The weight of a priest's examen: How will I be judged by history, by God?

Fr. Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" (Assumption Grotto News, April 22, 2018)

Recently I watched a video about the Stalin years in the Soviet Union. It was concerned with the 'other' interest of my life, music. The backdrop to the story is that during the height of the Communist era everything was under the control of the central government which, in turn, meant under Joseph Stalin. In terms of music, there was a Soviet Composer's Union which promoted patriotic, that is, Soviet, themes of national pride, (forced) happiness, and (feigned) comradery among the peoples of the USSR. Along with this artificially induced patriotism there was a suppression of any music which was deemed modernistic or, in the language of the day, formalistic. By this means of name-labeling, certain composers of modern music were held in check by Soviet controls. The man Stalin appointed to head this union of composers was the subject of the DVD I saw. In the historical footage he was shown at the height of his power delivering inflated fustian (pompous talking) about the high ideals of Soviet nationalistic music with condemnation of types of music that were being performed in those decadent western countries (such as the USA). At the time of the making of the DVD, the Soviet empire had collapsed and this same man who had once been Stalin's appointee was being interviewed. It was a sad spectacle, in some ways. Now that the great Enemy (Communism) had been defeated, what was one to say for having stood by, complicit in the oppressive Soviet system, an accomplice in fact of the brutal Stalinist regime? Thus was the man interviewed in the post-Soviet era.

This DVD affected me greatly, not only because of the musical interest I had in it but also because of the significance it holds for me as a priest in those disturbing times. What will history say about us, and about me specifically, when at some future time the Church will have settled down (God grant it!) and there will be a return to orthodoxy and sanity in the Church? I imagine an interviewer questioning me about what I was doing and not doing during those years (the present time) and why I had not been more outspoken about abuses in the Church, about the failure of the hierarchy to defend Christ's truth and their contentment to be silent bystanders as corruption rotted away the faith and morals of the Catholic faithful. "How come you, Father Perrone, did not come out and speak more forcefully against the tidal wave of corruption?" This is the question I imagine being posed to me in some future time. The dilemma for me now, as it was for many in the Communist era, is whether it is prudent to be vocal in condemnation or in working in more subtle, behind-the-scenes ways. Prudence is needed to know how much to say at a given time and when to say it. Should, for example, I have spoken out any more forthrightly against things such as contraception, gay 'marriage,' or the troubling messages purportedly made by Pope Francis? Have I been wimpy? Certainly, at the moment many priests and bishops in our country have been anywhere from timid to cooperative in the evil things taking place in our day. What then will happen when this era will have passed and history will pass its judgment upon them? While I wonder about this I am particularly disturbed about what will be leveled against me for not having been a more outstanding critic and defender of truth.

I know of priests who have stood apart and been bold to challenge the mediocrity of our leadership. They have suffered the consequences of their valor. But in the end, and especially in view of the Last Judgment, I wonder how will I stand against accusations of my moderation or my cowardice. Will I be deemed a betrayer of moral and religious truth? Do I need to be more clear or forceful to make my parishioners comprehend doctrinal truth and to practice Catholic living? Or am I failing them by my weakness?

It's always difficult to assess oneself in the present moment, to know that one is pursuing the right path. If I were to deliver a weekly diatribe against the evils of our time in the world and in the Church, would I have been acting rightly? Or are my people already in the know and I only need to be subtly nuanced in condemning errors and the deceptions that cause many to err? I recall Saint John Paul II's first address to the world after his election: "Do not be afraid!"

This reflection of mine also concerns you as parents, citizens of this country, and members of the Catholic Church. How much must you be a vocal "witness"? If you speak up imprudently you may do more harm than good. If you fail to act at all you may be betraying Christ. This is the dilemma.

God's mercy is for this life. When we will finally appear before God's judgment seat, we should expect only justice, what is neither too lenient nor too severe. Each will get exactly what is his due, not more or less, according to what he has done or failed to do.

Wile we have time in this life let us do as much good as we can and repair for our evils. And let us not fear to help our relatives and neighbours to do the same. Much is expected of us.

Fr. Perrone

David French: on consentual sex

The carrier pigeon didn't even land. It just dropped its little wad of a message like pigeon poop. But there it was at my feet. Guy Noir - Private Eye, again. My underground correspondent from God knows where: somewhere 'stealthy.'

"For some reason, David French — like Peggy Noonan and Elizabeth Scalia — often annoys. But here he is right on," he wrote, in what looked like quill point squiggly ink lines.

The link he included led to this: David French, "A morality based only on consent results in sexual oppression" (National Review, October 15, 2017). Amen to that.

Fr. Perrone: how the majesty of Mary can preserve our reverence for God

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" [temporary file] (Assumption Grotto News, August 27, 2017):

On our patronal feast day we were glat to see once again some of the religious of the Holy Cross Order who spent the day with us. One of the perks in being a pastor is the reception of gifts by visitors, and on this occasion I gratefully accepted from the nuns a delicious loaf of homemade spelt bread, some fine chocolates, and a biography of the woman who was the impetus for the Work of the Holy Angels, one Mother Gabriele. The little book is entitled God Is Good, evidently a favorite motto of the holy lady.

I confess that I have always found that phrase somewhat of a trifle. After all, isn't the most obvious, minimalistic thing to say about God that He is good? (Would anyone ever have thought God to be bad?) Of course, the intended meaning of asserting God's goodness is much more than its face-value meaning, for it conveys also His mercy, love, generosity, and much else. The words in question are found in the sacred scriptures, almost as a recurring refrain: "Give thanks to the Lord for He is good." And so, I withdraw my petty objection in humble assent to the word of God which proclaims that He "is good."

My discomfort with that expression was due to something I once grumbled about in a sermon, to wit, that for many God is too little, too small. These are they who undervalue the immensity of Infinite Being; who regard Him casually as their chum, a great gift-giving Giveaway, who dismisses human crimes as mere peccadillos. By such standards He doesn't much care how we talk to Him or about Him, or what clothes we may wear in His Presence. He's no big deal, loving us no matter what, and, sure as He is God, will usher everybody into heaven in the end.

This undue familiarity with and distorted view of the Almighty reduces His size and recklessly ascribes to His all-good nature the dismissal of any consequences for sin. This is the "no-fault," non-judgmental, PC mindset that has formed the moral criteria for the millennial generation and which has affected even those of a more venerable age who ought to know better.

Recently I have been reading The Mystical City of God, a life of the Virgin Mary by the Venerable Mary of Agreda. It's not a book (or rather series of books) for everyone's reading. I would definitely not recommend it to those who have no tolerance or appreciation for mystical discourse: they would find it odious or bewildering. I mention this work because of the portrait of the Virgin Mary which emerges from it. She is a being of such unspeakable, divine-bestowed excellence as to astound the mind over the prodigy of grace and virtue which ennobles Her perfectly saintly life. In coming to know Mary through these prodigious divine endowments, one becomes so much more appreciative not only of who She is in truth but also of who God Himself must be. Put in the context of what is written above, 'God is goo' has a meaning that so far transcends the ability of the intellect as to make one conclude that all one can ever come to know of God, even by the most brilliant of minds, is closer to knowing nothing than to have knowledge. God is that big!

In the practical order this means that the God who is my pal, my buddy, is an offensive caricature, and that His indulgence towards sinners in an unfathomable reach of divine condescension for which no one ought ever to be presuming. On the devotional level, this has made me realize once again that the more one knows the greatness of the Holy Virgin Mary, the better one comes to know God; and the more one effaces himself before the divine Majesty the more one begins to know Him and to see Her as the finest jewel in all His handiwork.

My final word on this is to say that it is important that you pray to God reverentially (not that one needs high-falutin' words); that you dress modestly and decorously for Holy Mass; that you feel deep contrition for your sins, and so on. It is also important to place Our Lady in the uniquely high place She occupies in reality, in the sight of God. And if She is that holy of holies which houses God, and if He is unutterable Infinite Being, we ought to be very much more reverential in our manners before the mysteries of God, of Mary, and indeed of all things we hold in the creed of the Catholic Church.

Does your estimation of things divine perhaps need a little stretching?

Fr. Perrone

When an Oxford Don goes rogue and comes out in support of traditional marriage and family values

I understand Oxford Don Richard Swinburne created quite a stir when he addressed the Midwest meeting of the Society of Christian Philosophers last fall. "The difficulty," according to The Editors of First Things, was that in the course of exploring these topics, Swinburne characterized homosexuality as a “disability” and a condition that, while sometimes “to a considerable extent reversible,” in many instances is “incurable,” given the present state of medical research.

The Editors continue:

Given the current state of public life and the stringency of academic moral codes in favor of diversity and tolerance, it will be no surprise to our readers that the president of the Society of Christian Philosophers, Michael Rea, subsequently expressed his “regret regarding the hurt caused by” Swinburne’s paper, suggesting that Swinburne’s ideas were inconsistent with the Society’s “values of diversity and inclusion.”

Rea’s message has triggered a reaction on the other side. So far the situation has been commented on by Joseph Shaw, Edward Feser, and Rod Dreher, along with eighty-seven philosophers who signed a letter of protest against the principles implied in Rea’s apology. We at First Things were curious about the paper that prompted all the to-do, and so we asked Professor Swinburne whether he would be willing to let us make his paper available. He has generously agreed.

You can read it here [PDF download].

Here is a video of Swinburne's live presentation:

Fr. Perrone: can Pope Francis change immutable truths?

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" (Assumption Grotto News, March 26, 2017):

The greatest intellectual deception is to subvert the natural gravitation of the mind towards truth to admit falsehood. There are many ways to swindle people's thinking -- and -- with their consent. Bad philosophy is replete with errors of such kind. That's the "high end" of this strange but not uncommon phenomenon. The willful succumbing to untruth is more ubiquitous in the area of morals. Many want to believe that what is not true would be true. A sinner may wish to justify himself in his own eyes, to convince himself that he acts well, that his conscience is giving him leave to commit his sins.

Pope Francis has raised quite a ruckus in the Church with his proposals that some couples in invalid marriages (or even in none at all, as cohabitors) be permitted while in such states to receive the sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion. I have refrained from writing on this because the matter is such an embarrassment. I decided however to reverse this blithe turning aside from the subject simply because the issue is, regrettably, public news, and because there is as yet no official resolution to the dilemmas it poses for the Church or for the minds and manners of of our people. So here come I, foolish and consciously incompetent, who dare to make commentary. I do so only for the care I have for what I believe to be troubled minds beset by confusion and for concern that scandal may lead you to sin.

All the years of my rational life I have believed that truth is immutable, unchangeable. As a Christian I have believed that the word of God contained in the Church's teaching authority and in the Holy Scriptures contains that truth so that it can be known and accepted by mankind. Moreover, I find therein such phrases: "thou shalt not commit adultery"; "whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery"; "what partnership have righteousness and iniquity?" "neither the immoral nor adulterers will inherit the kingdom of God"; "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup unworthily will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." Those words (others might be brought forth as well) are to me crystal clear. When however I hear the Pope's suggestions I am put into confusion. It's not only that what is proffered there is in conflict with what I read in the scriptures and the magisterium but that the same issues from a pope. Do we Catholics not believe that, besides being infallible in matters of faith and morals when he teaches in a solemn and public manner, the pope may also be infallible in his ordinary teaching under certain conditions (such being the doctrine enunciated by Pope Pius XII)? Even more, is not every Catholic obliged to show deference to papal teaching even in non-infallible matters since he is the Church's universal teacher and guardian of the deposit of faith which Christ bequeathed to the Church through His apostles? Can the pope be in error not merely as a private individual but in his public teaching. I am conflicted. Perhaps you are as well.

Self doubt ensues. Have I been wrong all my life to believe that what was taught me as truth and what my reason readily asserts to as being truth has been wrong all along? Or, perhaps was it right in the time past but that God now, without changing truth, is accommodating Himself to these evil times -- lowering the bar, so to speak -- to allow a more generous salvation for unrepentant sinners? Further, would this new leniency, if it be admitted, not dispense from moral laws more widely, permitting transgressors full access to the Communion? I'm thinking of murderers, abortionists, torturers, sodomites, self-abusers, prostitutes and pornographers among others who could Confess without an intention of amendment, be absolved, and Communicate? Can there in fact be any limits to a newfound exemption from the moral law? Will then all be saved, without moral obligations, even against their wills?

Such are my thoughts until I'm reminded of a wily voice once heard in the garden. "Did God really say not to eat of the forbidden fruit?" No. I can't submit the judgment of conscience in what is certainly the truth to anything contrary to it no matter who may propose it. Of course, I can be in error on many things, and if I do err, either in principles or in the logic of my thought, I need to be corrected for the amendment of my life and for the salvation of my soul. Yet, if I'm right ...

Kindly understand. I do not think I'm the Pope's judge. God is. The change in pastoral practice being suggested by Pope Francis and others needs to be worked out in the great areana of theological debate by those competent by dint of their position in the Church and their erudition. It's unfortunate, in my view, that these matters were made public and not brought to resolution behind closed doors. Since the media have spared neither you nor me the anguish of airing (and erring) of them we must wait patiently for the truth to surface. In the meantime, I write to you out of care for this little flock entrusted to me to remind you of the inflexibility of God's word -- of the word of Him who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

My parting word. Love the Pope and pray for him. Even if he be in error (as once was the first pope Saint Peter when he made pretense in refusing to take meals with Gentiles) Pope Francis is yet the holy father, the lawfully elected head of the Church. He intends good, not evil. We owe him respect. Pray also for the good of the Church and the triumph of the truth. Our Lord promised to be with us all days, even unto the consummation of the world.

Fr. Perrone

P.S. Laetare Sunday reminds us to be joyful, even in the midst of Lent.

"The Download - Advice for Seminarians"

This is just a "Trailer." I've seen the original half-hour-long discussion which is interesting and, on the whole, quite helpful, with a some notable insights.

Obergefell as "Übercollapse" -- The failure of fornication as a path to happiness, two generations and counting ...

Guy Noir - Private Eye shot me an email 9 hours ago with the subject line: "Post-Obergefell Remedial Reading." Indeed. He writes: James Morgan at CRISIS has one of the better answers to the consternation surrounding the Gay Marriage decision. He offers a needed corrective to extended commentaries that engage the Constitution and Religious Liberty but the hardly touch on topic of sex. The greatest compliment I can pay his words is that they made me want to go find my old copy of Christopher Derrick's Sex and Sacredness: A Catholic Homage to Venus. And Peter Kreeft's Making Choices: Practical Wisdom for Everyday Moral Decisions. Both books seemed close to containing words on fire when I first read them. Yet I also recall Kreeft's pointing to Derrick, when he initially wrote 20 some years ago, and remarking even then that even as he himself assigned S & S as required book, his students would routinely register blank uncomprehension at its central theses. So the seeds of our present destruction had been strewn that long ago... But here is Morgan. I don't agree with every word, but there is this incisive commentary [Noir's emphases]:

...the true losers in Obergefell are the same as in Windsor: those experiencing same-sex attraction. The blessing is that, post Obergefell, there is no more political frenzy to cover over sadness of soul. Those in homosexual relationships will have to face the hard facts of their lifestyle. Many have already suffered under the normative lie that homosexuality can bring happiness, and many more will suffer now that this lie has been quite literally wedded to state power. Those now given the imprimatur of the federal government on the dead-end slavery of sin—and the children who are condemned to witness this slow-motion destruction of human dignity firsthand—are the true sacrificial victims in this war. If we were not praying for them before, let us start doing so today....

Hence, the fourth blessing: not only are we called to love, but we are now given the chance to demonstrate it in a very real way. The homosexual activists consistently ground their concept of love in two places: the body itself, and the way the body feels. The glittery bacchanalia that started in the Age of Aquarius and has now culminated in Obergefell thus has a very narrow conception of love. For the sensualists, love is an adjunct to the personality. Love gives our sexual identities purchase and heft. It dispels loneliness, assuages fear, and makes us feel better about ourselves. But does love do anything besides fill the vessel of the ego? One need but look at the Cross to know. Love is kenotic. It dies to itself. It lays down its life for the sake of the wayward other. It counts no cost, reckons no reward, holds no grudge. It pours itself out in unmerited bounty for all alike. Love dwindles to nothingness so that others might have eternal life. It is not the self, but the very negation of the self.

Seen this way, the Obergefell conception of love can never rise into the upper reaches of our beings. Obergefell love sinks like carbon dioxide in a room, huddling around the homely flesh and fleeting emotions that are the twenty-first century’s poor substitutes for the full promise of the human person. The homosexual activists find this sort of love so unfulfilling that they are forcing three hundred million people to pay homage to it in order to distract from its failure to bring enduring happiness. But regardless of how many hundreds of millions applaud the abstract idea, homosexuality is doomed to be love’s opposite: the tragic amputation of sexual desire from the deep wells of the soul—the mere mutual slaking of animal lust. This love will never satisfy, and we must not abandon our brothers and sisters to the hell they now festoon with the rainbow of God’s covenant. In their orgiastic celebrations, the homosexual activists are crying out for real, transformative love.

Fifth, Obergefell is a chance for repenting of the greatest sexual failure of our generation: not homosexuality, but fornication. For every lost soul searching fruitlessly for love in a gay bar, how many hundreds more are de facto polygamists or polyandrists, shuttling from one wrecked relationship to the next, and increasingly numb to the lies that he or she is telling with body, words, and heart? If there is any moral high ground in the debate over sexual ethics, I for one am utterly unworthy of approaching it. I will stand, instead, beside the gutter from which God’s Grace rescued me, the better to remember, at the very least, who is holy in all of this, and who is made holy thereby. In a very real way, those with same-sex attraction have been fighting, at least in part, for the right to be as flamboyantly promiscuous as all the rest of us. Let us see who among us will dare to cast the first stone.

New Life from Dead Liberalism

Sixth, the majority opinion in Obergefell was a stunning admission of the intellectual poverty of late-stage liberalism. Proceeding by breezy judicial fiat was the only recourse open to the United States Supreme Court, for in seeking to legitimate the paradox of homosexual marriage they could make no honest appeal to reason, truth, Scripture, tradition, common sense, biology, or the natural law. They simply had to harden their hearts and wave their magic wands. Obergefell makes shockingly apparent the impossibility of forming any sort of community based on what is, at the very best, finely-tuned mutual antagonism. Justice Anthony Kennedy therefore has the distinction of having written, not the most insidious or disingenuous opinion in the history of the court (Roger Taney, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Harry Blackmun, and Henry Billings Brown must all outdo Kennedy in this regard), but the silliest. The linty non-sense of the Obergefell decision is a tremendous boon for a United States now coming to the extremities of an unsustainable philosophy. By dint of sheer hokeyness, the Obergefell majority opinion should be enough to wake whole battalions from their intellectual torpor.

Fr. Perrone on the conclusion of Our Lady's Month of May, Trinity Sunday (& God's honor), and Corpus Christi Sunday

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" [temporary link] (Assumption Grotto News, May 31, 2015:

We bid farewell to Our Lady’s month and on Monday will commence the month of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. I have particularly enjoyed May this year. So often spring passes me by with little recognition of its charms. In years past I have, in the midst of summer, looked back and wondered where the lovely month of Holy Mary had gone with ever so little a thought of it. Like the beautiful Lady that She is, this is nature’s youthful beauty, its life-giving potency to the earth being a reminder of the fruitfulness of Mary’s womb. Perhaps it’s due to the severity of this past winter that I have been more determined to savor the delights of spring this year; or maybe it’s because I’m getting older and know that, with life’s years more spent than ahead, I need to be more thoughtful of God’s largess. Modern life is far too fast and superficial to appreciate the good things of God. I want to slow the pace a bit to take better notice.

This somewhat lyrical introduction brings me to the mystery of the Blessed Trinity celebrated in the Church today. It too takes considered time in order to savor the thought of God in Himself, a community of Persons. If we have no time for God’s created natural wonders neither will we have any thoughts of Him; the more so of Him as the Trinity.

No one comes to the Father but through Christ. No one is in Christ but through the Holy Spirit. I fear that few then come to God at all. Indeed, God is transcendent of necessity, but He is also transcendent in another, disturbing sense. He’s far, far removed from men’s thoughts and He’s far removed from their lives. If I may say so without sounding mawkishly pious, I ‘grieve’ that God is so neglected by His ungrateful, preoccupied creatures. This neglect of God will also be to their own undoing, to their self-harm, a punishment. But that is not my point here. If it be possible to love God purely for His sake, without a care of our own advantage for so doing–and surely this must be possible–then we should desire His “good,” which is to say, that he should have us as His own possession. On Trinity Sunday I want God to be God in the fullness of His divine majesty (which He is inevitably in Himself) in His creatures by their acting as He intended them to act, by giving Him glory by their obedience and love. God can be ‘robbed’ of His (external) glory if He is refused. This ought to cause sadness for those who know and love Him. Psalm 118 (Vulgate): “Issues of tears flow from my eyes because they have not kept Your law.” One must grieve that for all His infinite bounty and benevolence, God is met with indifference, disobedience, and disdain. It may seem silly to say that one is sad over God being snubbed. God’s bigger than that; He can take it, one might say. He however has the right to receive the finest acts of humility and honor that men can offer Him.

I know Trinity Sunday concerns the complex and ever-elusive mystery of one God in three divine Persons, and not just of God simply said. But I can’t help deplore the more fundamental ignorance of Him and the rough treatment He’s getting nowadays–through neglect.

Next Sunday will see another great day of celebration, Corpus Christi. The Latin Mass will be transferred to noon and the 9:30 a.m. Mass will be in the vernacular. Following the noon Mass, there will take place the traditional procession with the Blessed Sacrament. His Majesty permitting, we will then move outdoors to the four altars and impart the blessing with the Sacred Host in the four directions of the compass–the four “ends” of the earth. And here we have a tie-in with what is written above. The Lord must reign and receive due adoration, honor, and praise, at least from us who bear the responsibility of being aware of His Presence in the Holy Sacrament. Our Lord’s expression about Himself in the Holy Eucharist is Living Bread. The bread on your tables at home is a dead, lifeless thing. The Bread of the Holy Sacrament is alive–no mere thing but Himself, conscious of those kneeling before Him, each in his varying degrees of attentiveness, devotion, faith and love. “I am with you always,” He said, “until the consummation of the world.” Assuredly then He is here. Will you be there with Him?

Fr. Perrone

Fr. Perrone on church maintenance, Pentecost, God's grace, and why we can't have a strong Church and heroic saints without moral discipline

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" [temporary link] (Assumption Grotto News, May 17, 2015):

The campus of Assumption Grotto parish is of considerable size. It comprises church, rectory, school, convent, cemetery and its chapel, garage and storage spaces, parking lot, and others grounds. It’s a lot to maintain, especially in view of its age and size. Responsibility for the work of upkeep falls to Don, our full-time maintenance man, and to another part-time employee, Henry, who has been working while taking up his college course of study. Now that Henry must move on to full-time employment, we have a job opening that I’d first hold out to an interested parishioner. If there is a man interested in this job, he should contact me very soon so that we can continue to keep an even tempo (pardon the musical expression) in our plant maintenance. Lacking such a one, I will seek outside help to fill this position.

Next Sunday will be Pentecost. By the grace of the Holy Ghost, rather timid and common men became apostles of Christ and heroic missionaries, even unto their martyrdom. They had been amply prepared for this work through their close association with our Lord who instructed them with divine wisdom and made them privileged witnesses to His deeds. Reading the Gospels, one can’t fail to notice certain signs that proved them ill-prepared for apostleship. It’s one thing to be educated, to be schooled. It’s another to have the practical virtues needed for the work which was the object of preparatory training. And so, after Christ has ascended into heaven, with the apostles bereft of their Master’s visible presence but commanded by Him to evangelize the world, many essential prerequisites were lacking to them. In modern terms, they needed to assimilate all they had come to know of Christ’s work; they needed to memorize His words and comprehend the meaning of His actions. They may have had the enthusiasm of any new man for trying out his newly acquired knowledge, but they would have lacked the needed graces to face bravely the inevitable hardships of their mission. They lacked the courageousness, the fortitude which the Holy Spirit alone could impart to them. There were also at least one practical ability missing in their training: mastery of the world’s languages. Even more important, the things for which Christ had made them His representatives, their sacramental powers and other special abilities needed to convince the world to believe in Christ for salvation, were in them in an inchoate, rudimentary way. Accordingly, for nine days the apostles gathered together with their spiritual Mother, to pray for the coming of the Holy Spirit, who descended upon them to supply what was yet needed to accomplish their mission.

One should not think however that the graces and other gifts endowed upon the apostles required nothing further on their part. God’s working with human nature does not seize human potential so that no human cooperation is necessary. God’s work of grace is an enhancing and perfecting of human capabilities. And so, to the point, the apostles needed to put their human efforts and human talents at the disposition of their apostolic work as well as the gifts imparted to them by the Holy Ghost.

Here I wish to make application to our situation in the Church, both for the clergy (especially) and for our laity (by extension). The Church is a divine institution, as we believe. Christ gave it all that was necessary to save men’s souls, including the deputation of priestly ministers to preach, teach and make the sacraments. These supernatural abilities are received in the souls of priests whose natural training in virtue makes them relatively capable of putting them into effective practice. Where the human receptacles are unfit, grace–aside from a miraculous transformation–will accomplish its purposes with so much less efficacy. More simply put, if we do not have good men who have been trained in virtue by a good moral upbringing, we will not have good priests. The same rule applies by extension to the lay people in the Church. Without good morals we will have bad Catholics....

The sad state of affairs in the Church today cannot be faulted to the inadequacy of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but only to lacking in moral virtues. We won’t have, we can’t have good priests and strong laity without the cultivation of virtue. Essentially lacking today is that courage which comes only from persistent, willful denial to personal sinful tendencies–moral training, in a word. The point: Don’t wait for a “magic” grace to change you into a good Christian. You will win the way to heaven only through the narrow way, only by the “sword” of unstinting self-denial. God’s grace does precede these efforts and it will help them along, but there can be no substitute for moral discipline.

Fr. Perrone

"Why not let the whole western world go to hell? (I speak here of literal, not rhetorical, hell)"

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" [Temporary link] (Assumption Grotto News, January 25, 2015):

Every year I run into people who attend the annual March for Life in Washington. Some of these are our own parishioners. I have long admired their selfless dedication in making personal sacrifices to be present for this remarkable national gesture of solidarity with those preborn infants who cannot insist on their right to be born and to live thereafter. I have never gone on these trips myself (though I have, in years past, participated in some local events on a smaller scale). One comes to learn that this yearly demonstration which takes place in the Capitol is an event of enormous proportion, the astounding size of which makes it unconscionable for the media to under-report the numbers of the participants and to underplay the significance of the march. It’s well known that this deceptive reporting by the media of such an important event is calculated to downplay the great swell of support of our people to protect life from the death-dealing clutches of abortionists and their powerful supporters–including politicians. This event is more than simply a rally for human life, it is a time for prayer for the conversion of minds and wills of people who are pro-death. 

This protest has been going on for a long time–since 1973. There have certainly been benefits from this annual declaration and protest in favor of life in many ways, encouraging the life-effort and invoking divine help to combat the horrendous crimes that have been legalized. Will this tremendous effort ever finally succeed in ending the massive destruction of elective abortion? The non-violent means, the convincing arguments, the stirring speeches, the fervent prayers–surely these must be to good effect. Yet one wonders whether success will ever attend this laudable work. It seems more probable that our country, at least in the short term, will continue to decline into turpitude, bent as it is now on the acceptance of homosexual practices, with euthanasia already being practiced legally in some places (and often by insidious and surreptitious “health-care” institutions), with fetal experimentation and manipulation of embryos being already practiced. Once the homosexual goal will have been fully achieved, the next stage of declination may be the legal use of children for the sexual pleasures of adults. Yet this cannot yet be the end. The final stages of debauchery will be the allowance of public nudity and–for a grand finale–cannibalism. There can be no stopping, it would seem, the relentless demand to be allowed to do whatever one may wish to do. Freedom has thus been so regarded. Some may find this trajectory of evils excessive, hyperbolic. Yet who of my generation would have thought it possible that the Land of the Free would ever be in such a deplorable state of immoral servitude as it now is? Over time we have tended to grow accustomed to iniquity, have made friends with perversity, while becoming tolerant of evil and evermore impatient with the imposition of moral strictures from any source–the Church included.

My estimate–not wanting to be disheartening–is that we will not soon be getting better, but continue to slide down the way of debauchery. We simply do not have the muscle to halt this moral regression. By this I mean that our faith is too weak, our confidence in the efficacy of prayer, our trust in God diluted. Part of the reason for this may be that too many “good” people are themselves complicit in some of the great evils du jour through a soft acceptance of immorality in our music, TV, internet, films, etc. Another part of the reason is the decline in practicing what our Catholic faith demands in prayer, Mass attendance, Confession and self-imposed penance. And so, while the National Day of prayer and (polite) protest is ever uplifting, I find it hard to believe that there will be success in overturning the allowance of abortion. If we believe that some politicians will do this for us we need only reflect on the fact that they too as individuals may be plagued by the same moral weaknesses as others. This is an admission, often not willingly made today, that the sins of one adversely affect the welfare of all. We are all worse off because of abortionists, pedophiles, pornographers, lewd entertainers, no-fault divorcers, etc. Sin is never a private affair, no matter how secretly it may be done.

I admit having a defeatist attitude at times. Why not just let the whole western world go to hell? (I speak here of literal, not rhetorical, hell). The answer has to do with our responsibility. No one can, before God, allow evil to triumph. There must be resistance. Moreover there are some things that can actually be done to save at least some people from moral death. The most important of these is to become saints ourselves–one by one–people who refuse to be mastered by their own tendencies to sin and who make up to God, by prayer and sacrifice, for the sins that are committed.

Pagan society was once converted to faith and to goodness by the Catholic faith. There is no reason why it can’t be done again, except for the fact that many in the Church are too weak, and the conviction of their faith has been compromised.

God bless the efforts of those who go annually to Washington to pray and give witness to the truth about human life’s intrinsic goodness. (To quibble: I don’t think the expression “sanctity of life” is accurate, though it’s compelling). Unless each individual person makes up his mind and changes his heart to conform according God’s moral laws, our country will never awaken from the moral nightmare of abortion-on-demand and so many other attending evils.

For this reason we at the Grotto, doing our small part, continue to pray the holy rosary after every Mass. I hope you continue to do this together, recognizing the power of fervent, communal prayer with Holy Mary for the saving of many souls from eternal destruction.

Fr. Perrone

(Trying to) wag the synodical dog

Deacon Greg Kandra, "From the synod: married couple speaks about welcoming gays, divorcees" (The Deacon's Bench, October 6, 2014):

This may have gone largely unnoticed, but it seems significant to me: an intervention at the synod by a married couple, Ron and Mavis Pirola from Australia. I can’t imagine this kind of commentary being welcomed, or even heard, at the Vatican just a few years ago.

As you might expect, this left our correspondent, Guy Noir, in a state of dyspeptic muttering, much like that suffered perpetually by Dale Price, pour soul. Some of his mutterings follow:

I remain a stranger in a strange land. All this hyper conversation over families, the Synod on the Family, and evangelization. It seems like we are making the simple and obvious into the exotic and the complicated. Over and over we hear that conservatives want simple cut-and-dried, black and white answers. But over and over again I am reading more liberal approaches that seem hell-bent on simplifying everything into "I'm OK / You're OK" and love papers over everything....

So, then he quotes the following lines from "intervention" of the Austrian couple:

"‘He is our son’.

"What a model of evangelization for parishes as they respond to similar situations in their neighborhood! It is a practical example of what the Instrumentum laboris says concerning the Church’s teaching role and its main mission to let the world know of God’s love."

And next comes Noir's continued commentative mutterings:

Children remain my children, loved, no matter what they do. Yes. But why that presents itself as some sort of neutralizing trump card, I do not know. Actions have consequences, and we can put immense obstacles between ourselves and God's mercy, if free will means much of anything at all. Have we doctrinally developed completely beyond any idea of mortal sin? (Don't answer that!) Some decisions, some behaviors, are very bad. Or used to be thought so. Even the phrase "Very Bad" is quickly sounding like an artifact from a "sillier" age. Some decisions, some behaviors do make it very difficult to know just how to demonstrate the right response. The unfortunate incidences of harshness, the awkwardness... It is all to be expected, not simply patronizingly condemned as mean-spirited or provincial. A bland-out of genial acceptance is hardly the helpful Christian response to every circumstance unless all we are concerned about is dispelling conflict and confrontation. And I do not know where you can get that idea if you give a proportionally responsible reading to the New Testament. The entire sacrament of confession hinges on a declaration of pardon that is every bit as much based on law as it is on medicine [in the sense of 'therapy']. In the spiritual realm, the two dimensions are intertwined to a degree unknown in the physical realm. We are sick because we are offenders. You can't apply love like a medicine while being in denial about the accompanying need of people for pardon. They are patients yes, but also rebels. I do not know who we think is going to help them see that if we all break out our king-sized spiritual [un?]comfortors.

Life IS complicated, Truth is hard-edged, and how that plays out... no it is not simple or cut and dried. That is the entire point of the current conservative objections. It seems to me the liberal approach is the truly un-pastoral one. Wishing moral choices didn't really matter, wishing we could paper over things and just all get along, is no more helpful than wishing a heroin user could simply be embraced without conflict. It only works until someone gets arrested and/or dies, physically or spiritually. I'd rather deal with things as they are versus perpetuate a Norman Rockwell Thanksgiving photo opp. But I guess that is hard to jive with images of global embrace and human flourishing. Sin as an offense as well as a wound is a rude and uncomfortable truth.

Exclamation point!

Martin Mosebach was invited to speak to assembled artists in Frankfurt (diocese of Limburg) on Ash Wednesday 2013, according to a German custom that apparently began with an idea from Paul Claudel who organized something similar in Paris. Mosebach addressed the theme of the traditional liturgy of the Roman rite. It scarcely need be said how unusual it is for a traditionalist thinker to be invited to a regular diocesan setting to speak on that subject.

Toward the end of his speech, Mosebach made the following striking point:

One difficulty that arose from the Church's abandonment of her traditional liturgy was surely quite unexpected. Many who observe the Church from a distance, and this includes many nominal Catholics, now see the Church as embodied principally in the moral teachings that she requires her faithful to follow. These teachings include many prescriptions and proscriptions that contradict the customs of the secular world. In the days when the Church was above all oriented toward the immediate encounter with God in the Liturgy however, these commandments were not seen merely in relation to the living of daily life, but were concrete means of preparation for complete participation in the liturgy.

The liturgy gave morality its goal. The question was: What must I do in order to attain to perfect Communion with the Eucharistic Christ? What actions will result in my only being able to look on Him from afar? Moral evil then appeared not merely as the that which is bad in the abstract, but as that which is to be avoided in order to attain to a concrete goal. And when someone broke a commandment, and thus excluded himself from Holy Communion, Confession was ready as the means to repair the damage and prepare him to receive Communion again. A surprising result of the reform is that while the Church of the past, which was really oriented toward the liturgy, appeared to many outside observers as being scandalously lax in moral matters, the current Church appears to contemporaries (and not only to those outside) as unbearably moralistic, unmerciful, and meanly puritanical. (From: "Das Paradies auf Erden: Liturgie als Fester zum Jenseits," Una Voce Korrespondenz 43 (2013), pp. 213-214; translation by Sacerdos Romanus).

[Hat tip to JM]

Cultural collapse, traced through six generations

I can't remember where I read this, but here's a summary from inexact notes I made of a discussion of the last six generations and the shifts in outlook they represent:

1. The "Lost Generation": 1914 -- WWI, Henry Ford developed automobile manufacturing, the Great Depression of 1929, people suffered largely without complaint, but failed to communicate their fundamental values to the next generation.
2. The "Greatest Generation": 1930s, coming out of the Depression, WWII; people suffered silently but without appropriating the values of their parents' generation, and began indulging their children.
3. The "Boomers": 1946-1960s, the generation of flower power, hippies, and rebels, characterized by indocility, intemperance, and impiety.
4. Generation "X" (1960s-80s) & Generation "Y" (1970s-90s): the "me" generation, characterized by entitlement, amorality, religious indifference, but still wanting to be "nice."
5. Generation "Z": 1990s-2010s, the "Plugged-in" generation, immersed in technology, raised in day care facilities, lacking any spiritual formation, characterized by depravity and inversion: same-sex perversions mushroom.
6. The "Sixth Generation" (since the "Lost Generation"): 2010 onward, characterized by the absence of any sexual taboos, openness to the preternatural and demonic, and pagan idolatry.

Some of these divisions and characterizations strike me as a bit arbitrary, but they're probably accurate overall.

Since I began teaching college at Lenoir-Rhyne in NC in the mid-1980s, I would remind my classes that they were entering into a new Dark Ages. Their reaction for the most part was blank uncomprehending stares. Dark Ages? Really? But personal computers were just becoming available! Remember the buzz over the daisy wheel and dot matrix printers? And through the years, we've come to iPods and iPads, and almost nobody living seems to remember a world before the Internet. "Dark Ages"? Hardly. But I stand by what I said. Let them figure it out, if they can. The barbarians are at the gates, this time on the inside.

Tolkien on ... SEX???

"From Father to Son — J.R.R. Tolkien on Sex" (AlbertMohler.com, March 11, 2014). Excerpts:

In 1941, Tolkien wrote a masterful letter to his son Michael, dealing with marriage and the realities of human sexuality. The letter reflects Tolkien’s Christian worldview and his deep love for his sons, and at the same time, also acknowledges the powerful dangers inherent in unbridled sexuality.

“This is a fallen world,” Tolkien chided. “The dislocation of sex-instinct is one of the chief symptoms of the Fall. The world has been ‘going to the bad’ all down the ages. The various social forms shift, and each new mode has its special dangers: but the ‘hard spirit of concupiscence’ has walked down every street, and sat leering in every house, since Adam fell.” This acknowledgement of human sin and the inevitable results of the Fall stands in stark contrast to the humanistic optimism that was shared by so many throughout the 20th century. Even when the horrors of two world wars, the Holocaust, and various other evils chastened the century’s dawning optimism of human progress, the 20th century gave evidence of an unshakable faith in sex and its liberating power. Tolkien would have none of this.

“The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favorite subject,” Tolkien insisted. “He is as good every bit at catching you through generous romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones.” Thus, Tolkien advised his young son, then 21, that the sexual fantasies of the 20th century were demonic lies, intended to ensnare human beings. Sex was a trap, Tolkien warned, because human beings are capable of almost infinite rationalization in terms of sexual motives. Romantic love is not sufficient as a justification for sex, Tolkien understood.

Read more >>

[Hat tip to JM]

"It's Hard to Be a Homo in Russia"

The ironies are endless. Flag-waving "foam-at-the-mouth" American conservatives and Christian fundamentalists have been historically described as "xenophobic" about "Godless atheistic Russia." ("The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming! Everybody to get off the streets!")

And now it's Mother Russia, her president Vladamir Putin, and Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzkov, who fear being contaminated by the baneful moral perversions of Western culture. Some might even think that Russia is becoming more "Christian" than America.

In his article, "It's Hard to Be a Homo in Russia" (Taki's Magazine, August 5, 2013), Jim Goad addresses the issue [Advisory: Taki's Magazine often allows vulgar language]:

A new Cold War is brewing between Russia and the West, but this time it’s being fought over the rainbow flag.

As the USA rapidly morphs into a continent-spanning version of Fire Island, a homo paradise where tiny fairy sculptors dream there will one day be a 90-foot statue of Harvey Milk wearing leather ass chaps and a butt plug on the US Capitol West Lawn, Russia is currently tightening its sphincter in stubborn resistance to All Things Gay.

Former Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzkhov repeatedly banned gay-pride parades, dubbing them “satanic.” In 2012, Moscow’s local parliament banned such festivities for 100 years.

Vladimir Putin, who is not averse to posing for vaguely homoerotic beefcake photos, has flexed his ample pectoral muscles in defiance of prevailing Western sentiments on issues such as immigration and anti-Christian blasphemy. And now he’s going after The Gays.

Read more >>

A run at pinning "liberalism" down

I can't believe I missed this one by Mike Liccione, "Pinning 'liberalism' down" (Sacramentum Vitae, February 13, 2012). He's not concerned, he says, with the liberalism of John or the New Deal, which coincided in ways with what Robert Bellah calls an American "civil religion." Rather, he's concerned with "The Thing that Used to Be Liberalism," which, he says has grown scarier and scarier over the last several decades.

On matters of domestic policy, says Liccione, today's "liberals" are actually authoritarian about everything except sex. About sex, they are as laissez-faire as anyone could be. Ah, there it is again: as Peter Kreeft once said (in A Refutation of Moral Relativism),our contemporary society is more moralistic than ever about everything except "the pelvic issues." Liccione provides a provocative and extensive review of the issues in light of current politics.

A book I would recommend highly for a review of "liberalism" with respect to political economy is Christopher Ferrara's The Church and the Libertarian: A Defense of Catholic Teaching on Man, Economy and State. Here one finds sorted out in marvelous detail the shifting meanings of "liberalism" from Lockean "liberalism" to contemporary Democratic "liberalism." The focus of the book, however, is on the Austrian tradition of "liberalism" stemming from Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, et al., and it's alliance with sectors of contemporary Republican "conservatism" and incompatibility with Catholic Social Teaching at critical points. Well worth reading.

[Hat tip to J.M.]

Talk show etiquette and celebrity courtesy: What's good for the goose is good for the gander

[Advisory: foul language throughout]

• Gloria Allred seeks Rush Limbaugh prosecution
  
• Will she also seek to have prosecuted Ed Shultz for what he called Laura Ingraham?
  
• Will she also seek to have prosecuted Cloris Leachman for what she called Sarah Palin?
  
• Will she also seek to have prosecuted Jerry Brown for what he called Meg Whitman?
  Will she also seek to have prosecuted David Letterman for what he called Sarah Palin?
  
• Will she also seek to have prosecuted Ed Schultz for what he called Michele Bachmann?
  
• Will she also seek to have prosecuted Bill Maher for what he called Sarah Palin?
  
• Will she also seek to have prosecuted Alec Baldwin for what he said about Michell Bachman?
  
• Would she also seek to have prosecuted George Carlin, if he were still alive, for how he described Rush Limbaugh?
  
• What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The death of feminism

Why is it, do you think, that so many people appear to be more concerned about Rush Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke (and Danica Patrick) than about what Fluke and Patrick themselves said?

Feminism began as a "women's liberation" movement. Women wanted government to remove legislation they considered repressive. They wanted government to get out of their private lives and bedrooms and to allow them to take responsibility for themselves and their bodies.

Now we have Fluke testifying before Big Brother in behalf of an HHS mandate that would coerce Georgetown University and other similar institutions, in violation of their conscience, to pay for medical coverage for abortion, sterilization, and contraception.

Now it's a free country. There is nothing preventing anyone from purchasing contraceptives if they like, many of them quite inexpensively as one can see at any local drugstore. Fluke suggests, however, that her concern is on behalf of those such as herself and other students at Georgetown who find the out-of-pocket costs for contraceptives "untenable burdens" during their tenure as students. She cites a figure of $3000.00 as the cost of birth control over the years a student is enrolled in Georgetown, and appeals to the Jesuit motto of the institution (cura personalis, or "care of the whole person") as a reason why Georgetown should consider contraceptives a health entitlement in order to meet student "medical needs" and not to "impede [their] academic success."

Fluke cites the example of morally uncontroversial non-contraceptive use contraceptives in the treatment of polycystic ovarian syndrome. But an allowance for such use hardly calls for a "universal" mandate. But as others have noted, only a fool would deny that the primary purpose of contraceptive drugs and devices is to make sex “worry free” by detaching the procreative act from procreation. Even assuming that Fluke herself were an icon of chastity and virtue, her description of the "crushing demand" for contraceptive and reproductive "services," the "untenable burdens" such expenses impose on students, and her promotion of such services as a health entitlement suggest little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to garner contraceptive coverage for the purpose of facilitating sexual promiscuity and a morally irresponsible lifestyle.

And then what about what President Obama said in his phone call to Fluke? That her parents should feel proud of her? A Georgetown law student who complains that she and other students can't foot the $3000.00 bill that contraceptives would cost over the course of their law-student careers? "Proud"? Nobody finds that a tad odd?

One thinks of Chesterton:

The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered ... it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone...

But what we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed.... The truth is that there is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.

And so we are offended by tiny words with concrete references, like the inclusive use of "man" in the above paragraph, and substitute hypostatized abstract nouns like "humanity." We are offended by those hard small words with specific denotative definitions, like "heretic," "apostate," and "prostitute" -- because they strike us as harsh and unfeeling -- and we substitute loosey-goosey terms for their benign connotative values, like "liberal-minded," "progressive," and "free-spirited" instead.

It reminds me of my years in the American South where the term "Christian" used to be employed to connote more-or-less the same thing as "decent citizen," regardless of what the person believed or how he (no, I'm not using the damned plural, "they") lived. Modernity has tied people's minds up like pretzels, so that they refer to third person singulars as third person plurals, and a young woman living like a 'ho' can be told that her parents should be "proud" of her.

"Freedom" used to mean, among other things, freedom from sin, vice, and corruption. Today it has come to mean freedom to embrace sin, vice, and corruption. What once was called the "bondage of the will" now is called "free self-expression."

Today we have become so open-minded, it seems, that we have forgotten what it is to think. "Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out," warned Chesterton; "the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."

[Hat tip to Zachary Mabee for image; and to B.S.O and D.O. for precision in details.]

Related: Fr. John Zuhlsdorff comments:

"I read that Rush Limbaugh apologized for what he called the activist from Georgetown who wants taxpayers to pay for her contraceptives.

"I am sure that Nancy Pelosi will now apologize to other members of the House whom she accused of trying to kill women."

Dr. Janet Smith goes public on theology of lying

Janet E. Smith, "Fig Leaves and Falsehoods: Pace Thomas Aquinas, sometimes we need to deceive" (First Things, June/July, 2011).

[Hat tip to Janet Smith]

The debate over lying: a roundup

So if you were hiding Jews in the attic during WWII and Gestapo agents came knocking and asked whether you'd seen any Jews, would you lie?

LiveAction, Planned Parenthood and the Truth about Lying (a roundup) (Against the Grain, March 6, 2011) provides an excellent overview of the theoretical issues involved in the debate over lying that were sparked by the sting operation against Planned Parenthood by activist Lila Rose (pictured left) and her organization Live Action.

[Hat tip to C.B.]