Laura Ingraham Gave Clive Davis a Free Pass

I happened to tune into the Laura Ingraham show this afternoon in time to hear her interview, to my surprise, Clive Davis, chief creative officer for Sony Music, and longtime smut peddler, from Janice Joplin to “Ke$ha”. I was surprised that Ingraham, “cultural” Amazonian Warrior that she is, would have someone like Davis on her show; after all, Sony music is responsible for much of the recorded filth that Ingraham riles against. However, I thought, perhaps she will take the opportunity to attack him for peddling the smut that he peddles.

To my surprise, Ingraham, far from calling Davis to task, went out of her way to pay him complements. Apparently Ingraham felt indebted to him for giving the world the music she cherished in bygone days. Never mind that today's hip hop is simply the natural consequence of that bygone day's rock music.

Because he gave us "The Boss", Ingraham ingratiated Davis who deserves nothing but reproach. Davis is the guy that helped herald in the drug culture of the late 60s and 70s, sexualized the image of Bruce Springsteen, and is now profiting insanely from the obscenity and misogyny of hip hop music. Regardless of these facts, Ingraham goes so far as to say “I could spend all day talking to him.” I’m surprised that Ingrham, given the public personage that she has built up, would want to endure this man’s stench for more than the ten minutes it took to interview him.

To give you an idea of how the interview went, here is a synopsis taken from PAXALLES:

Davis said he has a variety of criteria for signing talent. Ingraham compared the talent to the profane and filthy lyrics they sing or say and asked how that fits the picture. He said no one is going to whitewash the performer who is speaking to the people, regardless of the expressions used. Davis said this goes beyond music to theater, film and television. He said that notification is used to inform people, but that a person must live in a dream world to not be aware of what is out there in the culture. He said his music goes the full spectrum and has tried to be at the cutting edge. Ingraham questioned why he would sully his portfolio and Davis replied that Ingraham's point of view isn't shared by most of the public. She responded that there are certain taboos - i.e. Muslims are off limits as far as any sort of disrespect.

Davis said an artist like Ke$ha are global successes despite the obscenity.

That really doesn’t capture the essence of Davis’ position. When asked by Ingraham if the obscenity and misogyny in this music is influencing the culture in a negative way, Davis refused to directly answer the question. He couldn’t directly answer it because not even Davis would seriously contend that the degrading lyrics, often replete with profanity and depictions of abusing women, are positive in any way. Instead, he remarks that Ke$ha’s music, like all hip hop, was “a big hit”, not just nationally, but internationally. Davis’ defense is that people buy it, so that makes it O.K., and, by the way, Ingraham is being over sensitive in her criticism because... well... because people buy it. Majority rules, dude!!

Any dolt can see that the blatant profiteering of Davis justifies any repulsive industry you can imagine, from pornography or human and child trafficking, to the drug trade. As long as there’s a market for it, it’s O.K. If enough people buy it, then how can you criticize it? This kind of self-serving and irresponsible logic is to be expected from a sleaze like Clive Davis. Reason and the example of common decency would have to drill through an insanely thick sedimentary wall of filth with which this man has encrusted himself over the last five decades. I'm afraid he is beyond human attempts at persuasion. We can only pray and fast for his deliverance from those demons and his conversion.

What’s troubling is the hypocrisy of Laura Ingraham, the self-professed warden of "traditional American" culture, who would give Davis a free pass by not going hysterical on him like she should have. If she were to be consistent with the intended purpose of her new book, co-authored by EWTN celebrity, Raymond Arroyo, Of Thee I Zing, we would at least expect to her to say after the interview, “wow, he’s a profiteering old wind bag”, instead of, “wow, I could talk with him all day”.

This gives me the impression that she’s willing to take on the syntax challenged hip hop rappers, who have as much a chance of putting together a coherent thought as they do in going one minute without using the “f-word”, but balks in challenging a man responsible for providing her some of her favorite musical "artists". I would like to give Laura Ingraham (and Raymond Arroyo) the benefit of the doubt and my support, but, let’s face it; they represent the modern, mainstream Catholic half-measure. They would like to speak out against the profanity of the post-Christian society, but are too attached to “The Boss” and other “less-obscene” aspects of the same post-Christian world.

Ingraham's critics are right on this score: how can she criticize hip hop, but at the same time defend the Beach Boys and the Beatles? Is that Weezer we hear in her show's theme music? Many of her critics point out that the only apparent difference is skin color. I can see why they come to this conclusion, but that really isn't it. The problem with Ingraham is the same problem that runs rampant through mainstream, novus ordo Catholicism: a half-measure Catholicism that blinds the mainstream to their logical inconsistencies and renders them incapable of recognizing the simple cause and effect that has led to the degradation of society in the wake of the 20th Century revolutions.

Laura Ingraham (and Raymond Arroyo) proves that it’s hard to speak out against the post-Christian pagan culture when you still can't help liking so much of it. This is the Catholicism of half-measures so popular now in the mainstream that can't see the obvious connection between "The Boss" and hip hop music. May God deliver us from it.

“Why bother yourself with something that tells you nothing new?”

I read today a translation of an excerpt from Roberto de Mattei’s history of Vatican II over at Rorate Cæli, entitled “The Lefebvre affair”. The excerpt reminded me of something a Ukrainian Byzantine priest friend of mine, who would wish, I’m sure, to remain anonymous, had written to me not that long ago.

Only now people high up are beginning to admit what we down below have always known, or at least suspected: Vatican II was a mistake; the Church would have been better off if it had never happened. Tell me. What is to be gained by taking it seriously? What advantage do you gain by reading those documents? Oh, I’ve read them, as I’m sure you have, but to what benefit? It would have been better had I spent that time reading Holy Scripture or St. John of the Cross, or even Lossky, for crying out loud. It was a complete waste of time because I gained nothing from it but confusion. If it defined nothing new, then what is the point anyway? Why bother yourself with something that tells you nothing new, or something old in a confusing way?...

[He concluded his remarks on the subject with:] I tell those entrusted to me: “It is better to pray and practice our faith as it has always been practiced than to worry yourself about the ramblings of the daft men of the Second Vatican Council.”

Compare this with what Mattei writes: “Resistance to putting into effect the Council’s reforms came from the sector of lower clergy and laity, as had happened during the French Revolution , when it had been parish priests and peasants (farmers) who promoted the revolt of the Vandea and the anti-revolutionary insurgences in Europe.”

What both Mattei and my priest friend are referring to is the practice of the faith by “we down below”, the potency of which is often underestimated, but we cannot, however, fail to remember it is extremely potent, nonetheless. The traditional practice of the faith is transforming, not because of human agency, but because of the fact that right religion is being re-established by God through human agency.

The simple practice of our faith, as practiced traditionally, is our mission in this present war that has so devastated the Church militant in these later times. Our operations on this battle ground includes praying our morning and evening prayers without fail, daily reciting the rosary as a family, fostering devotion to the Sacred Heart of the Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, wearing the scapular, praying for the souls in purgatory, and above all fostering a fiery devotion for the Blessed Sacrament and the Traditional Latin Mass.

Godfrey de Bouillon, Catholic Hero

In 1099 Godfrey de Bouillon became the first Christian ruler of Jerusalem.

The Way Forward After the California LGBT Education Law

William B. May, head of the San Francisco-based Catholics for the Common Good, had this to say about recent passage of the LGBT education law in California: “We’re disappointed that the governor signed it. It’s a troubling precedent for politicians to dictate what’s in textbooks.”

I completely agree with May that the new law amounts to anti-Christian indoctrination that attempts to set homosexuals up as role models against the wishes of parents, and against the will of those who in the public school system that might conscientiously object to such content. This is an important step forward for the gay agenda of transforming the very foundations of Western society.

However, if this tact, the “get the politicians out of our classrooms” slogan, is a basis for the criticism, it is far off center and will fail. Our opposition will simply point out that if the involvement of politicians in education is the fear in this case, then President Bush's No Child Left Behind legislation did the exact same thing, but on much more massive scale, inducing schools to reduce curricula to emphasize only math and reading.

It's not very realistic, either. The government has always influenced and made decisions regarding what is in or not in the public school's curricula, and that will probably never change (nor, in principle, should it). The "get politicians out of our kid's school" slogan is an irrational red herring, especially when we are talking about public schools.

We have to make the criticism hinge on two principles.

The first principle is that objectively the homosexual act is contrary to nature and is immoral, and those who have same sex attraction are suffering from a disorder. No, this is not politically correct. But by ignoring this obvious truth, has any ground been gained? Apparently not. What is gaining traction by ignoring this truth is that our opposition is succeeding in convincing the American public that homosexuality is good and natural. By announcing this truth, no doubt, we will be branded as intolerant and bigoted, but they called Our Blessed Lord worse. We cannot fail to tell the truth, even when it is out of season, especially now that it has been legislated that an untruth be taught in the California public schools.

The second principle is that parents must take their role as the primary educators of their children in earnest. It isn't so much that new legislation or politicians are attacking the Catholic principle that parents are the primary educators; it's that parents, themselves, are abrogating their responsibility in this regard. That the parent is the primary educator of their children has always been the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, but unfortunately, most Catholic parents simply don't believe it, or, at least, they don’t act in a way that indicates they do.

I'm not saying that all Catholic parents should start homeschooling. What I mean is that parents need to re-organize their lives and careers so that they can be present, at least to some degree and in some capacity, while their children are being educated. If all parents were to show up in their children's classrooms for just one hour a week, the government wouldn't dare to pass legislation like this. As it is, legislation like this passes because the public school bureaucrats, liberal teachers unions, LGBT lobbyists and liberal politicians don't have to face a concerted force of parents actually present in the class room, who are going to hold these same individuals accountable for the content of what they are teaching and the effectiveness of their methodology.

Reflecting on these two principles invites an examination of conscience. If the LGBT agenda is now threatening to destroy the institutions of marriage and the family, we have to at least ask the question, what happened to these institutions that has now left them so vulnerable to this attack?

Western society has allowed its very foundation, the family, to erode because Catholic principles that ought to have governed the family have been rejected. Since the revolt of 1517, western mores hasn’t been able to keep abreast with the indulgences incurred by all the social revolutions that have followed since, and that were indirectly caused by the deficient nature of the revolution of 1517. These revolutions have accelerated a collapse in morality and an escalation in attachment to the transitory things of this world.

As Blasé Pascal would see it, man has exponentially increased his tendency toward distraction. The television, computer and various other distractions have replaced real, interpersonal communication. Careerism has distracted man from familial responsibility. Juvenilism and immaturity, accompanied by their bedfellows—selfishness, lack of commitment and materialism—has broken families apart with the hammers of divorce and multiple re-marriages. The LGBT agenda would pose no substantial threat to the family if the family in our society was not already so distracted and off course.

If Catholic parents were to step up to the plate and actually live what the Church has always taught, they would become an influence that might retard the spiral of degeneracy in our western society. It is unlikely, though, that mainstream Catholics can step up to the plate, even if they wanted. The changes in the Church in the twentieth century, and especially after the Second Vatican Council, were catastrophic.

As the modern secular world exponentially increased man’s tendency toward distraction, the Second Vatican Council disastrously invited Catholics to “dialogue” with this world, as though this world had something to offer the perfect society. Modern mainstream Catholics have been sold a lie that they could be part of the world and still be authentically Catholic. They were told to look for truth outside of a perspective shaped by Catholicism (the Catholic identity). As a result the Catholic family is often indistinguishable from the rest, with Catholics living similar lifestyles, and with comparable numbers of divorce, infidelity, use of contraception, etc.

The truth about homosexuality is muted. Parents are rendered incapable of being the leaven needed to build up the family. All the blame could be laid at the feet of liberal politicians, lobbyists, and bureaucrats, but that would be only half the story. The other half of the story is that Catholics during and after Vatican II forgot these words:

I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil. They are not of the world, as I also am not of the world. Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. (Jn. 17. 15-17.)

We ought not to be of the world. We ought to be of the truth. How, though, can we be kept from evil if we insist on “dialoguing” with it? There can be no dialogue with a world steeped in perdition. The only way forward in the wake of the California LGBT law is to end this disastrously stupid dialogue, and start proclaiming the truth of our Catholic religion, and living it faithfully and joyfully.

Ferrara and the word "illegitimate" and other things concerning the SSPX

Where's MY blog??

I went to check out a blog that I read often, and at the time I happened to be on the Ars Orandi home page. I went over to the right to click on the blog, but it wasn't in the blog roll.

I added that blog, but this demonstrates that I can easily overlook posting great blogs here.

If you are a traditional Catholic blogger, chances are I read your blog. If you don't see your blog in the blog roll to the right, please send me an email at davidtrad@sbcglobal.net and I'll get it fixed right away.

At least one prediction fulfilled

At least one of my predictions for 2011 has been fulfilled. Back on January 3rd I posted:

*Archbishop Vincent Nichols says or does something so egregiously liberal that even Damien Thompson criticizes him.

Well, I told you so. Archbishop Vincent Nichols is no longer one of Damien Thompson's favorite things that assuages the bee sting, dog bite, or feeling sad.

This has come to pass thanks to the Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School of London controversy, which has demonstrated to Mr. Thompson the Modernism that lurks just under the surface of the mainstream, novus ordo conservative.

I admit that I'm at best a passive observer from across the pond, who admittedly doesn't know all the details, nor do I completely understand the English cultural subtext. However, I will venture to offer the following observation. The refashioning of education by Leviathan is one of many indications of the distant, but still on its way, persecution. It is interesting to see how "conservative", but blatantly non-traditional churchmen, even churchmen vaunted as "Benedictine" in mindset, are so active in bringing it about.

There's really no other explanation for it other than the Vatican II dialogue with the world, and the subsequent loss of Catholic identity. The two are inherently linked in their contribution to the present crisis in the Church.

New Question and Answer added to the Q&A: Comment Moderation

I left a comment, but it didn't get published. Why is that?

Comment moderation is now on all the time. Recently I was goaded into a tit-for-tat that was nothing but a complete waste of time. There was no convincing me, and there was no convincing the other guy. After taking some time to think about it, I came to the following conclusions:

1. Ars Orandi isn't a discussion forum for the general public. If you want that, go to AngelQueen or Fisheaters or Catholic Answers or Wherever.

2. Ars Orandi is primarily for traditional Catholics, and is primarily for the spiritual and intellectual nourishment of traditional Catholics.

At times I will post articles and opinion pieces that are critical of novus ordo, mainstream Catholicism that will, no doubt, enrage novus ordo, mainstream Catholics. At times I will post articles and opinion pieces that might enrage "SSPXers". At times I will post articles that might enrage sedevacantists. At times I might post articles that will enrage cat owners.

I don't have a problem with these enraged masses sending me comments for moderation, and if the comments are reasonable and actually address the points in the post, I will probably publish it. However, I will not publish comments that even hint at an attack or make insinuations about traditional Catholics or traditional Catholicism in general, especially comments that insinuate that traditionalists have a monopoly on sanctimonious hypocrisy, are schismatics when objectively they are not, etc.

3. I'm not perfect, and I do make mistakes. Corrections are welcome. I will usually post these comments, make the correction, and kindly thank you. However, if you wish to "correct" my understanding of the faith, my prayer life, or how I live my life, and you are not my bishop, my pastor or my wife, you can probably safely assume I will delete your comment without having finished reading it. I simply don't have the time for that kind of thing.

4. I will not make long replies to any comments. Publishing your comment is really all the further comment I need to make.

5. At-a-boy comments, and "I love this post" comments will always be published. I'm a choleric, so sue me.

St. John Vianney: A Sermon for the Fourth Sunday After Pentecost

From
Sermons of the Curé of Ars
Fourth Sunday After Pentecost

Hope

If St. Augustine says he would never cease to love God, even if there were no heaven to hope for nor hell to fear, because God is infinitely lovable and deserves to be loved, how much more reason for us to lvoe God if He promises us an eternal reward to encourage us to put our faint in Him and to love Him above all things. If we perform this sacred duty worthily we are working for our sanctification and our glorification in heaven. As faith teaches us that God sees everything, and that He is a witness of all that we do and suffer, the divine virtue of hope for the crowning reward of heaven causes us to bear our sufferings with submission and resignation to the holy will of God. This beautiful virtue supported the martyrs in the tortures to which they were subjected, the anchorites in their severe penitential practices, and the weak and sick in their diseases. Yes, dear children, if Faith shows us the presence of God everywhere, Hope leads us on, by the joyful expectation of an eternal reward, to perform all our actions with the intention of pleasing God. As this virtue, dear brethren, sweetens all our sufferings, let us consider its benefits.

If we, dear children, acknowledge through Faith that there is a God, who is our Creator, our Redeemer, and the Supreme Good, that He created us so that we might know Him, love Him, serve Him and posses Him, Hope teaches us that, although unworthy of this happiness, still we may hope for it through the merits of Jesus Christ. So that by our actions we may lay claim to this reward, three things are required of us: Faith, which makes God ever present to us; Hope, which causes us to perform our actions with the intention of pleasing God, and Charity, which unites us to Him as our supreme good.

Hope, atrium of St. Peter's Basilica, Rome, by Giuseppe Lironi, 1738

You will ask, what does "hope" mean? It means, dear brethren, to strive after something which will make us happy in the life to come; to have an ardent longing to be rid of all earthly evisl, and to partake of that heavenly reward which is to satisfy us beyond all human conception. When Adam had sinned and was beset with many miseries, his greatest consolation consisted int he hope that his sufferings would not only procure pardon for his sins, but they would also gaoin merits for heaven. Oh, how good God is, dear brethren, who reward the least of our actions if performed for His sake with such great bliss for all eternity. But that we may merit confidence in Him as children have in their good father. To inspire us with a greater confidence, we know tha tmany times in the Holy Scripture He has caused Himself to be called "Father". He desires that in all the necessities of body and soul we should take refuge in Him. By giving Himself the name of "Father," He wishes to strengthen our confidence in Him. Behold how much He loves us. Through the prophet Isaias He tells us that He carries us all in His bosom. "A mother, " says He, "who carries her child in her womb can not forget it, and if she should be so unnatural as to do so, still I never forget those who put their trust in me." He even complains that we place so little confidence in Him, and He exhorts us not to put our trust in kings and princes, because we then shall have our hopes disappointed. He even goes further, and He threatens us with His curse if we do not have great confidence in Him. Through the prophet Jeremias He says, "Cursed are those who do not trust in God!" and He continues, "Blessed are they who trust in the Lord!" I said that our temporal wants should move us to have a great confidence in God. He promises to care for us, to encourage us to take recourse to Him in all our needs, and He has worked miracles for those who placed their confidence in Him. We know from Holy Scripture that He fed His people in the desert for forty years with manna. During all the years which they passed in the desert their clothing did not wear out. He exhorts us in the Gospel not be solicitous in regard to food and clothing: "Behold the fowls of the air; they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns: yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they, O ye of little faith? Be not solicitous, therefore, saying, What shall we eat, or wherewith shall be clothed? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they labor not, neither do they spin, and yet I say to you, that not even Solomon, in all his glory, was arrayed as one of these. Now, if God so clothe the grace of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, how much more you, O ye of little faith? Seek ye, therefore, first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you." See how much He desires that we should put our trust in Him! when you pray He teaches us, "Do not say 'My God,' but say 'Our Father,'" for all know what unbounded confidence a child has in its father. When He appeared to Mary Magdalen after His Resurrection, He said to her: "Seek my brethren, and tell them, that I go to my Father, who is also their Father." Tell me , dear brethren, does it not appear to you, too, that our lack of confidence in God is the reason why are so unhappy upon this earth?

The virtue of Hope consoles and supports us in the trails which God sends us. We have a beautiful example of this in holy Job stretched out on the dunghill, covered with sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. He had lost all his children--they were killed in the ruins of his house; he himself driven from his bed on to a dunghill; forsaken by everybody; his own wife ridiculing and heaping abuse upon him, instead of consoling him; his dearest friends only causing him still greater sufferings by their remonstrances.

Meanwhile, although his condition was so pitiable, he never ceased to hope in God. "My God," he said, "I will never cease to hope in Thee, and to have confidence in Thy love toward all men. Why, O God, should I be discouraged and a prey to despair? I will confess my sins before Thee, which have been the cause of my sufferings, but I hope that Thou wilt be my Saviour. My hope is that Thou wilt one day reward me for the sufferings I have endured for Thy sake." See, dear brethren, we may call this true hope, because he did not cease to hope in God, although it seemed as if the fulness of God's wrath had descended upon him. Without seeking to know why so much suffering was his portion, he contented himself by saying that his sins alone were the cause of it. Behold, dear brethren, the great benefits which the virtue of Hope holds out to us. Lamented as unfortunate by his friends, forsaken by his own flesh and blood, despised by others, Job considers himself happy, because his confidence is placed in God. Ah, if we had such a great confidence in God in our sufferings, troubles, and sicknesses, what treasures should we not heap up for heaven! Oh, how blind we are! Instead of being inconsolable in our afflictions we had a the firm hope that God sends them to us as so many means by which we can merit heaven, how gladly would we undergo them!

We must have a firm confidence in Jesus Christ, for we are sure that He will never forsake us in our necessitates if we turn to Him as children to their Father; we ought to have, also, a great confidence in the Mother of God, who is so good and who so willingly assists us in all our spiritual and temporal wants by pleading for us with her divine Son. If, for instance, there is a sin upon ou r conscience that we are afraid to confess, let us throw ourselves at her feet, and we may rely that she will obtain for us the grace to make a good confession, and thus will procure for us the forgiveness of our sins. Yes, dear brethren, after God we ought to place the greatest confidence in the Blessed Virgin in all our spiritual and temporal needs.

The following wonderful example will serve as a proof of this. It is related in history that a certain young man for a long time led an excellent Christian life, which gave him firm confidence in gain heaven, but the devil, eager to work his ruin, tempted him violently and so long, until at last the youth committed a mortal sin. Immediately after, he saw the enormity of his sin, and his first thought was to take refuge in the sacred tribunal of penance. But such a feeling of shame came over him at the thought of his sins that he could not make up his mind to go to confession. Tormented by remorse of conscience he foolishly resolved to drown himself, so as to put an end to his torments. When he reached the bank of the river he shuddered at the thought of the eternal damnation into whihc he was about to plunge himself, and, crying bitterly, he wended his way back and prayed that God might forgive him without confession. He attempted to gain peace of conscience by visiting churches, praying and practising penitential works, but in spite of all his prayers and penances remorse of conscience persecuted him persistently. God, in His great mercy, and at the intercession of His Blessed Mother, wanted to save the youth. One night, as the youth sat up, in great sadness, he felt a great desire to go to confession, and at dawn he arose and went to church, but just as he was about to go to confession he felt more than ever ashamed of his sin, and he had not the courage to do that which the grace of God had inspired him to do. The same thing happened to him repeatedly, shame held him back, and finally, in a moment of desperation, he again made up his mind to die rather than reveal his sin to the priest. All at once the thought struck him to recommend himself to the Blessed Virgin. He threw himself before Our Lady's Altar, confided to her his difficulties, and implored her, with tears in his eyes, not to abandon him. And behold how gracious the Mother of God was to him, how quickly she came to his assistance! Hardly had he knelt down before all his anxieties left him, his heart was completely changed, and he arose full of courage and confidence, sought out his confessor, and revealed all his sins to him. Ah, dear brethren, how miserable would have been the condition of this man had he neglected to take refuge with the Blessed Virgin! Eternal damnation would perhaps have been his fate.

To show us what great confidence we should have in Jesus Christ, and how we should never be agraid to ask Him fore everything necessary for body and soul, our Saviour tells us in the Gospel how a man wen to one of his friends in the night time to ask for three loaves, as some one had come to visit him and he had nothing to set before him, but the friend answered that he and his family were already in bed, and he did not wish to be disturbed. But the man continued to knock, and kept on saying that he had no bread for his visitor. Then the friend arose and gave him what he wanted, not because of friendship, but because of his urging. "Therefore," Jesus Christ concludes, "ask and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you." We may be certain, therefore, that whatever we ask the Father in the name of Jesus Christ He will give it to us.

In conclusion, I must yet say that our hope should be general, which means that whatever happens we must have recourse to God. If we are sick, let us put our trust in Him--He cured many sick persons during His earthly life--and if our health will contribute to the glory of God and the salvation of our soul we are sure that He will give it to us; if, on the other hand, sickness is more profitable for our salvation, He will give us the strength to bear it with patience and thereby merit eternal reward. If we find ourselves in any great danger, let us imitate the three youths whom they cast into the fiery furnace: their confidence in God was so great that the fire had no power over them, and only consumed the ropes with which they were bound, while they walked about the furnace praising God. In temptations, dear brethren, let us put our trust in Jesus Christ and we shall be certain not to fall. The loving Saviour merited our victory over our temptations by allowing Himself to be tempted. If, dear brethren, we have become entangled in any bad habit, and we are afraid that we shall not be able to get rid of it, let us put our trust in God; He merited for us countless graces, that we might be victorious over the devil. In this way we shall find consolation in our cares, which are inseparable from life.

It is pride which causes us to remain hardened in our sins and makes it so difficult for us to confess them. If we were humble we could not remain in our sins, nor should we be afraid to go to confession. Let us ask God, dear brethren, to grant us humility, so that we may fear sin and have recourse to the Sacrament of Penance if we have committed sin. We should often ask God for the beautiful virtue of Hope, which will show us how to perform all our actions with the intention of pleasing God alone.

Let us guard against giving way to despair in sickness and trouble. Let us remember that God sends us these so that we may fix our eyes and our hopes upon the eternal reward in heaven, which I wish you all. Amen.

A personal request

Please say a prayer for a little boy by the name of Thomas, and also for his Mom and Dad, Morgan and Joseph.

Thanks!

The Confused Idea of “Orthodoxy” in the Post-VCII Church

One aspect of the recent Fr. John Corapi scandal, which puts into perspective the traditional critique of the modern Church, is the use of the word “orthodoxy” by the pundits as the scandal has unfolded. A number of writers have pointed out that Corapi represented an “orthodox” camp within the Church, and that his actions are splitting “orthodox” Catholics, some critical of his actions, others supportive. As Diane M. Korzeniewski states at the blog Te Deum Laudamus: “Orthodox Catholics who know Father Corapi are seriously, and bitterly, divided over this.”

The word orthodox is a combination of the Greek words “orthos”, meaning “true, right or straight”, and “doxa”, which means “opinion”. It is often taken to mean right or correcting thinking, and is particularly associated with religious belief. The orthodox person is a person who adheres to correct religious doctrine. An orthodox Catholic then is a Catholic who adheres to correct Catholic doctrines, or is loyal to the teachings of the Church.

However, in the post-conciliar Church the word “orthodox” has become synonymous with the mainstream, novus ordo Catholic who accepts without question the doctrines of the Second Vatican Council. The test of orthodoxy is the Second Vatican Council. A Catholic who adheres to all other teachings, but is confused or questions certain ambiguous statements from the Vatican II documents are not considered orthodox in the least. These are the EWTN Catholics who abide by the EWTN talking heads such Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Fr. Benedict Groeshel and the now fallen from grace Fr. John Corapi, etc. These Catholics are often referred to as the “Pope John Paul II Catholics".

These Catholics are opposed to both political liberalism and Catholic traditionalism, though they are often more sympathetic to traditional Catholic practices. However, traditionalism doesn’t suit them mainly because of their attachment to the novus ordo liturgy, their exaggerated admiration of democracy as a genus rather than a species of government, a dependency on unfettered laissez-faire capitalism and the modern justification of usury, and an acceptance of Modernist notions of social science and theological inquiry, all of which fly in the face of numerous judgments of the pre-conciliar Magisterium.

There’s no easy, one sentence definition of this modern “orthodox” Catholic. However, they are easily identified. They populate leadership of parish youth groups, where the catechism is taught alongside a sort of cult of Hebe (the worship of youth) and somatolatry (the worship of the body and athletic prowess). The modern “orthodox” Catholic is found on the campuses of Catholic colleges like the Franciscan University of Steubenville, where everything taught is vaunted as being “obediently Catholic” (even when it is abundantly evident to be erroneous), but at the same time 19th century Pentecostalism is practiced in the chapel. The modern “orthodox” Catholic is found on EWTN, claiming to uphold all that the Church teaches, but at the same time styling the absolute Kingship, which necessarily encompasses the social Kingship, of Christ as a silly, outmoded notion of a bygone era. The modern “orthodox” Catholic can be heard on Ave Maria Radio claiming “there isn’t much difference between Catholics and Protestants”. The modern “orthodox” Catholic is also identified as a preacher who long ago, before he fell from grace, stated rather scandalous things like that Our Blessed Lady was a “mamma” who “wore combat boots”.

Modern “orthodox” Catholicism is deficient. There is a strange mixture here of Catholic doctrine and traditional thought with modern neo-conservative politics, and a fascination with the mundane. This fascination with the mundane is an infatuation with the pilgrimage, but not with the destination. It is an overemphasis on the “joy of life” in this world but little regard for the much greater joy that comes at the termination of this worldly life. This is so because this modern “orthodox” Catholicism is a half measure, but it is a half measure that has been shaped by the ambiguities of the Second Vatican Council’s call for a dialogue with the world.

Setting aside the false elevation of “dialogue” to a virtue, this dialogue with the world has only succeeded in clouding the clear goal of our Catholic religion, which is life with God in heaven. The salvation of the soul has been relegated to the back seat, and taking its place in the front is a modernistic humanism under a Catholic chasuble. This was not circulated by a cabal of dissident theologians or a group of ultra-liberal prelates. This humanism was promulgated by the modern Magisterium, itself. If this modern “orthodox” Catholicism is deficient it is because the modern Magisterium is deficient.

However, allow me to be clear. The modern Magisterium isn’t deficient in the sense that it is incapable of fulfilling its office. Nor is the modern Magisterium deficient in the sense that it can or does teach error. It is deficient in the sense that it has adopted an unorthodox methodology of foreswearing condemnation of error. The Magisterium is the guarantor of the deposit of faith. From the beginning, the Magisterium of the Church has positively defined what is contained in the deposit of faith and rendered council on any number of both historical and perennial circumstances that the faithful may encounter. However, at the same time, and just as necessary, the Magisterium has separated from the deposit of faith what is error or mere speculation. An integral part of the Magisterium’s office is to condemn error and to anathematize those who hold those errors. However, from the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, the modern Magisterium has repudiated that responsibility.

This non-condemning spirit of error has opened the door wide open for a pervasive permissiveness that has had a devastating impact on the life of the Church’s faithful. In the wake of refusing to condemn error, error has been allowed to fester, both great and small. Sinfulness is not only tolerated, it’s defended by the modern and erroneous notion that to criticize the sinner is to be judgmental, and that mercy and forgiveness, quickly followed by forgetfulness and license, is the only “charitable” response to wrong doing. Punishment is no longer considered charitable. As result, sin and error are allowed to chafe at the Church. This permissiveness, coupled with a liberal form of clericalism, significantly contributed to the protection of profligate priests and the cover up of the priest-sex-abuse scandal by bishops and other church leaders.

In an effort to be “orthodox”, the modern orthodox Catholic is impelled to accept not just what the modern Magisterium teaches, but also the modern Magisterium's methodology. If the modern Magisterium wasn’t, itself, going about business in such an unorthodox manner, there wouldn’t be a problem. However, this isn’t the case. The modern Magisterium refuses to condemn error, and instead offers at best ambiguous and equivocal teachings. This ambiguity has shaped the “conservative” and “faithful” Catholic community into a body politic adhering to a hodgepodge of Protestant liturgy coupled by 19th century liberalism. Along with a smattering of authentic Catholic teaching, the result is a body politic racked by confusion, a regular schizophrenic mess. In short, the modern Church has gone a long way down the road charted by Modernists like Loisy.

As Enrico Maria Radaelli points out, the modern Magisterium needs to make a choice; the crisis will not allow it to remain undecided. It must apply the fire of infallibility to these new notions, and only then will it be seen if the Holy Ghost will allow them to stand.

The same is true for every Catholic who now stands in this middle position wrought by confusion. Either the authentic Catholic teachings must be reinterpreted in such a way to make them change to fit the new notions, thus acquiescing entirely to Modernism, or the new notions need to be jettisoned, thus essentially agreeing with the traditionalists. The middle ground, the modern “orthodoxy”, cannot hold, it will inevitably collapse, just as the façade that surrounded Fr. John Corapi collapsed.

It is up to the traditional Catholic to point out that there is a true orthodoxy that embraces Tradition and rejects the novelties of the 20th century, which stands in contradistinction to this modern “orthodoxy” that is nothing other than a Modernism that refashions and makes a counterfeit of the faith, that reduces it to a base humanism. That humanism can be disguised in either avant-garde vestments or fiddle back chasubles, but it will never rise any higher than a mundane humanism that fails to inspire or save souls.

It is the Traditional Latin Mass, the icon that traditional Catholics have faithfully preserved through the tempests of the 20th Century, and its commensurate spirituality, which faces liturgical east in loving adoration of Jesus Christ, Sovereign King and High Priest, it is this that can inspire and save. No other earthly reality expounds the right and straight thought that Jesus Christ, and life with Him in heaven, is the goal of this worldly pilgrimage. It is the Traditional Latin Mass that demonstrates with acute clarity the straight, true and right thought that is true orthodoxy.

SOLT's press release regarding Fr. John Corapi and the response of Thomas à Kempis

As some one who has publicly criticized Fr. Corapi, and has been criticized in return, I was interested in the press release from The Servant Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity (SOLT) regarding Fr. John Corapi. As a follow-up to my previous posts on this subject, I offer three reflections.

First, I'm happy that SOLT has spoken publicly on this matter for one reason, and one reason only: the salvation of souls. Fr. John Corapi, as I've already stated, is leading souls astray by his double talk regarding his "ministry" outside the Church, and by his attacks on the Church's leadership regarding lawful and good procedures put in place to protect the laity. There's also the Facebook issue.

For many who do not use Facebook, it may seem rather perplexing that so many people are worried about Fr. Corapi "leading souls astray", which was the central element of my own criticism. However, for those of us who do use Facebook this aspect of the scandal was the most frightening and what prompted myself and others to speak out.

Many Corapi Facebook "fans" passionately and spitefully attacked not only Fr. Corapi's accuser, but his superiors and the Church in general. Not to mention, those who criticized Fr. Corapi were condemned with no little hateful rhetoric. I had to turn on comment moderation because of the profanity, not to mention ad hominen accusations that completely lacked reason and sanity, directed at me by Corapi "fans" because of my last post on this subject. There's no shortage of conspiracy theories to be found on his page, to include yours truly being accused of being a lackey boy/lapdog for liberal bishops (as laughable as that is!). This is not healthy behavior, but more scandalous is the fact the Fr. Corapi, himself, says nothing to counter this behavior. In fact, someone keeps deleting comments that are negative toward Fr. Corapi, but the same person or persons leave comments containing malicious attacks directed at Corapi's accuser, superiors or critics.

SOLT acted in a way that will hopefully distance themselves and the rest of the Church from this kind of scandalous behavior, and bring, we pray, some of these Corapi "fans" back to sanity.

Secondly, I do not in any way feel "vindicated" in the face of my critics by the press release. This is an unfortunate episode, and great damage has been done to the Church. This should be an invitation for us to make an examination of conscience. Fr. Corapi is, above all, a man just like the rest of us, and any man who thinks himself above the possibility of the fall is a fool.

Lastly, I would like to express my own confusion. I never for a moment thought the allegations were actually true until today. My criticism of Fr. Corapi revolved around the fact that he attacked his superiors, was disobedient to them, attacked the Church, and then announced he was going to engage in ministry outside of the Church. I was critical of him for allowing his "fans" to act in such away as to add scandal on scandal, but never did I criticize him for doing what he was accused of doing or lying to cover it up. I even posted initially that I was sure the allegations would be proven false.

Mysterium iniquitatis.

Now I'm left perplexed by the actions of the man, and a façade so easily built up. The last time I saw Fr. Corapi was two years ago at the Rally on the Quad, during President Obama's commencement address at the University of Notre Dame. I remember his impassioned plea for the re-establishment of a Catholic identity at our universities and his vehement insistence on respect for the unborn. Not that long ago, a traditionalist who attended one of his talks asked him when he was going to offer the Traditional Latin Mass, and he smiled and answered, "soon." That gave hope to many that Fr. Corapi would be helpful in promoting the Traditional Latin Mass. For these reasons I'm having a hard time reconciling that man with what I know of him now, a man who not only fell, but has lied to such an extent as to actually harm others.

There are a couple of items from Thomas à Kempis that seem particularly apropos to this scandal.

For those who are Corapi "fans", and for those struggling with this mystery of iniquity, Chapter 79 of the Imitation of Christ:

CHRIST. My son, if your peace depends on anyone, by reason of your affection or friendship with him, you will always be unsettled and dependent on him. But if you turn to the living and eternal Truth, the departure or death of your friend will not distress you. Your love for a friend must rest in Me, and those who are dear to you in this life must be loved only for My sake. No good and lasting friendship can exist without Me and unless I bless and unite all love it cannot be pure and true. You should be so mortified in your affection towards loved ones that, for your part, you would forego all human companionship. Man draws the nearer to God as he withdraws further from the consolations of this world. And the deeper he descends into himself and the lower he regards himself, the higher he ascends towards God.

He who attributes any goodness to himself, obstructs the coming of God's grace, for the grace of the Holy Spirit always seeks a humble heart. If you would perfectly overcome self and set yourself free from love of creatures, I would come to you with all My grace.(I Pet.5:5) But while your interest is in creatures, the vision of the Creator is hidden from you. Learn, then for love of the Creator to overcome self in everything and you shall come to the knowledge of God. But so long as anything, however small, occupies too much of your love and regard, it injures the soul and hold you back from attaining the highest Good.

And for the rest, Chapter 16 of the Imitation of Christ.

Whatever a man is unable to correct in himself or in others, he should bear patiently until God ordains otherwise. Consider, it is perhaps better thus, for the testing of our patience, without which our merits are of little worth. Whenever such obstacles confront you, pray to God that He may grant you His help, and give you grace to endure them in good heart.(Matt.6:13)

If anyone who has been once or twice warned remains obdurate, do not argue with him, but commit all things to God, that His will may be done, and His Name hallowed in all His servants; for He knows well how to bring good out of evil(Gen.50:20) Strive to be patient; bear with the faults and frailties of others, for you, too, have many faults which others have to bear. If you cannot mould yourself as you would wish, how can you expect other people to be entirely to your liking? For we require other people to be perfect, but do not correct our own faults.

We wish to see others severely reprimanded; yet we are unwilling to be corrected ourselves. We wish to restrict the liberty of others, but are not willing to be denied anything ourselves. We wish others to be bound by rules, yet we will not let ourselves be bound. It is amply evident, therefore, that we seldom consider our neighbour in the same light as ourselves. Yet, if all men were perfect, what should we have to bear with in others for Christ's sake?

Now, God has thus ordered things that we may learn to bear one another's burdens;(Gal.6:2) for there is no man without his faults, none without his burden.(Gal.6:5) None is sufficient in himself;(2Cor.3:5) none is wise in himself;(Prov.3:7) therefore we must support one another,(Col.3:13) comfort(I Thess 5:11), help, teach, and advise one another. Times of trouble best discover the true worth of a man; they do not weaken him, but show his true nature.

The Magnificat: Botticelli, Guéranger, Monteverdi

Our Lady of the Magnificat by Sandro Botticelli, 1480

From
The Liturgical Year
by Dom Guéranger, O.S.B.

Every day the solemn evening Office borrows from Mary's canticle its sweetest fragrance. Nor is Good Friday itself an exception: even on that day, at Vespers, holy Church throughout the world invites our Lady to sing it beside the Cross whereon the terrible drama has just been completed. The reason is, that this incomparable canticle has for its object the entire redemption. At the foot of the holy Rood, no less than on days such as this full of sweetness, that which predominates in Mary overrules alike all her anguish and all her joy is the thought of God's glory being at last satisfied; of man's salvation being at last secured.

My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.

He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.

He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

From
The Liturgical Year
by Dom Guéranger, O.S.B.

Let us, then, hail this day with songs of gladness: for this mystery contains the germ of every victory gained by the Church and her sons: henceforth the sacred Ark is borne at the head of every combat waged by the new Israel. Division between man and his God is at an end, between the Christian and his brethren! The ancient Ark was powerless to prevent the division of the tribes; henceforth if schism and heresy do hold out for a few years against Mary, it shall be but to evince more fully her glorious triumph at last. In all ages, because of her, even as to-day under the eyes of the enemy now put to confusion, little ones shall rejoice, all shall be filled with benediction, and Pontiffs shall be perfected. Let us join the tribute of our songs to John's exulting gladness, to Elizabeth's sudden exclamations, to Zachary's canticle; therewith let earth re-echo! Thus in bygone days was the Ark hailed as it entered the Hebrew camp. Hearing their shout, the Philistines learned that help had come from the Lord; and, seized with terror, they groaned aloud saying: "Woe to us; for there was no such great joy yesterday and the day before: woe to us!" Verily this day the whole human race, together with John, leaps for joy and shouts with a great shout; verily this day has the old enemy good reason to lament: the heel of the woman, as she stamps him down, makes his haughty head to wince for the first time: and John, set free, is hereby the precursor of us all. More happy are we, the new Israel, than was the old, for our glory shall never be taken away; never shall be wrested from us that sacred Ark which has led us dry-shod across the river, and has leveled fortresses to the dust at its approach.

Corpus Christi in Brussels

Photo taken during the Corpus Christi Procession at Eglise du Couvent Sainte Anne Boitsfort, Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, Brussels. More photos here.