Religion

The greatly inspiring but now defunct Caelum et Terra journal was, for a time, the pre-eminent “crunchy Catholic” magazine in the English language. In a new blog by the same name, a former editor of the journal describes the C & T vision thus:

“Let me just free-associate for a moment: our vision was (and is) mystical, contemplative, distributist, agrarian, sacramental, ecumenical, aesthetic, traditionalist, and progressive. Note the last two: there are significant political differences among us, but we all believe that the Catholic faith is simultaneously the most conservative and the most revolutionary force on earth. And we agree that there really is a culture of death growing in the world, and that Christianity naturally tends toward the development of a culture of life.”

Seattle Catholic today links to this article by Fr. Hugh Thwaites, S.J. here:

“When people forget about Original Sin, they are unaware of the chronic weakness of our intellect and wills, and of our chronic tendency to slide into error and sin. Our faith needs a frequent input of doctrinally nourishing liturgy if it is to stay pure. The traditional rite of Mass provided this. The new rite does not.

There is nothing wrong with the new rite. Rome cannot feed her children with poison. But the new rite of Mass does not give us what we need. Michael Davies’ analogy is helpful here. If a doctor tells a couple that their child need milk every day, and they give the child only water, the child may not live. There is nothing wrong with water. But if the child needs milk, water may not be enough.

A Waverly Concert Christmas is absolutely the best Christmas / New Year recording ever. A rare and priceless treasure, I tell you truly. Play it all year ’round, each time leaving behind modernity and all its pomps and works and ways.

I think I’ve figured it out. The religion of the masses, that is. It is Comfort. All the strange and seemingly disconnected ideologies, from vegetarianism to pacifism to socialism to fascism to capitalism to environmentalism and all the rest, the common denominator is Comfort - that is, Comfort for the elect, whomever or whatever the elect happens to be.

Pulling into the driveway one evening, I knew my 8-year-old daughter had country in her genes:

Amy: “Do you know what, Daddy?”

“To most men loneliness is a doom. It is imposed upon the criminal as the heaviest of punishments; carried to extremes we know it will drive him mad; nothing seems to unman a man as the loneliness of a prison cell. Even for those who are not criminals, nothing so wrings pity from a human heart as the sight of another who is utterly alone. Loneliness to men is the very ghost of life, dogging their steps, haunting them at every turn, from which they are always trying to escape. It cannot be fought, it cannot be avoided, yet there is nothing many more dread for themselves, or see with more concern in others.

Men — especially married men — should refrain from dreaming about a Perfect Wife. The wife God gave you is perfect for you: that should be enough. Nevertheless, if I had to describe the Perfect Wife, her characteristics would look like this …

First and foremost, the perfect wife will be a Catholic who is serious about pursuing holiness. She’ll make frequent use of the Sacrament of Penance and will get the children to a mid-week Mass whenever possible.

The perfect wife will also be feminine. In the immortal words of Rogers and Hammerstein, she’ll be a “girly, womanly, female, feminine dame”. She’ll be neither “frumpy” nor “flashy” in her dress and conduct, but simple and elegant. She’ll wear her hair and her skirts long enough to be pretty.

I was going to title this post “Schism and Mental Illness” because my latest encounters with schismatic trads have left me wondering if there isn’t some kind of intrinsic link. For instance, why is it that every schismatic I meet wants to be my spiritual director? I have a spiritual director, thank you. The last straw was when one such fellow, clearly no saint, finally got around to telling me that his own suffering (much of it self-inflicted) is really for the salvation of other sinners like me. He wanted me to thank him, I suppose.

But then, of course, it must be acknowledged that schism does not always lead to religious insanity (Bishop Bernard Fellay of the SSPX seems to be genuinely sane), and that the company of non-schismatics contains no shortage of lunatics either. So this post will have to take another direction.

“I have always believed that there is a certain kind of Catholic (mostly male and mostly heterosexual), acutely aware of his own sinfulness, for whom AmChurch will just never get the job done. If there had been no old rite to come back to I think Gibson would have jumped out that window he talked about. There should be much to ponder in this phenomenon for the leaders of our Church. The kind of Catholicism that brought a Hollywood superstar to his knees does not include Fr. Bob and his Eucharistic harem.”

- David Kubiak, commenting at Open Book here.

I’ve been reading the articulate and punchy Elinor Dashwood lately. Naturally, I’ve never said anything to her about enjoying her blog, but have waited until I have something to complain about. (So much for that chivalrous and gentlemanly image I’ve been cultivating …)

Actually I don’t really have a complaint, just an observation and some questions. She’s been arguing with another blogger about male headship, and she seems to imply that male headship isn’t defined doctrine. Mrs Dashwood writes:

“The point is that this Aranda person continues to write as if what he vaguely describes as a ‘traditional teaching’ is the same thing as a defined doctrine. What can I say? It isn’t. Don’t take my word for it, bubbeleh, read the Catechism.”

A reply to Shawn McElhinney:

“Authentic Traditionalism is not found in externals Jeff. It is akin to an authentic observation of the Law which Our Lord commanded and which those who were obsessed with external rituals (i.e. Pharisees) did not react to well.”

Catholicism requires externals, Shawn. Lex orandi, lex credendi. But I don’t recall anyone here advocating a restoration in externals alone. Indeed, the compromised externals we are living with today signify a catastrophic decline of belief.

“This is not to say that those attending the Latin mass are Pharisees of course; however, the attachment to externals to the extent many of them have is not spiritually healthy.”

I. Shawn McElhinney, combining the insights of theology and philosophy, takes on the enemies of Catholic print shops everywhere in his latest commentary. As always, Shawn’s treatment is comprehensive and thought provoking.

While I greatly appreciate his stalwart defense of my rights as a printer, nevertheless I am uncomfortable with the classical liberal formulations that seem to cement his argument. He writes:

“For one cannot demand liberty for a particular faculty for themselves which they then turn around and deny to others: this stance is blatantly hypocritical … if one demands liberty for their own conscience, then they must extend the same to the consciences of others who do not agree with them. Thus, the homosexual activists who would appeal to not being coerced against their conscience -by enemies either real or imagined- cannot be credible in their complaints if they are hypocritically trying to coerce the consciences of those who do not agree with them.”

A new blogger asks, “Why is it that some Catholics enjoy Latin so much?”:

“I was born in 1966 and so grew up in the post-Vatican 2 church. I went to public school, and we didn’t learn any foreign languages there. And there was no Latin instruction in CCD. So I don’t know a word of Latin. And when Latin is used at Mass, I find myself getting annoyed at not being able to understand, to participate (and I do not go to Mass to be a spectator). It might as well be Arabic, Russian or Chinese. Apart from nostalgia, what’s the attraction? At my former parish we did some statistics and learned the median age was around 37, so half of the people there were essentially born after Vatican 2. If all this sounds like ranting, that’s probably a fair analysis.”

Although contradiction, complexity, and paradox await anyone bold enough to make sweeping generalizations about the generations, a sober assessment of our present circumstances requires that we make them. Richard Weaver traces the slow decline of the West to the nominalism of William of Occam in the 13th century, and perhaps he is right. But in our time the pace of generational decline has been staggering and begs for more of an explanation than Weaver proposes.

The main event of the 20th century is this: the Greatest Generation failed to pass the baton.