Moonstruck Morality Versus the Cosmos
“Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon . . .
terrible as an army with banners?”
—Song of Songs 6:10
“Si direbbe che persino la luna si è affrettata stasera—osservatelo in alto—a guardare a questo spettacolo.”
(“One might almost think that the moon—just look at him up there—hurried up tonight to see this spectacle.”) These were words that Pope John XXIII extemporaneously addressed to the crowd gathered in Piazza San Pietro on the moonlit evening of October 11, 1962, the opening day of the Second Vatican Council. The blessed pontiff spoke warmly of his expectation that the council would conclude “prima di Natale,” which being interpreted is “before Christmas.” On this point at least, “Good Pope John” was not a prophet. But how could he have thought otherwise? Everything had been meticulously prepared; the documents were all ready, expounding the Faith and refuting modern errors with vigor and copious footnotes. Well, no, as the saying goes, “the Rhine flowed into the Tiber,” and by Christmas the carefully worded schemata were practically all gone (except the “easy” one on liturgy: another less-than-prophetic but, in this case, collegial, not papal, surmise), and the council’s work indefinitely to-be-continued.
January 25 of this year marked the 50th anniversary of the surprise announcement of Pope John XXIII that he intended to convoke a general council. From 1959 to 1962, the soon-to-be-jettisoned constitutions and decrees that would have been discussed were composed by preparatory committees of eminent Roman theologians. Among these is one document that is remarkable for its keen prescience and consequent pastoral anxiety. It never even made it to the floor of the council. Its full title was Schema Constitutionis Dogmaticae de Castitate, Matrimonio, Familia, Virginitate. Yes, there was a separate dogmatic constitution on chastity (marital, familial, and virginal) and every word of it now reads like a prophecy—not a Delphic utterance, but as clear-sighted as Daniel. Reading the rejected schema, one cannot help but be struck by the sharp focus and clarity whereby chastity and all that opposes it in the modern world were confronted. Nor can one deny—without questioning the value of the many other matters treated by the council—that in the face of all that has come to pass in the meantime this precision and firmness would have been the greatest thing the council might have offered to the world.
Practically every moral threat in the realm of human sexuality is addressed. It deals with homosexuality: “It is most evil to hold that the most filthy affections for persons of the same sex are in fact a privilege of a higher level of culture.” It deals with surgical sex changes: “Utterly wicked are those attempts to change one’s proper sex when it can be sufficiently determined.” Genetic manipulation: “In no case can a right be given . . . to introduce into the human body procreative cells of another species, or the inverse, or to unite human cells from either sex in a laboratory . . . even if only the progress of science be intended.” Sex education: “[T]hat kind of instruction is to reprobated which is in the presence of boys and girls together.” Feminism:
The Synod reproves that evil form of emancipation by which the proper nature, function, and role of a woman are defiled, be she daughter, or wife, or mother, on account of the introduction of a false opinion of her equality with man . . . and moved by a false exaltation of freedom.
Immoral politicians: “The Synod most severely condemns those who directly assist or formally cooperate in establishing unjust laws regarding marriage and the family.” The intrusion of civil government in education: “The Sacred Synod condemns as well all theories by which in whatsoever way the rights of the church and of the family regarding the education of children are denied or whereby the primary right in this matter is attributed to civil authority.” The impeding of procreation by artificial means and the discouraging of fruitful families:
The Sacred Synod while it most insistently exhorts all that each one should according to his ability effectively assist families bearing a large number of children, at the same time severely reproves the recommending or spreading of immoral means of contraception for the limiting of children.
The objective origin and nature of marriage itself:
In the first place this Holy Synod takes up the duty to condemn all the radical errors of those who maintain that marriage in its order and establishment is a merely social phenomenon in continual evolution without any natural or supernatural weight, and that it does not come from God, nor is it subject to the Church.
The prohibition of civil dissolution of marriage: “Married persons are gravely forbidden from seeking a civil divorce as though it were properly a dissolution, as if a bond valid before God could be dissolved by civil authority.” Legal sanctions against adultery: “It is erroneous to assert that the civil authority in no case enjoys the power of punishing both men and women adulterers.” Contraception: “All means and techniques whereby in the use of marriage the procreation of offspring is impeded by human industry must be held to be intrinsically and gravely evil.” Procured abortion: “It is illicit after the accomplishment of the conjugal act to interrupt the process of conception whatever stage it has reached, or to cause the direct destruction of the fetus not yet born, by which action they sin gravely against the commandment of God.” Unnatural relations: “The chaste fidelity of spouses demands that in the mutual rendering of the marriage debt nothing should be done which is against the law of God, even if this imposes real acts of heroism.” And finally, the mass media of entertainment:
With supreme aversion this Sacred Synod acknowledges how many and how great are the detestable traps set today against chastity . . . even though they are offered under the pretext of play, recreation, art, and information whereby souls are every moment and in every place, even at home, incited to evil, nay rather dragged to it.
These are only a selection of quotations. There was much more. The language is strong, precise, and formal, and most evidently not devoid of that note of indignation which commonly characterized the magisterial reproofs of days gone by.
What the council did finally say about marriage is to be found a chapter of the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. The tone of this document, in contrast to the original, is hortatory rather than definitive, using personalistic descriptive affirmation rather than essentialistic formal definition and condemnation. In so doing, it clearly decries abortion and divorce, and mildly opposes contraception, but only refers in passing to the objective order of nature, while preferring to emphasize the experiential and contextual aspects of conjugal morality. Given that the two documents do not contradict each other, what is the key to understanding the difference of outlook and—if I may deal in mere, alas, futuribilia—of outcome? I was puzzling over this, until I came across some prohibitions in the “condition contrary to fact” schema that really struck me for their amazing foresight, and which regarded, not the various moral monstrosities condemned above, but rather opinions held by pious Catholics. Here is an error, but a telling one: “The Sacred Synod reproves also the opinion of those who assert that the use of marriage is a specific means of attaining that perfection whereby truly and properly Man is the image of God and of the Most Holy Trinity.”
But isn’t this practically what many today teach? That the marriage act itself, and not the married state or the bond of sacramental marriage, is a direct sign of the end of human existence: ecstatic union with God? Do we not hear that the Song of Songs is not “just” a mystical allegory, but rather a description of how to get union with God by means of sex, albeit marital and chaste? Are not marital relations sometimes referred to by preachers as the supreme and privileged signs of God’s love? Isn’t this so much the case now that it almost sounds unchristian to assert otherwise? Haven’t the dour strictures of Saint Augustine and Saint Alphonsus been surpassed?
Then I came across another passage just as telling: “The opinion is false and erroneous which holds that a marriage may be declared invalid or be dissolved on account of lack of love alone.”
I am sure that such a lack would, if attested to before a diocesan tribunal in the United States today, almost infallibly obtain just such a (fallible) declaration of nullity. The reader is asking: “You mean to tell me that love is not a necessary condition for the validity of a marriage?”
Now I would be the last to deny that there may be some individual cases in which these two prohibited opinions could be taken as true, but their condemnation here is aiming at the common good, not at individual exceptions, which can be dealt with individually. For example, the first proposition was true in a sense before Original Sin, and the second could be true if lack of love meant deceitful malice. But there was a Fall, and there is such a thing as a minimum requirement for a valid marriage that has nothing to do with . . . romance.
There! I found it. Here is the problem within the fold, which has practically furnished the enemies of sound morality with a weapon to turn against us: the romanticization of marriage and procreation. This is the vulgar version of the personalist approach to sex, which has its undoubtedly orthodox incarnations, but which is unable to take up arms against the enemy it is so eager to convince of the deeply fulfilling, richly complex experience of marital love. The enemy is at the gate, and instead of aiming at him from the safety of your turrets and routing him, you attempt to show him what a lovely, serene, and productive city he is about to destroy. In order to do this you must let him inside the gate. If he is clever, he will ask you to let his companions in also, and so they occupy the city without a fight.
The teaching of the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World on marriage and the family is sublime and true, but, in view of the evils in the modern world and the undoubted “signs of the times” evident in the moral state of our society, it hardly met the challenge. The enemies of Christian morality are relentless and cruel and brook no resistance, and we are trying our best to reassure them that we are not mean, or uptight, or hateful; that we have a “positive message”; that it is all so beautiful, if they only knew. It is as though Lot should have passed out happy-face buttons to the men beating down his door, or Joseph should have tried to sit down and have a heart-to-heart talk with Potiphar’s wife. The effect of this is that our opponents do not change a bit, but rather those on our own side begin to view the robust expression of our teachings with suspicion. Let’s be honest: Were we not just a bit troubled by the unapologetic tone of at least some of the affirmations given from the original schema on chastity, marriage, family, and virginity? And how many Christians were and are and surely will be very quiet about their reservations regarding so-called same-sex marriage, lest they sound like they do not respect the attachment and warm feelings and needs of such couples?
What is at the root of this? We still believe that the acts prohibited in the original schema are wrong, but we are ill at ease when these acts are reprobated in a certain manner. This is because we have romanticized sexuality. Here are the words of a dissenting voice at the council when the new schema on marriage, the one that was ultimately approved by the council, was being proposed in place of the original. Archbishop Djajasepoetra of Jakarta in Indonesia complained—in Latin—at the council’s third session in 1964:
The schema is too Occidental . . . You in the West find it quite natural for those in love to marry. But you are the exceptions if humanity as a whole is considered. Our people love one another because they are married, which is not quite the same thing. We differ from Westerners in that our marriages are contracted not out of love but by the will of the parents or tribe. We marry to continue the race.
The romanticization of sexual love in marriage has led to the subordination of its objective cosmological role in the procreation of the human race to human desire and personal need. “Our people love one another because they are married.” This is a love of the common good of the family, or the tribe, or the nation, or of the whole human race. On this view marriage is as much a matter of the common, public good as warfare, or capital punishment, or a stable means of exchange. Of this perspective we have great need, and there are signs that it is being gradually recovered, if not with the rotund reprobations of the preconciliar age (these are now reserved only for certain offenses judged to be worthy of condemnation by the media), at least with the clear, essentialist thinking that looks unflinchingly and unromantically at the nature of things.
Just this past December the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an instruction on certain bioethical issues, among which was found the resolution of the question of the “prenatal adoption” into the womb of frozen embryos that would otherwise never be carried, the so-called “snowflake babies.” Very much to the dismay of some (but admittedly not all) personalist moralists, the Holy See came down decidedly against this apparently merciful “saving” of a fertilized ovum, a human life. Why? Because not even the praiseworthy intention of saving a single life can justify an unnatural means of procreation outside of the marriage act. The document contains this amazing statement: “All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved” (emphasis original). Analogously, the Holy See has also resolutely opposed the adoption of children already born by same-sex couples, and Catholic adoption agencies have ended their services in places like the United Kingdom where the state will not allow them to refuse to place children with such couples. The good pro-life Christian may not see the analogy, but both are attempts to remedy an injustice or misfortune by immoral means. In short, a romanticizing ethic absolutizes personal human desire or need; the ancient cosmological ethic accepts the limitations of human life and does the best it can in order to serve the common good.
The moon that looked down on the spectacle of the council is, after all, in ancient and medieval cosmology the immediate cause of the bodily dispositions needed for procreation. Omnis motus geniturae fit a luna: “Every movement of the generative faculty is from the moon,” said Albert the Great. The lunar connection was inferred from women’s monthly cycle. Just this last Epiphany, in speaking of the star of Bethlehem, the star of the greatest of procreations, Pope Benedict made this observation about the ancient, cosmological Weltanschauung: “There is a special concept of the cosmos in Christianity which found its loftiest expression in medieval philosophy and theology.” May the lunar star pointed out by Pope John at the opening of the council be at last a genuine prophecy and sign of a return to the order of things, the visible cosmos of the Creator, of which we poor men born of woman are but a part, albeit the noblest. And then, perhaps, men will love their wives because they are married to them, and that will be something for the moon—in our hemisphere at least—to hurry up and see.
This article first appeared in the March 2009 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
Entries(RSS)
I don't wish to argue theology with someone as well educated as Father Barbour, but doesn't using the rejected schemata to criticize the actual documents of the Council sort of raise the question of where the Holy Spirit was? I find a tendency among many Catholics to materially reject Vatican II even if they formally accept it. All problems which the Church has encountered since the Council are blamed on the Council. It is even stated that the Church is in an unprecedented crisis, although this period would look like a golden age compared to many periods in the history of the Church. I'm afraid that Father Barbour's essay gives a lot of encouragement to that particular mentality. Apparently the Holy Spirit inspired the Council Fathers and the Pope to make some extremely poor choices in presentation of Catholic teaching. If the average Catholic can take that attitude with respect to Vatican II, he can take it with respect to any Church Council and need not necessarily use a rejected schemata as the basis for his critique - in terms of divine inspiration or lack thereof, his personal opinion will do just as well.
Those who live by Papal "infallibility" perish by the same. The Church is Concilliar. The Truth is that which is believed from the beginning, by all, as Saint Vincent of Lerins rightly said.
Father,
Thank you for this great post. As Kirt notes above, it doesn't really matter how doctrine is presented these days, the Church is almost always rejected as a teacher. She is always behind the times as viewed by those who believe that future time (or more time) will bring all things to perfection. Years ago the old philosophy professor in Dallas said the Holy Father might as well throw his encyclicals in the Tiber River as to think anybody is going to listen to them. I think what this article points out is that you can't dress up difficult truths or sweeten the arduous good and think that will make it easier to practice or accept. As my old classics professor often said,"Anybody living today who thinks that Christ will make him rich and happy, simply hasn't tried Him." Thanks again for this good post.
"Father" this is a great post, however I think you´re barking at the wrong tree, since the Vatican Hierarchy has lost any connection with the tradition of the Holy Fathers or the dogmas of the Holy Church, beginning the John XXIII´s rejection of the dogma "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus"(Outside the Church there´s no Salvation). In reference to the sexual mores, due to ambiguity of encyclicals like Humane vitae and the unwillingness of the Church "leaders" to deny communion to the sinners or condemn the sin in harsh terms or use excommunication with de facto heretics (think about Pelosi, Kerry, Biden or Sebelius) in order to set the example, the sexual chaos we´re living in comes as no surprise (You only have to look "catholic" universities like Notredame allowing the "Vagina Monologues" presentations or awarding the überabortionist Obama if you want to argue).
My guess is that the Holy Spirit was not behind the decissions at the Vatican II council thus invalidating its purveyor as a Pope (please remember Saint Bellarmine De Romano Pontifice chapter 30), saying otherwise would equal blasphemy, because God wouldn´t contradict himself.
Are the documents of a Vatican council necessarily examples of Papal infallibility?
Talking a friend the other day, I explained that the goal of marriage was not necessarily to live happily ever after... but to assist one another to reach heaven along with your children. She was kind of puzzled by this. She had seen to many soap operas.
#5 - The issue is not Papal infallibility, which is exercised without a council. But most infallible doctrines of the Catholic faith have been issued by councils meeting under the authority of the Pope. A council is not superior to a pope; that theory was condemned more than 500 years ago. But this question does not arise with respect to Vatican II, since this was conducted entirely under Papal authority. The real problem with Mr. Cooney's question is the implication that a teaching which has not been pronounced under the authority of Papal infallibility may simply be disregarded. Mr. Cooney may not intend this, but many "Catholics" of the cafeteria variety are quite explicit about this - especially with regard to Church teaching on contraception.
#7 I certainly don't mean to say that one may disregard anything that is not offically prounounced infallible. That would be absurd. Perhaps there is a difference between authoritative teaching and infallibility, I don't know. I converted, a few years ago, from Catholicism to the Orthodox Faith, but I have to admit that there is a great deal more vagueness on moral questions than in the Roman church. So, I tend to look to Rome for, as Fr. Hugh puts it, formal definition and condemnation.
Kirt @ 1
"Apparently the Holy Spirit inspired the Council Fathers and the Pope to make some extremely poor choices in presentation of Catholic teaching. If the average Catholic can take that attitude with respect to Vatican II, he can take it with respect to any Church Council and need not necessarily use a rejected schemata as the basis for his critique - in terms of divine inspiration or lack thereof, his personal opinion will do just as well."
My brother and I have had many, many discussions re Vatican II, all of which ended in no significant movement toward the other's position. In re the quotation above, I emphatically reject the facile conclusion he has drawn from an equally facile proposition.
Obviously, the poor choices made by the Council Fathers and the Pope (his characterizations, not mine, although I am aware of his ironic nuance) could not have been inspired by the Holy Spirit: which is exactly the point here. Something--or someone--else was behind them. "Smoke of Satan," anyone?
"...raise the question of where the Holy Spirit was?"
I think I know where He was and is: in ultimate charge of Holy Mother Church, as we were promised. Does this mean that everything "bound on earth" by men meets with His enthusiastic endorsement? I don't know. However, it does mean that, no matter how much of a mess men--in their bindings and loosings--make of the Church, it remains the Church: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. The means outside of which there is no salvation (all suggestions to the contrary notwithstanding, no matter who made them).
For that reason--regardless of the extent to which I reject the fruits of Vatican II--I turn away with revulsion from the sedevacantist trads who position themselves as the chosen "remnant" that is the only remaining repository of the One True Church. The ones who believe that the other @99.5% of the world's Catholics are weekly sitting through a meaningless ritual with no substance (or transubstantiation, for that matter), performed by a faux clergy that was never duly ordained.
What nonsense! To believe such is to say, in so many words, that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church. True Catholics know that to be impossible. However, I doubt not that a true and valid mass can occur in deplorable liturgical trappings. I have seen way more so than I care to dwell upon here. That such masses are nonetheless true and valid is one of those great mysteries that will not longer matter once we achieve salvation. Meanwhile, to say that they are problematic is a gross understatement. And to suggest that the chaotic, post-conciliar status quo of Holy Mother Church is not a source of enormous confusion and scandal is, well, obtuse.
Conscientious objection to Vatican II is more than just an "attitude."
@2 Right on, Andrew!
@6 Woodcutter
I have good news and bad news. The good news is that Guiding Light is being cancelled after a 57 year run on TV. The bad news is that it will be replaced by something cheaper -- read: worse.
I think that Pope Benedict had it right when he clarified the teaching of Vatican II on the Latin Mass. I believe he said something to the effect that the Mass in the vernacular was an option not an obligatory replacement. At the end of the council the left jumped on this teaching with great enthusiasm. As you read the Documents of Vatican II you soon realize that there are many instances that the old is not necessarily abandoned. The wording may be so vague as to "do or do not" that the left sees it as one or the other in order to justify unnecessary changes.
Annibale Bugnini and his allies hijacked Vatican Two and came up with the Novus Ordo. Michael Davies, Father Malachi Martin and Anne Muggeridge, among others, have claimed that Protestants were in on the Novus Ordo. Davies and Father Martin also claim that Archbishop Bugnini was a Free-Mason, a charge that was denied by the conservative Archbishop Cardinal Oddi.
@Mark Hidgon
"For that reason–regardless of the extent to which I reject the fruits of Vatican II–I turn away with revulsion from the sedevacantist trads who position themselves as the chosen “remnant” that is the only remaining repository of the One True Church. The ones who believe that the other @99.5% of the world’s Catholics are weekly sitting through a meaningless ritual with no substance (or transubstantiation, for that matter), performed by a faux clergy that was never duly ordained."
Well If most of the catholics under pain of damnation did vote for Obama in spite of his views on abortion, secularism, homosexuality etc., well it´s not hard to believe that most catholics (even traditional like the sedevacanstists you despise so much) are fooled, deceived by the evil one. Should I remind you Matthew 7:13- “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life, and few there are that find it!”
By the way as St. Athanasious said, "even if the faithful catholics are reduced to a handful, they are the true Church".
J.M. @13: "like the sedevacantists you despise so much..."
"Despise" is your word, not mine. I do not despise them. In fact, a handful are personally very near and dear to me. Please do not attribute to me a sentiment that is not in evidence.
Perhaps I should have said that I turn away with revulsion from sedevacantism. Having thus amended my statement, I would add that the sedevacantists' little world is just a small sector of the cosmic chaos that has followed Vatican II as its largest, most rotten fruit--whether that inevitable consequence was intended, anticipated or not. We are truly put to the test as we strive to survive and make sense of this period of severe disorder and dysfunction in the Church.
BTW, my last name is spelled "Higdon." Because he is blessed with the Beatific Vision for eternity, I'm sure St. Athanasius doesn't care that you misspelled his name, too. For obvious reasons, I have no idea how either your first or last name is spelled.
#9 - Mark, let me clarify. I did not intend to characterize the documents of the council as poor choices. I was simply adopting what seemed to me to be Father Barbour's view of them for the sake of exploring the question of where that leaves us. Not ironic nuance so much as examining the difficulties of a certain position.
Now it is certainly possible to take the position that Divine guidance of the Church protects only from obvious, manifest error but otherwise permits every sort of foul-up. Applied to Vatican II, this would imply not only that God was very niggardly with his graces, but also that the huge majority of men running the Church before the Council were knaves, fools or both.
As far as the "fruits" argument is concerned, if one takes the position that everything bad that happened in the Church after Vatican II is the fault of the Council and simply ignores anything good or says that the good would have happened anyway, then one could use the same argument to show that Nicea, Trent, and Vatican I were producers of bad fruit.
Well, first of all my apologies if my language was too strong, after when said you turn away with revulsion from the sedevacantists, I inmediately assumed the worst.
I apologize for the misspelling of your name Mr. Higdon, normally I don´t double check my orthography (partly ´cos I assume it´s above average hence there´s no need to).
BTW if you perform an analysis "cause and effect" you would realize that since the election of Pope Paul VI onwards, the "leaders of the Church seemed hellbent on destroying the structure of the Church, at least that´s the impression one can draw from their actions and general inaction and unwillingness to fix what´s broken. If a person like me with an IQ of 130 (average) can see that, How on earth can someone with an IQ beyond mine ignore the panorama (I´m talking about the "Church" leaders)?
How can the Pope not be aware of the tremendous damage he´s done attending to the infidels service (read muslim, jew or the heathens).
Recently in Poland the council of bishops drew a set of instructions about how you can QUIT the catholic church. And these are the guys you´re expecting to tackle the crysis of the church?
Amending Coment #16
Well, first of all my apologies if my language was too strong, after all, when said you turn away with revulsion from the sedevacantists, I inmediately assumed the worst.
@ # 6 Woodcutter
Well your friend was deluded as I was when I was younger (that´s barely two years ago). I hope she can find the truth and sweep away the brainwashing from the soap operas and movies we´re bombarded with everyday.
JM @16 & 17
Apologies accepted.
In re: "And these are the guys you´re expecting to tackle the crysis (sic) of the church?"
First of all, I take your misspelling as a pun. Did you so intend? It's a good one, either way.
To answer your question: No, these are NOT the guys. I expect little or nothing good from them. I think there is less distance between your general position and mine than you might suspect. My unflagging expectations are of the Holy Spirit to resolve the "crysis." I daily strive not to question His methods.
Kirt @ 15
Re "...if one takes the position that everything bad that happened in the Church after Vatican II is the fault of the Council...": "Everything"? I certainly take no such unexceptionable position.
Re "Now it is certainly possible to take the position that Divine guidance of the Church protects only from obvious, manifest error but otherwise permits every sort of foul-up. Applied to Vatican II, this would imply not only that God was very niggardly with his graces, but also that the huge majority of men running the Church before the Council were knaves, fools or both."
Although you present this as a proposition, I can find little to argue with it as a position. "Niggardly"? Well, we all know that grace is God's to give to whomever He chooses in whatever amounts He decides. Thus, I draw no inference of Divine niggardliness regarding any graces that may or may not have been granted to the participants in Vatican II.
"Huge" majority? Well, I would not presume to characterize it as huge. Merely sufficient for the massive mischief that has been the fruit of the council. Vatican II, that is. The one we're primarily talking about in this thread.
BTW, I presume that by "men running the Church before the Council," you mean the prelature that was contemporary to the Council, many of whom became its participants.
@Mark Higdon
Pun wasn´t intended but it´s good one indeed.
BTW if our positions are similar I encourage you to investigate more about the development of V2 and its consequences .......... unfortunately manifest heresy bloomed from that council even though the seeds were planted a long long time before that....Indeed there was a great number of prelates who were apostates and heretics themselves occupying the highest positions of the church. Such persons made the council possible.
The first of the heresies enshrined in that council was the rejection of "Extra Ecclesiam Nullas Salus" and the introduction of Modernist heresies, formerly condemned by previous popes.
My point is that in order to fix our morality issues, defend the marriage and our nations and historic peoples, as well as our political system, as catholics, we have to deal with our doctrinal problems and excommunicate the unrepentant heretics, we have to go to the root of the problem.
#19 - Mark, yes I was speaking of those who were contemporary to the Council and became its participants. And while I don't have stats off the top of my head, it is my impression that the documents were passed by overwhelming majority votes. I believe that is fairly typical of Church councils - there are few close votes.
Papal infallibility is not an issue wrt Vatican II. No new doctrines were proclaimed at that council, so there was no heresy possible. However, this council did set a record for ambiguousness allowing for heretical interpretations. Pope Paul VI, who signed the documents and who required a number of footnotes which are normally excluded from the translations which the theological establishments print, John Paul II, and Benedict the XVI have all said that any interpretation of Vatican II which conflicts with previous Church teaching is false. Thus, Vatican II is largely irrelevant and is only worth reading if you want to track down some particular innovation. Vatican II is of course a cover for an exploding modernism that had been growing out of the sunlight like mold in the refrigerator for a long time. It didn't help any when John XXIII decided to officially redefine "compassion" which replaced the usual excommunications/monastic exiles with (private) instructions and admonissions and ethical appeals to the heretics and innovators (except for super eggregious violators and traditionalists) to reform themselves.
I would be interested in reading all of the rejected schema, as, I believe, the current example shows, there would be many worthwhile things to (re)learn and (re)appreciate. Does anyone know where they could be found in English?
Kirt @ 21
Re: "my impression that the documents were passed by overwhelming majority votes"
Could be. In your first usage of the phrase, it was not clear to me that the "huge majority" you cited was not the contemporary prelature in general, but specifically those prelates voting at V II.
JM @ 20
Re: "we have to deal with our doctrinal problems and excommunicate the unrepentant heretics, we have to go to the root of the problem."
Amen! to the first and third points. As for excommunicating unrepentant heretics, such decrees cannot be issued from the pews. In any case, heretics excommunicate themselves. Just let me add an understatement to your three points of action: We have to pray.
Kirt @ 21, addendum. I just remembered that the prelature in general and those voting at the council are mostly one and the same, given that the council was ecumenical. Regret the lapse.
@ Lee
Well in reference to the dogmas denied here´s a sample in one of Ratzinger books "The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible" Ratzinger states the following: "to read the bible as Judaism does, that´s the full acceptance of what Judaism is in particular the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions which exclude the faith of Jesus as Messiah and the Son of God....Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one"
If this is not heresy I don´t know what it is. You can find it at vatican va . That´s the top of the iceberg.
@ Mark Higdon
Thank for your understanding however the history proves that excommunication CAN come from the pews, not in the form of decree but of action, without the bureaucracy of the official process. Martin Luther was declared Heretic before he was put on trial and declared as such. After all, cardinal Cajetan contacted the Prince Elector Friedrich and urged not to protect a heretic like Luther.
@1: Mr. Higdon, you wrote, "It is even stated that the Church is in an unprecedented crisis, although this period would look like a golden age compared to many periods in the history of the Church." Other than the Arian crisis of the 4th century A.D., would you please list at least five periods in Catholic Church history that compare to the internal crisis within the Church, today? That is, periods in which the Catholic Church taught ambiguously; re-defined the nature of the Church; taught that non-Catholic religions are sources of salvation; approved the Americanist concept of religious liberty; pursued false ecumenism; saw the scandal of the Vicar of Christ entering into the temples of false religions and praising them; saw the decline in vocations, in conversions to the Faith, in the level of education, in attendance at "Mass", and in influence on society; and concocted a mongrel liturgy, among other things. How is this condition a relatively golden age?
Meng,
Thanks for this post. I think you pretty much hit the highlights but I did want to add that the Church has been under attack from the very beginning. There has never really been a golden age for the Church for she is not of this world. Her preservation of the old Greek and Roman wisdom, her holding the fort together when the lights dimmed to darkness, her enduring the assaults from within and from without, her flowering in the great 11th and 12th centuries, her demise in the 14th and 15th, and even apparent destruction in the last century, are all witnesses to her attraction for insults, betrayal, and resistance to utter destruction. I do, however, still repose hope and trust in her founder even when the boneheads who represent him are less than desirables. But it has been so from the beginning. Don't put your faith in Princes. As bad as it is now, it can and proabably will get much worse before it all gets better -- in this world and the next--for most of us. Cheers and thanks for your always insightful comments.
@26 Ditto thank you, Meng, for making an ironclad case that the present crisis is, indeed, "unprecedented" (not scare quotes--I am requoting my brother). Whatever may be debated as variously, the crises or golden ages in Church history, there truly is no time like the present. To argue that we Catholics maybe should not get our shorts in a bunch these days because other times might have been worse is like saying: "Hey, don't worry too much about the damage and casualties from that 3-car accident that just happened in front of us. Someone said that there was a five-car accident in this intersection 30 years ago."
@ J. M.
In the example you chose, I think Ratzinger is correct with one minor correction and also irrelevant. The correction of course is that it is technically Talmudism's reading. You also have to remember 3 things. One, the Talmudic (Judaeic, if you must) scriptures do not include the New Testament nor do they include several books which are in the Old Testament of the Bible. Furthermore, as I understand it, the Talmud accepts Isaiah but is almost totally silent on it. Second, the Bible was "produced" at the end of the fourth century A.D. and simultaneously proclaimed inspired by God and thus inerrant. The Bible as we know it is what it is because of our acceptance of Tradition on faith. Lacking the true faith the books are just texts which anyone can make out of whatever they want to and do. And Third, possible is not synonomous with correct; language especially English is just too ambiguous. The Talmud is famous for saying that what the Torah forbids, the Talmud allows.
@ Lee
Without any intention to argue, do I have to tell you that Ratzinger stated that the Talmudic reading of the bible is the right one? This is nothing but sheer heresy and apostasy, since such a reading is a denial of Jesuschrist as our saviour.
By the way, Ratzinger in prayed along with some jewish rabbis for the souls of the Jews who were killed in the events of the "Kristalnacht" a few months ago in the commemoration of those tragic events. Such an act is in itself sheer heresy since the jewish people who died there didn´t go to Heaven, that´s a fact since they were non-christians. With this act he proves beyond doubt his rejection of the dogma "there is no Salvation outside the Church" and denying our Lord JesusChrist statements in the bible.
J. M.
To say that such a reading is possible is not the same as denying the divinity of Christ, etc.
@27 and 28: Messrs robert and Higdon, thank you for your kind comments. The Catholic Church, which is the Church of Christ, was founded on the faith of St. Peter. It is my opinion that the successors of St. Peter, beginning with John XXIII to Benedict XVI, have not (and are not) exercising this faith, i.e., the Catholic Faith -- thus, the catastrophic effects we have witnessed because of and since Vatican II. I expect disagreement with my opinion, but are there other significant reasons or explanations?
@31, Mr. Chan: Sir, in 553 A.D., Justinian prohibited the spread of the Talmudic books throughout the Roman
Empire. In the thirteenth century, Pope Gregory IX and Pope Innocent IV condemned the books of the Talmud as containing every kind of vileness and blasphemy against Christian truth, and ordered them to be burned because they broadcast "many horrible heresies." The Fathers of the Council of Trent condemned the Talmud as well as other Roman Pontiffs. Of course, it blasphemes Christ and denies His divinity; it is scurrilous concerning our Blessed Mother, and drips with vile for Christianity and Christians. Therefore, Benedict XVI's comment favorable to the Talmud is a contradiction of previous papal condemnations and is in fact a scandal to Catholic faithful. This, and other weird actions of these Conciliar popes cause me doubt about their Catholicity.
This is a wonderful article on Matrimony. Thank you, Father Barbour!
The culture war will be won in the homes, a front that we Catholics seem to have surrendered long ago in a number of ways.
In light of the comments of Archbishop Djajasepoetra of Jakarta, the following fact is very revealing: India, where all the marriages are arranged marriages, and where they "love each other because they are married" currently enjoys the lowest divorce rate in the world.
One way to recover the proper living of the married state is to return to the practice of Courtship, which is more family oriented (for the "common good") than the foolish practice of dating.
I recommendation, if I may:
http://catholicism.org/courtship-the-chaste-preparation-for-holy-matrimony.html
Meng @ 32, Re: "...the successors of St. Peter, beginning with John XXIII to Benedict XVI, have not (and are not) exercising this faith."
In brief, I share your opinion. I would add my own opinion that the beatification of John XXIII and the fast-tracking of the sainthood campaign for John Paul II have little to do with recognizing saints and much more to do with ratifying Vatican II AND its fruits--by putting official halos over the heads of the Pope who started it and the Pope whose long and (unfortunately, to the impressionable) charismatic reign strove mightily to solidify it and its dire effects. Alas, in one respect, V II is a lot like Roe v Wade: no matter how many times how many people say the relevant issues are settled, they just won't go away.
I truly hope that both these Popes achieve eternal salvation. However, I consider the causes for their sainthood tainted by politics, prompting at least as much scandal as inspiration.
@33, Mark, I agree with you whole-heartedly. Also, I pray everyday for Benedict XVI that by the grace of God his eyes will be opened and he will truly serve Christ by working to restore all things in Him. Personally, and you've probably heard it before, but I think this papal problem and VII are the results of the failure to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested.
@34 "as she requested" being the operative phrase. She--and Russia--are still waiting.