Tell Me It Ain’t So
The federal government has been morphing into an authoritarian state for some time now—uninterruptedly.
Two things stand in the way of the consummation of American dictatorship (in fact if not in name). Certainly not elections, which are predetermined. Certainly not the complicit Republican Party and Big Business and mainstream churches. Certainly not the cowed press and military.
The first barrier to the total state is freedom of speech. Though everywhere threatened, freedom of speech and publication still flourishes in the U.S. to an extent remarkable in today’s world. This makes criticism of government policies and disobedience to rulers possible, as in the recent grassroots defeat of the illegal alien “amnesty.” Second, a large part of the American population is armed, something always frightening to rulers. Our rulers aren’t worried about criminals, jihadists, or Mexican fifth columnists, but armed Americans frighten them. Is there any doubt that the government already has in place arrangements for detention camps for recalcitrants?
Underlying these two factors is a fundamental condition. Freedom of speech and an armed citizenry are still valued by an indeterminate but very large part of the population—generally people who think the country should belong to those who made it rather than to the government and whatever alien population the government chooses to import. That is to say the obstacle is a portion of the population that is still actually American.
Given the recent elections, we can expect soon hate crime legislation that will punish any honest discussion of public policy in regard to minority groups. This legislation can be infinitely expanded in interpretation—for instance, an American who harms a minority criminal while defending himself may be guilty of a hate crime. American law enforcement is already federalised and militarised and a massive gun seizure can easily be imagined. It won't be easy or a complete success but will provide an excuse for further regimentation of the "citizens."
You can bet that these policies for "fairness" and "safety" now stand a strong chance of implementation. All the institutions of respectability and a considerable part of the populace can be expected to rally around them, including the Republican Party. There will be a scattering of no votes in Congress from a few sincere old Democratic civil libertarians.
Tell me where I am wrong. Please.
Entries(RSS)
Joseph Salemi @ 50
I realize now that my remark may have sounded like a universal condemnation of everyone who doesn't think much of Vatican II, or at least its fruits. I didn't mean this at all -- I'm a bit afraid of the word 'traditionalist' because, but only because, of the sort of 'freaky' people you're describing. Notwithstanding -- ever since leaving New York City I've become more and more painfully aware of the inestimable gift of a rightly-said Mass, and am often tempted to endure these clubbish stupidities just to avoid a sung (!) Preface and Consecration set to a pretentiously-named 'melody' belonging more to a parody of group therapy than to the Re-enactment. (The altar-rail incident, by the way, occurred at St. Agnes in midtown.) Do you think -- as I've vaguely hoped -- that a massive ex-Romanis flight to the Eastern liturgies might be the liturgical analogue (in this country, anyway) to H. F. Wolff's fiscal boycott?
Well, it's possible I suppose. But those of us who are attached to the Old Roman Rite are probably not going to be satisfied with any Byzantine substitute.
As for St. Agnes in midtown Manhattan, of course it's a magnet for all types of traditionalists, both sane and crazy. When I attended years ago, I recall the brilliant Father George Rutler, a convert from High Anglicanism if I recollect rightly.
And yes, the worst distortions of Catholic liturgy take place in the boondocks. There's something about localities like Kansas or Iowa or Soth Succotash, Indiana that brings out the worst proclivities of liberal Catholics. And for that reason alone, we put up with the lunatic C.U.F. people.
You have a point JE, but consider: the US military is stretched to the limit overseas, not concentrated at home. America is a really big place in which to try to control or put down insurgencies and we cant even do it in relatively tiny Iraq; many recent vets have learnt much from their enemies while serving overseas, and many of them are disgruntled and may join a rebellion; military type weapons can be smuggled in and already have been by petty drug gangs; what is left of national guard or reserve units at home likely will, at the least, be divided in sympathies, or may even join in the rebellion, particularly if a state decides to join in the rebellion and they decide to be loyal to their state.
The only thing keeping the Union together is malaise and inertia in the people, and if they really decide to withdraw consent and refuse to be pushed around, it's over. The house of cards will collapse.
@50, Joseph Salemi: What is "traditionalist" in being indifferent to "altar girls", "reception of Communion in the hand", and photo-ops or "pleasant chats" with enemies of the Catholic Church, such as Buddhists and Muslims or even going so far as kissing the Koran?
J. Meng @ 54
I'm afraid I don't follow your question. Could you rephrase it more lucidly?
Joseph Salemi: I will rephrase my last. You said that you were a "traditionalist Roman Catholic". At the same time you classified altar girls, reception of Holy Communion in the hand, and public relations by the Pope with the Catholic Church's enemies, i.e., Buddhists and Muslims as "utterly indifferent things." I was just wondering how a Traditionalist would find them as "utterly indifferent things" in light of Church history before Vatican II. It is quite evident that these examples manifest a total departure from Catholic practice and doctrine and reflect deeper theological and philosophical problems in the Church.
J. Meng @ 56
"Practice" and "doctrine" are not the same things. Church practice can and does change, in accordance with the prudential decisions of the Pope and the hierarchy. Church doctrine cannot change, except by clarification and/or addition.
Using altar girls as well as altar boys is a question of practice, and can be decided one way or the other, prudentially. Nothing doctrinal is riding on the matter. The same is true for receiving Holy Communion in the hand. Be reasonable, Meng. Nothing in the Baltimore Catechism concerning the nature and validity of the Eucharistic sacrifice changes just because some people take communion in their hand.
As for talking with Buddhists or Moslems... well, that's all it is: talk. Would you say that I, as a Roman Catholic, can't have a polite conversation with a Southern Baptist or a Jew? If that were the case, no Catholic could take part in the discussions here at Chronicles, since many of the participants are from other religious traditions.
The Pope has meetings and photo-ops with all sorts of people. Like it or not, in this modern world the Pope is a public figure, a celebrity, an icon. Saying that he has to sequester himself away from any contact with non-Catholics is silly.
Not all traditionalist Roman Catholics are C.U.F. crackpots.
I have a personal question. Very soon Pope John Paul II will be on the road to canonization. Those thousands of Italians screaming "Santo subito!" at his funeral aren't going to be denied. When that happens, John Paul II will be in the "Communion of Saints," the very same Communion of Saints that you profess your belief in at every Mass. So tell me: when that comes about will you have a problem praying to the man who chatted politely with Budhists and Moslems?
@57 Joseph Salemi,
a) You said, "Using altar girls as well as altar boys is a question of practice, and can be decided one way or the other, prudentially. Nothing doctrinal is riding on the matter." However, the prohibition of female altar servers goes back to the late 4th century in canon 44 of the Collection of Laodicea. In 494 A.D. Pope St. Gelasius denounced this practice as an abuse. He remarked that female service at the altar is "to carry out roles that are not suited to their sex." Church doctrine is clear on why females are not suited to altar servers: altar service is basicially a stage along the road to the priesthood. Church doctrine is also clear that Holy Orders can never be conferred upon women. As Fr. Brian Harrison notes, this has been the two millennia teaching of the Church and that this tradition "reflects the will of Christ."
b) Although the reception of Holy Communion in the hand was prevalent in the early Church, because of growing abuses related to this type of reception the Church outlawed it. The Synod of Rouen in the year 650 A.D. condemned the reception of Communion in the hand by the laity as an abuse. The Roman Ordo of the 9th century accepts Communion on the tongue as the normal practice. One of the decisive reasons for this change to reception on the tongue, according to Fr. Jungmann, was the "growing respect for the Eucharist" it fostered. Also, by the mid-thirteenth century, "it was already a firmly established tradition that only what had been consecrated should ever come in contact with the Blessed Sacrament while dispensing It. St. Thomas Aquinas enunciates three reasons why dispensing "Christ's Body" belongs to the priest (cf. Summa Theologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 13). The Protestant heretic Martin Bucer saw the practice of a priest placing the Host upon the tongue of a communicant as signifying that the Eucharistic bread was not ordinary bread. So, he demanded Communion in the hand, for two reasons: 1. to emphasize that the Eucharistic bread was just bread and not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; and 2. to repudiate the "virtue of the oil of consecration" of the Catholic priest. Communion in the hand was re-introduced into the Catholic Church as an act of rebellion soon after Vatican II . It began in Holland. It soon spread to other European countries and to the United States Unfortunately, the revolutionaries in Rome granted permission for legalization of the abuse by May 1969.
c) The Pope is not you or me. He is the Vicar of Christ with the responsibility to preserve the Catholic Faith and to teach it to the world for its salvation. The Pope has always been a public figure, but that does not justify giving scandal by compromising the Catholic Faith with the false ecumenism that has spilled out from Vatican II. You said, "As for talking with Buddhists or Moslems… well, that’s all it is: talk." Really? The record refutes your claim. In Dec. 1983, Pope John Paul II preached in a Lutheran Church; in Aug. 1985, he took part in Animist rites in the "Sacred Forest" in Togo; in Feb. 1986, JPII had the sacred Tilac put on his forehead by a priestess of Shiva in Bombay; heinvited representatives of the "main religions" to Assisi to pray for peace in Oct. 1986 (by the way, of the 130 reps that showed up, which God were they praying to?); in April 1986, JPII recited psalms with Jews while visiting the synagogue of Rome; two months later, he invited Catholics and Jews to prepare together for the coming of the Messiah; in Feb. 1993, JPII engaged in dialogues with the high priests and witch doctors of Voodoo; and I have a picture of him kissing the Koran, which refers to Christians as "pigs" for their belief in the Holy Trinity and which also says, that a Muslim goes to Heaven if he kills an infidel, i.e., a Christian. Recently, Pope Benedict XVI visited the Jewish Synagogue in Cologne, Germany in Aug. 2005, where he took an active part in the Jewish worship service. Before Vatican II, to take part in a non-Catholic worship was a sin against the Divine Law and the First Commandment. In Dec. 2006, grovelling before the Muslims because of his statement in Germany, earlier, BXVI visited the Blue Mosque in Turkey and prayed with them facing Mecca. BXVI opened a major interfaith conference in Naples in Oct. 2007 where 200 reps of all the false religions had gathered. Lastly, his visit to the New York Synagogue in April 2008 will not be forgotten. These papal actions never occurred before Vatican II. There is a story that St. John the Evangelist while approaching a public bath was told that a particular heretic was inside bathing. St. John turned around and fled declaring that he did not want to be in the same space as a heretic for the roof falling in.
d) As to the personal question you've asked me. I will give you an answer when that old revolutionary has been canonized, which I believe highly unlikely.
e) So, again, I ask you, how can you find these things as utterly indifferent, if you are a traditionalist?
J. Meng @ 58
Meng, you have more holes in that long-winded oration than a sieve does.
First off, and most glaringly, you admit that communion in the hand is a PRACTICE, since it was "prevalent in the early Church" (your exact words). If it was indeed practiced, it is not inherently contrary to doctrine. Everything else that you adduce in reference to the matter is just a rehashing of the history of prudential decisions concerning it.
What was PRACTICE in the seventh century is still PRACTICE in the twenty-first. Nothing doctrinal is riding on it. So what if Martin Bucer had some polemical notions about it? Should we make decisions about ecclesiastical practices based on what a non-Catholic thinks? I thought that traditionalist Catholics weren't supposed to be influenced by the views of heretics.
You say that "Church doctrine is also clear that Holy Orders can never be conferred upon women." That's absolutely correct. And Pope John Paul II made it very specific in one of his allocutions. He completely closed the door on the specter of female ordination. Women will NEVER be priests in the Roman Church.
So why the devil are you weeping and wailing about the fact that he left permission for the use of altar girls to the local bishops? This is what I mean by the absurdly fanatical, totalizing mentality of a lot of so-called "traditionalist" Roman Catholics. The Pope handed us a complete victory when he quashed the possibility of female priests. He just threw a few peanuts to the liberals, by allowing altar girls if the bishop says yes. Good grief, Meng -- recognize when we've won!
Did Pope John Paul II do a number of things that you and I might not have done? Sure. Many of them were spectacularly histrionic. But recall that in his youth this Pope WAS an actor! His entire personality was histrionic. And this is an age of spectacle, of hype, of publicity. None of it has any real meaning.
You fail to see that a great deal of modern life is just a lot of pointless gesturing. Photo-ops, sound-bites, head shots, press releases, flashbulbs, ten-second bulletins, pep talks, pointless committee meetings... it's all just trivia, and no one really takes it seriously. But many traditionalist Catholics seem to believe that every word out of the Pope's mouth, and his every off-the-cuff gesture, has to be footnoted to Aquinas or the Council of Trent.
Lighten up, Meng. Pope Benedict XVI has granted a worldwide Indult for the use of the Latin mass. Have you forgotten so quickly that you are winning the war? Don't sweat the altar girls and the photo-ops.
And lastly, I'll ask you a question that you can answer right now. Do you believe that Pope John Paul II was the validly elected Vicar of Christ on earth, in apostolic succession from St. Peter? A straight answer, please -- just yes or no.
@ 59, Joseph Salemi,
Thanks for participating in a simple demonstration of catechesis in which you demonstrated that you are not truly a traditionalist Roman Catholic. You were unable to make (or God forbid! rejected) the connection between Catholic practice and doctrine. These things which you so blithely accept as utter indifferences are novelties in terms of Catholic Tradition, and consequently, scandalous. They came about since Vatican II. I suspect that you are a victim of a Novus Ordo formation and that you tend toward a liberal Catholicism, such as that which describes the attitude of the ruling hierarchy in Rome. As you should know, Catholic liberalism is a diabolical disorientation. Christ declared that one is either with Him or against Him. There is no middle ground. You should re-evaluate your position.
Notice that Meng refused to answer my question. I'm pretty sure now that he's a sedevacantist.
What Meng demonstrates his is incapacity to distinguish between the Magisterium and pastoral policy. This is typical of certain wild and woolly traditionalists -- they see no difference beween mutable practice and immutable doctrine.