We had previously reviewed Professor Daniel J. Mahoney’s somewhat ambiguous assessment of the Bergoglio pontificate in a book of his published in 2018:

The Idol of Our Age.

Now, however, Prof. Mahoney has dispelled ambiguity in this devastating article in National Review which neatly summarizes a variety of critiques of  Pope Francis and his entourage:

Pope Francis, Wayward Shepherd

“The religion of humanity, and the accompanying dictatorship of relativism, are deeply ingrained in the Church of Rome, and at the highest levels of the Church at that. Providence may save the Church from becoming a branch of the religion of humanity at prayer, but only if faithful Catholics allow themselves to become righteous and truth-telling agents of our loving and provident God.”

On the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

by Father Richard Gennaro Cipolla

 

Today I offered, as did many other priests, a Votive Mass for Peace, with a commemoration, of course, of SS. Vincent and Anastasius. I did so on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States.  The Collect and the readings make it quite clear that the Peace of which we are speaking and for which we are asking has little to do with peace as understood by the world.  The Collect says it best: “O God, from Whom are holy desires, right counsels, and just works, give to Thy servants that peace which the world cannot give; that our hearts being devoted to the keeping of Thy commandments, and the fear of enemies removed, our times, by Thy protection, may be peaceful.” The peace we are asking for in this Mass is not freedom from anxiety and the tempests of this world, nor from the obligations of the Catholic in this world, a world that denies and opposes the moral law of Christ founded on love of God. We are not asking for “peace in the world”, per se.  We are asking for that peace that only God can give, that peace that is an inner glimpse of the peace of heaven.

 

The epistle from 2 Maccabees asks that God will “ give you all a heart to worship Him, and to do His will with a great heart and a willing mind. May He open your heart in His law, and in His commandments, and send you peace. “  This reading makes it clear that this peace is firmly linked to the worship of God and to doing his Will, that Will enshrined in the Law of God. The primacy of the worship of God for the Catholic has certainly been eroded in the past forty years, and this erosion is surely at the heart of the weakened and broken state of the Church today.

But it is the Gospel for the Mass above all that reminds us what we often forget in an age of sentimental worship where the understanding of peace has degenerated into handshakes and waves. This Gospel is familiar to us, for it is read on Low Sunday every year. The resurrected Christ comes through the locked doors of the Upper Room and says to his disciples: “Peace be to you.” Then Luke adds:  “And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side.” The Peace of Christ cannot be separated from, and in fact is founded upon, the suffering and death of the Lord on the Cross.  The Peace of Christ has little to do with the peace of the world. It is not an absence of conflict and strife, but rather the gift of the knowledge from faith that Christ has overcome the world of sin and death.  The encounter with St. Thomas and the invitation to touch Christ’s wounds further emphasize the radical difference between what the world calls peace and what the Peace that passes all understanding is.

 

What does this have to do with the March on Washington which includes so many Catholics, who are right now witnessing to the Right to Life based on their faith in the God who is the source of all life?  It must be said clearly that the law of the land, which in this case is truly unjust, nevertheless can never solve or eliminate transgressions of the moral law of God.  The ambiguity of the situation must be made clear, an ambiguity that is part of being a Christian in a non-believing world.  The goal of an end to all abortions is not achievable in this world.  While it is true that it is a scandal that in this country abortion is seen as a “right” included in “life, liberty and happiness”, it is also true that this grievous sin is part of the sinful and obstinate state of the world, the “World” that St. John sees so clearly in his Gospel, the World that  is always in opposition to the Truth of God in Jesus Christ and will be so until the end of time at the Second Coming.

 

To march publicly in protest is the point of the Washington March for Life.   This is an act of witness.  But to use this act of witness in the hope that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade to “end the scourge of abortion” is to misunderstand the use of law, for the law cannot prevent crime, the law is never the final answer in a fallen world, and the law of the world can never be the Law of God, again, in a fallen world.  The individual Catholic must witness to the Law of Love not only once a year in the March for Life.  His or her whole life must witness to the Law of Love, and this, and only this, will change hearts and minds, and this is what we must do and hope for.

The Catholic Church today finds herself in the unenviable position of organizing marches for life when her own life is threatened by those within her fold who support moral corruption and corruption of the Faith of Catholic Tradition that founded on the Apostolic Tradition, and manifested in the Traditional worship of the Church.  It is the secular law that forced the bishops of the Church to confront the crimes of her priests.  As destructive and disgusting as the moral crimes of her priests in the sex scandals are,  the greater scandal is that the bishops did nothing about this moral rot in the Church until the secular law came after them.  But the secular law cannot force the bishops to address the deeper disease of the rot of Faith itself that so deeply enfeebles the Church of Jesus Christ today.

 

There is no way to make peace with the World.  We must stop looking there, we must stop wanting to be accepted by the World.  We must minister to the World, absolutely. We must never turn our backs on the World. We must do what we can wherever we can to see that Love conquers the deep selfishness of the World.  But in the end, we must realize that our longing for the Peace that passes all understanding can never be realized in its fulness in this world of sin and death.  And that should not make us sad at all, for at every Mass we encounter in a real way, a way that transcends this space and time, the One who has overcome the World, He alone who can give us that Peace we so long for, the One who alone is our hope for the salvation of the World of sin and death, who alone is our hope for the Peace of Everlasting Life.

The double-headed eagle of the Holy Roman Empire adorns a well-known restaurant in the Kaiserstuhl  area of Baden, Germany: up to 1806 part of the Holy Roman Empire (and Austria)

 

 

The Holy Roman Empire: A Short History

By Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger

Translated by Yair Mintzker

Princeton University Press

Princeton, 2018

 

Some years ago, I attended a conference of lawyers  in Salzburg. I was walking through the streets of that magical city with a professor from an American law school, who marveled at the great architecture surrounding us.   I informed him there was a reason for this: Salzburg in the past had been not a provincial Austrian city. but the capital of a substantial principality of the Holy Roman Empire. That fascinated him: “the Holy Roman Empire…. the Holy Roman Empire….” he kept saying to himself as we continued our walk.

Yes, it is a mysterious entity,  this Holy Roman Empire, which existed in one form or another between 800/962 and 1806. Throughout  most of this time it was closely linked with Germany- only for a period in the 13th century did the center of gravity shift to Italy.

Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger has written, as the title indicates, a “short history” of the Holy Roman Empire – actually only of its last three centuries. 1) It covers the period ca. 1490 to 1806 – when the Empire had been  “repurposed” as a German national kingdom. But this transformation was never complete. Central Europe never become another France or United Kingdom. This history it is more a constitutional or structural history – Prof. Stollberg-Rilinger emphasizes less what the Empire actually did.

But these last three centuries of the Empire, even if a period of weakness compared to the Empire‘s  medieval golden years, was still an era of real political accomplishments. The Holy Roman Empire was directly involved in all the major events of Europe; its diffuse structure enabled the Protestant Reformation to take root. But, paradoxically, this same lack of unity enabled Catholicism to survive in Germany – especially in the imperial or Austrian lands that had remained Catholic. From roughly 1480 to 1720 the Empire led the defense of the West against the Ottoman Turks, a struggle in which the German lands – not Poland  – did the overwhelming share of the fighting. These wars culminated in the recovery of  all of Hungary for Christendom.

The Empire’s political  complexity and religious antagonisms led to the catastrophe of the Thirty Years War. Yet from the low point of 1648 – the end of that struggle – the Empire recovered to lead the defense against France in the West, Sweden in the North and the Ottoman Turks in the East. By 1718 German princes occupied the thrones of Great Britain, Hungary and Poland. Denmark had become essentially a German state, and Sweden had its German possessions reduced to a fraction of their former size. It was a remarkable restoration! But soon thereafter came the conflict between Prussia and Austria, each of which disposed of resources dwarfing those of the Empire of which they were largely a part. Finally, the Empire collapsed under the blows of the French revolutionary armies and of Napoleon.

The Empire’s legacy in art, culture and architecture is overwhelming. “Take Germany’s best years(1660-1760)” as Ezra Pound put it.  Why is Prague today such an incomparable gem?- not because it is the capital of a third-rate Central European state, but because it served on several occasions as the de facto capital of the Holy Roman Empire. The same, of course, can be said of Vienna – only here the legacy of the Empire in obscured by 19th century construction. Beyond the imperial capitals, there are the architectural masterpieces of all the bewildering variety of the former estates of the Empire: the imperial abbeys ( e.g., Ottobeuren); the imperial cities (Rothenburg and Regensburg); and the prince-bishoprics (Bamberg and the above-mentioned Salzburg). And the achievements of these last imperial ages were not confined to architecture and the visual arts but embraced music, philosophy and, especially towards the end of this era, literature.

The study of the Holy Roman Empire takes on added significance in the light of the recent “Catholic Integralism” discussion. For the “Holy” Roman Empire is by definition characterized by a union of the temporal and the sacred.  It is a Catholic Empire. This did not necessarily earn it the approbation of 19th century and later ultramontanes. For the Empire was anything but a passive tool in the hands of the papacy.  For example, in the period covered by Prof. Stollberg-Rilinger,  Emperor Charles V, after sacking Rome in 1527, was instrumental in convening the Council of Trent against significant opposition in the Vatican. The Council assembled in Trent, a city, although not German-speaking, of the Empire. This religious dimension of the Empire, in my view,  does not receive a totally adequate  treatment in this book.

Although brief, this book may be relatively challenging for the American reader. It seems to presuppose a fairly good knowledge of German and Central European history, culture and geography – even if it does explain where Silesia is located or who Goethe is (presumably these are additions by  the translator).   With that reservation, The Holy Roman Empire: a Short History is a useful handbook enabling the reader to put in the proper political framework what are otherwise apparently unconnected religious, artistic and cultural developments. So, I notice it is offered for sale at the current exhibition Maximilian: the Last Knight at the Metropolitan Museum.

Regrettably the two forewords to this book are typical of present-day academia in Germany and the United States.  Prof.  Stollberg-Rilinger worries that  the methodology of her book could be interpreted as a “political move,” which is understandable given that her own foreword is largely devoted to the discussion of post–19^th century ideological issues.  Then there is the foreword of the translator. Yair Mintzker describes the book as targeting a “broad audience”  then devotes paragraphs to an exposition of the interrelationships among academics currently working in the field of the Holy Roman Empire.  Having translated a book often concerned with details of  terminology, he refers to the “Austrian Empress Maria Theresa.” And of course, like every American professor, he must utilize a discussion of the most remote topic to launch an attack on Trump. “Almost all Americans ” he informs us, “accept as legitimate  the election of Donald J. Trump.” How gracious of them to accept incontrovertible facts! You see, this was the product of  of a series of “fictions” that the outcome of elections represents the will of the people. Prof. Mintzker’s understanding of the purpose and workings of the United States constitution is decidedly limited.

 

But these things are of our time. I would hope the reader of The Holy Roman Empire: A Short History would be inspired by it to delve more deeply into a fascinating polity and its culture!

 

1. The original German title more accurately conveys the scope of the book: The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation: from the End of the Middle Ages to 1806.

The  imperial eagle in Colmar, Alsace (up to 1635 part of the Empire)

The Idol of our Age: How the Religion of Humanity subverts Christianity

by Daniel J. Mahoney

Encounter Books; New York and London 2018

The Antichrist!  – how often his specter had haunted artists, philosophers and others “spiritually perceptive” since the consolidation of the modern world! It seems a widely shared perception that he cannot be far from an era of religious collapse and ideological fraud. In more recent years, the radical break with Christian morality of the Western establishment, coupled with the growing acquiescence of the Christian churches in their own liquidation, has made the issue more topical than ever. Chilton Williamson, reviewing the recent “religious” service in the Washington cathedral, commemorating John McCain and castigating President Trump, declared that the only god of the American establishment is themselves. Yet the self-understanding of said establishment is still that of a benevolent universal ruler, dispensing prosperity and liberation throughout the world.

Prof. Daniel Mahoney summarizes the findings of thinkers who have confronted one aspect or other of this transition from Christianity to a humanistic cult or better stated,  the merger of the two. Professor Mahoney is well acquainted with subject matter – he recently written an introduction for a new translation of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s diaries – written after he came to the West in the 1970’s. Prof. Mahoney has assembled a set of witnesses, some well-known, others less so, some stern prophets of disaster, others enthusiastic heralds of a coming transformation of the world. The common theme is the dawning of a new age and a new religion where man alone is god.

Prof. Mahoney draws on the insights of Aurel Kolnai to frame the discussion.  Kolnai wrote of the negative nature of humanism and of  its absolute incompatibility with Christianity, of the “primordial contrast” between humanitarian and Christian morality. And he wrote these thoughts in an essay published in 1944, when the new regime was, by  its own estimation then and now, on the verge of celebrating its greatest triumph. Prof. Mahoney helpfully reprints that essay in this book.

Orestes Brownson is perhaps unfamiliar in this context, but he personally lived out an early version of the humanist ethics in an early predecessor of a “hippy” commune! August Comte, in the same era, also describes the possibility of creating a humanist society, but writes as an avid advocate of it. He is fascinating because his system explicitly acknowledges “humanism” as a substitute religion.

A high point of this book- or of any discussion of these matters – is Vladimir Soloviev’s incomparable A Short Tale of the Antichrist, an allegory of the advent of a humanitarian Antichrist. Soloviev,  the “Russian Newman,” strove to overcome the division between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. His Antichrist is a mild bringer of terrestrial ease and happiness. He is able to seduce most of the Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic Christians by offering them, in exchange for submission to the world and to him, the secular goods they secretly desire. Soloviev’s tale builds toward a dramatic, appropriately apocalyptic climax.  A Short Tale of the Antichrist is a part of Soloviev’s Three Conversations which is also remarkable for a parable justifying war (and, we might add, capital punishment) both of which remain anathema to the modern humanist ethos.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is cited mainly for his criticism of Tolstoy – in his day, at least in some respects, a humanist hero for his advocacy of nonviolence, the return to the land his disdain for traditional Christianity.

Prof. Mahoney now turns from the past to consideration of the present. For is not the regime of the American and Western European establishment the preeminent modern manifestation of modern humanism? And isn’t Pope Francis the exemplar of such humanism masquerading in pseudo- religious trappings?

“As we have noted, the present pontiff, no Antichrist to be sure, is half-humanitarian” Prof. Mahoney assures us. (surely a historic low point in papal apologetics!) But hasn’t our author squarely raised the issue himself  by juxtaposing in this book Soloviev’s vision of an Antichrist of mercy with a discussion of Bergoglio, the “Pope of mercy?” And, in all honesty, isn’t what Mahoney says about this topic the real interest of this book?

Prof. Mahoney compiles a catalogue (or is it an indictment?) of Pope Francis’s “humanitarian ” statements and actions. The pope and his acolytes  “sow confusion among the faithful and give into the pressures of the secular world.” Francis’s “discussion” of marriage is “marred” by a tendency to redefine Christian family life in terms of “values” that the Church presents to the world.  The Church’s teaching is presented as an “ideal” as to which most people “will fall short.”  The pope sometimes confuses Christian charity with “secular humanism.”  Prof.  Mahoney devotes more space, it must be admitted, to critiquing the pope’s attacks on capitalism, technology and America. He is disturbed by the pope’s affinity for socialist and despotic regimes. Here our author reveals his “neoconservative” roots.

Regrettably, in the case of Roman Catholics, academics and especially Roman Catholic academics,  difficulties arise when dealing with those currently holding ecclesiastical, political, and economic power. The tone grows “nuanced,” the criticism is “balanced,” the prophetic voice is muted. Accordingly, Prof.  Mahoney speaks of the “admirable Christian witness” of Bergoglio. One allegedly must be “moved by the poetic theologizing about the created order that informs the first parts of Laudato Si.”  Francis is a “poet and theologian of charity.” Much of Amoris Laetitia is “beautiful,” “luminous,” “insightful and lyrical.”

Kolnai and Soloviev affirm that the humanitarian temptation is inherent in the modern world and, though perhaps adopting a Christian mask,  remains essentially  incompatible with Christianity. Yet in the case of the bishop of Rome, Prof Mahoney creates separate lists of  “good” and  “bad” statements and seeks to excuse the latter,  suggesting Pope Francis is “confused”;  that the remarkable resemblance of his thought to secular humanism is “unintentional.” Is this relatively inconclusive  assessment of Pope Francis, in a sense, a test case of Prof. Mahoney’s critique of “the religion of humanity” as applied to actual recent developments? If so, one is tempted to ask, as in the case of so many other products of conservative thought: what was all the fuss about ?

We can say much the same of Mahoney’s remarkably mild conclusions regarding  the thought of Jurgen Habermas. If Pope Francis is the chaplain of the Western humanistic establishment, Habermas is its court-philosopher. Prof. Mahoney critiques Habermas’s apolitical “emancipatory cosmopolitanism” – yet he alleges this to be counterbalanced by Habermas’s “fundamental decency,” lauds Habermas as a man “of peace and reason” and applauds his praise of Jewish thinkers.

I have reservations about Mahoney’s judgment in other respects as well. He speaks of the American “experiment” and its  “proposition” that “all men are created equal.” He writes warmly of Churchill, Adenauer and especially Charles de Gaulle – yet wasn’t the current reign of modernity in Western Europe established under them? Pope Benedict is a special favorite of Prof. Mahoney; yet didn’t the  “pope emeritus” in his address to the German Bundestag (much admired by Prof. Mahoney) studiously avoid any reference to Christ? And hasn’t Pope Benedict spoken of the beneficial effects of the Enlightenment on Western Christianity? Also muffling the impact of Prof. Mahoney’s book is his reliance on a repetitive, academic diction in which adjectives such as “rich,” “ample “and “capacious” constantly recur.

A year or more has passed since the publication of this book.  In that time, Pope Francis has carried the fusion between Christianity and the contemporary “humanitarian”  ethos to unheard-of lengths.

Starting in Abu Dhabi, Francis  has launched an ideological and educational initiative couched in entirely humanistic and syncretistic terminology. In the “Amazonian” synod (and in additional interviews with his old dialogue partner Scalfari) the Pope has moved still further away from previous understandings of Christianity ( or at least those prevailing officially in the Roman Catholic Church). This new “Amazonian” faith seems to reduce Christianity to a mere restatement of the ideological norms of the Western European establishment – with Latin American liberation theology thrown in. The tension Prof. Mahoney discerns between Pope Francis’s “humanitarianism“ and his Christianity seems to have been resolved entirely in favor of the former.

Sandro Magister has analyzed recent papal initiatives, also turning to Soloviev’s parable of the Antichrist. 1) Anything but an extremist, Magister is nevertheless compelled to acknowledge traces of the Antichrist in Bergoglio’s papacy. “The novelty of the initiative of Francis consists precisely in the fact that it is the first time a pope has claimed on his own and put himself at the helm of such a radically secularized global educational pact. because in reality a ‘new humanism’ without Christ is not an original, but a constant in the thought of the West of the last two centuries.” And Magister cites extensive passages of a chapter of a book  – also referenced by Prof. Mahoney – in which the late Cardinal Giacomo Biffi “took up the account  of the Antichrist written in 1900 by the Russian theologian and philosopher (Soloviev) and applied it to the Church of today.” And in his wonderfully “brief and blunt” article “The Amazon Synod is a Sign of the Times”  2) Douglas Farrow, referring to the recent synod,  states:

“The kairos, the culture of encounter, being lauded in the Pan-Amazon Synod is a Bergoglian kairos and culture. The church “called to be ever more synodal,” to be “made flesh” and “incarnated” in existing cultures, is a Bergoglian church. And this church, not to put too fine a point on it, is not the Catholic Church. It is a false church. It is a self-divinizing church. It is an antichristic church, a substitute for the Word-made-flesh to whom the Catholic Church actually belongs and to whom, as Cardinal Müller insists, it must always give witness if it means to be the Church.”

We can only emphatically agree that although we may not yet be at the point of encountering  the personal Antichrist,  today’s Church and society are most definitely “antichristic.”  Although I do not agree with some of his conclusions,  nevertheless Prof. Mahoney has done us a service by opening more people’s eyes to the gravity of this crisis.

1. “Everyone to the School of the Antichrist: but One Cardinal Rebels”http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2019/09/19/everyone-to-the-school-of-the-antichrist-but-one-cardinal-rebels/
2. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/10/the-amazon-synod-is-a-sign-of-the-times

I recently had to confront this monumental decision: should I renew the “Catholic Herald – US edition”? For that magazine was launched just about a year ago. It’s now time to review how the US edition has fared since then.

The objective was alluring and ambitious:  to create a magazine providing intellectual leadership for American conservative Catholics.  In the US, it was a role last completely filled by Triumph magazine  – up to 1975, that is! The Herald’s new US edition could build on the success and visibility of the UK parent,  in which Damian Thompson had instilled new bite and focus.

I myself had doubts early on about this venture given the anti-Traditionalist animus of at least one prospective editor – who had even railed against the above- mentioned Triumph, shut down so many years before. But the US edition was launched with a splash – an oversubscribed gathering in New York plus, I heard, even an “afterparty.” It was a welcome display of panache and flair so rare in the Catholic conservative world. A wide variety of conservative greats were invited on board as potential writers.

Yet things almost immediately went south. One of the would-be contributors  – a certain Dawn Goldstein – immediately unleashed a vicious assault on the publication. Members of the Catholic Herald team fought back  – but then joined her in blasting the alleged “anti- Semitism” of one of their own recently published writers – Taki, one of the great supporters of conservatism. And within months both the US and UK editors were out the door. It seems the conservative  “big tent” was not so capacious after all. It is just one further proof of the inherent impossibility of the  “conservative Catholic” compromise – made starkly visible in the crisis created by the current Pope.

What survives is a decent publication offering a pleasant, non-challenging  version of “cultural conservativism” –  nice articles on culture, church history, spirituality and new books combined with summary coverage of current events.   Tough investigative journalism and a probing political, historical and theological analysis of the deviations of the papacy and local hierarchies are not, however, part of the scene. There is nothing like the recent articles in First Things on the “Amazonian” synod or the Papal Foundation. Or  Ed Condon’s recent journalism in the CNA on the Vatican’s financial scandals. True, hot topics are not necessarily avoided or swept under the rug – the Catholic Herald is not yet like the Catholic News Service or Catholic New York. Yet all too often even a candid, critical discussion of an issue ends in wishful thinking or credulity. 

So, for example, referring to the latest London real estate shenanigans of the Vatican:
“The controversy is likely to be a source of sadness for Pope Francis who was elected in 2013 with a mandate to reform Vatican finances. He pursued this goal energetically…” (October 25, 2019).
Or, on the Amazonian synod:
“Only a vast creative and relentless campaign of evangelization can hope to reverse this trend (of the de-catholicizing of the Amazon – SC). Will this be unleashed by the Amazon synod? Let’s pray that it
will…. .”  (November 1, 2019)

I find myself therefore still relying for news and analysis regarding all things Catholic on perusing daily six to eight websites – several of which are not in the English language. One of the best of these sources  is,  paradoxically, the ultra-progressive website of the German bishops. All in all, the US edition of the Catholic Herald is pleasant and informative reading  but has failed so far to rise to the challenge of leadership.  In an era of unprecedented crisis in the Church, that is a major failing.  Should I continue to subscribe? For $140, I  do not know…….

”

By Father Richard Cipolla

Pachamama.  Mamapacha.  One knows when things get to a point of desperation when one wishes that he were one of the populi Romani who ditched the fertility idols into the Tiber.  Their mistake is that they did not use weights to make sure they sunk into the muck of the Tiber.  Even the liberal press in the United States is embarrassed by the spectacle of the Pope and Cardinals and bishops staring at the fertility images in the Vatican Gardens as if this were something serious being contemplated.  This is one time when I am grateful to the New York Times for not highlighting the idiocy into which those who are running the Catholic Church have fallen.  

Apparently the Reverend Cardinals and Bishops sitting in the Vatican Gardens staring at the Pachamamas with the Bishop of Rome in a spirit of deep openness to the Indigenous Other have not read, at least recently, the Old Testament, which at least partly is a history of the Israelites and their serial denial of their God in Covenant by adopting the worship of wooden and stone idols of the peoples among which they lived.  The triumph of Elijah over the priests of the idols and false god Baal did not come to their collective minds as they sat there and contemplated the fertility goddess Pachamama.

A sense of irony is not strong among these prelates who as Catholics are blind to the blasphemy of putting these idols in a Catholic church dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, a stone’s throw from the tomb of Peter, Apostle and Martyr.  One wonders if these men think at all, think about anything, let alone the Faith that they have sworn to defend and uphold.  To be charitable, they must have been drugged to have sat in the Gardens engaged in a deep contemplation of Pachamama. If only one of them had started giggling at this foolishness.  Perhaps the rest would have joined in the laughter and the spell of the Pachamama would have been broken. Perhaps they went to dinner that evening on the Borgo Pio and laughed heartily over copious amounts of good wine. I hope so.

We could not have arrived at this point in the history of the Catholic Church unless the Great Lobotomy following the Second Vatican Council had not been performed by the surgeons in charge of the Great Forgetting of the People of God, for whom two millennia of Church History and Faith and Worship were blotted out and in its place was put the Beast of the 1960’s slouching to an evacuation of the Ultimate Seriousness and Real Joy of the Catholic faith.  Please forgive the Germanic use of capitalization in the last sentence, but how else to convey the disaster that has occurred?  There is only one time in the history of the Church that compares to what we are going through today:  the time when most of the bishops of the Church were Arian heretics.  But today where are the champions?  The great majority of the bishops are silent in the face of the Pachamama stupidity, whose purpose is to get rid of priestly celibacy and to ordain women as deacons, the first step to women priests.  I came to the Catholic Church from the Episcopal Church.  I came into the Catholic Church because I came to believe, through the Church Fathers and through my mentor, St. John Henry Newman, that there is only one Church that is continuous with the Church founded by Jesus Christ and that is the Roman Catholic Church.  My love for the Catholic Church has grown through the 37 years I have been Catholic and through the more than 35 years I have been a Catholic priest.  Pachamama can never make me doubt the reality and the truth of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ.  But I shall never acquiesce in any attempt to make the Catholic Church a bigger version of the Episcopal Church.   I will continue to fight against those who in the end want a church whose clergy are not bound by the Catholic understanding of sexuality and marriage, whose liturgy is earthbound and  devoid of the Real Presence of Christ, and whose embrace of the world denies the heart of the Faith that is the Cross of Jesus Christ. 

I was in Rome just recently, and as always I talk to the taxi driver who takes me from Fiumicino to Rome.  Shortly after the present Pontiff was elected I asked the taxi driver what he thought about the new Pope. After a little silence, he said that the new Pope was “furbo”.  The translation of that word I will leave to those who read this.  This last trip I asked the same question of the taxi driver.  He prefaced his answer with the statement: “Sono credente”. “ I am a believer”.  This in contrast with many Italians for whom the Catholic Church is a club they belong to culturally but has no meaning in their lives.  And then he said about the Pope:  

“E molto sbagliato”.  Again, figure out the translation for yourself. 

We must pray for Pope Francis, sincerely and without reservation. We must pray for the Cardinals and Bishops who seem to have no male equipment to stand up to patent nonsense that spouts forth from Synods and press conferences.  Our heavenly intercessor at this time must be St. John Henry Newman.  His words at his Bigletto Speech upon receiving the Cardinal’s hat must be the basis of quod faciendum est.

In a long course of years I have made many mistakes. I have nothing of that high perfection which belongs to the writings of Saints, viz., that error cannot be found in them; but what I trust that I may claim all through what I have written, is this,—an honest intention, an absence of private ends, a temper of obedience, a willingness to be corrected, a dread of error, a desire to serve Holy Church, and, through Divine mercy, a fair {64} measure of success. And, I rejoice to say, to one great mischief I have from the first opposed myself. For thirty, forty, fifty years I have resisted to the best of my powers the spirit of liberalism in religion. Never did Holy Church need champions against it more sorely than now, when, alas! it is an error overspreading, as a snare, the whole earth; and on this great occasion, when it is natural for one who is in my place to look out upon the world, and upon Holy Church as in it, and upon her future, it will not, I hope, be considered out of place, if I renew the protest against it which I have made so often.

Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy. {65} Devotion is not necessarily founded on faith. Men may go to Protestant Churches and to Catholic, may get good from both and belong to neither. They may fraternise together in spiritual thoughts and feelings, without having any views at all of doctrine in common, or seeing the need of them. Since, then, religion is so personal a peculiarity and so private a possession, we must of necessity ignore it in the intercourse of man with man. If a man puts on a new religion every morning, what is that to you? It is as impertinent to think about a man’s religion as about his sources of income or his management of his family. Religion is in no sense the bond of society.

Saint John Henry Newman, pray for us.

After the conclusion of a recent conference in Seoul I had a fortunate if brief opportunity of making a pilgrimage to some of the sites of martyrdom of the Korean saints of the 19th century. The devotion to these saints plays a great role in Korean Catholicism – as does that of the 16th -17th century English martyrs in the Catholic Church in England. And these martyrs are not just known to the Catholic population. Official guides to the city of Seoul prominently feature several pilgrimages to the shrines of the martyrs and they are recognized as national historic sites.

The Catholic church of Korea has the perhaps unique distinction of being founded by laymen and women. They had heard of Christianity from literature coming from China and an active Catholic community was flourishing decades before any regular presence of Catholic priests in the country. Soon, however, fierce official resistance developed. From 1791 till the end of the 19th century, some 10,000 Catholics were martyred in Korea. 103 of these martyrs were canonized in 1984; a further 124 were beatified in 2014.

A lengthy subway ride from the central business areas brings us to the Jeoldusan martyrs shrine. Here some 29 martyrs were beheaded in 1866 (Jeoldusan mens “beheading hill”). As is often the case in Korea, the modern Catholic artwork is of indifferent quality and the church of the martyrs itself is uninspiring. Yet there is a remarkable museum with documents and relics of those days. And the shrine is set in a park conducive to meditation.

(Above) A second site of martyrdom is located not too far from the main railroad station. Subsequent to the time of the martyrdoms, Yakhyeon church, the oldest Catholic church building in Korea, was erected here in 1892. The architect was a French missionary.

Myeong-dong cathedral is located in a downtown shopping district and was the first parish church in Korea. The present building was consecrated in 1898. In 1900 the relics of martyrs killed in the persecutions of 1839 and 1866 were moved here. Like the previous two churches the cathedral is built on a hill.

by Father Richard Gennaro Cipolla

[T]his is the title—“When ‘Priest Marries Nun’”–  for an Op-Ed piece written by a man who is the son of a Catholic priest and a Catholic nun who were married fifty years ago.  In this piece the son describes their decision to get married. His mother had already left her teaching Order. But his father was still a priest, on leave from his parish.  His father decided to marry his mother as a Catholic priest without receiving a dispensation from the obligations of his ordination. His father said: “We believe in the goals of the church and love the church deeply…and we believe we are doing this for the good of the church.. I really felt that in order to be true to the Gospel I should enter into the deepest relationship possible for the church.”  His son comments that by this his father meant marriage, not the celibate priesthood. 

Towards the end of the article the son comments:

As a historian of American religion and no longer a practicing Catholic, I have developed some distance on my parents’ story.  I have far less of a stake than they do in the future of vocations they left behind. Whether the ranks of priests and nuns continue to decline or somehow return again to the kind of flourishing that made them the significant cultural markers they remain, I will watch with interest, comparing their rise and fall with that of other religious groups that have experienced similar trajectories.

Those of us who lived through those times—this was 1969—remember all too well the turmoil of those days, both in the secular world and in the Catholic Church.  Freedom was the words of the day, freedom to be whomever I want.  The sexual revolution was an important part of what happened.  It was in many ways a revolt against what was seen as the rigid past. In the Church, seminaries emptied, monasteries and convents followed suit, Catholic worship turned itself inside out, forgetting what liturgical worship means, and instead imitating Protestant worship in the worst possible way.  All of this exposed the shallowness of the Church in faith and practice in those days following World War II that some still want to see as “golden days” of Catholicism.  In the end, what happened to the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council—which was co-temporaneous with the secular revolution of the 1960s—was not merely a part of the 1960s phenomenon: it was the inability of the Church to respond to the challenges of those heady years, because the Church could not, would not, sift through the spirit of those times, to see what was true and what was not, and instead in her own, albeit weak and sometimes silly, way tried to open herself up to the “winds” of change.  The rest is history.  The sharp decline in vocations to the priesthood and the religious life.  The trivialization of her worship life.  Then the terrible sexual scandals of the thirty years following the Council, which scandals—pace the secular press and the dishonest of the hierarchy—involved priests preying almost exclusively on young boys, not girls, which in no way lessens the crimes against girls and women perpetrated by clergy of all ranks. But that is the fact. The failure of the hierarchy to come to terms with an entrenched homosexual culture within the clergy that not only defiled the vow of celibacy but also allowed the flourishing of a subculture that ate at the very heart of the Church.  The fall of the erstwhile Cardinal McCarrick so very recently shows clearly the persistence of this subculture that poisons the Church.  In this regard the cynic may ask:  why did not McCarrick have a church trial?  

I wrote a piece shortly after Pope Francis’ election in which I characterized the future under Francis as “back to the future”.  I believed—and still do—that the Church would be forced to undergo the 1960s all over again. The pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI were successful—the former more than the latter—in stanching the wounds opened up after the Second Vatican Council.  But those for whom the immediate post-Conciliar days were days of glory and freedom—for themselves, not for the Church—went underground.  After the current Pope’s election they have all come once again into the light of day and have promoted with vigor what they see as the unfinished business of the “Spirit of Vatican II”, and they have been joined by new converts, mostly from Northern Europe, to the establishment of a Catholic Church made in their own secular and un-Catholic image.  The Instrumentum Laboris of the Amazon Synod is a classic document that reveals quite clearly the agenda of those living in the past of the 1960s.  The silence of the bishops with very few exceptions as this agenda unfolds is disheartening at best. The conflict has nothing to do with conservatism versus liberalism, in the political sense.  It has to do with Tradition, as understood by the Catholic Church, versus that liberalism in religion that John Henry Newman, about to be canonized, fought against his whole life.

If I were to speak to the son of the married priest and nun who wrote today’s Op-Ed piece, I would agree that the Church has indeed “seen better days” and is not in good shape today. But I would point out to him two things. The answer to the Church’s problems today is not to become a mirror image of the Episcopal Church, the quintessential example of what happens when Christians forget who they are within the Tradition of the Church whose Head is Jesus Christ and instead embrace that form of liberalism that is incompatible with the Christian faith.  Rather the answer is what is happening this evening at my local parish church.  The young pastor is going to offer his first Solemn Mass in the Traditional Roman Rite  celebrating the External Solemnity of the patron of the parish, St. Pius X.  And his curate is the Deacon of the Mass. And the parish music director has learned the Propers and Ordinary of the Mass and will be an integral part of this wonderful event, as will priests in choir, and, most importantly,  the congregation.  That, dear son of a priest and a nun, that is the answer.

(You may see photographs of the Mass to which the author refers above and HERE. )

From the inimitable Msgr. Charles Pope:

A Modest Proposal

A few bishops in our country have adopted a stance that I think can help. It involves teaching the faithful and encouraging — but not requiring — priests to adopt certain practices designed to foster greater reverence, more solemn demeanor and increased focus.

For example, a few bishops have informed their priests that they may gradually reintroduce the ad orientem stance for the Eucharistic Prayer.

The same can be said for the gentle reintroduction of other pious traditions, such as kneeling for Holy Communion and receiving on the tongue, restoring altar rails, the wider use of Latin, and more silence.

It’s going to be a long journey. I realize that some who read this will say, “Why don’t we just admit that the Mass of 1970 was a failure and put everything back the way it was — now!” But that just isn’t realistic. The ordinary form is here to stay; more than 90% of Catholics attend Mass in the ordinary form. Parishes are diverse, and people have differing sensibilities. Within this complex reality, it is prudent to reintroduce things gradually and by way of offering more options. It is an important step toward loosening the grip of the liturgical police and permitting greater freedom to pastors and parishes under the guidance of their bishops who, I pray, will see wisdom in this gentle way forward. SOURCE

Notwithstanding that Msgr Pope recognizes that after 40+ years the “reform of the reform” has been a total failure: The once-hoped-for “reform of the reform,” wherein the ordinary form could retain advantageous aspects, such as the new lectionary and a wider use of the vernacular while benefiting from the reintroduction of a more reverent ars celebrandi, a healthy dose of Latin, wider use of kneeling for the reception of Holy Communion, and the ad orientem stance for the Eucharistic prayer, seems to have stalled.

Notwithstanding that the current supreme pontiff has specifically rejected these practices and has actually prohibited the use of the term “reform of the reform.”

Notwithstanding that the principal advocate of this approach, Benedict XVI, was able to accomplish absolutely nothing in this direction in the course of his pontificate.

Notwithstanding that the existence in Europe of selected but prominent churches (e.g., those of the Oratorians in the UK, major baroque churches and cathedrals in South Germany and Austria) that celebrate Novus Ordo liturgies which retain many of the trappings of the Traditional Mass has done nothing to prevent an even more rapid collapse of the faith there than in the US.

But on the bright side – and truly solid ground for hope: am I to deduce from Msgr. Pope’s remarks that he believes that up to 10% of Catholics now attend Mass in the extraordinary form? That’s an amazing shift in a little over ten years!

By Susan-Jayne F. Caballero

As so with all of the liturgical arts, sacred vestments are essentially permanently fixed in our view while we attend Mass and we are reminded of their historical importance. Until the Seventeenth Century, the term “man of the cloth” meant any man with a designated work uniform but eventually applied only to clergy. There’s something dignified and instinctively symbolic, with Christ, His Church and the linens that serve their Divine purpose in the Mass. Sacred vestments become a living memorial and are highly tangible to our senses as they move about with the priests who wear them in persona Christi. They soak in the fragrance of incense, offer beauty in colorful symbolic motifs and feel rich to the touch with the luster and gentility of finely woven natural fibers.

This very functional contact with humanity is a beautiful mystery when contemplating Christ clothed with the very finest offering the earth can provide. Naturally, it’s nearly impossible to explore the entire development of sacred vestments in one sitting. However, a succinct focus that comes to mind is presented through the redemptive work going on all over the world to lovingly save sacred vestments in disrepair. Miraculously, many fine vintage sets are still employed at Mass, and more hands are being offered in prayer to assist with care and maintenance, Deo Gratias!

While vintage pieces are studied and restored, new creations move the story to the next chapter in a continuous thread of technique, devotion and tradition. The truth is, all kinds of varieties of ecclesiastical tailoring, lacemaking, woven cloth, embellishment and decoration are alive and well in several areas across the globe. Particularly interesting is the beautiful bridge between textile décor and sacred vestments. Nothing brings forth more joy than when I see synergies emerge between the two as they have throughout history. Tradition intersects now with technology, and a simplicity exists in a unique way. Artisans and vendors of all kinds connect domestically and internationally via instantaneous means of communication. Possibilities are endless with the right prayerful optimism and a fearless effort to preserve or revive traditional techniques, specialty machines and vestment-specific materials so they thrive rather than vanish.

Restoration demands a certain discipline of patience and generosity for cost and timing. Tradition is timeless, but labor and materials are fixed, albeit rather multifaceted. A melting pot of women religious, priests, organized sewing guilds, vendors and artisans of all kinds are rising up in unison to lead the charge to resurrect or preserve time-honored techniques and devotional practices for crafting and caring for sacred vestments and liturgical linens used daily—and with rigor.

Just recently, I had the privilege of visiting the fine women of the esteemed Saint Martha’s Guild of Saint John Cantius Church in Chicago. They serve Christ by taking excellent care restoring vintage vestments, crafting new sets and repairing daily clerical attire for the good Canons Regular of Saint John Cantius parish. After my brief sojourn in their midst, I am left with a type of healing inspiration and a reassurance of everything I believe in regarding restoration of the sacred. 

The pieces literally fused together while learning about the Polish professor saint. One of his miracles in particular connected the dots for me.  Upon returning a shattered pot of water to a distraught poor woman who had dropped it by accident, Saint John Cantius gave it back to her in perfect condition and filled with milk, something more precious than water. Not only reminiscent of Jesus’ first miracle, it’s a powerful metaphor for restoring all things sacred. There I was, surrounded by hands that exist to serve, and each one of us with our own shattered pot (or two) to share. Transfixed before me in this little workroom, I was likewise surrounded by decades of sacred vestments patiently waiting to be returned to their original splendor and each with countless Masses served at the behest of countless men of the cloth. The threads of continuity had woven a timeless narrative of redemption.

 While great moments of producing bespoke, old-world, artisan craft exists, undoubtedly the fervor will continue to gain momentum as we experience rising numbers of traditional priests and priestly fraternities, women’s orders and laity alike. 

Glimpses of the reverent past seem to inspire a wide audience as much as they always have. It’s no secret that we draw up new ideas while honoring those from antiquity where an obvious truth was infused alongside aesthetic. A certain Neo-Renaissance is creating a platform for restoring the sacred, and the family of liturgical arts are working in tandem with the hard work of our priests and sisters on the front line bringing souls to Christ and nurturing authentic Catholic identity.