To strive for something Higher

      The phrase "vocations crisis" is one which is often heard. In Catholic circles, it is taken to mean the dearth of Priests which has left no sector of the Church's life untouched. This is certainly a crisis, and a pernicious one at that. Unlike some crises, the effects of this one continue to compound. The longer the problem goes unaddressed, the worse our situation becomes. As an old seminary professor used to say: "Priests raise Priests". And how true that is! More than anything, it is the holy example provided by a fervent priest, that inspired young men to take up the priestly cross. And so, the fewer holy priests out there, the fewer young men who will follow the call. And yet, despite the dangerous degree to which the crisis has escalated, there has been no efficacious response to it. Only in the last few years have we seen the beginnings of a true renaissance, that is, a re-birth.  
      When the precipitous decline in clergy began to be noticed, the first response was the try to "bring the priesthood to the people", and make it more accessible to them. This was done by shifting the focus from the priest's divinity, as altar Christus, to his humanity, as Fr. Bob. They attempted to make priests into a sort of social worker, someone who was really just "one of the guys". Analogously, the same is true of the Religious life, both male and female. A startling (At least for me) example of this is this Vocations video  produced by a group of Benedictine "Nuns" (It is hard to call them that, since there is not a single veil or rosary to be seen).
  

  If you went through the regrettable experience of watching that video, you will have readily grasped that to which I was referring. No mention of their Charisma of prayer and sacrifice for the salvation of souls, no sight of the sisters singing the Office, no description of the beautiful Benedictine spirituality of Ora et Labora. In their place, we had an illicit Mass, protection of the environment, and, to complete the picture... some sort of Yoga. I can't speak for you, but I would not be too keen on devoting my entire life, body and soul, to such trifling things.

Drastically at variance with the above vocations video is this one,  produced by the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.



Oh my, that's a bit different isn't it?
It seems to have a rather different focus, doesn't it? Let's see: "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass", "Holy Rosary", "Silence and recollection", "The exclusion of the noise and dissipation of the World". Yes... decidedly different. After watching that video, one cannot help but think: "Wow. This is something special, something higher".
And how right you would be! The Priesthood/Religious life is something special, supernatural, and superhuman.
       
   So, which one leads to vocations?
I think that the answer is, must be, and can only be the latter.
   What attracts young people? What makes them want to lay down their bodies and souls on the altar of religious life?
Is it being told that Brother/Sister/Father so-and-so, is pretty much like everyone else? I think not. Young people are not drawn towards mediocrity, they will not strive towards mediocrity. They want to strive for something greater than themselves; they want to strive to a higher calling; they want to be something. How can we possible expect to attract them into religious life by insinuating into their minds the idea that religious life is really not that special? Will people flock to the banner of lapel-pin celibate social workers? Or rather, will they flock to the banner of Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, of something sublime, something higher? If one looks at the relative success of the Vocations offices of the lapel-pin Orders, versus the authentic sacrificial religious life, the answer will be clear.

Perfectio Odio Oderam

St. Francis could well be said to have had a Perfect Hatred of the World

"Have I not hated them, O Lord, that hated thee: and pine away because of thy enemies? I have hated them with a perfect hatred: and they are become enemies to me."
        The preceding passage, taken from Psalm 138, may, perhaps, seem out of place in modern Christianity. In this age, the emphasis is placed on love, peace, and harmony, brotherhood among mankind. Admirable as these ideas may be, and as worthy of a Christian as they may be, they are are not the only facet of the true Christian soul. As the Psalmist says, perfect hatred also has a place in the Christian soul. What the Psalmist means by "perfect hatred" could use a bit of clarification. It would be well if we had a different word to use in this language, since "hatred" has decidedly negative connotation. In the contemporary lexicon, "hate" means something akin to "to wish evil". This is not, however, a proper sense of what the Psalmist was saying. Rather, the Psalmist means rejection, and condemnation. And truly this hatred, rather than being at odds with love, compliments and completes it.
   What is the essence of love, but the ideal relationship between God and Man? And if man truly loves God, who is "essere", that is, being itself, will he not, with equal vehemence despise that which is not of God..i.e. evil, which is nothingness. Indeed, in this way, perfect love of God and perfect hatred are mutually inclusive. For if we truly love God, will we not hate the Absence of God, which is evil. And if we claim to truly love God, and yet we do not hate his absence (evil) are we not hypocrites? That is what is meant by "perfect hatred". Indeed perfect love is perfect hatred. For if we have a hatred of all that is opposed to God; sin, evil, vice, and the like, truly by hating them we are loving God. And likewise, if we love virtue, and the things of God, are we not by doing so hating sin and wickedness? It is of this that the Psalmist spoke, when he wrote those words: "I have hated them with a perfect hatred". This hatred is Love, they are but the two sides of the one coin.

The Tolerance of the Left

They ask for tolerance, and yet they give none. I urge you all to watch this video, which throws into sharp relief the utter hypocrisy of the "Tolerance and Love" crowd.

Rejection or Acquiescence

   In today's world, surrounded as we are, by the manifestations of ungodliness and revolutionary secularism, it is not possible for us to simply turn away from society. Whether we like it or not, for good or ill, we are a part of society, and it will have it's effects on us. It is how we face society and it's deleterious effects, that will determine who and what we are. If we simply allow ourselves to live in society, not countenancing it, but simply coexisting with it, we shall, with or without our consent, be drawn into society.
   We cannot control what our perceptions take in; everything around us, our surroundings, the people we meet, the places we frequent, will have an effect upon us, either beneficial, or detrimental. It is in our power, however, to shape our perceptions, according to our principles.
       Our perceptions can be very dangerous things, for they play a great role in the shaping of our ideas. When we allow the evils of society to pass unchallenged, we allow them a foothold in our mind. Whenever we encounter something revolutionary, whether it be a modernist building, a pink-haired punk, or an unprincipled piece of legislation, our mind begins to analyze it and form perceptions based upon both the object itself, as well as upon our response to it. If we allow the revolutionary manifestation to pass through our minds time and again and be formed in our perceptions, they will begin to seems alright, or at least less outrageous. After a while, they will take on an air of normality. This is why resistance is imperative! Whenever we see a demonstration of the revolution, we must make a conscious choice to reject it. Even as our mind takes it in and forms perceptions, we must let our soul ring with a resounding repudiation. If we make this internal rejection, then far from being weakened,  our principled resolutions shall wax, and grow stronger. If, on the contrary, we allow it to pass through without being confronted, it will create an opening in our mental and spiritual defenses. These little acquiescences may seem inconsequential at first, but their significance will grow as their habits harden our hearts, and make them increasingly deaf to the summons of Grace working on our intellects, and calling our better selves to right action   
     If we wish to ever attain to true integrity, such acts of rejection are absolutely essential. Without them, no matter how sincere or spirited our original principles and resolutions were, we shall find them slowly eroded, by the incessant and corrosive stream of modernity. Our perceptions are a fragile and precarious asset, which must be guarded closely. Just as a spot of moisture will discolour and deface the lucent face of a newly minted coin, if left to it's ends and not dried, thus also will unchallenged displays of revolutionary modernism slowly deface and corrode our lofty ideals, if not immediately reviled out and rejected.

Radical Marxist Priest Ernesto Cardenal to Speak at Xavier U: Catholic Students Ask Why

From TFP Student Action

By William Stover

April 14, 2011

     On April 16th, Xavier University in Cincinnati will welcome Father Ernesto Cardenal, a noted Liberation Theologian, Marxist politician and rebel against Papal authority. Father Cardenal will be reading poetry of his own composition, included a poem inspired by Darwin titled “The Origin of Species,” in the campus Bellarmine Chapel.

      Besides his dissident theological opinions, Father Cardenal also worked closely with the avowedly Marxist and patently anti-Catholic Sandinista revolutionary movement in Nicaragua. His exploits, including the founding of a revolutionary commune, which was later converted into a communist guerilla force,¹ garnered the attention of the Sandinista leadership. After the successful revolution, he was appointed to the position of Minister of Culture in the newly-formed Sandinista regime.

The question remains: Why is this man being invited to a Catholic university?  What possible reason could there be?

Both Socialist & Catholic?
Impossible.

According to Xavier University, “his (Father Cardenal’s) involvement with the Sandinista movement in his home country have informed his writing and political activism.” Perhaps this is so, but the question arises: of what have they informed him? Clearly not of sound Catholic doctrine, since he has remained a staunch advocate of Socialism, which, according to Pope Pius XI, can never be reconciled with true Catholicism.²  Furthermore, Liberation Theology, which Fr. Cardenal embraces, has been repeatedly censured both by the Holy See,³ and also by then-Cardinal Ratzinger,⁴now Pope Benedict XVI.

Why then is this Socialist poet being heralded at a Catholic university? Xavier University would do well to recall the words of Pope Leo XIII: “The harvest of misery is before our eyes, and the dreadful projects of the most disastrous national upheavals are threatening us from the growing power of the socialistic movement.”⁵  Xavier University must decide between Catholicism or Socialism, for “no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”⁶

Register your peaceful protest today.  Contact:

Xavier University
Fr. Michael J. Graham, S.J., President
3800 Victory Parkway
Mail Location: 4511
Cincinnati, OH 45207
Phone: (513) 745-3502
Email:  graham@xavier.edu

1. Manzar Foroohar - The Catholic Church and social change in Nicaragua (1989) p. 170
2. Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 120
3. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Instruction on certain aspects of the 'Theology of Liberation'",(September 13, 1984) and "Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation" (April 17, 1986)
4. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "Liberation Theology: Preliminary Notes"
5. Encyclical Graves de Communi Re, January 18, 1901, n. 21
6. Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 120

Integrity or Failure

          Integrity. It is a word which, in modern connotation, seems to be associated mainly with banks and savings firms. Although they know that it bears a decidedly positive air, most people would be at a loss if asked to explain integrity.  Some might posit such definitions as “honest”, “good” or “law-abiding”. The truest and purest definition however, is something more. The word “Integrity” comes from the Latin “Integer” meaning whole, or complete. It is from this definition whence arises the true meaning of the word Integrity.
     To have integrity, to be integral, is to embrace, in it’s completeness a single and all encompassing Weltanschauung. That is, a complete and comprehensive world-view. To truly be an integral anything, one must have a unified world-view. In the realm of ideologies, there can be no half-way. Either one has integrity in one’s ideas, or one has nothing. Think of modern ideologies, such as “Conservatism”. Look how is it constantly fractured and divided against itself.  That is because it does not have a unified Weltanschauung. Whenever an ideology allows for points of contention within itself, it is doomed to failure.
     Look at the most successful and powerful movements in history, the movements that inspired the most devotion and willingness to sacrifice everything. Look at the Apostles and the Early Christian Church, On the other end of the spectrum of Good and Evil, look at the radical Bolsheviks of Russia, or the Schutzstaffel of the Third Reich. In the latter two cases, their Weltanschauung was exceedingly evil, but nevertheless, it had a sort of integrity about it.
What I mean to say by this is that their world-view was sufficient unto itself. It offered a unified view on all aspects of human experience. When one embraced the Nazi party, one did not need to look farther, since an answer for all questions was contained in the ideology. The same is true of the communist ideology of the Bolsheviks. Their ideology incorporated all the ideas and opinions that a party member might ever need to have. In this way, the unity of the political or social body is safeguarded. By supplying for every ideological need, the splits which so commonly plague less integral groups are often precluded.   Back to the other end of the Spectrum, we find the Early Church, which,  under the unified and singular  Weltanschauung on the Councils and the Magisterium, spread over all of the known world.
     This is why integrity is so essential to any successful endeavor. When one does not have a belief which embraces all aspects of life, one can easily fall prey to the verbal tricks and mental machinations of one’s opponents. They will manipulate the gaps in our belief system. If they are allowed to carry this process to fruition, they will bring the whole edifice crashing down around us. It is then, surrounded by the smoking wreckage of our half-maturated religious musings, and internet-assembled philosophies, that we shall see where we went wrong. Without an integral Weltanschauung, this will always be our final end.             
      
       

Solvet Saeclum in Favilla - On the Morality of the Dresden Bombings.

 "The Nazi Holocaust was among the most evil genocides in history. But the Allies’ firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also war crimes..."    - Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, president of Genocide Watch.

       As technology and "progress" in the field of military technology continue to increase, one is constantly confronted with moral questions and dilemmas. In light of the recent Air-Strikes against Libya, I think that a brief discussion of the morality of certain means of aerial combat would be auspicious.
       The particular method which I would like to discuss is the so-called "Terror-Bombings", of which was made extensive use during the Second World War.
In the bombing of Dresden, for instance, the RAF and USAF utilized over 10 1/2 Million pounds of high-explosives, as well as almost 4 million pounds of incendiary bombs. These attacks killed anywhere from twenty-five thousand to two hundred and fifty thousand civilians. Although the military expediency of the attacks is still debated today, the issue which I would like to address is the moral ramifications of the actions.
   Many people seem to justify the bombings, on the basis of a point-for-point theory of wartime retribution. Though it is certainly true that the atrocities of the Nazi Party were unparalleled on the Allied side, I think that any attempt at justification based on this fact is odious. If we try to justify our own actions based off of the actions of our opponents, where do we stop? It is a slippery slope that no civilized nation will allow itself to set foot on. For verily, if we base our view of morality and justice on the conduct of our antagonists, we have the potential to become as bad, if not worse than the evil we are fighting.
   And so, if a perverted idea of justice is an insufficient pretext for such act, then where do we turn next?
 The other oft-repeated line is that military expediency outweighs the moral consideration of such bombings.
    I would once again deny the validity of this argument. Indeed it is an unavoidable fact of war that civilian lives will be lost, but that makes it no less reprehensible. There is a great gulf of difference between civilian deaths as an accidental aspect of warfare, and civilian deaths as an essential part of warfare. An example of the first case would be the bombing of a munitions factory, where civilians might be killed as collateral. This is a most regrettable happenstance, but is not sufficient to anathemize the use of explosive weapons. An example of the second case would be the previously mentioned Dresden, where the actual target of the attack a civilian city-center (Indeed, fifteen square miles, over ninety percent of the city-center was totally destroyed)
    In the former case, the death of civilians is an accidental (in the philosophical sense, i.e. something which goes with, but is not necessary or innate to the act) aspect, whereas in the latter the civilian casualties are an essential (i.e. premeditated and intrinsic) part of the operation. In this line, between cases one and two, we see also the line between justice and barbarity, between lamentable necessity and malign gratuitous slaughter. Here we find the difference between War and Genocide.

Who are the real Clericalists?

       Clericalism is something of which I am quite often accused. Apparently, all one must do is merit this distinction is show a healthy reverence for the Sacral nature of the Priesthood. Furthermore, words such as backwards,  medieval and close-minded and even Crusader are also applies liberally, and with some frequency. Such "insults" as Medieval and Crusader, have no need for discussion, since I take them as compliments  I would, however, like to know what is it that makes me a "Clericalist" in the pejorative sense, i.e. an ecclesiolater.

      As far as my poor powers of reason can discern,the most common circumstance leading to my branding as a Clericalist is my insistence on on the observance of the Liturgical and Sacramental norms of Holy Mother Church. This hardly seems to merit a title of Clericalist, assuming the definition " One who attributes excessive power to the Clergy" is valid. For indeed, by insisting that the Clergy follow the forms and conditions set down by Holy Mother Church, am I not indeed acknowledging the limited power of the clergy? By affirming a higher power than the individual cleric, am I not opposing clericalism? In fact, I view Clericalism, or rather it's present manifestation, as one of the greatest evils infecting the Church today. This present manifestation, which I would term Neo-clericalism, emphasizes the paramountcy of each individual cleric's views and manners, in the confection of Sacraments, and all other priestly functions.

( For a cogent example of this, The Glorification of Humanism )
      This is indeed Clericalism. Going back to our definition of "One who attributes excessive power to the Clergy", we can easily see the correlation. By allowing, and encourage clerics to "make the liturgy their own" and insert their own prayers, own styles, own preferences, into the Sacred Liturgy, the Neo-Clericalists truly are attributing excessive power to the Clergy. Conversely, we, who insist on adherence to rubrics, norms, and traditions, are the very antithesis of clericalists. Where they give, into the hands of clergy, the unwarranted power over the Sacred Liturgy itself, we, on the contrary, demand fidelity and obedience to something greater. Where they give free license to the innovations and vicissitudes of the cleric, we expect and require rigid compliance.
       How is it then, that we are Clericalists and they are not?

The Ruins of Irish Monasticism

Here is a slideshow which I compiled from
my pictures of Monastic Ruins.

A Moral Wrong can never be a Human Right

       In my role as a Lay Catholic, one of the pursuits to which I have dedicated time is the public affirmation of Catholic teaching. I have participated in street campaigns on a variety of issues, including Abortion and Marriage. In these campaigns, I always hear people proclaiming, often rather violently, what their rights are. That word, "Rights" comes up all the time; they never cease to reiterate it. They have a right to murder their babies; they have a right to contract a so-called same-sex "Marriage".
With all this talk of rights, I cannot help but start to wonder, what are rights, and where do they come from?
     I did some research and this is the definition I found: "Something to which one has a just claim" Ok, fair enough. But now, let's go more specifically to the type of "rights" that people like to cite; i.e. "Human Rights". The definition for Human Rights is: "fundamental rights, especially those believed to belong to an individual and in whose exercise a government may not interfere".
    Ah, so now I start to see how it is. The proponents of abortion and other diabolical causes are claiming some sort of supra-positive entitlement that carries even more weight than the oft-heralded "Civil Rights". On the surface, this sounds noble, these "Human rights", surpassing governments, soaring over nations, liberating the masses. But, once the mist clears, and the surface is broken, we can see these "rights" for what they are: a lie. Since so many of these rights which they claim are in opposition to the laws of God, clearly God is not the source of these rights. But, if not God, who? No one. There is no other source of "human rights" than the Godhead. For, verily, without God, how can we have any rights at all? Without God, what separates us from the beasts? Our Rights (And I mean our genuine rights, not the abominations so often propagated under that name) proceed from, and only from God. And more specifically, they proceed from the fact that we are made in the image and likeness of God. If you take away that, then we have no rights, indeed we are nothing more than animals.
      That is why there can never be a "Human Right" which contradicts the revealed Law of God. For God is Truth, and Truth can never contradict Truth.
  

The Glorification of Humanism

      Recently, on one of my dark and esoteric perambulations around Ireland, I found myself standing before the towering and majestic facade of the Cathedral of the Diocese of Monaghan. Entering, I drew from my cincture the familiar and worn strand of wooden beads, which serves as a Rosary. I, in my naivety, expected a Cathedral to provide an uplifting atmosphere for prayer and meditation. I was sadly mistaken.

       As I walked up the center aisle of the nave of the monumental, though almost empty,  church, I immediately noted, with a sigh of distress, the absence of any sort of Altar-Piece, or indeed of a proper Sanctuary at all. As I contemplated my surroundings, not distracted by the sound of someone gathering and replacing spent candles, I became acutely aware that this building seemed not to be a church at all, but rather a temple of abstraction and a monument to liturgical humanism.

   Where in the olden days would have stood the Altar piece and the Tabernacle of the Most Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord,  now there was imposed upon the fair dimensions of that Cathedral an obtrusive and dismaying testament to revolutionary liturgical humanism. A marble pedestal, of a size almost as large as the new Altar, stood surmounted by a great throne. From this, steps led down the pedestal, and to an elevated marble walkway, upon which reposed a red carpet. This walkway continued all the way to the crux of the cathedral, where nave meets transept. It then widened out into a platform, upon which sat a small and not particularly impressive Altar.

     At seeing the Eucharistic King deposed, to make room for the Bishop's Throne, I almost wept tears of rage and despair. How else could this be interpreted, but as a dethroning of God, to make way for the glorification of man. Where once the Bishop ascended the steps "Unto the Altar of God" (As the words of the Mass proclaim), now the Bishop condescends to lower himself to God's level, to be the Altar Christus. What an inversion, indeed a perversion of the natural order and hierarchy is this! Man is elevated to the place of God, and God is thrust out of His own Sanctuary.

   Although I had always known of the ravages of liturgical humanism, and it's nefarious work in the Church, I had never before been faced with such a blatant and unapologetic display of it. Truly this was the clearest manifestation of the humanistic spirit I had ever seen. I often hear acquaintances with more modernist views than myself complain about how "in the old days" (the days to which I am attached) we used to treat our Priests as though they were God, adorning them with rich brocades and cloth of gold. They go on to say that now, with their folk Masses and their polyester-burlap sequestered presiders, they are following the authentic Christian way, and not idolizing their Clergy. And yet, I would go so far as to say that they are the true idolaters, and it is they who are treating the priest in an inappropriate way. Indeed, when we dress our priests in ornate vestments of gold, we are diminishing their human aspect, and enhancing their sacerdotal presence as the Alter Christus. For really, when the priest is attired in simple polyester, what is the message advanced? That it's the person, not the priesthood that's important. Inversely, when we adorn our priests in the richest vestments we can supply, it is as though we were covering his humanity, and helping him to be completely subsumed into his Divine role of Altar Christus. So, who is it who attaches too much grandeur to the Priesthood? Those who have a simply dressed prelate seated in a towering throne in the place of God, or those who have a priest who's human aspect is subjected to his Divine role, his humanity covered in the garb of divinity, and who, conscience that it is not he who offers the sacrifice, but Christ though him, humbly ascends the steps to the Altar of God.