It is given at a time when the world is drunk with the need for population control. England, the United States, and Germany are leading the way with brutal and immoral, human experimentation. It is at this time in history, that the world, especially the West, demands that the Catholic Church, change its teachings on the matter of birth control. After the Encyclical Whether Humanae Vitae was effective of not, or whether it was too little too late, is not the purpose of this brief essay, but let us continue to explore, if in these areas, there is improvement or continued degradation. There are many books that chronicle the continued zeal for the depopulation of the world. Here are just a couple examples of some notable world figures and their opinions. In a 1974 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 200), Henry Kissinger maintained that depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World. And in 1988, Prince Phillip stated that in the event that he is reincarnated, he would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation. So, this brings us to present day observations. Birth Rate: In 1910, the birth rate in the U.S. was 30.1 (number of births per 1,000 population). By 1968, the year of Humanae Vitae, the birth rate was down to 17.5 and by 2009, the birthrate was 13.8. In 2017 in the U.S., we are at record lows. Abortion: According the Guttmacher Institute, between the years of 2010-2014 there were approximately 1.2 million abortions/year. Most sources are claiming a slight reduction in these numbers over the last few years. While we want to find solace in the fact that abortions may be decreasing, the number of permanent sterilizations (as chronicled below) is on the rise. Fewer overall pregnancies, is most likely the reason that there are fewer overall abortions. The number that is remaining constant however, is that roughly 1 in 4 women in the US will have an abortion before the age of 45. Contraception: Again, according to Guttmacher, 99% of sexually active American women, age 15-44, have used a contraceptive method other than NFP. Although this number is stable, the more alarming portion of this statistic, is that there is an increase in both permanent and long acting reversible contraceptives (LARC). LARCs are subcutaneous implants and intrauterine devices (IUD). Euthanasia: Hard and fast statistics on euthanasia are very hard to come by, partially explained by the fact that, legalization varies by state. What is easy to find though, are statistics showing that the vast majority of Americans are for euthanasia and the numbers are growing. A related topic, is that the growth of hospice programs since 1974 is staggering. The Washington Post in an article entitled, “Dying and Profits: ‘End of life care’” states that end of life care was once dominated by community and religious organizations; but now it has become a $17 billion industry. Virtually every priest one speaks to today, has witnessed deplorable end of life events such as fatal narcotic over medication. The motto of this movement seems to be “all for comfort.” Organ Transplantation: Similar to our hospice example above, much of the organ transplant phenomenon is driven by economics. It is big business. In 2017, organs were removed from 10,281 deceased patients. This was greater than a 3% increase from 2016, and a 27% increase over the last 10 years. For those of you who are unsure about the morality of organ harvesting, let me offer my anecdotal experience. I have personally visited with two patients, both of whom, after severe motor vehicle accidents were determined to be brain dead. Both of these patients were only unconscious, not dead at all, and if their families had allowed, both would have been killed for their organs. In 1967, the “Harvard Brain Death Criteria,” were presented to a naive audience as science. Clearly, our experiences prove, that these criteria are not scientific at all. Let us conclude this section on the immoral progression into healthcare, by noting, 1) immorality is progressing, 2) it is worldwide (east and West), 3) it is commonplace, and 4) the toleration is increasing and the disgust decreasing. 13 Theme Life 14 Healthcare in the United States Is There Really a Problem? Let us now move on and focus on issues, more or less specific to the U.S. It is true, that there are two predominant healthcare systems in the U.S. What is more false than true, however, is that one is public and one is private. This is a grave misconception and believing so might be a great hindrance to finding a solution to our healthcare problems. My opinion is that both systems are much more similar than they are disparate. What unites the two systems is centralization of control. Public, governmental or socialized medicine (call it what you may) in the United States is most characteristic of Medicare, Medicaid and the VA Hospital systems. Examples of the private system would be, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals. The private system happens to not be very private at all and I believe is better described as having attributes of “crony capitalism” (an economic system in which family members and friends of government officials and business leaders are given unfair advantages in the form of jobs, loans, etc.). A typical example of the way this works in medicine, is that the head of the CDC or FDA, becomes a lobbyist or CEO of a major pharmaceutical company. They then, use their governmental connections to get drugs fasttracked through. Just one vaccine approved by the CDC, can make that pharmaceutical company billions of dollars a year. Both predominant systems in the U.S. have inherent flaws. For instance, in the Medicare system, trouble gaining access to healthcare could be primarily due to the bureaucracy in the system, whereas in the world of insurance, the affordability of a $6,000 deduct able, could be the main obstacle. The lack of timely, affordable, and ethical care seems to abound in each model, albeit to differing degrees. With Medicare for instance, the triple whammy of incredible bureaucracy, heavy-handed government penalties and decreased reimbursements, contribute to physicians not wanting to treat Medicare patients. The American Journal of Medicine reported, from a Harvard Study that in 2007, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in the U.S., had a medical cause, and that 75% of these folks had health insurance. The share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 50% between 2001 and 2007. From this study, we conclude that for many in the US, healthcare is unaffordable. Healthcare, compared to wage and GDP, is becoming more expensive at an alarming rate. Most concerning is that this rate is unsustainable. It would appear that without some drastic change, a collapse of some sort is inevitable in this sector. The Angelus July - August 2018 What to Do? The best answer in any situation such as this is attributed to St. Augustine, “pray as if everything depended on God, and work as if everything depended on you.” So prayer is always our first defense, but what does Holy Mother Church tell us about the second part of this formula, the work part? We are talking about “action,” more particularly, Catholic action. St. Thomas Aquinas says, “the highest form of contemplation, is that which superabounds in ‘action.’” Pope St. Pius X on this topic says, “the subtle raising of multiple questions and the most eloquent dissertations on rights and duties matter little, if all this does not end in ‘action.’” So we need to act, but how? What’s appropriate and what is not? Subsidiarity in Action “Subsidiarity,” as defined by Pope Leo XIII, in Rerum Novarum (1891), is “the principle that a matter should be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized authority.” Forty years later, in 1931, Quadragesimo Anno, Pope Pius XI writes and reaffirms what Leo XIII said about subsidiarity: “just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do.” Subsidiarity then, is a wake up call that many problems (not all), would be better served with more “local” solutions. It is noteworthy that these popes are issuing these warnings during the same, “immoral progression,” time period I have chronicled above. Concurrently these governments are becoming more centralized, tyrannical and immoral. Let us present three examples of subsidiarity in healthcare. The first example is Sarto Village. This is the retirement facility that the SSPX is starting in Veneta, Oregon. Corporate entities that run similar enterprises, for the most part, are giving marginal care at very high prices. John Senior in The Restoration of Christian Culture has chapter two entitled “The AirConditioned Holocaust” to describe this malady. A whole cottage industry has arisen in the legal profession, chasing monies for lack of care and abuse in these settings. What a fresh breath of air the SSPX is bringing to this space. The model is beautiful in its simplicity. Folks that are still in relatively good shape, physically and mentally, will live there and while able, will participate in care-giving, and for this participation, if the monies work out right, may receive a discount so to speak, on their rent. As these folks become unable to give help and need help themselves, it will be a natural progression. These facilities will be located near schools, to receive the benefits of the young being nearby (caring, sharing, entertainment, etc.), but also for the elderly to share their gifts. The priory and the access to priests and the sacraments will also be integral to this model. This is subsidiarity at its finest. The second example is that of Christian Healthshare Ministries. These operate like insurance companies, in helping people acquire care, but much of the similarity ends there. For the most part, these organizations are Faith based. Every member has to acknowledge his belief in Christ and promise to take some responsibility in avoiding certain behaviors that would put the patient and the plan at risk. These plans are also generally much cheaper. More of the monies go to patient care, rather than administration, advertising, investors, investments etc. This also is an example of subsidiarity, because the group is of a size that makes sense, small enough to share the belief in Christian charity, but large enough to have “buying power” and efficiency of administration. The third example is the Surgery Center of Oklahoma (SCO). The Surgery Center of Oklahoma opened in 1997, so we are enjoying our 21st year of existence. Ten years ago however, we had to drastically change how we were doing business. The insurance companies were literally penalizing people for having surgery at SCO, even though our prices were a fraction of the hospitals. If a patient wanted to have surgery at SCO, the insurance company would “stack” their deductible. This means, if they went to a more expensive Hospital X, they would have a $1,000 deductible and be responsible for the remaining 20% of the bill. If, however, they had their surgery at SCO for a fraction of the price, they now had a $3,000 deductible and were responsible for the next 50% of their bill. Based on a knee arthroscopy of $4,000 at SCO and $25,000 at Hospital X, the respective out-of-pocket, would still favor SCO ($3,500 vs. $5,800). Our attempts to educate patients to the reality of the situation however, would often evoke a strong visceral response to the term “out of network.” So rather than the reasoned response, which would be, better care for less money, the patient most often, chose Hospital X. Obviously, the whole process was to mislead the patient and harm our practice. Our initial efforts to deal with this were mostly defensive, but we had no idea just how offensive and disruptive our ideas would become. Our method was as simple as simple can be. We did what every business does, calculated our overhead for every surgery, added a small profit, and put it online for any willing buyer. To begin the process, we asked every one of our surgeons what they thought fair compensation was to do any of the hundreds of surgeries listed on our website. After obtaining those numbers, we factored in labor, variable and fixed costs to come up with cost of operating an OR per unit of time. We knew on average, how much time 15 Theme Life each surgery required and the average cost for disposables and other things consumed during any given surgery. Our anesthesia fees were also based on the average length of time we would be in the OR. To all of these component parts, a 10-15% profit margin was added and the resultant prices put on the internet for the world to see. The Problem Persists So, here is the $64,000 question: Why aren’t more healthcare related entities charging reasonable fees? The answer: Because there is too much money to be made doing it the other way. Let me illustrate this with a very real example of a typical interaction between that of a patient, a hospital and an insurance company. I most often use the case of a cochlear implant surgery, because this is based on an actual surgery for which we saw the explanation of benefits (EOB). At Surgery Center of Oklahoma, the total facility charge is about $30,000. This represents $27,000 (our cost for the implanted device), plus approximately $3,000 for the Center’s overhead. The hospital charge is roughly, $110,000. Their price is determined by tripling the implant cost and then adding $25,000 for overhead. Here is the sequence of events as succinct as possible: 1) Hospital X (HX) generates $110,000 bill, 2) Insurance Company Y (ICY) receives bill, 3) ICY negotiates with HX to get bill down to $60,000 (this is known as “re-pricing”) 4) HX claims $50,000 loss and puts this loss in a pot, so that at the end of the year, they get some compensation from the federal government (our tax dollars) 5) ICY, as an incentive and inducement to get the best price for their client, gets a bonus of usually 25% from the client, for saving them, in this case $50,000. So the client pays ICY an additional $12,500 in this scenario. Points to be made, 1) Except for SCOs prices, none of the other figures have any basis in reality. The hospital bill is fictional, therefore the savings are fictional as well. 2) The bigger the bill, regardless of what is paid, both hospital and insurance company profit more, and 3) the insurance company and the hospital are both 16 The Angelus July - August 2018 obstacles to the patient having a fair exchange with his doctor 4) the essence of our model is just the opposite, only those adding value to the exchange are being compensated. Conclusion Our healthcare system is broken and sick. There are solutions to solving the unethical, immoral and unjust problems, but fixing it will require strong medicine. Holy Mother Church gives us the principle of subsidiarity as the proper ordering principle for our existence. Over the last two centuries though, this order has been inverted, and is not just the cause of problems in healthcare, but in every other area imaginable. If we are to invoke subsidiarity then, as one of our solutions to these many crises, let us make a couple of general observations. 1. Act primarily in those areas in which you have the most responsibility and influence. This roughly corresponds to our duty of state. For instance, fathers and mothers will want to provide safe, effective and moral care to their children. If there are practical ways to withdraw support, with monies or otherwise, from elements causing the dysfunction, then do so. Businessmen, I believe have very much clout in this arena. Providing healthcare benefits for even 10 or 20 employees, represents a substantial yearly spend. It’s difficult for the sellers of these healthcare products to overlook or ignore someone spending $200,000 a year on healthcare for their employees. So, choose the good for your employees. There are more and more alternatives for you to choose from. Doctors may want to avoid as much as possible working for or receiving monies from many of the institutions that are perpetuating these problems. This is not practical for every doctor, but the more one can separate themselves from hospitals, government and corporate medicine, the better. 2. Avoid as much as possible funding or participating, in any system which centralization of control has resulted in evil. This may not be an easy task, but it is a necessary one. Extracts of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI Editor’s Note: The following are extracts from Pope Paul VI’s July 25, 1965 encyclical, Humanae Vitae. The inclusion of these extracts in this issue of The Angelus in no way implies that the editors of the magazine or the U.S. District of the Society of Saint Pius X endorses every aspect of this letter. Its historical significance, however, cannot be underestimated. 7. The question of human procreation, like every other question which touches human life, involves more than the limited aspects specific to such disciplines as biology, psychology, demography or sociology. It is the whole man and the whole mission to which he is called that must be considered: both its natural, earthly aspects and its supernatural, eternal aspects. And since in the attempt to justify artificial methods of birth control many appeal to the demands of married love or of responsible parenthood, these two important realities of married life must be accurately defined and analyzed. This is what We mean to do, with special reference to what the Second Vatican Council taught with the highest authority in its Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today. God’s Loving Design 8. Married love particularly reveals its true nature and nobility when we realize that it takes its origin from God, who “is love,” (I Jn. 4:8) the 17 Theme Life 18 Father “from whom every family in Heaven and on earth is named” (Eph. 3:15). Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is, in reality, the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives. The marriage of those who have been baptized is, in addition, invested with the dignity of a sacramental sign of grace, for it represents the union of Christ and His Church. wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness. Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents’ welfare.” (Vatican II: Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 50) Married Love Responsible Parenthood 9. In the light of these facts, the characteristic features and exigencies of married love are clearly indicated, and it is of the highest importance to evaluate them exactly. This love is above all fully human, a compound of sense and spirit. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of the free will, whose trust is such that it is meant not only to survive the joys and sorrows of daily life, but also to grow, so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment. It is a love which is total—that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner’s own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself. Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all others, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to each other in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and 10. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects. With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty, the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (St. Thomas I-II, q. 94, art. 2) With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them. With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time. Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of The Angelus July - August 2018 paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society. 11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with each another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, “noble and worthy.’’ (ibid., no. 49) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God, the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. ( Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, nos . 50-51) reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men Observing the Natural Law 19 Theme Life to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (Pius XI. encyclical letter Casti Connubi: AAS 22 (1930), 560; Pius XII, “Address to Midwives,” AAS 43 (1951) Union and Procreation 12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act. The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason. Faithfulness to God’s Design 13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of 20 The Angelus July - August 2018 its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception, it reveals the creating hand of God.” (Mater et Magistra) Unlawful Birth Control Methods 14. Therefore We base our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children (Pius XI, Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 562-564; Pius XII, Address to Medico-Biological Union of St. Luke: Discorsi e radiomessaggi, VI, 191-192; “Address to Midwives”). Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (idem) Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (idem) Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (Rom. 3:8)—in other words, to intend directly something which, of its very nature, contradicts the moral order, and which must, therefore, be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. Lawful Therapeutic Means 15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result therefrom—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever (Pius XII, Address to 26th Congress of Italian Association of Urology; to Society of Hematology). Recourse to Infertile Periods 16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God. If therefore, there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained (Pius XII, “Address to Midwives”). Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period, but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the latter practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former, the married couple rightly uses a faculty provided them by nature. In the latter, they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case, the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this, they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love. Consequences of Artificial Methods 17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods 21 Theme Life and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection. Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which, in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country, resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife. Limits to Man’s Power Consequently, unless we are willing that the responsibility of procreating life should be left to the arbitrary decision of men, we must accept that there are certain limits, beyond which it is wrong to go, to the power of man over his own body and its natural functions—limits, let it be said, which no one, whether as a private 22 The Angelus July - August 2018 individual or as a public authority, can lawfully exceed. These limits are expressly imposed because of the reverence due to the whole human organism and its natural functions, in the light of the principles We stated earlier, and in accordance with a correct understanding of the “principle of totality” enunciated by Our predecessor Pope Pius XII (Pius XII, “Address to Association of Urology”). Concern of the Church 18. It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a “sign of contradiction” (Lk. 2:34). She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical. Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man. In preserving intact the whole moral law of marriage, the Church is convinced that she is contributing to the creation of a truly human civilization. She urges man not to betray his personal responsibilities by putting all his faith in technical expedients. In this way, she defends the dignity of husband and wife. This course of action shows that the Church, loyal to the example and teaching of the divine Savior, is sincere and unselfish in her regard for men whom she strives to help even now during this earthly pilgrimage “to share God’s life as sons of the living God, the Father of all men” (Paul Vl, encyclical letter Populorum Progressio). The Problem of Catholic Contraception by Priests of the SSPX Note: The following are two pieces by Fr. Dominque Bourmaud and Fr. Daniel Couture, respectively, that deal with the issue of “Catholic contraception” and its seeming permissibility in the Church today. A Distorted Teaching YouCat, a version of the New Catechism designed for the youth, was intended as a major tool in the Church’s approach to the secular world. It was touted on Vatican Radio recently as a “young and user-friendly” way for young people to learn how to answer common secular objections to unpopular Catholic teaching on topics such as contraception, abortion, and euthanasia. The problem is that YouCat, originally written in German, has been poorly translated. The Italian version contains errors on the Church’s teachings about euthanasia and contraception, and the French edition has other errors. On the specific matter of contraception, the Italian edition answers “yes” to the question: “Can a Christian couple have recourse to contraceptive methods?” The Italian publisher will be recalling the book and correcting the error. But are we dealing only with a mere translation error or are we pursuing a slippery road which the Roman authorities started long ago? A Roman document, in 1997, directed to confessors on matters of conjugal morality, shows a weakening of positions since Humanae Vitae in practical advice given to penitents who use contraception. Not only 23 Theme Life does it favor personal conscience and “good faith” over the Church’s teaching, but it advises giving absolution to those who contracept without repentance. Then, the papal book Light of the World sent different vibes from what has always been understood on the same subject of contraception. It maintains the prohibitions of Humanae Vitae, “but finding ways allowing to live by them today is another story…expressing all this on the pastoral, theological and intellectual context of the present research on sexuality and anthropology, in such a way that it will become more comprehensible.” Here we simply understand nothing, except that the Church seems afraid to tell the truth! A False Catechism Returning to YouCat, the English-language version says that Catholic couples are entitled to plan the size of their families by “regulating conception” and that the Church “recommends” Natural Family Planning. With this seemingly innocent question, we find raised the spectrum of the modern ideal “Catholic” family: two kids, two cars, two houses, two dogs! Sounds like the good old life of the Protestant couple of 40 years ago! So what has happened since then? It is no mystery that the modern Catholic pastoral approach to couples is to force Natural Family Planning literature on them as soon as possible. The couples are told that they have to be responsible in raising a family and consider the size, etc. We are told that this is quite legitimate in God’s eyes and that there is absolutely nothing wrong about a couple using their marital rights “responsibly.” Is this not in line with the inversion of the marriage ends, between procreation and mutual help, which was made official with the 1983 Code of Canon Law? Yet things are not so simple. In fact, the marriage act is licit only if, in the couple’s intention, it is open to new life. The practice of NFP can beget a mentality which is foreign to the Catholic outlook on life and the spirit of sacrifice. The Church has universally and constantly encouraged the growth of large families, which 24 The Angelus July - August 2018 are the gardens of many vocations. Indeed, the crisis in vocations is due in great part to the dwindling of the Catholic family spirit. There may certainly be hard times in a couple’s life, which tempts one to limit the burden of mouths to feed, but there is also the alternative of abstinence, always the surest and best way, which one must acquire by a proper education even from puberty. The Teaching of Pius XII The main magisterial document to be used as a reference here is the “Address to Midwives,” given by Pope Pius XII on October 29, 1951. Here are a few principles he establishes: The pope warns married people who are able to have children against the habitual practice of sensual self-gratification with the intention of excluding offspring. Marriage grants rights to spouses to satisfy natural inclinations, but also imposes the function of providing for the conservation of the human race. Hence, young people who are unwilling to have children should not marry. There are four conditions which must be met before one may consider the moral possibility of periodic continence, or Natural Family Planning: It must be done for serious reasons. Both parties need to mutually and freely agree to use it. The danger of sin must be avoided for both parties. It can only be practiced for the duration of these serious reasons. The serious reasons given by the pope are medical (e.g., the mother’s health is at risk), eugenic (e.g., the health of the child), economic (e.g., if the family can’t afford to feed another child, as may be the case in third world countries), or social (e.g., the prolonged absence of one parent). One should remember that Pope Pius XII warned the medical world and priests of the danger of falling into an “unjust and inappropriate” propaganda in favor of these so-called “methods.” Perhaps the pope said this because the prolonged regulating of private life by the calendar engenders a sort of contraceptive mentality, where children are not really welcomed and where parents can do away with their natural responsibilities and turn to pleasure. Christian couples would gain tranquility of conscience by seeking the advice of a prudent confessor in doubtful cases or hard circumstances since nemo judex in causa sua– no man is the judge of his own case. A priest can provide an objective perspective about the reality of one’s circumstances. Also, in all medical questions, which frequently involve the psychological fragility of the parents, the advice of a competent medical professional seems both mandatory and wise. In any event, one must remember that the rule is a large family, and exceptions are only that. Of course, the modern world has made certain things more difficult than they were in previous times, but let us remember the advice of Pius XII: “This teaching of Ours has nothing to do with Manichaeism and Jansenism, as some would have people believe in order to justify themselves. It is only a defense of the honor of Christian matrimony and of the personal dignity of the married couple.” The Timeless Teaching of the Church As perennial philosophy teaches, action follows being, and thus, morality follows doctrine. Fighting to keep sound doctrine means wanting to keep morality in its integrity, and changing the doctrine leads to changing morality. Today, we are the sad witnesses to an unprecedented attack on all aspects of marriage. Changes in the doctrine of marriage logically result in changes in morality. These changes can be traced to their origins in Rome itself. For example, this past December 14th, at the prestigious Gregorian University in Rome, where Archbishop Lefebvre studied in the 1920s, Fr. Maurizio Chiodi, a new member of the Pontifical Academy for Life (by the expressed will of Pope Francis), gave a lecture. It was his third on the subject, of which the purpose was to revisit the encyclical Humanae Vitae of 1968—the very one that condemned contraception as “intrinsically perverse”—“in the context of a time of change” and “more complex” situations. In the last three minutes of his 45-minute lecture, he refuted the Church’s teaching by talking about responsibility in generation: “[I]n situations where natural methods are impossible or unfeasible, other forms of responsibility need to be found. There are circumstances—I refer here to Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8—that precisely, for the sake of responsibility, require contraception….In (these) circumstances, then, an artificial method for the regulation of birth could be recognized as an act of responsibility” (Faithful Insight, February 2018, pp. 27-28). Confusion Seeps In Our bishops in Canada had declared the same in September 1968, after the publication of Humanae Vitae in the infamous Winnipeg Declaration. In paragraph 26, it said, “they may be safely assured that, whoever honestly chooses that course (i.e., artificial birth control) which seems right to him, does so in good conscience.” This notion endorses the primacy of conscience over the law of God. Let us go back further, to the Council itself. The words of Fr. Chiodi are only the faithful echo of what a cardinal, this time, pronounced quite clearly in the conciliar aula and which was well understood by all, liberals, conservatives and the media. It is no other than Cardinal Suenens, who is largely responsible for the expression “Pastoral Council” (Vatican II: An Unwritten History by Roberto de Mattei, pp. 167-168). This ecclesial thunderbolt took place on October 29, 1964, in the middle of the Third Session, when the schema Gaudium et Spes was discussed. In the first part of his long intervention, the cardinal asked whether the Church had properly understood marriage so far, perhaps focusing too much on procreation and not enough on conjugal love. In the second part, he talked about scientific progress: “Let us follow the progress of science. Let us avoid a new ‘Galileo Trial’.” The French daily Le Monde clearly understood the cardinal’s message: “The least that can be said is that the last two General Congregations of Vatican II (Oct. 27 25 Theme Life and 29) have inaugurated a new era in the Roman Church. In fact, the interventions of (Patriarch) Maximos IV and Cardinals Léger, Suenens, and Alfrink represent such a break with what is called the traditional doctrine on birth control that they mark a radical change of attitude” (De Mattei, op.cit., pp. 393-394). A New Ordering of the Ends of Marriage This has now been inscribed in the 1983 Code of Canon Law in Canon 1055 which inverts the ends of marriage, putting procreation second, after mutual love between spouses. As early as December 1966, a year after the end of the Council, Archbishop Lefebvre deplored the harmful fruits that were already appearing everywhere. In an answer to Cardinal Ottaviani, he wrote: “One can and unfortunately must affirm that, in an almost general way, when the Council innovated, it shook the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as definitely belonging to the treasure of Tradition. Whether it is the transmission of the jurisdiction of bishops…, the purposes of marriage, religious freedom, the last ends, etc…. On these fundamental points, the traditional doctrine was clear and taught unanimously in Catholic universities. However, many texts of the Council on these truths now allow the possibility of doubt. The consequences were quickly drawn and applied in the life of the Church. It is perhaps one of the most dreadful findings of our time to see to what moral decay most Catholic publications have reached. They speak without restraint of sexuality, of birth control by any means, of the legitimacy of divorce, of coeducation, flirtation, dances as necessary means of Christian education, etc.” The Archbishop’s Words In 1984, in his Open Letter to Confused Catholics, the Archbishop recalled the drama of that Third Session he personally experienced: 26 The Angelus July - August 2018 “It was Cardinal Suenens who proposed this change and I still remember Cardinal Brown, the Master General of the Dominicans, getting up to say, ‘Caveatis! Caveatis!—Beware! Beware!’ If we accept this definition we go against all the tradition of the Church and we pervert the meaning of marriage. We do not have the right to modify the Church’s traditional definitions…. The Pastoral Constitution, Gaudium et Spes, contains nevertheless an ambiguous passage, where emphasis is laid on procreation ‘without nevertheless minimizing the other aims of marriage’. The Latin verb, posthabere, permits the translation ‘without putting in second place the other aims of marriage’, which would mean ‘to place them all on the same level’. This is what is wanted today; all that is said about marriage comes back to the false idea expressed by Cardinal Suenens, that conjugal love—which was soon termed quite simply and much more crudely ‘sexuality’—comes at the head of the purposes of marriage. Consequently, under the heading of sexuality, everything is permitted— contraception, natural family planning, and finally, abortion. One bad definition, and we are plunged into total disorder.” Archbishop Lefebvre had clearly seen it all long ago! Let us maintain the traditional doctrine so that we can at the same time maintain morality in its entirety. Tales of Foreign Lands Fr. Joseph Spillmann was born in 1842 at Zug, Switzerland, and joined the Jesuits in 1874. His Tales of Foreign Lands series consists of edifying and tastefully illustrated stories for the young. Reprinted by Angelus Press. Vol. 1 – 320 pp. – Color softcover – STK# 8409 – $15.95 Vol. 2 – 332 pp. – Color softcover – STK# 8455 – $15.95 Vol. 3 – 336 pp. – Color softcover – STK# 8478 – $15.95 SET – STK# 8610 – $39.95 – SAVE $7.90 Know Your Mass This excellent catechetical tool covers all parts of the Holy Mass, the altar, sacred vessels, vestments, liturgical actions, and more. Help your children know and love the Mass. 96 pp. – Color softcover – Full color – STK# 1022 – $11.95 The Sacraments This book really needs to be seen to be believed. There is nothing better to explain the Sacraments to children. 64 pp. – Color softcover – Full color – STK# 8281 – $9.95 This summer, introduce some fun but formative reading into your childrens’ lives. They will wholeheartedly enjoy these exciting tales of adventure from far off lands. The younger members of your family will be enamored with the many illustrations of both Know Your Mass and The Sacraments as they enjoy but also learn, at a young age, what is most central to our Faith. Vacation Reading www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337 Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music. 27 Theme Life Fifty Years Later Can the Pope Authorize Birth Control? by Fr. Bernard de Lacoste When Pope Paul VI published the encyclical Humanae Vitae on July 25, 1968, one might have thought it would be the final word on the morality of birth control. On the contrary, there were many, many priests and bishops who refused to follow the encyclical’s conclusions and taught their faithful that birth control is morally permitted in some cases. Fifty years later, the debate is as hot as ever. Does Pope Francis have the power to modify Humanae Vitae and thus allow the use of artificial means that prevent the conjugal act from resulting in fertilization? Can It Be Undone? What has been done by one pope can be undone by another pope, they say. If Paul VI 28 The Angelus July - August 2018 forbade birth control, why couldn’t Francis authorize it? To answer this question correctly, we have to consider that the pope has the power to modify purely ecclesiastical laws, for example, the law that imposes fasting on Ash Wednesday, but he does not have any power over divine law, be it revealed or natural. Indeed, the author of this law is God, and therefore, no human authority can modify it or grant a dispensation from it.1 For example, it is this law that forbids killing an innocent or lying. No pope has the power to allow killing an innocent or lying. Is the law against birth control a purely ecclesiastical law or is it part of the natural law? Let us take a close look at what exactly birth control is: to facilitate the preservation of the individual, the Creator joined a certain pleasure to nutrition. In the same way, to facilitate the “For if Joseph had taken her to be his wife for the purpose of having children, then why would she have wondered at the announcement of maternity since she herself would have accepted becoming a mother according to the law of nature?” (Saint Gregory of Nyssa. On the Holy Generation of Christ, 5, AD 394) preservation of the human race, the Creator joined a certain pleasure to the conjugal act. Without the pleasure involved in eating, human beings would let themselves waste away. In the same way, without the pleasure involved in reproduction, the human race would have disappeared a long time ago. The pagans of ancient Rome separated eating from the pleasure it offered. When they could eat no more, they would go to the vomitorium to empty their stomachs of their contents, so they could continue eating. They sought the pleasure of eating, but excluded its natural end which is nourishment. In the same way, Onanist couples— that is, those who use birth control—seek the pleasure of the conjugal act, but exclude its natural end, which is procreation. Birth control thus goes directly against the natural law. It is a mortal sin because it prevents a new human life, which is a grave matter. Thus, spouses that use a condom or the pill or who practice withdrawal to interrupt the act, make themselves guilty of a grave sin. The Angelic Doctor Weighs-In St. Thomas Aquinas explains2 why contraception is contrary to natural law: he recalls that the emission of the male semen is ordained to generation. If the emission of this semen is done in such a way that it cannot result in generation, then this goes against the end and the good of the semen. But as this semen is a part of the man, this goes against the good of the man. And if it is done intentionally, it is a 29 Theme Life sin that goes against nature. And the holy doctor concludes: “After the sin of homicide, whereby a human nature already in existence is destroyed, this type of sin appears to take the next place, for by it the generation of human nature is precluded.” Note that sometimes the conjugal act cannot end in procreation for reasons independent of the spouses. This is the case, for example, when one of the spouses is sterile. The conjugal act remains perfectly licit because is it conducted naturally. If it does not result in a fertilization, it is because of a natural cause, and not because of an intervention on the part of the spouses. This is not birth control. As we have just seen, reason can demonstrate that birth control goes against the natural and divine law, but this is also what the Church has always taught. In 1853, the Holy See was consulted on the morality of birth control. The answer was clear: “It is intrinsically evil.”3 In other words, if contraception is immoral, it is not just because the ecclesiastical legislator has forbidden it—in this case it would be extrinsically evil—but because its very nature contains a grave disorder. In the encyclical Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI wrote in 1930: “Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” natural and divine law.” Some will object that this morality is completely outdated. It is true that it is not consistent with the mentality of our times. We live in an atmosphere of pleasure and egoism. It is therefore only normal for birth control to be so widespread. If we consider that the first end of marriage is the personal satisfaction of the spouses, then the law of God and of the Church does indeed seem unbearable. But if we understand that the sacrament of marriage was instituted primarily for the procreation and education of children, then it is birth control that becomes unbearable: it locks the spouses up in their selfishness instead of opening them to life. Others will remark that sometimes certain spouses find themselves in dramatic situations. A new birth would be tragic and perfect continence is impossible or risks endangering their conjugal love. We answer with St. Paul that God never tempts us beyond our strength. To spouses who pray and make sacrifices, God always grants the grace they need to live their marriage vows in a Christian way. Pope Pius XII also explained4 that periodic continence is authorized for grave medical, economic, social or eugenic reasons. In these situations, spouses can licitly limit the conjugal act to days when the wife is sterile. We must therefore conclude that the law against birth control is not a purely ecclesiastic law that can be modified, but that it is indeed a natural law with God for its author. It is therefore immutable and eternal. If a pope were to authorize such a practice that goes against nature, his decision would be null and void. The Teaching of Pius XII And Pope Pius XII, in a speech on October 29, 1951, said: “Every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no “indication” or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one. This precept is in full force today, as it was in the past, and so it will be in the future also, and always, because it is not a simple human whim, but the expression of a 30 The Angelus July - August 2018 1 St. Thomas, quodlibet 4, art. 13: “The pope does not have the power to dispense from the divine or natural law.” 2 Contra Gentes, book I, ch. 122. 3 Answer from the Holy Office, April 6, 1853. 4 Address to Midwives, October 29, 1951. Formative Literature for Young Men A formative book will make all the difference this summer and impact the rest of their lives as they grow to be the Catholic voices of tomorrow. 176 pp. – Color softcover – STK# 8549 – $9.95 The Young Man of Character Bishop Tihamer Toth “Few men are born to be conquerors. Few men are born to be leaders of countries. But to conquer the realm of the soul, and to gain the crown of manly character, this lofty task awaits each one of us.” These short words from Bishop Toth sum up the aim of this book: to create real, manly character in the souls of the young. In this excellent work for boys, the good bishop examines, point by point, each aspect necessary to develop that character. 108 pp. – Color softcover – STK# 8601 – $9.95 Christ and the Young Man Bishop Tihamer Toth Christ and the Young Man schools the reader in how to be victorious in the spiritual combat: Written specifically for boys • How to handle situations at home and at school • Fighting temptations • Prayer • Meditation • Spiritual Direction • Cultivating the life of the soul • Discerning a vocation • Learning to love the Lord Jesus and to follow Him. www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337 Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music. The smoke of burning incense is interpreted as a symbol of the prayer of the faithful rising to Heaven. This symbolism is seen in Psalm 141:2: “Let my prayer be directed as incense in Thy sight: the lifting up of my hands, as evening sacrifice.” Spirituality The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: The Incensing of the Altar by Fr. Christopher Danel “The ceremony of incensing, so solemn, so significant and so edifying, should move those present to devout and holy sentiments, and, as incense is consumed by the heat of the coals, should inspire them at the same time with the thought that their life, amid the fire and flames of love, like unto a precious holocaust, should be dedicated to the honor and service of God.”— Monsignor Nicholas Gihr Introduction In this article, we will examine the incensing of the altar, presenting the work of Monsignor Nicholas Gihr in his fundamental liturgical commentary The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Liturgically, and Ascetically 34 The Angelus July - August 2018 Explained. Monsignor Gihr was a priest of the Archdiocese of Freiburg in Breisgau whose work of liturgical research took place during the time frame spanning the pontificates of Popes Pius IX to Pius XI, including that of Pope St. Pius X. The early years of his work were contemporaneous with the last years in the work of the eminent Benedictine liturgist Dom Prosper Guéranger of Solesmes. The English translation of his study appeared in 1902; the original is: Gihr, Nikolaus. Messopfer dogmatisch, liturgish und aszetish erklärt (Herder: Freiburg im Breisgau, 1877). In the Old Testament By the express command of God in the Old Law, incense was already frequently used for liturgical purposes. Incense was “holy to the Lord;” the Lord Himself minutely directed how it was to be prepared and mixed, where and how often it was to be burned (Ex. 30:1 ff.). In the sanctuary, which was separated by a veil from the Holy of Holies, stood the altar for the offering of incense; on this altar every day, morning and night, a special incense-offering had to be made to the Lord. Also, at the great propitiatory sacrifice on the feast of reconciliation and at the offering of the show-bread, incense was accepted and burned as an additional gift. the coals, thereby diffusing a sweet odor which ascends heavenward in fragrant clouds, filling the sanctuary and the whole church. The fragrant incense burning in the fire has, as it were, been created as a symbol, as a solemn expression of the interior sentiments of sacrifice and of prayer acceptable to God. The perfume of a plant is its most delicate and most noble part, and, so to speak, “its hidden, sleeping vitality,” In Christian Worship The Fathers unanimously teach that the Wise Men from the East, by the offering of incense, intended symbolically to adore the Child Jesus, “the King of the Jews,” as the God concealed and revealed under the garb of earthly lowliness. Incense found a place in Christian worship already at an early date, and was more universally used especially from the time of the fourth century, when divine worship began to be more freely and more splendidly developed. The present liturgical practice in the use of incense was perfectly developed in the West only during the Middle Ages. In the Greek liturgies, there is far more frequent mention of incense than in the Latin Rite. During divine service, only pure incense is to be employed; the best comes from Africa, where it is obtained from the boswellia (incense-tree). To the incense, other odoriferous substances, for instance, rosin or herbs, may be added, but only in a considerably smaller quantity. Liturgical Symbolism The burning in the religious service of this precious, noble and fragrant incense is a splendid rite, which not only contributes much solemnity to the celebration of divine worship, but also symbolically represents the mysteries of faith and the virtues of the Christian life. The symbolism of incense consists essentially in this, that the grains of incense are dissolved by the heat of for example, the fragrance of the balm tree, the rose and the violet. Hence, incense exhales and breathes forth its inmost soul when it is consumed in the fire and dissolved in fragrant clouds of smoke that rise heavenward. It thereby symbolizes, first, man’s spirit of sacrifice or his life of sacrifice, for he consumes himself with all his faculties in the fire of love for the honor and service of God. Then, the odor of incense, which arises from the burning grains and ascends in its fragrance, also symbolizes prayer. Prayer is the surrender of the soul to God, the elevation of the mind and spirit to Heaven, the aspiration of the heart toward goods, invisible and eternal. If the grains of incense be cast on burning coals, a pleasant odor will arise; if the heart, like unto a glowing coal, is set on fire with the flames of divine love and ardent devotion, then 35 Spirituality our prayer will free itself from all that is earthly, and will ascend to the Lord as a sweet and precious perfume, that is to say, our prayer will be received with favor and pleasure and will be answered by Him. Hence the Psalmist exclaims: “Dirigatur, Domine, oratio mea sicut incensum in conspectu tuo!—Let my prayer be directed as incense in Thy sight, O Lord!” (Ps. 140:2). Scripture represents the prayers of the saints under the figure of golden vials full of sweet odors, which the ancients bear in their hands, standing before the throne of the Lamb (habentes singuli phialas aureas plenas odoramentorum, quae sunt orationes Sanctorum. Apoc. 5:8). Adoration, praises, thanksgivings and petitions, like odoriferous incense, penetrate to the heavenly Holy of Holies as far as the throne of the Almighty. The very nature of the thing itself indicates in the burning of the grains of incense chiefly a symbol of adoration, or rather of the sacrifice as the most perfect act and expression of adoration; but it is to be observed, that in the intention of the Church, incense is not exclusively employed to render the highest honor due to God alone, that is, to manifest interior adoration in a solemn manner, but also generally to denote religious veneration towards that which is holy. Therefore, besides the Most Blessed Sacrament, the relics and images of the saints, the book of the Gospels, the celebrant, the clergy and the people are incensed. Incense as a Sacramental Blessed incense is a sacramental: as such it not merely signifies something ennobled and mystical, but it has also (in its own way) supernatural effects. As a sacramental, incense is, then, a means to secure the divine protection and blessing. By virtue of the sign of the Cross and the blessing of the Church, incense is especially made efficacious for expelling or keeping at a distance Satan from the soul, and for affording us a powerful protection against the deceit and malice, the snares and the attacks of evil spirits, a protection we greatly need at the altar and during the celebration of the holy 36 The Angelus July - August 2018 mysteries. Before the incense is burned on the altar that is about to be consecrated, the bishop prays Almighty God, that He “would deign to look down upon this incense, that He would bless and sanctify it, to the end that all sicknesses and infirmities, as well as every snare of the evil one may flee from its sweet odor, and that the creature (man) redeemed by the precious blood of Christ may never be wounded by the bite of the infernal serpent” (Pontificale Romanum, Benedictio incensi in altaris consecratione comburendi). Blessed incense produces yet another effect: it is used for the blessing of persons and of things. For with the clouds of incense is diffused the power of the blessing which the Church pronounces and desires to impart; they draw all who are incensed into a sanctified atmosphere. The Incensations of the Mass From what has just been explained concerning the symbolism and efficacy of incense, the purport and meaning of the different incensings in particular is easily inferred. The ascending clouds of the fragrant incense clothe the celebration of divine worship with additional majesty, pomp and solemnity; therefore, has the Church honored and distinguished many of her liturgical functions by the use of incense, among the number, the highest and most important of all, the solemn celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in quite a prominent and profoundly significant manner. The light clouds of incense soaring heavenward envelop the altar and fill the sanctuary throughout with their agreeable fragrance, most befittingly express and recommend the majesty of so great a Sacrifice, and make the earthly appear more evidently a copy of the heavenly altar (Apoc. 8:3). The incensation takes place at the beginning of the general divine service, that is, between the prayers at the foot of the altar and the Introit, as well as at the beginning of the special sacrificial service, namely, during the Offertory; also at the culminating point of each of these principal parts of the Mass, namely, at the Gospel wherein the Lord is teacher, and at the Consecration when He appears in sacrifice on the altar. The cloud of incense is also symbolical of the appearance, that is, of the presence of the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and in His word; for already in the Old Covenant the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud of the Tabernacle (Ex. 40:32; Lev. 16:2; Par. 5:13), and on the great Day of Atonement the high priest enveloped the Holy of Holies of the Old Testament with clouds of incense in token of God’s revelation on that most sacred spot. The Blessing of Incense The first incensing at High Mass may be regarded as a solemn conclusion of the preparatory prayers at the foot of the altar; the rite is simple and is performed without any accompanying prayer. The celebrant places incense three times on the glowing coals, while saying: “Ab illo benedicaris in cujus honore cremaberis. Amen.—Be thou blessed by Him in whose honor thou wilt be consumed. Amen.” Only after these words does he make the sign of the Cross over the burning grains of incense. This formula of blessing declares the principal object of the incensing the glorification of the divine name. Incense is used at divine worship because of its exquisite odor, not to afford man a sensuous gratification, but to evince profound reverence toward the divine mysteries. In the first place, the Crucifix on the altar, or the Blessed Sacrament, is honored by incense, that is, due adoration is offered to the Lord in His image or in His Sacrament. If the Blessed Sacrament be not exposed, then the relics or images of the saints on the altar are incensed. This incensing is an eminent sign of veneration paid to the blessed in Heaven, who diffuse an agreeable odor like unto cinnamon and sweet-smelling balm and like precious myrrh (Ecclus. 24:20); then as a mark of honor it ought to move them to obtain, by their powerful intercession, mercy for us at the throne of God and a favorable answer to our petitions. The priest, having just ascended the altar, and relying upon the intercession of the saints, has just prayed to God for perfect purity of heart: the fragrant clouds of incense which envelop the altar are now emblematical of the aforesaid prayers and merits of the saints, and, consequently, express in a symbolical manner the same petition that had immediately before been presented in words, that is, the petition for the assistance of the saints. The altar solemnly consecrated by the bishop and enriched with relics, is the most sacred place of sacrifice (Sancta sanctorum) and is to be regarded and revered with religious awe. The incensing of the altar symbolizes and calls to mind the sublime holiness of the consecrated altar. The blessed clouds of incense, therefore, not merely admonish us, but also obtain for us from above the necessary assistance to enter with a pure intention into the Holy of Holies, to stand at the altar and to celebrate the Most Holy Sacrifice with a devout heart. The fragrant clouds of smoking incense signify, at the same time, that this Sacrifice, by the power of the Holy Ghost, will ascend to Heaven as a “sweet odor” and be for us the source of all spiritual odors of grace. Finally, the celebrant himself, and he alone as the visible representative of the invisible High Priest, Jesus Christ, receives by the threefold incensing, the veneration due to his sacred character. Conclusion The fragrant clouds of incense are for the priest and people an admonition so to live as to become, by sacrifice and the spirit of prayer, a spiritual “good odor of Christ” (Christi bonus odor) in order to give joy to Heaven and earth. “Now thanks be to God, who always maketh us to triumph in Christ Jesus, and manifesteth the odor of His knowledge by us in every place. For we are the good odor of Christ unto God” (II Cor. 2:14-15). This admonition falls especially upon the priests of God, who are instructed by the bishop during the rite of their ordination, “Let your preaching be a spiritual medicine for the people of God and the odor of your lives a delight for the Church of Christ (sit odor vitae vestrae delectamentum Ecclesiae Christi).” 37 Spirituality Letter to Pope Francis about his attitude towards Islam. Sent by Muslim converts to the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (May 26, 2018) Most Holy Father, Many of us have tried to contact you, on many occasions and for several years, and we have never received the slightest acknowledgement of our letters or requests for meetings. You do not like to beat around the bush, and neither do we, so allow us to say frankly that we do not understand your teaching about Islam, as we read in paragraphs 252 and 253 of Evangelii Gaudium, because it does not account for the fact that Islam came AFTER Christ, and so is, and can only be, an Antichrist (see I Jn. 2:22), and one of the most dangerous, because it presents itself as the fulfillment of Revelation (of which Jesus would have been only a prophet). If Islam is a good religion in itself, as you seem to teach, why did we become Catholic? Do not your words question the soundness of the choice we made 38 The Angelus July - August 2018 at the risk of our lives? Islam prescribes death for apostates (Quran 4.89, 8.7-11) , do you know? How is it possible to compare Islamic violence with so-called Christian violence? “What is the relationship between Christ and Satan? What union is there between light and darkness? What association between the faithful and the unfaithful?” (II Cor. 6: 14-17) In accordance with His teaching (Lk. 14:26), we preferred Him, the Christ, to our own life. Are we not in a good position to talk to you about Islam? In fact, as long as Islam wants us to be its enemy, we are, and all our protestations of friendship, cannot change anything. As a proper Antichrist, Islam exists only as an enemy of all: “Between us and you there is enmity and hatred forever, until you believe in Allah alone!” (Quran 60.4) For the Quran, Christians “are only impurity” (Quran 9.28),” “the worst of Creation” (Quran 98.6), all condemned to hell (Quran 4.48), so Allah must exterminate them (Quran 9.30). We must not be deceived by the Quranic verses deemed tolerant, because they have all been repealed by the “verse of the sword” (Quran 9.5). Where the Gospel proclaims the good news of Jesus’ death and resurrection for the salvation of all, and the fulfillment of the Covenant initiated with the Hebrews, Allah has nothing to offer but war and murder of the “infidels” in exchange for share the same totalitarian logic based on the rejection of the kingship of Christ (Lk 4:7). We know that the Beast of the Apocalypse, seeking to devour the Woman and her Child, has many heads. Allah defends such alliances by the way! (Quran 5.51). Moreover, the prophets have always reproached Israel for its willingness to ally with foreign powers, to the detriment of the complete confidence they should have had in God. Certainly, the temptation is strong to think that speaking in an Islamophilic tone will prevent Pope Francis embraces Sheik Ahmad el-Tayeb, grand imam of al-Azhar University, at a conference in Cairo. his paradise: “They fight on the way of Allah, they kill and are killed.” (Quran 9.11) We do not confuse Islam with Muslims, but if for you “dialogue” means the voice of peace, for Islam it’s only another way to make war. Also, as it was in the face of Nazism and Communism, naiveté in the face of Islam is suicidal and very dangerous. How can you speak of peace and endorse Islam, as you seem to do: “To wring from our hearts the disease that plagues our lives(…) Let those who are Christians do it with the Bible and those who are Muslims do it with the Quran.” (Rome, January 20, 2014)? That the pope seems to propose the Quran as a way of salvation, is that not cause for worry? Should we return to Islam? We beg you not to seek in Islam an ally in your fight against the powers that want to dominate and enslave the world, since they more suffering for Christians in those countries that have become Muslim, but apart from the fact that Jesus has never indicated any other way than that of the Cross, so that we must find our joy therein and not flee with all the damned, we do not doubt that only the proclamation of the truth brings with it not only salvation, but freedom as well (Jn. 8:32). Our duty is to bear witness to the truth “in season and out of season” (II Tim. 4:2), and our glory is to be able to say with St. Paul: “I did not want to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (I Cor. 2:2). As to Your Holiness’s stance on Islam: even as President Erdogan, among others, asks his countrymen not to integrate into their host countries, and while Saudi Arabia and all the petrol monarchies do not welcome any refugee, 39 Spirituality expressions (among others) of the project of conquest and Islamization of Europe, officially proclaimed by the OIC and other Islamic organizations for decades; you, Most Holy Father, preach the welcoming of migrants regardless of the fact that they are Muslims, something forbidden by Apostolic command: “If anyone comes to you but refuses this Gospel, do not receive him among you nor greet him. Whoever greets him participates in his evil works.” (II Jn. 1:10-11); “If anyone preaches to you a different Gospel, let him be accursed!” (Gal. 1:8-9) Just as “For I was hungry, and you gave me no food.” (Mt. 25:42) cannot mean that Jesus would have liked to be a parasite, so “I was a stranger and you welcomed me” cannot mean “I was an invader and you welcomed me”, but rather “I needed your hospitality for a while, and you granted it to me”. The word ξένος (xenos) in the New Testament does not only have the meaning of stranger but of guest as well (Rom. 16:23; I Cor. 16:5-6, Col. 4:10; III Jn. 1:5). And when YHWH in the Old Testament commands to treat foreigners well because the Hebrews have themselves been foreigners in Egypt, it is on the condition that the foreigner assimilates so well to the chosen people that he accepts their religion and practices their cult… Never is there mention of welcoming a foreigner who would keep his religion and its customs! Also, we do not understand that you are pleading for Muslims to practice their religion in Europe. The meaning of Scripture should not be supplied by the proponents of globalism, but in fidelity to Tradition. The Good Shepherd hunts the wolf; He does not let it enter the sheepfold. The pro-Islam speech of Your Holiness leads us to deplore the fact that Muslims are not invited to leave Islam, and that many ex-Muslims, such as Magdi Allam, are even leaving the Church, disgusted by her cowardice, wounded by equivocal gestures, confused by the lack of evangelization, scandalized by the praise given to Islam…Thus, ignorant souls are misled, and Christians are not preparing for a confrontation with Islam, to which St. John Paul II has called them (Ecclesia in Europa, no. 57). We are under the impression that you do not take your brother Bishop Nona Amel, Chaldean-Catholic 40 The Angelus July - August 2018 Archbishop of Mosul in exile, seriously, when he tells us: “Our present sufferings are the prelude to those that you, Europeans and Western Christians, will suffer in the near future. I have lost my diocese. The headquarters of my archdiocese and my apostolate have been occupied by radical Islamists who want us to convert or die.(…) You are welcoming into your country an ever increasing number of Muslims. You are in danger as well. You must make strong and courageous decisions.(…) You think that all men are equal, but Islam does not say that all men are equal.(…) If you do not understand this very quickly, you will become the victims of the enemy that you have invited into your home.” (August 9, 2014). “This is a matter of life and death, and any complacency towards Islam is treasonous. We do not wish the West to continue with Islamization, nor that your actions contribute to it. Where then would we go to seek refuge? Allow us to ask Your Holiness to quickly convene a synod on the dangers of Islam. What remains of the Church where Islam has installed itself? If she still has civil rights, it is in dhimmitude, on the condition that she does not evangelize, thus denying her very essence. In the interest of justice and truth, the Church must bring to light why the arguments put forward by Islam to blaspheme the Christian Faith are false. If the Church had the courage to do that, we do not doubt that millions, Muslims as well as other men and women seeking the true God, would convert. As you said: “He who does not pray to Christ, prays to the devil.” (March 14, 2013) If people knew they were going to hell, they would give their lives to Christ. (cf. Quran 3.55) With the deepest love for Christ who, through you, leads His Church, we, converts from Islam, supported by many of our brothers in the Faith, especially the Christians of the East, and by our friends, ask Your Holiness to confirm our conversion to Jesus Christ, true God and true man, the only Savior, with a frank and right discourse on Islam, and, assuring you of our prayers in the heart of the Immaculate, we ask your apostolic blessing. The Angelus magazine can now travel with you anywhere! Grow your knowledge of the Faith anytime, anywhere! Check it out: angelus.online Spirituality The Sacred Gift of Life by a Benedictine monk The sound of the human heartbeat is very mysterious. It is almost like an echo of life in the human body. It sounds identical to our mother and father’s hearts, which in turn sounded the same as all of our ancestors’ hearts. We can trace that heartbeat all the way to our first father, Adam. This heartbeat, given to Adam by God Himself, was handed on as a sacred treasure to every future generation of man. This sacred gift of life continues in us almost as if Adam’s heart were still beating within us. God, by His infinite love, desired to share His life with His creatures. In His eternal wisdom, He endowed them with the power to communicate the sacred gift of life to future generations, but He desired that it be transmitted exclusively through the mutual love of lawfully wedded spouses. He wants the child, the fruit of this 42 The Angelus July - August 2018 mutual love, to be born and to grow to maturity in this stable atmosphere of the family’s love. For there to be a true union, there must be two that become one. The child is the fruit of the parents’ unity. Anything that willfully frustrates the birth of the child threatens the unity of the parents. If they eliminate the possibility of transmitting life, their union is centered strictly on personal pleasure. By the very fact that it is reduced to individual pleasure, it is not a union at all. Although these pleasures are very good, created and willed by God to ensure the continuation of the human race, if they are sought by excluding the responsibility of bearing the fruit of life, God’s plan would be frustrated. The very act intended by God to transmit the gift of life would become nothing more than a type of sinful selfseeking. Artificial birth control does exactly this. An egotistical pleasure is sought from a companion in order to please oneself and to avoid the burden of bearing children. The parents’ first and foremost responsibility, after the salvation of their own souls is the education of their children. God, however, in a very mysterious way, confided a spiritual fatherhood to religious souls. In the same way that Adam’s heartbeat is still being heard in the bodies of his descendants, the Sacred Heart of Christ, the New Adam, is heard spiritually in the souls of His children. He, in His wisdom decided to communicate the sacred gift of the spiritual life by the lives of consecrated souls offered to Him. The Mother of Our Life At the foot of the cross, Jesus confided the Blessed Virgin Mary to St. John as his mother. At this moment, she became the: “Mother of our life, our sweetness and our hope.” We know from experience that our sins can inflict death upon our souls. We need the loving hands of a mother to bind up and heal these wounds. Our Lady is like the widow of Naim weeping for her dead son in order to touch the heart of God and to raise us to life. St. Paul, the father of the Gentiles, in his epistle to the Galatians, mentions his suffering as labor that he must endure in order for Christ to be formed in his spiritual children. “My little children, of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you...” St. Benedict, the father of monasticism, quoting St. Paul, speaks of the Abbot’s spiritual fatherhood: “Ye have received the spirit of the adoption of sons, whereby we cry Abba, Father.” Consecrated virgins, religious and priests, by prayer and sacrifice, call down from God the necessary graces for the life of souls. They are truly spiritual parents that we will only fully appreciate in Heaven. Even the three children of Fatima accomplished a type of spiritual fatherhood. Our Lady asked that they pray for souls: “So many souls go to hell because nobody prays for them.” St. Theresa of the Child Jesus prayed for her “Pranzini”, the hardened criminal on death row that repeatedly refused the sacraments. Moments before his execution, he finally embraced the crucifix that the prison chaplain offered to him. St. Therese was about 15 years old at the time and calls him her firstborn. She later entered the Carmel and sacrificed her life for the salvation of souls. She became the mother of countless spiritual children and the patroness of foreign missions. In the same way that man can choose to frustrate God’s plan by selfishly practicing artificial birth control, so can consecrated souls refuse to accept spiritual fatherhood. They can practice a type of spiritual birth control by becoming materialistic and self-centered. Many abuses crept into the Church over the centuries. Speaking about the abbot, St. Benedict shows how authority can be abused by not communicating the spiritual life to his monks: “Above all let him not have greater solicitude for fleeting, earthly and perishable things, and so overlook or undervalue the salvation of souls committed to him...” The mission of the Council of Trent was to restore spiritual paternity to consecrated souls. Many Bishops, without residing in their dioceses nor accomplishing their duties, were receiving the diocesan revenues. The commendatory abbots were often not religious, but they received large sums of money destined for monasteries that they had never even seen. Many priests were ordained in order to receive revenues due to their parish without ever celebrating Mass or administering the sacraments. The Church often suffers from corruption and decadence because consecrated souls are practicing a type of spiritual birth control. They seek after a selfish comfort, refusing the responsibility of transmitting the sacred gift of the spiritual life. They become wolves in sheep’s clothing, seeking the prestige and wealth of the clerical or religious state without the responsibility of the care of souls. May another Humanae Vitae be written asking that consecrated souls communicate the sacred gift of the spiritual life to their children. 43 Spirituality The Gift of the Father by Fr. Ludger Grün, SSPX In marriage, two people are connected to the bridal couple, Christ and the Church, through a living bond. They live these words of Jesus in a special way: “I am the vine, you are the branches.” But why did God unite a married couple so closely with Christ and the Church? What was He thinking? It is quite simple: a branch lives the life of the tree. If we bend a branch, we do it to the tree. When a bird sits in a tree, it alights upon a branch. When you look at a branch, you see the tree. Branch and tree have the same life. And here, we can also sense why God gave us the wonderful sacrament of marriage: He wants the whole family to experience the life of the heavenly bridal couple, Christ and the Church. The Children First of all, there are the children: they are the darlings of Jesus and should experience from the beginning that Christ and the Church love them with a warm love and kindness. Christ gave His life out of love to save the children of God and to give them an eternal home in Heaven. The Church breathes the same love for the children of God. She does everything to make these children feel 44 The Angelus July - August 2018 the love of God. It is the effect of the sacrament of marriage that the love between Christ and the Church has been poured into the hearts of parents. They may and should love their baptized children with the same love that burns in the heart of the Church and of Christ. One can only be amazed that parents are not only allowed to imitate this love, but that it is, in fact, the same love that lives in Christ and the Church. This is a great opportunity for parents to do good to their children and is in line with their parents’ deep desire to give their children only the best. The parents educate and provide for their children. Whether they put the bread on the table, choose the right school, obtain the clothing, comfort, exhort, remind, please the children or forgive and encourage them when they make mistakes, all this is at the same time a doing of Christ and the Church. Their mercy and love is a message and a greeting from the heart of Jesus and from the Church. At the same time, the children experience how father and mother are united in great love and respect. They form a unity like Christ and the Church. The father respects and loves the mother as Christ loves the Church and does everything for her. The mother stands by her husband as the Church is entirely there for the work of Christ. This unity of father and mother is the greatest joy for the children. In some families, the children are restless and almost sad. If you then look around, you discover that father and mother live in constant quarrels and disputes. I’m sure it’s normal that there are differences of opinion now and then. This is not a problem as long as the differences are discussed calmly and normally. But what harms the children in the long run is constant strife and tension. It also harms immensely on the religious level. The children should be able to experience how strongly Christ and the Church are united, but in such families, they receive the message that there is constant conflict between Christ and the Church—an absurd message that is also unsettling in 45 Spirituality religious matters. This becomes even worse when there is a kind of power struggle between parents, who has the most to say, or when the mother tries to control the father and the children. This also sends an absurd message to the children, namely that the Church wants to rule over Christ and the children of God. The Couple After the children, it is the spouses themselves who are allowed to draw great love from the sacrament of marriage. Wasn’t it the greatest wish on their wedding day that love would last forever and even grow? It is precisely this desire that the sacrament fulfils when it pours into the hearts of the spouses the same love that unites the divine bridal couple. Christ became man and accepted everything that is typically human, except sin. Even before original sin in paradise there was a wonderful bridal love between Adam and Eve. Even greater than this is the truly human and spousal love that dwells in the heart of Christ. The bride in the Song of Songs says: “Your love is more beautiful than wine” (Cant. 1:1). This nuptial love is also reflected in the heart of the Church. This love, then, may Christian spouses give to each another and even grow in it. Instead of relying only on their own hearts, they may draw from the hearts of Christ and the Church. Here too the word of the prophet Isaiah is valid: “You will draw in joy from the sources of the Saviour” (Is. 12:3). Every kind word, every joy you give to your partner, every time you give to the other, all this you can draw from the sacrament. Just as the couple of Cana was able to continue celebrating the wedding with the wine of Jesus, which was suddenly there in immense quantity and highest quality, so their deepest wish is fulfilled here! The Surroundings Not only the family should be edified and encouraged by the living presence of Christ and the Church. Every well-lived marriage 46 The Angelus July - August 2018 is a glorification of God and a beacon for the environment, whether ecclesiastical or social. This is especially true for childless marriages, which sometimes suffer badly from their fate. Their marriage is also very valuable and important. For when they are a flowering branch of the divine Bridal Couple, they encourage their surroundings and give a glorious testimony of the primal mystery of creation and redemption. God’s eternal plan is to glorify Christ, the Lamb of God and his Bride, the Church. Heaven will be the Lamb’s eternal wedding feast (Apoc. 19:6). “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who celebrated his son’s wedding” (Mt. 22:1). Because of this wedding, God created and redeemed the world and guides it in almighty providence. Every married couple who works faithfully with the graces of the sacrament of matrimony, even if they remain childless, is a light from above for the Church and the world and reminds us of the “great mystery” (Eph. 5:32) that God planned from the beginning. Today we again need couples whose lives speak of this great plan of God and who do not live in pessimism and despondency. Many young people no longer have the courage to get married, certainly because they have experienced so many failed or unhappy marriages. At the same time, we are witnessing a general attack on marriage through pornography, divorce, abortion, gender ideology and homosexual propaganda. The devil fights furiously against the great mystery of God’s plan. Today we need flowering couples again, who through their lives stand on the side of their divine friends Christ and the Church. “You are the light of the world!” (Mt. 5:14). Endangered Marriages But one could argue that this does not reflect reality. What about these many, quite Christian marriages, where there is simply no harmony anymore, where there is much tension, even dissension, disappointment, bitterness, suppressed anger or open strife? Isn’t there an ideal here that discourages these marriages even more? In this case, you have to look at what led to the situation. It is the result of a development in which one has lost courage over time. The bearing of the mistakes or peculiarities of the partner has become more and more difficult with time, so that in the end one of them has resigned. At this point, a decisive change occurs in the marriage. Instead of continuing to try Christian and supernatural ways, they change to purely human behavior. Mistakes are then answered impatiently, the diversity of characters is fought with always the same accusations, and demands are presented ever-more violently. Suddenly, the “old man” reigns in us, this old man who, contrary to the new man, brings only misfortune. Was it not this old man in us who led to ever-new sins, yes, who crucified Christ? And it is precisely to this person that we entrust what is actually so important to us: the love and relationship with the people who are close to us. This is a drama that continues to intensify and only brings more controversy and upset to life. The couple tried to change this nature and make it better, but they did not succeed. Heads are lowered and resigned. Marriage and Salvation This radically raises an age-old question: What makes people become better? It has been tried with better education, with categorical imperative, with moralism, with highly-stylized human rights, but nothing has brought about the decisive breakthrough. If we look at Christ, what is His view on this question? If there is a way, He must teach us. His answer is: Man does not improve through rules and commandments, not through reproaches or threats, but only through ever-new forgiveness, ever-new opportunities, and ever-new beginnings. In the face of the enormous weight of humanity’s guilt, God approaches man humbly, gently, amicably and kindly. Is this not the joy of a Christian life, that one receives forgiveness over and over again with new opportunities and new beginnings? What would happen to us if God gave us as few new opportunities as we do to people? Our life would end quickly! One has to understand that man is only improved by forgetting the past, by forgiveness and new grace. This is the only way; if there was a better way, Christ would have shown it to us. Let us remember the last good confession and the liberated feeling it gave us: Everything is forgiven and forgotten, a new opportunity has arisen, and a deep joy moves the heart. And out of this feeling we were allowed to continue our life and were willing to try it again. This is the way God wants to change people for the good; all other ways fail. One can certainly compare a “failed” marriage with the situation when one has not gone to confession for years: everything is tedious, restless and dark. We humans need this love, which forgives seven times seventy times, there is no other way. Where does this ever-new opportunity, this renewed joy of goodness come from? It comes from confession, in which Christ and the Church give us their love. The priest is only an instrument of this love. In the end, every confession is a gift from Christ and the Church, an encounter with their love. And exactly this love is also given into the hearts of the married couple. Here it wants to do the same thing it does in confession: Forgive and forget the bad and open a new future. Thus, the sacrament of marriage is inspired by the same spirit as confession: forgetting, forgiving, and beginning anew. The love of Christ and the Church is essentially a redeeming, liberating love, a love that knows exactly what man really needs. Forgiveness and mercy are not exceptions for special cases, but our daily bread. Perhaps even in this thought lies a turning point for some marriages, which no longer know what to do... Here again, a basic feature of all sacraments becomes apparent: they are focal points of the redemption. The marriage of two people should not only tell about Christ and the Church in general, but should also be a concrete reminder of God’s forgiving and healing love. Marriage is a visible sign of God’s grace and mercy. Don’t forget what Mary said at Cana’s wedding: “Do everything He tells you!” 47 “Instaurare omnia in Christo” Restoring the Priesthood, the Mass, the Faith, the Family, Society, and the World. “Restoring all things in Christ” Society of Saint Pius X Liberalism, Fascism, and Humanae Vitae by Dr. John Rao Lest anyone be disturbed by the title of this article, let me assure my readers that I am in no way writing it to praise Liberalism and Fascism, but to bury them. Still, my goal is to bury them in a proper as opposed to a fictitious manner; one that demonstrates the entire modern vision to be of a powermad character that both of these “isms” fully share. As far as I am concerned, promoting the message of Humanae Vitae is one of the most effective means of achieving this task. Please bear with me as I attempt to unveil this encyclical’s immense prophetic value as a “hammer of heretics” by first addressing myself to the true spirit of modernity. Liberalism and Fascism I may have already, once before, made reference in these pages to the chilling statement uttered by Iago in Shakespeare’s Othello: “I am not what I am.” With these words, Iago identifies himself as a mendacious and ultimately downright diabolical schemer, the antithesis of the good God, who “is what He is.” The same phrase can be used to label most of the liberal polemicists who have specialized in the use of the term “fascist” as a tool for pommeling their enemies since the end of the Second World War. For they are not, what they admittedly, may even think they are—enemies of fascism—but promoters of it in another, more “politically correct” and seductive post-war fashion. What such liberals wish to do with their politically-charged vocabulary is to equate the concerns of all of their opponents not just with 49 Christian Culture Fascism in general, but with that of Nazism in particular, and, through Nazism, with death camps and genocide. They feel all the more justified in appealing to this vocabulary when the object of their attack is associated with the authoritative command of an identifiable leader, who can thereby be accused of playing a Hitler-like role. Nevertheless, they lie: to the people they hope to influence, and, even more tragically, to themselves as well. There is no denying the fact that Fascism has the “leadership principle” as a guiding element, and effective liberal propagandists can indeed make this seem as though it is the same thing as the principle of authority as such. But the essential difference of the fascist leadership principle and that of the Christian and Socratic principle of authority, is lack of interest on the part of the former in the “truth content” or the moral goodness of the commands that are given by the man in charge. For Fascism in general, the only thing that matters is the “will” of the dictator— his “choice”—and the necessity of assuring him the strength to translate that will into practical action. Nazism adds to this basic lack of truth or moral content, the one conviction that whatever the leader commands is being ordered for the benefit of the race whose superiority destines it to dominate the rest of the human species. As much as its supporters might recoil in horror from this naked truth, Fascism is nothing other than the last gasp effort of Liberalism to prevent the total destruction of the social order that its fundamental principle inevitably ensures. For what, ultimately, is Liberalism’s key principle? It is, as John Locke (1632-1704) makes crystal clear, the autonomy of the individual, who himself is the product of all of the purely physical influences shaping him from birth to death, and who is said to possess the “natural right” to satisfy, by means of his personal labor and his personal property, the “needs” that these sensual experiences command him to fulfill. The War of All against All Unfortunately, the “war of all against all” that this liberation of individuals seeking satisfaction 50 The Angelus July - August 2018 of their different, personal, material “needs” unleashes, has created the capitalist injustices against which an equally materialist Marxism seeking fulfillment of class “requirements” has unjustly reacted. The struggle of diverse, unjustifiable, individual national ambitions, useful for fulfilling the desires of the strongest individual “patriots” within each autonomous land, has been another bloody consequence of the “freedom” that liberalism has encouraged. Liberalism’s appeal to a “gentlemen’s agreement” among the strongest individuals of a given country regarding what the limits of personal or individual national desires “should” be—an agreement whose purely contractual judgments it baptizes with the term “the dictates of common sense”—having utterly failed to work historically, the discovery of some other means of stemming the tide of the war of all against all was clearly predictable. Fascism provided this tool for ensuring social order through its outright, unabashed adulation of the “right” of the strong individual to allow his raw will to triumph, without any appeal to its justification through faith, reason, or “common sense”. The fascist solution always lay lurking behind the liberal insistence on the materialist individual’s autonomy and rights, and this is why the average liberal in the interwar era ran to a Mussolini and Hitler who at least would protect his property from Bolshevik expropriation. Fascism suffered the worst fate that a political theory appealing to the naked “triumph of the will” of the strong could ever suffer—it lost. The winners in the Second World War thus gained the chance to define Fascism’s meaning exactly as they willed, the western liberals in a liberal one. That is to say, they defined Fascism precisely in a fascist manner. Moreover, Liberalism “willed” to equate Fascism with Nazism. It commanded the world to join in a morally highminded condemnation of the National Socialist repression and murder of forces and groups that it personally did not “choose” to be controlled or eliminated. And it “willed” that its own unfolding and admittedly more subtle repression of other forces it disliked, not be labeled as Fascist, since it insisted on viewing itself as the sole true enemy of this supposedly now “defeated” evil. The Important Role Humanae vitae played an enormous and even pioneering role in uncovering the fact that Fascism was still very much alive, and that western Liberalism was its standard bearer in the postwar world. The pain of this unveiling can be seen in the liberal Paul VI’s own seemingly only divinely ordained acceptance of his duty to proclaim the encyclical’s message. And the outrage over it being revealed is vivid in the reaction of its opponents and their depiction of the encyclical as a fascist-like leader’s insult to individual freedom and human dignity. Such a reaction was only to be expected, given the success of such liberal rhetoric over the years, but both the pain of Paul VI and the outrage of his enemies were more than understandable. For what did Humanae Vitae actually say? To eyes that would not see and ears that could not hear, it expressed nothing other than a meanspirited prohibition of a union that took place in a way that prevented the birth of children, whom sincerely concerned parents knew they could not properly rear. But for minds and hearts open to the truth, its assault on artificial contraception served as a prophetic witness to Liberalism’s subtle, stepby-step realization of the triumph of the irrational and disbelieving will. In pointing out the reality of the couple’s application of its own rules for the sexual act—in violation of those demanded by both faith and reason—Humanae Vitae indicated that what was at stake here was a matter of naked imposition of personal will aimed at the satisfaction of a physical desire. Liberalism had insisted on the “right” of autonomous individuals to achieve such satisfaction from the very outset of its tortured history. The raw physicality of the illicit act could, however, at least at this stage of the development of the evil, still quite easily be masqueraded with reference to the “love” involved, both of the man and woman stimulated by it, as well as that for the offspring that might suffer from their unprotected union. Nevertheless, perspicacious supporters of the encyclical underlined from the very outset where this was all headed. For the very same willfulness, backed by the very same rationale, was what would give “loving”, “concerned”, autonomous individuals the “right” to prevent the children who might have been formed in the womb despite all of their contraceptive precautions, from coming to their still unwanted birth by means of abortion. Similarly, it was these factors that would give them the “right” to end helpless creatures’ lives even after birth, should their unwanted or sickly nature seem to guarantee them what their sorrowful parents might deem a meaningless existence. Moreover, that same willfulness would ensure that those fortunate post Humanae Vitae beings actually given the chance to see the light of day could learn to exercise their same “right” to satisfy their pressing material desires by adding to the prevention of conception, the abortion of those who were unexpectedly conceived, and the euthanizing of their now useless parents, the changing of their own bodies from one sex to another or even their very “transhumanization.” Thank Heavens Liberalism, in its desire to free individuals from dilemmas created by the use of reason and Christian Faith, molded many people who did not realize that their appeal to their individual freedom and dignity would lead down the direction that it did. In the 20th century, both Planned Parenthood and the Nazis were there to tell them what their “rights” could actually allow them to do: destroy everything they did not wish to deal with and sacrifice to maintain, for the betterment of the species and with the weakest of mankind paying the highest price for their egotism. Postwar liberals have had to hide this affinity with an enemy that they associated purely with responsibility for the genocide of groups that were not offensive to their pet causes. They can run, but they cannot hide. For Liberalism ultimately seeks the devastation of everything true, good, and beautiful standing in the way of a progressively degraded set of individual physical passions that lowers the bar of what common sense will accept. Thank heavens for Humanae Vitae! Its prophetic vision covers a multitude of petty Catholic sins held over our heads for centuries by supposed friends of individual freedom and dignity who turn out to be nothing other than a monstrous Triumph of the Will. 51 The Basilica of San Domenico is one of the major churches in Bologna, Italy. The remains of St. Dominic, founder of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans), are buried inside the exquisite shrine Arca di San Domenico, made by Nicola Pisano and his workshop, Arnolfo di Cambio and with later additions by Niccolò dell’Arca and the young Michelangelo. St. Dominic’s chapel is the main chapel of the church. Christian Culture The AntiPolitical Systems by Dr. Luis Roldán In this conference, I wish to share some thoughts on revolution and anti-politics. It is certainly difficult to find historical milestones that mark a before and after. I believe that nominalism was the most important moment in destroying the classical concept of political thought and the subsequent replacements with the modern anti-politics. The nominalism of William of Ockham had a destructive effect on the whole of the Christian mindset. Editor’s Note: This article is taken from a seminar on politics given by Dr. Luis Roldán at the Society of Saint Pius X’s seminary La Reja, Argentina, in August 2011. A second article from the seminar follows. Nominalism, Father of Individualistic Liberalism In our everyday life we operate with particulars: Don Juan is sitting down right now on that bench, which is a judgment that is good here and now. But we also use universals, for instance when we say that man is a rational animal; we understand that that judgment is 54 The Angelus July - August 2018 applicable to all men and always. Nominalism is one of the possible answers to the philosophical question: “What value holds these concepts and these universal judgments? This question has been answered in three different ways. Plato’s answer is known as idealism or exaggerated realism. Plato considered that the universals existed as such in the Olympus, the dwelling place of the idea of horse, of man, of virtue… And the beings we have down here are simply a demiurge’s copies and imitations. Ockham, on the opposite side of the spectrum, states that the universal is a mere name with no existence. What exists is only the individual: Juan, Pedro, this dog, that tree. The answer of the Aristotelian and Thomistic realism is that, although the only being which exists as such is the substance, however the universal is a mental entity based in reality through a process of abstraction. It is a concept in the human mind which points to the essence of the thing. This loss of the value of the universals has consequences in many areas. First of all, it is Argentinians” but no such abstract object exists. The logical outcome of this is individualism. A nominalist metaphysics will have its corresponding individualistic ethics, economics, political theory, and philosophy of law. Political theory in its classical sense ends up disappearing from these authors for two reasons. The first one is because if there is no subject, there is no society. If only the individuals are real, the so-called political action is reduced to the action of individuals. A couple of examples might help us illustrate this. First, you have the heterogeneous group, a group of individuals who are physically close by, but are not doing In order for man to succeed in life, God provided him with two means, education and physical activity. Not separately, one for the soul and the other for the body, but for the two together. With these means, man can attain perfection. (Plato) going to destroy the classic conception of science. Aristotle stated that science was the study of the universal and necessary by the causes in the real beings. If universals are mere names, science is completely nullified; this is what is going to happen in the modern schools of thought. But, although less noticed, nominalism also has consequence in the realm of political theory. It deprives all social entities of a real foundation. If the only real being is the individual, the individual is also the only one with rights and duties. In this context, to speak of the rights of the family, for instance, or the corporation, or of the political community, refers to a void. If one were to ask a nominalist: “What is Argentina?” he might say Argentina is the 40 million individuals that live in this country; to make it easier, instead of naming them one by one, we say “the anything in common, like guests in a hotel. There is a multiplicity of individuals subject to several common rules such as having to pay their stay, keep out of other rooms, refrain from loud music, and so forth. In a heterogeneous group, there is no common perfecting end, and that is precisely what distinguishes a heterogeneous group from a social group. In a social group there are multiple individuals as well, and they are also in close proximity, but the difference is what they do in common. When the individuals do something in common, and when this something that is done in common is good, it is called the common good. The common good differs from the individual good in two aspects. First of all, the individual good can be obtained by myself: I am sleepy, so I go to sleep. What do I need from others? Nothing, just 55 Christian Culture Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives—choice, not chance, determines your destiny. (Aristotle) that they do not make noise and that they do not bother me. And secondly, the individual good is of itself non-transferable. If my friend is very tired, I can not pass on to him some hours of sleep. The common good, on the other hand, has the two opposite characteristics. It is something that I can or may do only in as much as I am a part of a group; it can only be achieved through a common action. The common good is, of itself, diffusive and transferable to the other members of the group. The best example is that of a party. If I do not have a group of friends coming over to be with me, to participate with me, I am not enjoying a party. Imagine now, on the other hand, a party in which each member pays a certain amount of money, brings their own food and drink and brings their own portable CD player... the essential interaction between the members is missing. Another good example could be that of a soccer team. I believe that in Argentina one of the last reservoirs of healthy political doctrine is made up of sports commentators. Many times there is a soccer coach who looks for the best midfielders, the best defenders, the best forward/ strikers, the best goalie…but when the team goes to the championship, it is defeated. What do the commentators say then? They say the team lost because the other guys were a better team. That is where we see that the social group cannot be reduced to the mere sum of its members. What was essential in the team whose individual members were less than stellar? There was a synergy, the strength of a common action. 56 The Angelus July - August 2018 The Politics of Individualistic Liberalism This is something that is missed by Liberalism. Liberalism thinks of society as a big hotel where there are some common duties—to pay taxes, to not hurt others, but there is no common action as such. One of the principal names in Liberalism, Louis Feuerbach, said precisely that a characteristic of the liberal society is that there are no common goals. If there are no common goals, there is no common good, there is no perfective end, and that is why, from the beginning of the modern times, politics are detached from ethics and are considered, as with Machiavelli, merely a technique or an art. For both Plato and Aristotle, pagans as they were, it is clear that the perfection of man is reached through the perfection of politics. Plato’s Republic precisely starts with the question of what constitutes a just man. For Plato, just means perfect. And Socrates’ answer is very clear, we cannot know unless we know what is a just city, because the just polis is what generates just men, and just men live in a just city. In the classical mind, to study the perfection of man as separated from politics is a contradiction in terms. The function of the political life was precisely to offer the citizen the most perfect human good. Aristotle keeps this classic tradition, which is regrettably lost later in the Hellenistic school of thought, especially in sophistry; for the first time, an ethics system does not aspire to the perfection of man through politics. The classical political tradition will be recuperated with Christianity, and especially St. Thomas Aquinas, until the time of the Renaissance. With the Renaissance, the perfection of man is a personal matter. The political activity, at best, will offer some techniques that will grant man some exterior goods like roads, aqueducts, works of art, and some military strength, but it is no longer a means to the perfection of man. The logical consequence after this divorce between ethics, religion, and politics is the apparition of the modern state after the so-called French Revolution, the first time in which the State is proclaimed directly atheist, a godless numbers of people reduced to working just for survival. It is in this context that Marxism will emerge, the last phase of the destruction of the classical political theory. Marxism: Fruit of the Industrial Revolution Many books and many authors try to explain Marxism as reaction against Liberalism, but this needs to be qualified. Certainly, in many aspects, Marxism is a reaction against certain consequences of Liberalism. But, as Donoso The highest perfection of human life consists in the mind of man being detached from care, for the sake of God. (St. Thomas Aquinas) State whose central point is the adoration of man. This debate already existed in Plato’s discussion with Protagoras; Protagoras affirms that the human being is the measure of all things, to which Socrates counters that God is the measure of all things. The modern world reverts to the idea of a godless State, a State whose goal is to secure the rights of the selfish man. However much man may choose to ignore the laws of politics, he cannot escape its consequences. Every science introduces an idea of necessity in the order of reality, and political science introduces the need for an end. Man can indeed violate the laws of politics, but he will, in turn, have to suffer the consequences. And the result of the liberal state is the destruction of society in the 19th century. This, along with the industrial revolution, will impoverish huge Cortés would say, it is by erecting a gallows to the conclusions while enshrining the principles. Because the fundamental theses of modern thought—the nucleus of the anti-Christian liberal revolution—are not only accepted by Marx and his successors, but indeed are taken to its utmost consequences. Let us pause for a minute for a sketchy description of Marx’s school of thought. Marx lived in Europe in the mid 19th century and was influenced especially by two currents. First, he was influenced by the German philosophy, namely Hegel, from whom Marx will borrow the idea of dialectics. Hegel is the last great Rationalist thinker who stated that reality does not so much exist as it is permanently in the making. Change is the essence of things. That is why all Hegelian authors reject the notion 57 Christian Culture of a metaphysical nature and affirm that the only true discipline that allows man to know how things are being made and changed is dialectics. Marx integrates these ideas with the French materialism, e.g. Ludwig Feuerbach’s metaphysical materialism. Feuerbach teaches that reality is matter, but this matter has a certain constituent structure. Marx will negate this, stating that we can have a profound knowledge of reality only through dialectic materialism. This dialectic materialism will be, in time, defined by Lenin as the study of “contradiction in the essence of things.” This is a formidable statement! It means that there is no essence. I remember a Marxist professor of mine who, during the very first class, stated that the first point we needed to agree on was that there is no nature of things. Things do not exist as such, they are being made. They are becoming. If I want to have a vision of reality, I must forget about trying to capture the essence of reality. Now, do you realize the void in these ideas? From now on there is nothing stable, nothing permanent. Change, movement alone is. A new understanding of man arises from this Marxist anti-metaphysics: the dialectic materialism which replaced the classic metaphysics. What about man? Man too is change. He has no essence. Anthropology really means the history of anthropology, the study of the evolution of man. And what is man? It is matter in its maximum development. There is a point in the dialectic evolution of matter in which it becomes conscious, at which point man appears. And what is man? Man is fundamentally that which he does, his work. In Marxism, the tragedy occurs when man relinquishes some production to the owner of the capital. Man is not; man is his work, his action. Marx states that the important thing is to change the world, not to interpret it as philosophers did in the past. If there is no nature of things, there is a total rejection of the contemplative life. The fundamental core of Marxism is pure praxis. Marxism as an Individualistic System Marx’s idea of society is based on nominalism, but takes an interesting turn. The tragedy of nominalism is that it cannot conceive a reality apart from the individual. When Marx intends to respond to the liberal individualism, his only recourse is to make of the political community one huge individual in which the different persons are but an integral part. This is precisely the basis of Marxist totalitarianism in Russia. In the Communist regimes, totalitarianism is not so much the consequence of tyrannical leaders as of the internal logic of the system itself. Instead of elevating the individual, the collectivity is exalted as the new individual. The State does away with each citizen. My only wish is to transform friends of God into friends of man, believers into thinkers, devotees of prayer into devotees of work, candidates for the hereafter into students of the world, Christians who, by their own procession and admission, are half animal, half angel into persons, into whole persons. (Ludwig Feuerbach) 58 The Angelus July - August 2018 The human being is in the most literal sense a political animal, not merely a gregarious animal, but an animal which can individuate itself only in the midst of society. (Karl Marx) All this being said, there is still a profound individualism in Marx’s blueprint. If what is truly human are not the individual persons but the social conduct, the social groups, however, the Marxist anthropology gives way to historic materialism, i.e. the history of the evolution of human society. And how does society evolve? Society evolves because all through history men are divided in two groups, those that hold the goods or private property, and those that do not. In the first phase, in Antiquity, men were divided between slaves and owners and from this struggle will arise a synthesis, the feudal system. This is very interesting, because in some of his earlier writings and in some parts of Capital, Marx makes an intriguing analysis of the Medieval economy and proves that there was no class struggle in the feudal society. But, he affirms, we cannot go back, because change in society is an imperative of dialectic materialism. Interestingly, Marx recognized the action of the Church against usury and contends that in the history of humanity only the voices of Aristotle and the Church were raised against usury. But we cannot go back, because the dialectic of history is irreversible. The capitalist society appears after the feudal system and again private property divides men into two groups, those that control the means of production (the oligarchy, the bourgeoisie), and the proletariat. And again, there will be a clash between the two, which will lead to the disappearance of private property. This clash must take place, according to Marx, for the private property to disappear. Marxism as an Economic System Marx considers two parts in the structure of society as it stands in his time, the 19th century. One part which is truly real, what he calls the economic infrastructure, that is the different means of production and the ownership of goods. The class that holds the means of production will generate another class, which is what Marx calls the superstructure, that is, the state, the laws, politics, police, the armed forces…All these are in place to help keep the infrastructure as it is. This is very important. That is why for Marx the main subject is the political economy, because it addresses the infrastructure. The law, politics, and religion are satellites that do not have an explanation in themselves. For a classic Marxist, if I were to study the law, it would only make sense when I understand the economy; up until then I would be addressing the fringes, purely the superstructure. Not until one understands the infrastructure can one truly understand the issue. This showcases the methodology of the classic Marxist action. Marx and his followers opposed the 19th century socialists who wanted to form political parties with the intent to change the laws by obtaining parliamentary seats. Marx judged meaningless this effort to change the unimportant superstructure. The only meaningful change comes about by moving the masses by means of revolutionary strikes to collapse the infrastructure; once that has been achieved, 59 Christian Culture the superstructure will collapse by itself. As with a building, it is more effective to tear it down by placing a charge than to attempt it with an ax. After this phase, Marx contends, there will be a time when the workers’ party will be in power, the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat, which will eliminate the remains of the economic infrastructure. Now, an interesting point Marx makes is that once the private property is eliminated, there will no longer be a need for the state. Marx holds a profound disdain for politics, the consequence of the original sin of private property. Once the dichotomy owner/ slave, owner/worker is eliminated, politics is meaningless. He says so specifically in his writings; the “State” will end up in a museum, right along with the plow used by our ancestors, for future generations to see how it used to be. A Concluding Observation This is very interesting because all of Marx’s political forecasts turned out wrong. For instance, Marx thought the conditions in England, being the most developed industrial society at the time, would pave the way to Communism. Instead, Communism triumphs in Russia, where none of the conditions Marx 60 The Angelus July - August 2018 anticipated were present. Donoso Cortés, on the other hand, foresaw that Communism would take hold in Russia. And yet, Marxism became the predominant political theory even long after Marx’s death. Curiously enough, the Russian attempt to organize society according to the dictates of Marxism from 1917 to the 90’s failed spectacularly. And note that the so-called fall of the Berlin Wall did not take place because of the war, an epidemic, etc., but because of a sort of implosion. To try to establish a social order that violates systematically the natural laws of politics is something that can be done for a while, but will not last forever. That is the reason for the fall of the Berlin Wall. However, more remarkable is the fact that Marxism continues to be one of the strongest political ideologies, 20 years after the fall of Communism. How is this possible? The study of Gramsci in our second section will give some answers to this paradox. Luis Roldán is a lawyer and teaches Law at the UCA, Catholic University of Argentina (Buenos Aires). Marxist Revival in the West by Dr. Luis Roldán Editor’s Note: This second article is taken from a seminar on politics given by Dr. Luis Roldán at the Society of Saint Pius X’s seminary La Reja, Argentina in August 2011. Readers are encouraged to read the preceding article first. How is this possible that, 20 years after the fall of Communism, Marxism continues to be one of the strongest political ideologies? For this, we need to talk about an author closer to us, at least to us Argentinians: Antonio Gramsci, who attempted a complete re-formulation of Marxism, especially from the tactical/political point of view. Gramsci’s Marxism So, who was Antonio Gramsci? Antonio Gramsci was an Italian born in Sardinia toward the end of the 19th century. While still very young, he moved to Turin, a northern industrial city, where he became a grade school teacher, worked at factories, and also as a journalist, and was active in politics. Along with Palmiro Tolgliatti and others, Gramsci founded the Italian Communist party and would have a moment of glory when Lenin triumphs in Russia in 1917. This triumph of Lenin in 1917, followed by the end of World War I, the redrawing of Europe through the Treaties of Saint Germain and Versailles, would encourage, in almost every European country, attempts at a Communist revolution. In Germany, in Bavaria, the so-called Tragic Week in Spain happened and it had repercussions even in 61 Christian Culture Argentina. However, contrary to what happened in Russia, the attempts at class struggle in Italy caused not Gramsci, but Mussolini to come into power. And one of Mussolini’s first measures was to ban the Communist party and arrest all its leader, Gramsci from among them. Gramsci spent the last eight years of his life in jail and died of pneumonia in 1937. It was during this time that he wrote most of his political works. Gramsci’s work, Prison Notebooks, is not as systematic as Marx’s. The original was written in a number of school notebooks which his friends were allowed to give him while he was enjoying the vacation paid by Il Duce. What Gramsci is most concerned about is to understand why Lenin had been victorious and he was not. This is going to lead him to revisit some of Marx’s opinions. There is, however, one aspect he does not question at all: Gramsci reclaims Marxism as the heir of modernity. Marxism, for Gramsci, is absolute materialism, absolute anthropocentrism. The Reformation, the Counterreformation, the Protestant Revolution, and the French Revolution, all are ordained towards Marxism. Gramsci maintains that Marxism is the epitome, the end of modernity. All the elements of modernity converge towards this absolute humanism, this absolute anthropocentrism, and are understood in Marxist mode. And the first element to hold on to is this idea of the dialectic materialism that there are no essences. But Gramsci will revise some other things, in particular, the fundamental relations between the infrastructure and the superstructure. In classic Marxism, these relationships were understood rather rigidly, one could say mechanically; whatever action was applied to the infrastructure immediately affected the superstructure. Marx also considered the study of the superstructure as of no importance. He was not alone, because György Lukacs and others also talked about this. Gramsci thought the superstructure has a certain autonomy in regard to the infrastructure. He agrees that the superstructure ultimately depends on the infrastructure, but it is somewhat autonomous. This was very important from the point of view of the universities, because Gramsci okays Marxists to learn about the law, politics, even theology, and not merely the economic side 62 The Angelus July - August 2018 of things. Almost the whole of Gramsci’s writings in this period focus on what he calls “the issue of the superstructure.” He notes that there are two elements to the superstructure of society. The first element of the superstructure is what he calls the political society, a symbol of compulsion, an element of compulsion. Machiavelli’s influence is palpable in this—politics as a mere coercive tool. The principal elements of the political society would be the armed forces, police, and the courts. And, of course, there is another more important element to the superstructure, what Gramsci calls the civil society. Civil vs. Politic Society What is the civil society made of? The civil society are the elements that carry or transmit the culture, the first one being the family. After the family, the school, the theater and mass media, the Church. Gramsci will dedicate some very interesting paragraphs to analyzing the Church. What is the roll of the civil society? The civil society is that element that, in one particular moment, holds man’s cosmovision of the world, of life; it balances what Gramsci calls the high and the low. Gramsci is intrigued that in Italy at that time, a poor old country bumpkin who can neither read nor write feels she thinks like a university professor from the Gregorian university. This happens, Gramsci explains, because the Church, as part of the civil society, has known how to keep together the low grounds and the high grounds. That example showcases why the fundamental element of the civil society is what Gramsci calls “the organic intellectual”. Every civil society has in a specific point in time a number of people that study and disseminate a particular conception of man, the world, and life itself, and that keep in a cohesive unity all the elements of the social life. The fact that in a church an old, illiterate woman prays the same rosary as a theologian or a great philosopher is because the intellectuals have known how to keep the unity of what Gramsci called the “hegemonic historical block.” And what is this hegemonic historical block? It is a block because it is a unity of things that Gramsci, a Marxist himself, considers contradictories: rich and poor, sages and illiterates, those who hail from the north and those from the south, etc. Historical, because it was generated in a particular time in history and will disappear at another time. And it is hegemonic because the reality under the appearance of unity is but a cover for domination of one class over the other. At this point, then, Gramsci compares the Italian and Russian societies and comes to the conclusion that Russia had a very strong political society; the Tsar had, at his disposition, a huge military force, a formidable secret police, a terrifying court system, but the civil society, on the other hand, was very weak. There was little contact between the masses of peasants and the high classes. In Italy, however, the State was poorly organized, having emerged from a recent unification (at the time Gramsci wrote this, the Italian state had been around for 60 years). Add to that the mafia, etc., etc. Anybody who has an even a superficial knowledge of Italy knows that the Italian armed forces were certainly not the best in Europe; the Italian police had issues, the courts were a disaster. And how is it possible then, asks Gramsci, that Lenin won in Russia and I lost in Italy? The reason is that, in Russia, the political society was indeed very strong, but the civil society was undernourished. In Italy, on the contrary, the political society was weak, but the Marxists missed the fact that the civil society was extremely strong. So, what happened? In a case where the political society, that is the coercive body, is very weak but the civil society is very vigorous, a handful of outdated Marxists that engage in strikes, setting off bombs, etc., will ultimately strengthen the political superstructure. So Mussolini rose because he knew how to capture the common sense of the hegemonic historical block. That is why Gramsci stated that a change in tactics was imperative. At the time Gramsci wrote, there was an ongoing discussion regarding war tactics. On the one hand were those who favored the tactics of World War I, that is, the war of position: trenches, barbed-wire, etc. On the other hand, there were others, like Lukacs, who considered the war of movements far more efficacious: a quick strike to an enemy’s position to break the front and seize power. Gramsci takes this idea. Lenin, he said, employed the war of movements, which is a perfect tactic when one does not face a civil society. But when one encounters on the contrary, a very strong civil society and utilizes the tactics of the war of movement, the result is the entrenching of the most counterrevolutionary sectors. In countries like Italy, Marxism must distance itself from the war of movements and embrace the war of position. This is a long, arduous war, taking trench by trench, house by house, mine field by mine field. And what are those trenches and those houses? The schools, the mass media, the universities. And how is that going to take place? By replacing the intellectuals: the school teacher, the journalist, the priest at the pulpit. In other words, he that keeps the hegemonic historical block. All these figures need to be replaced by intellectuals that are devoted to Marxism, what Gramsci calls organic intellectuals. And this needs to be done slowly, without letting anybody know what is taking place. Cultural Marxism And to what target is Gramsci going to aim this strategy? This is masterful—Gramsci’s objective is the common sense, the destruction of the common sense. Because the common sense is what carries the metaphysical mentality—the idea that there are essences, that there is a nature to things. Gramsci died in jail, but what happened in Italy after his death is interesting. Italy ends World War II with the stability proper to Italian diplomacy, signing on the side of the winners, not as a defeated country. A few years later, the Constituent Assembly generates the 1947 constitution. And, breaking off with the most pro-Soviet hardliners, the Italian communist party declares itself respectful of the democratic institutions, accepting, in principle, the political actions of the different political parties. So much so that in the 50’s and 60’s Euro-Communism was considered a domesticated version, a Communism that was not for storming positions or setting off bombs. Communists never actually formed a government in Italy, where the main political party from 1947 till practically 1990 was the Christian 63 Christian Culture Democrats. But while the Christian Democrats were fighting each other for seats in parliament, the Marxists were competing for the university chairs and journalist positions at mass media outlets, and it is incredible how they were able to destroy the Italian society in 50 years. They did not form a government as such, but after the fall of the Berlin Wall there is every so often a watered down left-wing coalition in power whose central philosophy is undeniably Gramscian. This has had an impact especially in Argentina, because after the anti-subversive period in the 70’s many ex-Montoneros spent some time vacationing in Italy and other countries and apparently they rediscovered that Gramsci and his ideas were applied in 1983: The renunciation of the use of force, of violence, but the fight to overtake the common sense, the cultural destruction. The re-writing of history is paramount, it is one of the things Gramsci considers most important, that is, to re-write history. Why is that? Because history is a permanent reference of all political attitudes. This is not a new concept since the 19th century liberals already addressed this issue. But here in Argentina some folks have already changed our history. For instance, nowadays to speak of the 30,000 disappeared is to address a myth. It is as if one encounters a tribe of indigenous people before the arrival of the Spaniards and disturbs the totem—it is not going to end well. In this society in which relativism, pluralism, subjectivism dominate, the leftists have managed to fabricate a new dogmatism and clichés on which to base all reasoning; they have created a secular inquisition, the inquisition of the politically correct, and we could also mention the ecclesiastically correct. Added to this is the transformation of the new generations through the school curricula, etc., and I believe that in Argentina last year, same sex “marriage” was reached with approval. Why is that? Because this was a last bastion where man could still think that there was a nature to things, that there was a difference in the sexes. And this idea that I can build reality, that I can fabricate things, is the summit of the modern anthropocentrism. Nothing new, we are back to the devil’s temptation to our first parents: in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as gods, knowing good 64 The Angelus July - August 2018 and evil. I do not know Hebrew, but I have heard or read somewhere that the term “to know” may also mean “to conceive.” Why would they be as gods? Because from now on you can decide what is good and what is bad. But for me to ultimately decide what is good and what is bad, I must be able to say what is and what is not. Once we reach that point, the common sense is destroyed. And that is why Marxism, its political and economic failures notwithstanding, is still alive and kicking. I remember asking about that to an old professor once, and he responded to me, “Son, what happens is that you do not know what an ideology is. A doctrine can be true or false, but a man that holds a doctrine has a contemplative attitude towards reality. He asks first what things are, and when he realizes that things are this way or this other way, he reaches a conclusion as to what to do and what not to do. That is why, when you encounter a person that holds an erroneous doctrine, you can have a discussion with him, you can convince him that he is mistaken. If you convince this man, he will change his ways. In the case of an ideologist, it is the opposite. The ideologist is someone that has a disordered affection for something and he fabricates a world around it and does not care if it is true or false; the only thing that matters to him is that it provides a justification for the route he is taking. This fulfills the famous saying that he who does not live what he believes will end up believing what he lives.” And this is a characteristic of contemporary society. Marxism does not convince because it is true. It convinces because it satisfies the desire that was already in the original sin of man yearning to set himself up as god and resenting an objective order, resenting that there are laws about marriage; man wanting to re-design himself anew. This is the reason why this ideology of the anti-politics like Marxism has outlived its political, military, and economic failures. Because it is not so much a doctrine as an ideology. This must inspire us to think that, if we want to confront this idea, we must recuperate the common sense. Let us not be won over by the current of political correctness. Prudently and carefully, let us state that things are what they are. There is an objective order of things established by God, and man is not the measure of all things. Transform your daily commute or elevate daily tasks by listening to interesting conferences and discussions on important topics that define who are as Catholics in the modern world today! Enjoy our audio conference series! angeluspress.org 1-800-966-7337 Christian Culture The Sloppy Child by SSPX Sisters This is indeed an important part of a children’s education: teaching them not only to do what they are asked, but to do it well. What are our human lives composed of? Of a series of small events. Like the millions of grains of sand that make up a beach, they seem insignificant. But all together, they make up the fabric of our life. Your childrens’ small actions at every moment, their little reactions of joy or anger, are full of an unsuspected power. The ruin of many souls begins with small missteps: a lie to cover up one’s laziness, an hour spent with bad friends…It is not that big of a deal, one might say. But habits are quickly formed, and though the conscience cries out a bit the first time, it is soon muzzled. For most children, there is no single opportunity for shining heroism in their lives. But they can be heroic every day, by doing the same 66 The Angelus July - August 2018 little things over and over, after the example of Our Lord who “hath done all things well” (Mk. 7:). How? Just contemplate God’s masterpiece that we call Creation. Take a look through the microscope at this crystal with its sparkling shades of green. An emerald? No, a sugar crystal! God does all things perfectly. And He wishes us to imitate Him: “Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” To be perfect in that which He has given us: the moments of our life. Act out of Charity Some examples: Cleaning your room because mom said to is a good deed; “cleaning it well to make her happy” is an act of charity. Learning your lesson because you have to is a good deed; learning it “to the best of your ability” is an act of charity. With this magic wand called “doing your very best because it will make Jesus happy,” your daily actions are transformed from grains of sand into precious stones. Reading a book carefully, sitting properly at the table, answering politely when questioned…Obeying promptly, not chatting during class, volunteering to help out, not answering back…, these can all be acts of charity. We mustn’t forget however, that not all children have the same talents. So the goal is not necessarily the material perfection of the work or action. We should suggest a goal adapted to each child, without ever comparing a less gifted child to a more naturally talented comrade who obtains the same results without any effort. The Cathedral of Milan Doing all things well also means working without seeking a reward. Our modern world has other standards: “cost-effectiveness,” “salary,” “getting it done quickly,” and not just “getting it done.” One day someone asked the sculptor of the magnificent statues on the balcony of the Cathedral of Milan why he was going to such great pains. Who would ever see the statues from the ground? He answered, “From the ground, no one; but God will see them.” That is true love, love that seeks no other reward than that of pleasing God. Before they reach the point of habitually acting “to make Jesus happy,” children need their actions to be rewarded once in a while, but without this turning into a due, which would be the case if every good action gave them the right to a “salary.” We mustn’t blindfold ourselves: children are not naturally drawn to effort, they prefer immediate pleasure. How can we instill in them a sense of duty? Prayer obtains all things. Pray, and teach your children to pray. It is also important for them to finish what they start, be it work, a game, a drawing…Finish in every sense of the word, complete it and do it well. Do not accept a half-done or poorly done job, and do not finish what your child started for him because he gave up at the first hint of difficulty. Help him finish the job if he needs help. Little by little, he will learn to ask advice and persevere: it takes patience and humility. Encourage him to return to the same occupations every day, and joyfully. The goal needs to be clear: it is for God, who loves beautiful things! You can count on the treasure of generosity that lies in the hearts of your little ones. There is a legitimate and beneficial joy at seeing our work done and well done, and this is an excellent encouragement to continue to “do our best”. A sloppy job, however, after the relief of being rid of a chore, leaves an unpleasant feeling of dissatisfaction, of an unfinished work. The soul never finds fulfillment in the “approximate.” Give your children small responsibilities in your family life, like feeding the fish, setting the table, or sweeping a staircase. Of course, you will have to check, and they need to be corrected if they fail in their duty; but as soon as they have done their best, their mother’s smile and a few kind words of encouragement can work wonders. Children need to learn at a young age that when dad and mom are happy, Jesus is happy too. And lastly, remember well this proverb that is a key to Heaven: “Being a saint does not mean doing extraordinary things, but doing ordinary things extraordinarily well.” 67 Christian Culture by Fr. Juan-Carlos Iscara, SSPX In the case of a terminal illness, is there any moral obligation to continue with the artificial provision of food and fluids? The basic ordinary procedure for the artificial provision of nutrition and fluids is either through a nasogastric tube (a tube passed down the nose into the stomach and left permanently in place for those who cannot swallow), or through a gastrostomy tube (inserted through the skin 68 The Angelus July - August 2018 directly into the stomach. Among the different life-sustaining procedures, the artificial provision of food and fluids poses today one of the most acute ethical problems. As infants, we were given food and drink when we were too helpless to nourish ourselves. For many of us, a day will come before we die when we will be once again too helpless to feed ourselves. Even when the struggle against disease has been lost and there is nothing more than to wait for death, it would seem that the instinctive reaction is to continue providing food and drink for the dying. This assumption is today widely challenged, and many assert that it is morally justifiable to withhold antibiotics and artificial nutrition and hydration, as well as other forms of life-sustaining treatment, allowing the terminally ill patient to die. The truth is that the provision of food and fluids is not simply—or strictly—“medical care,” but the minimum care that must be provided for the sick, whatever their medical condition. All beings need food and water to live, but such nourishment by itself does not heal or cure disease. In consequence, to stop feeding the permanently unconscious patient is not to withdraw from the battle against illness, but simply to withhold the nourishment that sustains all life. Moreover, to withdraw the artificial provision of food and fluids is not simply “to allow the patient to die:” what we are doing is not to cease a treatment against disease, but to withdraw what is essential to sustain the life of every human being, either healthy or ill. Death will happen, not because of the illness, but because of our omission to provide adequate nutrition and hydration. In consequence, the procedure is neither useless nor burdensome: it preserves life, and the material inconveniences that it provokes are certainly and abundantly compensated by the good that it preserves. Consequently, whatever the medical condition of the patient, artificial nutrition and hydration have to be continued. In some very particular and extraordinary instances (as examples, in the case of a patient in a terminal condition to whom the artificial nutrition imposes a pain excessive in proportion to the very short span of life remaining, or in the case of an irreversibly demented patient who keeps tearing apart the feeding tubes and causing himself serious wounds, and who cannot be continually restrained) the inconveniences may become so burdensome that the artificial nutrition might be considered an extraordinary, non-obligatory means of preserving life. But such cases are, as stated, extraordinary, and the decision should be reached by consultation both with the physician and the priest. Why is IVF (in vitro fertilization) immoral? In IVF, a human egg is surgically removed from the mother’s ovary, transferred to a special solution and mixed with the sperm (usually obtained through a sinful act). Once fertilization has occurred, the embryo is implanted in the uterine wall. Although the procedure has become more or less common, it still is painful, expensive and not always successful. To reduce the pain, expense and risk of failure, women are usually given drugs to stimulate ovulation, allowing the retrieval of multiple eggs at one time, which once fertilized will produce many embryos ready for implantation. Usually, the extra embryos are frozen and kept in liquid nitrogen to be used later, if need be, although freezing reduces their capacity to be implanted. Why is this procedure immoral? “By comparison with the transmission of other forms of life in the universe, the transmission of human life has a special character of its own, which derives from the special nature of the human person. The transmission of human life is entrusted by nature to a personal and conscious act, and as such is subject to the all-holy laws of God: immutable and inviolable laws that must be recognized and observed. For this reason, one cannot use means and follow methods which could be licit in the transmission of the life of plants and animals” (Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Donum Vitae). The Church has always rejected the attitude “which would pretend to separate, in generation, the biological activity from the personal relation of the married couple. The child is the fruit 69 Christian Culture of the conjugal union, when that union finds full expression by bringing into play the organic functions, the associated sensible emotions, and the spiritual and disinterested love which animates the union. It is in the unity of this human act that we should consider the biological considerations of generation. Never is it permitted to separate these various aspects to the positive exclusion either of the procreative intention or of the conjugal union” (Pius XII). Thus, the fundamental immorality of in vitro fertilization lies in the fact that it constitutes a perversion of the order of nature—willed by God—in the use of marriage. In effect, the act of procreation is replaced by a technical intervention, which takes place apart from the physical union of the spouses. As procreation is separated from the conjugal act, so in consequence the procreative end of marriage is utterly separated from its unitive end, the mutual love and gift of the spouses. Moreover, “in the usual practice of in vitro fertilization, not all of the embryos are transferred into the woman’s body; some are destroyed. Just as the Church condemns induced abortion, so she also forbids acts against the life of these human beings[.] By acting in this way, the researcher usurps the place of God; and, even though he may be unaware of this, he sets himself up as the master of the destiny of others inasmuch as he arbitrarily chooses whom he will allow to live and whom he will send to death, and kills defenseless human beings” (Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Donum Vitae). What is exactly required by the precept of “abstinence from meat”? The current law for the universal Church requires “abstinence from meat,” to be observed 70 The Angelus July - August 2018 every Friday of the whole year. What is exactly meant by this? Diversity in customs, in climate, and even in prices of food have gradually paved the way for modifications of the law of abstinence—things are now permitted (through a more literal understanding of the law) which were previously forbidden. Thus, the precept of abstinence went, historically, through four stages: 1) Prohibition from eating any kind of animals or animal products, including fish. 2) Permission to eat fish. 3) Permission to eat also eggs and milk products. 4) Permission to use any kind of animal fats to condiment meals. Abstinence laws consider that meat comes only from the flesh and organs of mammals and fowl— animals such as cows, sheep, pigs, chickens and birds in general. Abstinence does not include meat juices and liquid foods made from meat. Thus, such foods as chicken broth, consommé, soups cooked or flavored with meat, meat gravies or sauces, as well as seasonings or condiments made from animal fat are technically not forbidden. However, moral theologians have traditionally taught that, aiming for a greater perfection, on the required days we should abstain from all animal-derived products (except foods such as gelatin, butter, cheese and eggs, which do not have any meat taste). Fish are a different category of animal. Salt and freshwater species of fish, amphibians, reptiles, (cold-blooded animals) and shellfish are permitted. While these are not considered meat and can be consumed on days of abstinence, indulging in the lavish buffet at your favorite seafood place sort of misses the penitential intent of the precept… Now, which is the extent of this obligation? The precept, being negative, obliges semper et pro semper—that is, every time in the day that meat is eaten, the precept is violated and a sin is committed—although it may be slight, on account of the small amount eaten. The age for abstinence is from the seventh birthday onwards. Those that are excused from observing the laws of fast and abstinence include the physically or mentally ill including individuals suffering from chronic illnesses such as diabetes. Also excluded are pregnant or nursing women. In all cases, common sense should prevail, and ill persons should not further jeopardize their health by fasting, but, in principle, there is no reason not to abstain from meat for one day in the week… Should a Catholic study the ancient pagan classics? It is a historical fact that Catholics—laymen, monks, priests, bishops, saints and doctors—have read and studied these works throughout the centuries. The natural environment for the development of the Christian soul is the family. Thus, in the early Church, the moral training and discipline, the laws of Christian behavior, were first learned at home, in the bosom of the family, for the mainspring of all education is imitation; therefore, the most important thing was the moral example received at home. The doctrinal formation, the instruction in the Faith, although begun at home, was fully given in the Church, by special teachers, in preparation for baptism. But there was, nonetheless, an absolute minimum of literary culture that the Church could not do without, to persist and spread, to continue her teaching activity, to preserve her form of worship. Early Christians, so adamant in breaking with pagan world, did not however develop their own schools, as something separate from the classical pagan school. At least, not in ancient times. Christian schools on the pattern of Jewish rabbinical schools were created when the Church was set up in barbarian lands (those that had not assimilated classical culture)—the schools were established together with the churches, to add to the instruction received at home. Nothing like this existed in the original GrecoLatin cultural area. The Church simply added its own specifically religious kind of training in church and family, on to the classical training received along with non-Christian fellows in the established schools. But to accept the classical system of education did not mean the acceptance of the culture it subserved. The dangers were acknowledged, but the risk was counterbalanced by the good to be achieved and the protection afforded by the education in the Faith, received from parents and priests. The Church condemned classical culture if it was set up as an independent ideal hostile to Christian revelation. The medieval monks thought those works worth preserving—appreciated, and used them. The monastic contribution to Western civilization involved the copying of manuscripts, both of sacred and profane works, and of the pagan authors. This task, and those who carried it out, were accorded special honor. Desiderius, the greatest of the abbots of Monte Cassino after Benedict himself, and who became Pope (Blessed) Victor III in 1086, specifically oversaw the transcription of works by Horace, Seneca, Cicero and Ovid. St. Anselm of Canterbury, while abbot of Bec-Hellouin, commended Virgil and other classical writers to his students, though he wished them to put aside morally objectionable passages. The reason for this study is that these works are an introduction to the natural order. It allows the presentation of a series of truths about human nature and society, capable of being apprehended by man’s natural reason, independent from Revelation, but underlying Catholic teachings. Even among traditional Catholics, the injunctions of the moral law are often accepted simply “because the Church says so”—without perceiving that the moral precepts are universal truths, capable of being known by human reason and thus obligatory for all men. Nonetheless, we should not expect from these works what they cannot offer us—they are still non-Catholic and they contain errors, as human reason also suffers from the wounds of original sin and, thus, requires the aid of Revelation to see without distortions. 71 The Catholic Church teaches as dogma that the Virgin Mary “having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” This doctrine was dogmatically defined by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950, in the apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus by exercising papal infallibility. News from Tradition Met Gala 2018 74 On May 7th, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York held its annual fundraising Gala. The event was centered upon the newly-opened exhibit “Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and Catholic Imagination”, which, according to the museum, attempts to show “fashion’s ongoing engagement with the devotional practices and traditions of Catholicism.” In actuality, the event featured indecently dressed celebrities clad in outfits based upon the design of sacred vestments. Many Catholics expressed outrage at the sacrilege when photos of the Gala filled the New York newspapers the following day. “Criticism of Cardinal Dolan’s presence at the Met Gala was not limited to some priests of the Archdiocese. Columnist Maureen Mullarkey, writing on the Free Republic website stated: The question begs to be asked: What is the point of Cardinal Dolan? Whatever vocation he might once have espoused has dissolved in the acid of celebrity. He is an embarrassment to his office, and a disincentive to every serious-minded, diligent working priest in his archdiocese. Let him retire to the Hamptons, or South Beach, some glittering water hole where he can do what he is best at—glad-handing. He is an episcopal show- Unfortunately, not all Catholics were scandalized—including Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, who attended the Gala and happily had his picture taken with the celebrities. One priest of the Archdiocese of New York, Fr. Robert Repenning, in a letter to the New York Post, expressed outrage at Cardinal Dolan’s actions. Father Repenning wrote, “What has become of the Catholic Church when it officially endorses self-hatred? The Archdiocese of New York was once the moral voice of Catholic America. Now it’s virtually silent about morality and has opened wide the doors to secularism and embraced the world of high finance. It is a scandal that any cleric would attend a $30,000-per-ticket event. It’s even more scandalous to have our sacred vestments, art and figures mocked by the Hollywood elite. The good people of New York who can’t afford $30,000 dinners deserve an explanation why the hierarchy in the United States and abroad would embrace the worldliness of a Roman emperor instead of the poverty that Pope Francis proclaimed the Catholic Church must embrace.” boater, the grinning face of a hierarchy desperate for the moment’s approval. The man lends himself to one mockery after another. His attendance at the Metropolitan Museum’s 2018 extravaganza “Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination” is only the latest. It disqualifies him for any role other than that of a merry-andrew. Bring in a cardinal for after-dinner entertainment. Hand him a craft beer and let him perform. Bonhomie all around.” Although Cardinal Dolan was the ecclesiastical “face” at the Gala, it seems that he may simply have been representing the Vatican. In the week following the Gala, it was also revealed that the Pontifical Council for Culture, headed by Gianfranco Cardinal Ravasi, approved of the event and the exhibit, even loaning treasures from the Sistine Chapel sacristy to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It should be noted that Cardinal Ravasi has been the force behind a number of other scandalous exhibits in the past and was involved in the homoerotic Nativity Scene in St. Peter’s Square this past Christmas. The Angelus July - August 2018 Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, RIP Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos died on the 18th of May at the age of 88. A native of Columbia, he was consecrated a bishop in 1971 and became bishop of Pereira in 1976 and was then appointed Archbishop of Bucaramanga. During his time as bishop of Pereira, he worked tirelessly to end the drug trafficking which was destroying the lives of so many of his parishioners, even confronting Pablo Escobar whose house he entered disguised as a milk man. Appointed Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy in June of 1996, he left Columbia for Rome in order to take up his new position as head of the Curial office responsible for all the priests in the Church. He was elevated to the College of Cardinals in 1998 and in 2000 was appointed President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei while remaining Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy. He retired as Prefect in 2006 and as President of Ecclesia Dei in 2009. It is probably in his role as President of Ecclesia Dei that the Cardinal will be most well remembered by traditional Catholics. He often celebrated the Traditional Mass and it was during his tenure as President that Pope Benedict XVI issued his 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, which gave every priest the right to celebrate the Traditional Mass without having to seek permission from his superiors. At the time it was issued, the cardinal made it clear that the desire of the pope was that there be a Traditional Mass offered in every parish throughout the world. Needless to say, this desire was thwarted by many bishops who continued to persecute any priest who began to celebrate the Traditional Mass. In relations with the Society of Saint Pius X, Cardinal Castrillon was cordial and made it very clear that the SSPX was neither schismatic nor heretical. Additionally, it was under his Presidency that Rome stated unequivocally that Catholics fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending Holy Mass at any SSPX parish. May he rest in peace. Archbishop Gullickson: Return to the Traditional Mass! Archbishop Gullickson, the American-born Papal Nuncio to Switzerland, mentioned in a previous Church in the World column, has posted a call for a return to the Traditional Mass and the abandonment of the Novus Ordo. The Archbishop wrote in his May 6th blog post: Apart however from the existential, from our relations with family, friends and acquaintances, I am more concerned in sharing a thought or two about the reverential fear we owe to the Almighty, that is about the Fear of the Lord, that virtue listed among the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit: wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord… You might say that I am going overboard in taking a more absolute stance in favor of the Vetus Ordo [Traditional Latin Mass] than do the most vocal of the prelates (bishops, archbishops and 75 News from Tradition cardinals) who speak to the topic of the mutual enrichment of the two forms of the one Roman Rite. Why? Simply by reason of how I understand the notion of reverential fear and how it should animate our worship and our acting! I will limit myself to giving you two indicators: optional modes of expression and the preparation of the chalice. What is wrong with the rubric: in these or similar words? In one sense nothing and in another, everything. Discretion in the context of programmed choices (options) may not be disrespectful, but it is neither awe inspired or awe inspiring. It is not conducive either to soliciting or to confirming reverential fear. Good! Well then just get rid of the options and establish one constant order of service. The question, of course, is whether (with the exception of Scripture reading) it is even possible knowing how most good priests go about celebrating Mass. How do you break priests of the habit of paraphrasing? Reverential fear demands no less. Generally, in Novus Ordo (NO) celebrations in public we bishops have someone else, either a deacon or a priest concelebrant, prepare the chalice for us at the Offertory. Reverential fear would call for due diligence on their part in the addition of those few drops of water to the wine in the chalice...Sorry, but my usual distraction at that moment in the preparation of the gifts might be attributed to the careless or exuberant “glug, glug” of the water and the splashed up interior of the cup which is then handed me without remedy. 76 The Angelus July - August 2018 Reverential fear? I think not. Is this behavior capable of reform, how and at what cost to all involved? The premise is wrong for the needed reform of the NO, that is, for a recovery always and everywhere of the kind of reverence in public worship sought by people young and old. Tell me why therefore I should not conclude that the NO would seem to be incapable of reform. The alternative to cultivating the casual would be a contrite and convinced return to cultivating the sublime, and yes to do so out of a genuine fear. Love knows no less, if we are to be faithful, if we are to enter fully into His presence. There’s no turning back, you say. Such a proposal of a radical reset to the pre-conciliar form of worship would be to deny over a half century of experimentation and practice. I cannot help but ask myself whether it might not be that which the Bridegroom awaits. Is that not what genuine love shot through with fear, reverential fear, demands of me? “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” The entire post of by Archbishop Gullickson is worth reading (as are many of his other posts) and may be found here: https://admontemmyrrhae. blogspot.com/2018/05/reverential-fear.html Swiss Guards’ New Helmets The Swiss Guards will be getting new helmets as soon as a benefactor can be found to finance the purchase which cost $957 each, half the cost of the old ones. The original ceremonial plumed metal helmets are quite heavy and warm to wear, so the new ones will be made out of PVC plastic and created with a 3D printer yet will look like their metal predecessors. The Swiss Guards often stand at attention for three to four hours during long formal papal ceremonies and the lighter headgear will make this duty less onerous. The new helmet was unveiled preceding the annual swearing in ceremony for the new Guards on May 6, 2018. The date for the annual ceremony commemorates the day in 1527 when 147 guardsmen died while protecting Pope Clement VII during the sack of Rome. Although most famous for their colorful and billowy uniforms and plumed helmets, the daily uniform of the Swiss Guards is a more sedate navy blue with a navy blue beret. More information about the Swiss Guards, including their history in service of the popes, may be found here: http:// www.guardiasvizzera.va/content/guardiasvizzera/ en.html Wreckovation of the Pantheon The Pantheon, an historic pagan temple built under Emperor Hadrian in 32 B.C. and dedicated to “all the gods” of ancient Rome, was exorcized and consecrated as a Catholic church by Pope Boniface IV on May 13, 609 A.D. From that date, the church has remained largely untouched, even surviving the ravages of the liturgical revolution of 1969—that is, until now. On May 13, 2018, 1409 years following the church’s consecration, a new permanent bronze “peoples’ altar” was installed in the Pantheon, directly in front of the original high altar. Aside from this new altar being of a modern design which clashes with the ancient beauty of the church, its position also makes use of the high altar very difficult, if not impossible. This may well have been the intent, since Pope Francis is on record as effectively condemning the offering of Mass “ad orientem” in the traditional manner. It should be noted that in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (the Novus Ordo), there is a specific instruction that there should be only one consecrated altar in a church. Thus, in an effort to force the offering of Mass facing the people, the liturgical revolutionaries have no problem disregarding the very instruction which led to the removal of side altars in so many churches following the imposition of the Novus Ordo in 1969. 77 Theological Studies A Matter of Principle by Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, SSPX Editor’s Note: The following theological article is written in an expressly technical style. Therefore, the author’s original formatting of paragraphs by number has been retained following the introduction. Introduction to the Problem The post-synodal Exhortation Amoris Laetitia has left none indifferent. But apparently, according to the pope himself, the only possible interpretation of Chapter 8 of the document is that given by the bishops of Buenos Aires in Argentina, who openly claim that certain divorced and remarried couples can be granted access to the sacraments. “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia; there are no other interpretations,” responded the pope in a letter written in September 2016. And last June, the Vatican 78 The Angelus July - August 2018 Secretariat of State recognized this response as part of the “authentic magisterium.” This will not fail to raise another question, that has been the subject of studies for a long time already. Given that the authorities of the ecclesial hierarchy remain in possession of their magisterial power, we can wonder what value is to be attributed to the teachings dispensed by these authorities in the Church, the pope and the bishops, since Vatican Council II? Must we see them as before, as the exercise of the true Magisterium, even though they wholly or partially abandon the Tradition of the Church? The position of the Society of Saint Pius X is that at Vatican II and ever since, a “new type of magisterium, imbued with Modernist principles, vitiating the nature, the contents, the role and the exercise of the ecclesiastical Magisterium”, has taken over in Holy Mother Church. This position drew the attention of an official representative of the Sovereign Pontiff, the Secretary of the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, Archbishop Guido Pozzo, and inspired his main approach, which is similar to that of Pope Benedict XVI. The point of this approach is to bring the Society to consider the conciliar teachings as properly magisterial, and eventually accept them. For the Society must accept them. Even before the doctrinal discussions from 2009 to 2011, Benedict XVI clearly announced this intention: “The problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the popes… The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962—this must be quite clear to the Society.”1 Which goes to show the urgency of this crucial question that is a matter of principle. We shall reexamine it here under the synthetic form of a disputed question, exposing the different arguments on either side, in order to highlight the soundness of the Society’s position. Arguments on Both Sides: Are the Conciliar Teachings Magisterial Properly Speaking? It would seem so. 1. First of all, the true nature of the teachings of Vatican Council II and since is, as it were, on a summit, above two very opposite errors, and for this reason, we must lay down two impassable white lines to the left and right of the road that leads the intelligence to the truth. To the left, the white line must eliminate the maximalist approach that sees Vatican Council II as a sort of pastoral super-dogma, next to which the Traditional Catholic doctrine becomes less absolute. To the right, it must eliminate the minimalist position according to which Vatican II is nothing more than a pastoral council and therefore has no doctrinal or magisterial value. Refusing both the maximalist and the minimalist approach, “we must read and understand the documents of the Magisterium of Vatican II and the pontiffs that have reigned since directly according to what they really mean to teach (the mens of the author), and not let ourselves be influenced by the virtual or altered reality spread by other unauthorized human interpreters.”2 We must also hold that even if the Council did not wish to propose new dogmatic definitions, it did give a magisterial teaching on Faith and morals that requires the interior consent of the intellect and the will, as well as other practical, pastoral teachings that require a different, but respectful compliance. 2. Secondly, it is clear, in fact, that there are teachings from Vatican Council II and the following popes that are properly magisterial—the sacramentality of the episcopate in chapter 3 of the constitution Lumen Gentium for example, or the condemnation of female priesthood in John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis—since the content, the tone, and the finality of these acts clearly manifest that the pope intends them as a real use of his magisterial authority in the most traditional sense of the word. 3. Thirdly, the Magisterium is, as Pius XII teaches, the guideline for the truth in matters of Faith and morals. Just as the Church could not remain indefectible over a long period of time without a pope truly reigning, neither can she do so without the Magisterium being truly exercised. For this reason, denying that the post-conciliar teachings are properly magisterial and denying that there is a truly reigning pope at the head of the Church lead to exactly the same consequences: both denials question the promises made by Our Lord and deny the indefectibility of the Church. 4. Fourthly, Archbishop Lefebvre declared in speaking of Vatican Council II that there is an “Ordinary Magisterium which can contain error or express simple opinions.” He also declared that the documents of the Council are to be judged in the light of Tradition, and those in keeping with Tradition accepted. In his eyes, therefore, Vatican Council II represents a “Magisterium” properly speaking. It would seem not. 5. In a conference given in Ecône, Archbishop Lefebvre declared, “We have Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, and Pope John Paul II…They are liberals. They have liberal minds…So how can minds like that accomplish acts that they themselves consider definitive and oblige all the faithful to adhere to them definitively? They cannot accomplish such acts. That is why there are always restrictions in their commentaries, in the letters and official statements they have made, both in consistories and in public meetings…So there is a whole group in Rome now that did not exist before and that cannot give us laws in 79 Theological Studies the way the popes used to give them to us, because they no longer have a truly Catholic spirit in this regard. They do not have a clearly Catholic conception of infallibility, the immutability of dogma, the permanence of Tradition, the permanence of Revelation, nor even, I would say, of doctrinal obedience…So this idea they have, you see, keeps them from accomplishing acts in exactly the same conditions and with the same mindset as the popes from before. This seems clear to me. And that is why we all find ourselves in the midst of an unbelievable confusion.” Archbishop Lefebvre had serious doubts, at the very least, as to the magisterial nature of the new conciliar teachings. 6. Sixthly, during the celebrations for the 25th anniversary of the 1988 episcopal consecrations, Bishop Fellay declared, “We are forced to see that this atypical Council that wished to be only pastoral and not dogmatic, inaugurated a new type of magisterium, hitherto unknown in the Church, and that has no roots in Tradition; a magisterium that has resolved to reconcile Catholic doctrine with the liberal ideas: a magisterium imbued with the Modernist principles of subjectivism, immanentism, and that is in perpetual evolution according to the false concept of living tradition, vitiating the nature, the contents, the role and the exercise of the ecclesiastical Magisterium.” We draw from this remark the same conclusion as in the fifth argument. The Principle of the Answer 7. In order to give an answer, we must first define the terms of the question. 8. Allow us to define the predicate of our question and consider what exactly a “properly magisterial” act is. An act of the ecclesiastical Magisterium is that of a testimony given with authority in the name of Christ: it is essentially the act of a vicariate authority. This act is therefore defined and limited by its object, the safeguard and explanation of the divinely revealed truths. Without this object, an act of the ecclesiastical authority cannot be an act of Magisterium properly speaking.3 Right reason enlightened by Faith is capable of confirming in certain cases that the ecclesiastical authority is being carried beyond its limits, when it sees precisely that this authority is contradicting the proper object of the Magisterium that it knows as such. This is a 80 The Angelus July - August 2018 negative criterion given by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians:4 the ecclesiastical authorities go beyond their limits when they proffer a teaching contrary to the truths already defined by the infallible Magisterium or constantly proposed by the ordinary Magisterium, even the simply authentic ordinary Magisterium. In such cases, it is possible to confirm the illegitimacy and non-magisterial nature of a teaching with an a posteriori argument, by examining the object of the teaching in its relation to the other objects of other previous acts of the Magisterium. But this then raises the question of the properly magisterial nature of the teaching, for, if its very object (its “quod”, to use the scholastic term) is the negation of the object of the Magisterium, even if only on certain points, one may well wonder whether the formal motive of this teaching (the “quo”) is habitually (that is, in all other acts) that of the Magisterium; indeed, there is a necessary relation of consistency between the two. Of course, a pope can teach in an isolated act something that is not the object of his Magisterium (for example, a theological opinion) without this being a proof that his habitual teachings are not magisterial. However, when the pope teaches, even in an isolated act, something that contradicts the object of his Magisterium (a grave error or even a heresy), it is not unreasonable to wonder whether this is a sign that his habitual teaching is no longer magisterial. Indeed, the negation of the “quod” (which is more than its simple absence) is ordinarily a sign of the absence of the “quo” in the acts of a power, not in the power itself. 9. We shall now define the subject of our question and explain what we mean by “conciliar teachings”. The teachings of Vatican II and those of the popes who have reigned since are, in the first place, teachings that contradict, at least on several important points (religious liberty and State indifferentism, the new latitudinarian “subsistit” ecclesiology, ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue, collegiality and the common priesthood, the new liturgy, the Code of Canon Law), the objective teachings of the constant Magisterium that had already been clarified with the requisite authority. Secondly, they are teachings whose practical consequence is a generalized Protestantization of the Catholic faithful. Thirdly, they are teachings that present themselves as belonging to a new “magisterium”, that Popes John XXIII and Paul VI presented as pastoral and con- cerning which Pope Benedict XVI explained that he intended to redefine the relation between the Faith of the Church and essential elements of modern thought. 10. It is therefore possible to conclude by saying that: first of all, the conciliar teachings are certainly not magisterial on all the particular and isolated points on which they contradict the truths already defined by the infallible Magisterium or constantly proposed by the ordinary Magisterium; secondly, on all other points, we remain in doubt, for the conciliar teachings globally proceed from a new pastoral “magisterium” and it is doubtful that its intention, that “vitiates the nature, the contents, the role and the exercise of the ecclesiastical Magisterium”, is that of the Magisterium properly speaking. For this reason, if we consider them formally as the expression of this new “magisterium” (and not simply insofar as they can be materially in conformity with Tradition and even benefit from the authority of the preceding Magisterium), it is doubtful that these conciliar teachings are of a magisterial nature. Because of this doubt, it seems prudent, as a general rule, to avoid presenting in our preaching the declarations of the new “magisterium” as arguments invested with a properly magisterial authority, in order to avoid inspiring a trust in these conciliar and post-conciliar teachings that would in the long run be harmful for the spirit of our faithful. This being said, on all the isolated points on which these teachings are materially and apparently in keeping with Tradition (the condemnation of female priesthood in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, for example) the same prudence does not forbid us from taking advantage of them insofar as is reasonably possible and using them in one way or another without attributing to them the degree of magisterial authority, especially as ad hominem arguments or as information or material for theological reflection. 11. This double conclusion imposes itself by the very fact that a tree is judged by its fruits, according to the method recommended and practiced by Archbishop Lefebvre: “Without rejecting this Council wholesale, I think that it is the greatest disaster of this century and of all the past centuries, since the founding of the Church. In this, I am doing nothing but judging it by its fruits, making use of the criterion that Our Lord gave us (Mt. 7:16).” This judgment is the conclusion of an a posteriori argument, that goes from the object of the teaching to the doubtfulness of this teaching’s magisterial nature, as from an effect to its formal cause. This doubtful nature of the teaching grows stronger when those in authority add the claim of a change in their intentions and it seems even more well-founded when we consider the liberal mentality that infects their minds. 12. This double conclusion is to be taken as true not speculatively, but practically speaking. This is not a dogmatic conclusion established by faith or even by theology. It is a conclusion laid out by supernatural prudence and the gift of counsel. It is therefore true until proven otherwise and depending on the future judgment of the Magisterium of the Church that God will certainly raise up to clarify all the doubts presented by the current crisis. Answer to the Arguments 13. To the first, we answer that this argument, in contesting the so-called “minimalist” position, is logically based on a double postulate. The first postulate is that all the conciliar teachings are systematically in keeping with Tradition, the reason being that the Council is inerrant; this is a postulate, that is to say, an unproved position that is also unprovable, since the facts contradict it. The second postulate is that of the mens, the claim that the authors of the conciliar teachings have the intention of accomplishing an act of Magisterium even if it is not infallible; this, too, is a postulate, since this intention is not proven. We have more serious reason to assume that all the successors of John XXIII and Paul VI have had the radical and ordinary intention of remaining attached to the liberal and personalist presuppositions of modern thought. In his book published in 1982, Principles of Catholic Theology, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger claimed that the fundamental intention of Vatican Council II is contained in the pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes.5 The prefect of the Faith explained, “This text plays the role of a counter-Syllabus to the measure that it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789.” In 1984, the same Cardinal Ratzinger declared that the Council was called in order to bring into the Church doctrines born outside of her, doctrines that come from the world.6 His speech on December 22, 2005, likewise declared that Vatican Council II intended to define in a new way “the relation between the 81 Theological Studies faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought.” Vatican II therefore was determined to bring the Church’s preaching into harmony with the principles of modern and liberal thought, born of 1789. Such was the observation made by Archbishop Lefebvre at the end of the Council: “We have lived to see the marriage of the Catholic Church with liberal ideas. It would be to deny the evidence, to be willfully blind, not to state courageously that the Council has allowed those who profess the errors and tendencies condemned by the popes named above, legitimately to believe that their doctrines were approved and sanctioned.”7 Later on, in Ecône, he would say: “So this conception they have, you see, keeps them from accomplishing acts in exactly the same conditions and the same mindset as the popes from before.” This fundamental intention has not been rejected, in fact, it is still implicitly maintained in the habitual (and most often exclusive) reference Churchmen make to Vatican Council II. It makes the magisterial nature of the habitual predication of these Churchmen doubtful. 14. To the second, we answer that even if as a pure hypothesis (dato non concesso), we imagine that the conciliar teachings are in keeping with Tradition on some points, these points are part of a global synthesis that goes against the Catholic Tradition of all times. We can use the principle of analysis Archbishop Lefebvre left us: “The Council was deflected from its purposes by a group of conspirators and it is impossible for us to take any part in this conspiracy despite the fact that there may be many satisfactory declarations in Vatican II. The good texts have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed.”8 What Archbishop Lefebvre says of the Council on a global level can apply analogically to all the post-conciliar teachings taken as a whole; we cannot ratify this new “Magisterium” even if there are many materially satisfactory texts, for these materially good texts formally belong to an evil logic and serve as a cover to get other texts that are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning accepted. What is more, even on the points we have mentioned as examples, it is easy to show that their conformity to the teachings of Tradition is more apparent than real. The sacramentality of the episcopate as taught by Lumen Gentium and the epistemological presuppositions of 82 The Angelus July - August 2018 Ordinatio sacerdotalis are part of a perspective that is scarcely that of Tradition. 15. To the third, we grant that the indefectibility of the Church makes the existence and perpetual exercise of a living Magisterium necessary, but we deny that the consequence of the doubtful magisterial nature of the teachings of the hierarchy since Vatican II is an absolute absence of all exercise of the Magisterium in the entire Church, and this for two reasons. First of all, and fundamentally speaking, because the living Magisterium whose exercise is necessary to the indefectibility of the Church is not limited to the present Magisterium, for it includes all the acts of the past Magisterium. Secondly, because the present Magisterium is exercised as such in a common ordered action and is not limited to the pope’s activity alone or to the activity of the bishops alone. The unity and perpetuity of the exercise of the Magisterium continue so long as at least some of the pastors, or even a single one, remains faithful to transmitting the Faith. And the doubt we have voiced applies to all teachings since Vatican II from a precisely logical, and not chronological, point of view: all formally conciliar teachings are doubtful, in that they proceed from the formal intention explained in our principle that responds and are generally adopted by the hierarchy, willy nilly, in its official preaching. The objection proposes a dilemma that can be resumed as follows: either the present conciliar “magisterium” is the Magisterium of the Church, or the Magisterium of the Church no longer exists; but the Magisterium of the Church cannot no longer exist; therefore, the present conciliar “magisterium” is the Magisterium of the Church. This argument forgets that the rule of truth in matters of Faith and morals is sufficiently established in the Church in a way well-suited to the human condition; the Magisterium is exercised through a few acts of teaching by a few pastors at least from the past, if not in the present, but not necessarily through all the acts of teaching of all the pastors. Every faithful Catholic can turn to these few acts, and cling to them with the necessary certitude that he will find in them the guarantees he needs to profess his Faith in the Catholic unity of the Church, even when Providence authorizes for a given amount of time a certain lack in all the other acts. The Arian times are a serious proof of the possibility of a similar situation. 16. To the fourth, we answer that the quote attributed to Archbishop Lefebvre is taken out of context. It is part of a note written to explain the meaning of certain points brought up in an exchange of letters between Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger: “Assuming that the texts of Vatican II are magisterial acts, three facts remain undeniable. Firstly, unlike all the previous ecumenical councils, Vatican II wished to be a ‘pastoral Council’ and did not define any point of doctrine in the sense of an unreformable definition. Consequently, the documents of this council belong at the best to the Ordinary Magisterium which can contain error or express simple opinions.” This “assuming that” (dato non concesso) gives the quote its true meaning. It clearly cannot provide the argument proposed by the objection. And the end of the note adds: “Updating the Church, that is, conforming her to modern errors in order to bring her out of her ghetto by turning her back on Tradition, the vehicle of the Faith, is a monstrous heresy. That is what Vatican II brought about: a marriage between the Church and the ideology of 1789.” Archbishop Lefebvre’s true position was far more complex and finely tuned than it can seem in an isolated note taken out of context. One has only to look through the different conferences by the Society’s founder over the years. Archbishop Lefebvre rarely spoke of Vatican II as a Magisterium. When he did so, his explanations showed that this word cannot be applied to the last Council in its proper and habitual sense. He spoke, for example of “a magisterium that destroys this Magisterium (of all time), that destroys this Tradition”; “a new magisterium or a new conception of the Church’s Magisterium, a conception that is a Modernist conception”; “a new magisterium”. In an official letter addressed to the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Lefebvre voiced the following judgment: “A new magisterium, without roots in the past, and what is more, contrary to the Magisterium of all time, can only be schismatic, if not heretical.” Now that is an expression of Archbishop Lefebvre’s reflections in the face of the amplitude of this unprecedented phenomenon ushered into the Church by Vatican II. 17. We grant the fifth and the sixth, as a practical truth and a prudent conclusion, not a speculative truth or a dogmatic or theological conclusion—salvo future judicio Ecclesiae. 1 Letter of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to the bishops of the Catholic Church, March 10, 2009. 2 Archbishop Pozzo, speech on April 4, 2014. 3 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, question 104, article 5, corpus and ad 3. 4 Gal. 1:8. 5 Principles of Catholic Theology, Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology (Ignatius Press, 1987). 6 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report (Ignatius Press, 1986) 7 Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter on December 20, 1966, to Cardinal Ottaviani, in I Accuse the Council, Angelus Press, 1998, p. 81. 8 Archbishop Lefebvre, I Accuse the Council (Angelus Press, 1998). 83 Fun Learning Entertainment for the whole family that helps build a better understanding of the Faith! 500 Cards – STK# 8627 – $24.95 Catholic Trivia Game Traditional version! Educational and entertaining for the whole family. Contains two decks, each of 250 cards; 1,500 questions in total. Six categories: the Baltimore Catechism (C), the Latin Mass (M), and History and the Liturgical Calendar (H). The other contains Popes, Patron Saints, and Other Pious People (P); Ritual, Symbol, and Doctrine (R); and Et Cetera (E). Doesn’t everybody wants to see Italy and visit the holy sites of Rome? Now you can explore these sites from your home or take this book with you as a truly Catholic Guide to the Eternal City! 448 pp. – Sewn softcover with rounded corners – Maps, floor plans, and 310 color photographs – STK# 8481 – $31.95 The Pilgrim’s Guide to Rome’s Principal Churches Joseph N. Tylenda, S.J. Enjoy this guided tour of 51 of the most important churches in Rome. It includes a history of each church, descriptions of the interior and exterior, a numbered floor plan, photographs, and details of the church’s spiritual, architectural, and artistic treasures. Whether you plan on visiting Rome and using this as a guide or reading to learn more about this holy destination, this book offers the modern pilgrim essential information on the 51 most significant churches in the Eternal City. www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337 Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music. Simply the Best Journal of Catholic Tradition Available! “Instaurare omnia in Christo” For over three decades, The Angelus has stood for Catholic truth, goodness, and beauty against a world gone mad. Our goal has always been the same: to show the glories of the Catholic Faith and to bear witness to the constant teaching of the Church in the midst of the modern crisis in which we find ourselves. Each issue contains: • A unique theme focusing on doctrinal and practical issues that matter to you, the reader • Regular columns, from History to Family Life, Spirituality and more • Some of the best and brightest Catholic thinkers and writers in the Englishspeaking world • An intellectual formation to strengthen your faith in an increasingly hostile world Subscribe Today Don’t let another year go by without reading the foremost journal of Catholic Tradition. PRINT SUBSCRIPTIONS Name______________________________________________________________________________________________ Address____________________________________________________________________________________________ City______________________________ State______________ ZIP______________ Country______________________  CHECK  VISA  MASTERCARD  AMEX  DISCOVER  MONEY ORDER Card #_______________________________________________________ Exp. Date_____________________________ Phone # _____________________________________E-mail_________________________________________________ Mail to: Angelus Press, PO Box 217, St. Marys, KS 66536, USA PLEASE CHECK ONE United States  1 year $45.00  2 years $85.00  3 years $120.00 Foreign Countries (inc. Canada & Mexico)  1 year  2 years  3 years $65.00 $125.00 $180.00 All payments must be in US funds only. ONLINE ONLY SUBSCRIPTIONS To subscribe visit: www.angelusonline.org. Everyone has FREE access to every article from issues of The Angelus over two years old, and selected articles from recent issues. All magazine subscribers have full access to the online version of the magazine (a $20 Value)! The Last Word Dear readers, “Thou Shalt Lie in Wait for Her Heel.” Life is a gift from God. It is not surprising then that when it comes out of God, who is Life, it is immaculate, without sin. It was the case for the angels when they were created, and for Adam and Eve, since their body was created without sin. But not for their children conceived and born with that sin called original, a sin in the broad sense of the word, since it is the state of privation of the gifts bestowed to our first parents, particularly the gift of sanctifying grace. It is when the soul is infused into our body that it becomes stained with sin, by becoming part of the human race. But God is merciful: although man is now conceived and born without sanctifying grace, the participation in God’s divine nature is made possible through another gift, that of baptism, which is normally received as soon as possible after birth. That is the saving plan of the Redeemer. The original divine plan then was that sanctifying grace should have been transmitted through normal generation. The devil spoiled it at its source. So, divine option number two is to offer us that grace through baptism, which is truly a regeneration and “a more admirable one,” by the same token, as the Holy Mass reminds us daily. Now, the old devil, seeing the mercy of God towards fallen man, did not remain idle and has endeavored to stop an incredible number of humans from reaching that elevation to divine life and, if they succeed in dying in that state of grace, from taking his place and his fallen angels’ place in Heaven. His new strategy is called abortion and contraception. Contraception, although it is an interference with human life at its inception, is ultimately the frustration of God’s eternal plan on that human life. If he could, the devil would completely destroy the human race like Athalia tried to do with the royal family of the House of Juda (see II Kings 11). But, just as in that story where only one boy escaped the royal massacre, eventually became king and had Athalia put to death, in the big picture of the history of the world, only one escaped that deadly original wound, the Immaculate Conception, who did indeed become Queen, and has since crushed the serpent’s deadly head. That is why he fears her immaculate heel and lies in wait for it. Contraception is then part of the serpent’s battle against the Immaculate Conception. Let us stay close to our Immaculate Queen; let all those in the sacred bonds of matrimony understand this, and we will see and share, one day, her triumph. Fr. Daniel Couture The Society of Saint Pius X is an international priestly society of common life without vows, whose purpose is the priesthood and that which pertains to it. The main goal of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X is to preserve the Catholic Faith in its fullness and purity, to teach its truths, and to diffuse its virtues. Authentic spiritual life, the sacraments, and the traditional liturgy are its primary means of bringing this life of grace to souls. The Angelus aims at forming the whole man: we aspire to help deepen your spiritual life, nourish your studies, understand the history of Christendom, and restore Christian culture in every aspect. $ 9.00 RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO: THE ANGELUS, 480 MCKENZIE STREET, WINNIPEG, MB, R2W 5B9