"COPPOCC?!" I hear you cry.
Yes. COPPOCC.
One of the greatest of the teachers I have been blessed with was a history-teacher called John Matusiak. If there is one thing that every student of his will never forget, even if they forget all the history he taught them, it is COPPOCC. This is a mnemonic used in evaluating sources critically.
CONTENT
OWN KNOWLEDGE
PROVENANCE
PURPOSE
OMISSIONS, SIGNIFICANT
CONTEXT
CROSS-REFERENCE
Now, if everybody, when they read or heard what passes for news among us, would consider this list, or at least the first six points on it, then there might be some clarity of thought in our society. What does it say? What do I know? Who wrote it? Why was it written? What does it not say? What is its context? What does another source say?
If people asked themselves, and answered for themselves, these simple questions, then we would know that people had begun to think for themselves at last, and that they might be a little nearer to the truth. Truth is the object of the intellect. You have an intellect in order to know the truth. You know that, don't you?
Wednesday 31 March 2010
Tuesday 30 March 2010
I am frustrated and disgusted by the treatment of the Holy Catholic Church by the media. I use the phrase "the media" in the sense of the mainstream media, such as The New York Slimes and the British Fraudcasting Corporation.
The accusations against Father Murphy are evidently true; the accusations made against the Pope, when he was Card. Ratzinger, are false. This latter story, propagated by the New York Times, and by, I think, every non-Catholic major disseminator of news throughout the entire world, is false, as Fr de Souza points out. All I shall do here is link the Gentle Reader to it:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDkxYmUzMTQ1YWUyMzRkMzg4Y2RiN2UyOWIzNDVkNDM=
http://blog.archny.org/?p=589
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncregister.com%2Fblog%2Fcardinal%3Futm_source%3Dfeedburner%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campaign%3DFeed%253A%2BNCRegisterDailyBlog%2B%252540The%2BDaily%2BRegister%252541%23When%3A14%3A59%3A09Z&h=4b5ff576b4c70aac1d0057dcf497b93c
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100032121/the-pope-the-judge-the-paedophile-priest-and-the-new-york-times/
The simple fact is that the hatred the media have for Catholicism is so strong that if you assert its true extent, nobody not Catholic will believe you; for this hatred would be simply incredible, were it not true. Nevertheless, it is a fact.
All I can do is quote the words of Marshall McLuhan:
The modern media are engaged in a Luciferian conspiracy against the truth.
The accusations against Father Murphy are evidently true; the accusations made against the Pope, when he was Card. Ratzinger, are false. This latter story, propagated by the New York Times, and by, I think, every non-Catholic major disseminator of news throughout the entire world, is false, as Fr de Souza points out. All I shall do here is link the Gentle Reader to it:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDkxYmUzMTQ1YWUyMzRkMzg4Y2RiN2UyOWIzNDVkNDM=
http://blog.archny.org/?p=589
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncregister.com%2Fblog%2Fcardinal%3Futm_source%3Dfeedburner%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campaign%3DFeed%253A%2BNCRegisterDailyBlog%2B%252540The%2BDaily%2BRegister%252541%23When%3A14%3A59%3A09Z&h=4b5ff576b4c70aac1d0057dcf497b93c
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100032121/the-pope-the-judge-the-paedophile-priest-and-the-new-york-times/
The simple fact is that the hatred the media have for Catholicism is so strong that if you assert its true extent, nobody not Catholic will believe you; for this hatred would be simply incredible, were it not true. Nevertheless, it is a fact.
All I can do is quote the words of Marshall McLuhan:
The modern media are engaged in a Luciferian conspiracy against the truth.
Monday 29 March 2010
Forgive my not blogging yesterday. I was asked earlier whether swearing was a sin. I am taking the word swearing in this sense to be equivalent to verbia turpia; this is what St Alphonsus has to say.
426. - "8. Verba turpia, lectio obscœnorum, spectatio
comœdiarum turpium, cantiones inhonestæ, gestus litteræ,
et dona amatoria, si tantùm fiunt ex curiositate, vel
vano solatio, non sunt mortalia; secùs tamen, si fiant,
vel animo inhonesto, sive venereo, vel cum periculo ruinæ
spiritualis sui, vel aliorum. Sanch. d. 46.
q. 3. Fill. t. 30. c. 10. q.
3."
Quær. 1. an sit peccatum mortale verba turpia proferre?
Quidquid in hoc puncto diverè DD. sentiant, dicendum:
I. de se non esse malum verba turpia proferre, aut
audire (idem enim dicitur de proferente, quod de
audiente); sed hoc pendet ex bono, vel malo fine, quo
verba proferuntur. Ita Sanch. de matr. l. 9.
d. 46. n. 34.
Dicendum II. quòd loqui turpia ob vanum solatium, sive
jocum, de se non est mortale. Ita cum Bus. hic,
et S. Antonin. p. 2. tit. 3. c. 1. §.
8. ac Sanch. n. 35. Cum. S. Antonin. Nav. etc.
Tamb. c. 8. §. 4. n. 2. nisi audientes sint
ita debiles spiritu, ut scandalum patiantur, ut Sanch.
n. 36. cum Nav. etc. aut, nisi verba sint
nimis lasciva, ut addunt Salm. tr. 26. c.
3. punct. 1. n. 19. Hinc notant num.
20. cum Dicast., dicteria turpia, quæ
proferuntur à messoribus, vindemiatoribus, et mulionibus,
non esse mortalia, quia ludricè dicuntur, et audiuntur.
Ita etiam loquitur s. Anton. l. c. dicens : Ubi
talia verba turpia dicuntur ex quadam levitate ob
solatium, quamvis de se non sint mortalia,...tamen potest
esse mortale ratione scandali, ut, cùm audientes sint
debiles spiritu, ut verba essent multùm lasciva. Idem
dicendum de facientibus, vel cantantibus cantilenas
plenas lasciviis. Sic etiam dicunt cum Bus.
Sanch. n. 44. Tam. §. 5. num. 1. et
Spor. de matr. n. 695. de se esse tantùm veniale
legere libros turpes ex curiositate, sine turpi
delectatione, vel ejus proximo periculo (Sed sedulò
satagant confessarii, ut hoc prohibeant, quantùm valent,
juvenibus, qui ex hujusmodi lectionibus universè magnam
animæ ruinam hauriunt). Et idem dicendum de audiente
prædicta verba ob vanum solatium, ut Sanch. n. 38.
cum Caj. Rectè autem advertit S. Antonin. l.
c. quòd audiens turpia cum delectatione
deliberata illius turpitudinis, non videtur posse
sxcusari à mortali, sicut qui morosè delectatur in
turpi cogitatione, nisi fortè hæc forent inter
conjuges.
Dicendum III. cum eodem Sanch. n. 39. esse
sine dubio mortale dicere turpia ob delectationem, captam
ex cogitatione ipsarum rerum turpium, vel cum periculo
talis delectationis, ut rectè addit Tamb. l. c.
sive cum periculo gravis scandali, quod frequenter adest,
cùm talia proferuntur coram juvenibus vel puellis, ut
benè advertit Elbel n. 194. Hinc tenent Salm.
cit. n. 19. non excusari à peccato gravi, qui nominat
pudenda, aut modum copulandi, maximè coram
adolescentibus et mulieribus juvenibus honestis.
Nominare autem putenda sui proprii sexûs, coram aliis
sexûs ejusdem, puto, communiter loquendo, non esse grave.
Mortaliter etiam utique peccant, qui ob jactantiam
narrant sua turpia peccata: et tunc peccant non solùm
peccato scandali propter audientes, sed facillimè etiam
peccato complacentiæ de ipsis peccatis, ut rectè dicunt
Salm. cum Dic. ibid. n. 21. Et ideò in
confessione explicare debent speciem peccati, de quo se
jactârunt. Colloqui autem honestè extraneis, de se non
est nisi veniale; sed ratione periculi, maximè in
conversatione diuturna, potest esse grave, ut diximus
n. 422. in fin. cum Salm. loc. cit. n.
22. Ronc. c. 1. reg. 2. in praxi.
426. - "8. Verba turpia, lectio obscœnorum, spectatio
comœdiarum turpium, cantiones inhonestæ, gestus litteræ,
et dona amatoria, si tantùm fiunt ex curiositate, vel
vano solatio, non sunt mortalia; secùs tamen, si fiant,
vel animo inhonesto, sive venereo, vel cum periculo ruinæ
spiritualis sui, vel aliorum. Sanch. d. 46.
q. 3. Fill. t. 30. c. 10. q.
3."
Quær. 1. an sit peccatum mortale verba turpia proferre?
Quidquid in hoc puncto diverè DD. sentiant, dicendum:
I. de se non esse malum verba turpia proferre, aut
audire (idem enim dicitur de proferente, quod de
audiente); sed hoc pendet ex bono, vel malo fine, quo
verba proferuntur. Ita Sanch. de matr. l. 9.
d. 46. n. 34.
Dicendum II. quòd loqui turpia ob vanum solatium, sive
jocum, de se non est mortale. Ita cum Bus. hic,
et S. Antonin. p. 2. tit. 3. c. 1. §.
8. ac Sanch. n. 35. Cum. S. Antonin. Nav. etc.
Tamb. c. 8. §. 4. n. 2. nisi audientes sint
ita debiles spiritu, ut scandalum patiantur, ut Sanch.
n. 36. cum Nav. etc. aut, nisi verba sint
nimis lasciva, ut addunt Salm. tr. 26. c.
3. punct. 1. n. 19. Hinc notant num.
20. cum Dicast., dicteria turpia, quæ
proferuntur à messoribus, vindemiatoribus, et mulionibus,
non esse mortalia, quia ludricè dicuntur, et audiuntur.
Ita etiam loquitur s. Anton. l. c. dicens : Ubi
talia verba turpia dicuntur ex quadam levitate ob
solatium, quamvis de se non sint mortalia,...tamen potest
esse mortale ratione scandali, ut, cùm audientes sint
debiles spiritu, ut verba essent multùm lasciva. Idem
dicendum de facientibus, vel cantantibus cantilenas
plenas lasciviis. Sic etiam dicunt cum Bus.
Sanch. n. 44. Tam. §. 5. num. 1. et
Spor. de matr. n. 695. de se esse tantùm veniale
legere libros turpes ex curiositate, sine turpi
delectatione, vel ejus proximo periculo (Sed sedulò
satagant confessarii, ut hoc prohibeant, quantùm valent,
juvenibus, qui ex hujusmodi lectionibus universè magnam
animæ ruinam hauriunt). Et idem dicendum de audiente
prædicta verba ob vanum solatium, ut Sanch. n. 38.
cum Caj. Rectè autem advertit S. Antonin. l.
c. quòd audiens turpia cum delectatione
deliberata illius turpitudinis, non videtur posse
sxcusari à mortali, sicut qui morosè delectatur in
turpi cogitatione, nisi fortè hæc forent inter
conjuges.
Dicendum III. cum eodem Sanch. n. 39. esse
sine dubio mortale dicere turpia ob delectationem, captam
ex cogitatione ipsarum rerum turpium, vel cum periculo
talis delectationis, ut rectè addit Tamb. l. c.
sive cum periculo gravis scandali, quod frequenter adest,
cùm talia proferuntur coram juvenibus vel puellis, ut
benè advertit Elbel n. 194. Hinc tenent Salm.
cit. n. 19. non excusari à peccato gravi, qui nominat
pudenda, aut modum copulandi, maximè coram
adolescentibus et mulieribus juvenibus honestis.
Nominare autem putenda sui proprii sexûs, coram aliis
sexûs ejusdem, puto, communiter loquendo, non esse grave.
Mortaliter etiam utique peccant, qui ob jactantiam
narrant sua turpia peccata: et tunc peccant non solùm
peccato scandali propter audientes, sed facillimè etiam
peccato complacentiæ de ipsis peccatis, ut rectè dicunt
Salm. cum Dic. ibid. n. 21. Et ideò in
confessione explicare debent speciem peccati, de quo se
jactârunt. Colloqui autem honestè extraneis, de se non
est nisi veniale; sed ratione periculi, maximè in
conversatione diuturna, potest esse grave, ut diximus
n. 422. in fin. cum Salm. loc. cit. n.
22. Ronc. c. 1. reg. 2. in praxi.
Saturday 27 March 2010
I have read A Shropshire Lad and most of Moore's Irish Melodies. To compare these is obviously like comparing apples with oranges; but I prefer Moore. Housman is rather bleak and cynical sometimes - one gets the impression that the poet was very unhappy. A Shropshire Lad seems to be without hope.
Moore, on the other hand, is full of spirit; I would much rather reread Moore than Housman, though both are good in their own ways.
Moore, on the other hand, is full of spirit; I would much rather reread Moore than Housman, though both are good in their own ways.
Friday 26 March 2010
I went to the doctor's this morning and acquired some more happy pills. I have also bought some books, all to do with music; one of them, indeed, has pages from The Musical Times of 1938 inside it - the book Maurice Ravel, which has the great misfortune of being written by a Dutchman; but nobody is perfect, not even I.
I am spending perhaps not altogether ordinate amounts of time poring over my glorious English-to-Latin dictionary. Its fullness is wonderful. Here is an extract from it:
Thus you can see the limit of my endurance for copying things out of dictionaries.
Anyway, I hope that all goes well with you, and I shall perhaps write at more length on the morrow.
I am spending perhaps not altogether ordinate amounts of time poring over my glorious English-to-Latin dictionary. Its fullness is wonderful. Here is an extract from it:
fives (the game): pila (applicable to any ball game) : V. BALL.
fix : I. To make fast secure :
1. fīgo, xi, xum, 3 (most gen. term): the arms which had been f.'d upon the walls, arma quae fixa in parietibus fuerant, Cic. 2. destĭno, 1 (strictly, to f. down, as to the ground): Vitr.: v. TO FIX DOWN. II. To appoint, settle: 1. stătuo, i, ūtum, 3: to f. time and place for an interview, tempus locumque colloquio s., Liv. : v. TO APPOINT, DETERMINE. 2. constĭtuo, 3 (esp. when an appointment between parties is to be expressed): to f. a more advanced age for the consulate, grandiorem aetatem ad consulatem c., Cic.
3. condīco, xi, ctum, 3 (to make an appointment): Just. 4. praestītuo, i, ūtum, 3 (beforehand) : to f. beforehand how long we should speak, tempus quamdiu diceremus pr., Cic. 5. destĭno, 1 (definitively, decisively): to f. the hour of death (of a condemned person), horam mortis d., Cic. 6. (in pass.: to be f.'d or agreed upon) convĕnio, vēni, ventum, 4: that signal had been f.'d upon, id convenerat signum, Liv.
fix down: 1. dēfīgo, 3 : Caes.
2. destĭno, 1 (at some given point): Caes.
___ in, on, or upon : 1. infīgo, 3 (with acc. and prep.; also acc. and dat.): he f.'d his sword in the enemy's bosom, gladium hosti in pectus infixit, Cic. Fig: to teach something and fix it in the mind, docere aliquid et inf. angimis, Quint. 2. (in pass., and fig.) insĭdeo, sēdi, sessum, 2 (to become settled: usu. with in and abl.): the speech f.'d itself in the mind, insedit in animo oratio, Cic. 3. ĭnhaereo
Thus you can see the limit of my endurance for copying things out of dictionaries.
Anyway, I hope that all goes well with you, and I shall perhaps write at more length on the morrow.
Thursday 25 March 2010
It has just occurred to me that I may well not have time to blog later, so I shall blog now.
I went to Mass this morning, it being the Feast of the Annunciation; Mass was said by our dearly beloved priest, Fr Arthur Barrow, in the school; year 3 were there, for they are preparing for their first Communion. We are very blessed to have Father Arthur.
This evening I have listened to some 78s on the gramophone I acquired a couple of years ago.
I shall also be going out to hear my father sing at his rehearsal of the Mendelssohn.
I would regale you with more, but tempus urget.
I went to Mass this morning, it being the Feast of the Annunciation; Mass was said by our dearly beloved priest, Fr Arthur Barrow, in the school; year 3 were there, for they are preparing for their first Communion. We are very blessed to have Father Arthur.
This evening I have listened to some 78s on the gramophone I acquired a couple of years ago.
I shall also be going out to hear my father sing at his rehearsal of the Mendelssohn.
I would regale you with more, but tempus urget.
Wednesday 24 March 2010
More Imbecility in The Times
The Times has once more surpassed itself in its own abyss of anti-Catholicism. Today there is an article on the Pastoral Letter, entitled "Call the police - that's what Pope Benedict should have said;" which is remarkably stupid even for a headline. The article is so moronic that it is not worth commenting on. It is on p. 19, I think; it is by Ken MacDonald; and if the reader really wants to read it, he can find out for himself. Quite apart from the discussions of abuse, and the "complicity of the Vatican," and all the rest of it, why does MacDonald make an absurd assertion that the Letter includes a "swipe at Pope John XXIII's Second Vatican Council"? The Pope said that its instructions were "difficult to implement." That is a swipe at the Council? Sorry, at Pope John XXIII's Second Vatican Council, I should have said, in case I confused it with somebody else's Second Vatican Council. Or in case I were writing for a readership ignorant of what the Second Vatican Council was. Such, I would suggest, as much of the readership of The Times.
The imbecility of people who write comments on things on the Internet never ceases to depress me.
But that such depraved ravings are printed in The Times is most depressing; for The Times is of all newspapers the most representative of what Cobbett called "THE THING," or, as we call it, "the Establishment."
The imbecility of people who write comments on things on the Internet never ceases to depress me.
But that such depraved ravings are printed in The Times is most depressing; for The Times is of all newspapers the most representative of what Cobbett called "THE THING," or, as we call it, "the Establishment."
Tuesday 23 March 2010
Today I have had a haircut. We went to Maldon, but there was nowhere to park. I spent the afternoon listening to Glinka's opera, A Life for the Tsar; but since I doubt that that will be of much interest to the Gentle Reader, I do not dwell upon it here. He can investigate it himself if he is particularly interested.
The Gentle Reader may be aware that I am in the process of reading St Francis de Sales' six-hundred page theological Treatise On the Love of God. I shall endeavour to refrain from commenting upon it until I have finished it; but my intention is to provide you with a review of the book and the translation when I do get to the end of it.
God bless you.
The Gentle Reader may be aware that I am in the process of reading St Francis de Sales' six-hundred page theological Treatise On the Love of God. I shall endeavour to refrain from commenting upon it until I have finished it; but my intention is to provide you with a review of the book and the translation when I do get to the end of it.
God bless you.
Monday 22 March 2010
Concerning Pornography
I am not going to write much about this unhappy and destructive subject myself: only that I believe that it, both on the Internet and in the abusive format miscalled "sex education," are responsible for enormous damage to the souls and bodies of men and women, I think more than anything else. Most men (homines) are damned on account of sins of impurity; but that is the price of unlimited "freedom of expression."
I link to this article. I was surprised, and gratified, to learn that the American Psychiatric Assocation "may add sex and pornography addiction to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) used by psychiatrists to recognize disease and treat patients." The article states that this is a disease of the body, since the use of pornography effects changes in the brain. That it is a disease of the soul goes without saying; but that is the province of the priest rather than the doctor. Nevertheless, man is one entity of body and soul, and body and soul being made for each other, it is hardly surprising that this sin, in which the body very obviously co-operates, harms not only the soul but the body also.
Gentle Reader, I implore you in the name of Christ, if you have this sin, go to confession, hiding nothing, and receive communion, as soon as you can. The best remedy for this that I know of is to receive the Sacraments.
The connection between mental health and religion is without doubt most interesting. The health of the body and the health of the soul are, I think, partly related in some ways. God created body and soul; and the healing of them both belongs to Him. I think theology and medicine are perhaps the two noblest disciplines; theology greater than medicine, as the soul is as it were superior to the body.
I hope both disciplines develop fruitfully; and I do not see why they cannot learn from each other.
I link to this article. I was surprised, and gratified, to learn that the American Psychiatric Assocation "may add sex and pornography addiction to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) used by psychiatrists to recognize disease and treat patients." The article states that this is a disease of the body, since the use of pornography effects changes in the brain. That it is a disease of the soul goes without saying; but that is the province of the priest rather than the doctor. Nevertheless, man is one entity of body and soul, and body and soul being made for each other, it is hardly surprising that this sin, in which the body very obviously co-operates, harms not only the soul but the body also.
Gentle Reader, I implore you in the name of Christ, if you have this sin, go to confession, hiding nothing, and receive communion, as soon as you can. The best remedy for this that I know of is to receive the Sacraments.
The connection between mental health and religion is without doubt most interesting. The health of the body and the health of the soul are, I think, partly related in some ways. God created body and soul; and the healing of them both belongs to Him. I think theology and medicine are perhaps the two noblest disciplines; theology greater than medicine, as the soul is as it were superior to the body.
I hope both disciplines develop fruitfully; and I do not see why they cannot learn from each other.
Sunday 21 March 2010
The Pope's Letter; a Death; and Beauty
This evening I am not going to discuss the Pope's pastoral letter, other than to say the following: that I was worried by a headline on the Internet: "Pope Benedict: 'I am truly sorry,'" or words to that effect, in great underlined capital letters across the screen of a certain website; but that when I read the letter, I thought it was most eloquent, and the best, indeed all, that the Pope could say. I am aware that nothing can delete the appalling events that have taken place: I feel sorrow for the abused, and hope that our Lord gives them healing, for no one else can heal them, but He can. I feel sorrow also for the abusers, for it does far greater damage to a soul to inflict abuse than to be a victim of it. I hope that our Lord will grant them the humility to face what they have done, repent of it, confess it, and make what reparation they can to those whom they have hurt. May God have mercy on us all, and grant us the humility at least not to presume that those who have committed these awful sins are greater sinners than we.
Secondly, I wish to note the death of a woman whom I worked with, indeed sometimes sat two seats away from, last summer. I do not name her here, since perhaps some who are grieving would prefer it not to be published; I do not know their wishes, so I shall not mention her name. She was a lovely, friendly, and quite obviously a good, woman; and since this is the first time anyone in any sort of relationship with me has died (except when I was too young to realize), I am somewhat upset. I pray that if she is in Purgatory, she spend but a short time there; and may she gaze lovingly upon the face of God, and possess Him, in all eternity. Amen.
Finally I wish to mention a programme I saw this evening about the Solar System on BBC2 at nine o'clock. I do not know the name, but it was presented by a man who clearly loved his subject; and the production of the programme was wonderful. Of course, this Solar System, space, the universe, all, are wonderful; for all are the works of God.
That was Psalm 111; it has a different number in some translations. I do not translate, since I assume the reader either can read to that level of Latin, or has an English Bible, or can look up a translation on the Internet.
I found that I was so much in awe, through the gracious medium of this television programme - for yes, God can work through television programmes; some very good television programmes are made -: so much in awe, I say, of the beauty of this solar system, of the planets in it, of the variety of them, and yet of which the physical laws are ultimately the same, since that is the way God has made it; that to contemplate the Glorious Mysteries, as I then attempted to do in my Rosary, was rather overwhelming. It was rather difficult to understand, though I know it is so, how the mysteries of our Faith are more awefull than this universe - what the word "Earth" means in the first verse of Scripture, I think. Of course, heaven was created as well as earth - the angels, and so forth, are obviously creatures of God. How beautiful those celestial creatures must be!
And if this is created beauty, and how beautiful it is, then what must it be to stand face to face with Uncreated Beauty?!
Initium sapientiæ timor Domini.
Secondly, I wish to note the death of a woman whom I worked with, indeed sometimes sat two seats away from, last summer. I do not name her here, since perhaps some who are grieving would prefer it not to be published; I do not know their wishes, so I shall not mention her name. She was a lovely, friendly, and quite obviously a good, woman; and since this is the first time anyone in any sort of relationship with me has died (except when I was too young to realize), I am somewhat upset. I pray that if she is in Purgatory, she spend but a short time there; and may she gaze lovingly upon the face of God, and possess Him, in all eternity. Amen.
Finally I wish to mention a programme I saw this evening about the Solar System on BBC2 at nine o'clock. I do not know the name, but it was presented by a man who clearly loved his subject; and the production of the programme was wonderful. Of course, this Solar System, space, the universe, all, are wonderful; for all are the works of God.
[Laus tibi, Domine, rex æternæ gloriæ.]
Confitebor tibi, Domine, in toto corde meo, in consilio justorum, et in congregatione.
Magna opera Domini: exquisita in omnes voluntates ejus.
Confessio et magnificentia opus ejus, et justitia ejus manet in sæculum sæculi.
Memoriam fecit mirabiliam suorum, misericors et miserator Dominus.
Escam dedit timentibus se; memor erit in sæculum testamenti sui.
Virtutem operum suorum annuntiabit populo suo,
ut det illis hæreditatem gentium. Opera manuum ejus veritas et judicium.
Fidelia omnia mandata ejus, confirmata in sæculum sæculi, facta in veritate et æquitate.
Redemptionem misit populo suo; mandavit in æternum testamentum suum. Sanctum et terribile nomen ejus.
Initium sapientiæ timor Domini, intellectus bonus omnibus facientibus eum: laudatio ejus manet in sæculum sæculi.
That was Psalm 111; it has a different number in some translations. I do not translate, since I assume the reader either can read to that level of Latin, or has an English Bible, or can look up a translation on the Internet.
I found that I was so much in awe, through the gracious medium of this television programme - for yes, God can work through television programmes; some very good television programmes are made -: so much in awe, I say, of the beauty of this solar system, of the planets in it, of the variety of them, and yet of which the physical laws are ultimately the same, since that is the way God has made it; that to contemplate the Glorious Mysteries, as I then attempted to do in my Rosary, was rather overwhelming. It was rather difficult to understand, though I know it is so, how the mysteries of our Faith are more awefull than this universe - what the word "Earth" means in the first verse of Scripture, I think. Of course, heaven was created as well as earth - the angels, and so forth, are obviously creatures of God. How beautiful those celestial creatures must be!
And if this is created beauty, and how beautiful it is, then what must it be to stand face to face with Uncreated Beauty?!
Initium sapientiæ timor Domini.
Saturday 20 March 2010
Endings
No, I am not ending my blog. But I note that it is a time of endings, with the end of the Epiphany term, Father Paul Ward shutting down his website, my undergraduate degree drawing towards its close. I am slightly sad that "Father Paul" is shutting down his website, since I have read it since 2007 and corresponded with him frequently throughout that time; but all good things and evil alike must come to their appointed end.
Today is St Cuthbert's Day; it is also the day on which, after four and a half months, I have approached the Sacrament of Confession.
I have acquired a copy of St Francis de Sales' Treatise On the Love of God, translated into English, in two volumes; and I have read the translator's introduction thereto.
I have discovered that the Pope has published a Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland, on which I shall perhaps comment later but not before I have read it.
Today is St Cuthbert's Day; it is also the day on which, after four and a half months, I have approached the Sacrament of Confession.
So I say to you, there shall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance. (Luke, xv, 10.)
I have acquired a copy of St Francis de Sales' Treatise On the Love of God, translated into English, in two volumes; and I have read the translator's introduction thereto.
I have discovered that the Pope has published a Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland, on which I shall perhaps comment later but not before I have read it.
Friday 19 March 2010
End of term
I find the end of term is generally very stressful. I am physically and mentally ill as well; and I would like to be less rushed. But I have said I am going home on Sunday. Oh well. I shall go to sleep now. Perhaps in the morning I shall have some energy.
Thursday 18 March 2010
CanonLaw.info
I wish to refer the Gentle Reader to the very valuable resource, Dr Peter's website, CanonLaw.info, which is linked on the sidebar. It is a very good website, and also contains some interesting personal things about the webmaster.
Wednesday 17 March 2010
Our Catholic religion is very beautiful. It must necessarily be beautiful, because it is the Truth. It is God's Truth. God is Truth; and he gave us the Catholic Church, which is for everybody. The truth is for everybody. The truth is very important. If you believe something other than the truth, then that will be bad for you. We have the most beautiful stories, like the Legend of St Dorothea. I think we have the most beautiful music, or music among the most beautiful music. Truth and beauty are two of the transcendental qualities of being. The other one is goodness. We should direct our hearts to the good, the true, and the beautiful; not the evil, the false, and the ugly.
We Catholics are in possession of God's Truth in its entirety.
We Catholics are in possession of God's Truth in its entirety.
Monday 15 March 2010
Cosmos
Onward beneath the night-bedark'nèd vault
Of scarcity of stars I see aloft,
I, weary, cold, alone, my-homeward wend,
And, still to attain mine end,
Perceive the incision of the acute wind's breath;
It is the chill of death,
And yet caresses me, cool, tender, soft,
But I force forth my way, who may not halt.
Yea, force, till I have planted firm my feet
The thither side my threshold; I look there
Far past the stars; to the last thing in space
My mind doth freely race
That cowers at this fell infinitude
Of nothing, what this nude
Abyss, cosmotic, emptiness, nor air,
'Twixt me and infinite naught a vacuum fleet.
Nothing 'twixt me and nothingness I find,
But here I shudder as I trudge along;
I, lone, apart, and weary, must escape
This demon void of shape,
I must, I shall, away from this, and now,
And none can tell me how
I can escape the horror and the wrong,
Nor yet the vast recesses of my mind.
(Monday, 15th March, 2010.)
Of scarcity of stars I see aloft,
I, weary, cold, alone, my-homeward wend,
And, still to attain mine end,
Perceive the incision of the acute wind's breath;
It is the chill of death,
And yet caresses me, cool, tender, soft,
But I force forth my way, who may not halt.
Yea, force, till I have planted firm my feet
The thither side my threshold; I look there
Far past the stars; to the last thing in space
My mind doth freely race
That cowers at this fell infinitude
Of nothing, what this nude
Abyss, cosmotic, emptiness, nor air,
'Twixt me and infinite naught a vacuum fleet.
Nothing 'twixt me and nothingness I find,
But here I shudder as I trudge along;
I, lone, apart, and weary, must escape
This demon void of shape,
I must, I shall, away from this, and now,
And none can tell me how
I can escape the horror and the wrong,
Nor yet the vast recesses of my mind.
(Monday, 15th March, 2010.)
Saturday 13 March 2010
Thanks to the stubborn and uncomprehending intransigence of our dear friend Father Hans, the comments on my piece posted to Facebook now number twenty-three, and total at least six, and probably nearly seven, thousand words.
I am interested to see how the debate will progress, if it continues any longer.
I never thought it likely that I would be grateful to Father Küng for anything; but I have been proved wrong.
I am interested to see how the debate will progress, if it continues any longer.
I never thought it likely that I would be grateful to Father Küng for anything; but I have been proved wrong.
Friday 12 March 2010
From a Facebook Debate
John Wijngaards is indeed significant enough to have a Wikipedia article; so are Calvin, Arius, Mani, Simon Magus, Abelard, and Judas Iscariot. All that is achieved by quoting anybody is to demonstrate to what degree one agrees or disagrees with that position. It is ironic you should quote Wijngaards, of whom I confess that I had never heard, when the entire point of my original essay was to point out the ubiquity of heretical theologians who have the amazing gall to call themselves Catholics. Wijngaards' words to the effect that God does call women to the presbyterate contain an implicit blasphemy, since it is an irreformable teaching of the Catholic Church that men only may receive the Sacrament of Order, just as it is an irreformable teaching of the Catholic Church that the Sacrament of Reconciliation may be administered to those only who have committed at least one actual sin after baptism.
Is your father an Anglican or a Catholic priest?
There is that notoriously irritating thing, a Conflict Of Worldviews, in this argument.
... See more
Everytime you have mentioned priesthood, vocation, etc., you have always talked about it in terms of "preaching," "teaching," "spreading the word of God." Certainly these things appertain to the priestly ministry. But they are not of its essence.
The essence of the Catholic priesthood consists in the ability to offer up the Sacrifice of the Mass.
The Sacrifice of the Mass is one and the same sacrifice with that of Calvary, only it is offered in an unbloody manner. It is the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ to His Father. Jesus Christ is offered to His Father under the sacramental species of bread and wine. The bread and wine become, through the same omnipotent creative power that brought heaven and earth into existence out of nothing, that is to say, through the omnipotence of God, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Therefore, the Eucharist is God (De Fide). To effect this transformation, as I have said, requires the omnipotence of God. No one who is not possessed of the omnipotence of God can do this; and the Sacrament of Orders gives its recipient a share in the omnipotence of God. Obviously for an omnipotent God, transsubstantiation does not seem any harder, in fact it seems a great deal easier to my imagination, than the creation of heaven and earth. Now surely it is patently obvious that not anyone who feels called to it has a right to the power of God. God will bestow His own power on those only whom He Himself chooses. The same omnipotence is required to sanctify a sinner in the Sacrament of Penance. A priestly vocation requires not only an internal sense, but also the external call of one's bishop.
A priest exists to administer the sacraments of Communion, Confession, and Extreme Unction. Only Jesus Christ and His priests have the power to confect the Eucharist; only Jesus Christ and His priests have the power to absolve sinners: "I absolve you from your sins in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" would be blasphemy in the mouths of anybody else.
There is certainly no inherent reason why a woman cannot preach or teach religion or spread the word of God. But a woman simply cannot be a Catholic priest, just as a woman under the Old Dispensation could not be a Jewish priest, neither could any man who was not of the tribe of Levi. Was this discrimination against the other eleven tribes?
A woman cannot be a Catholic priest because she cannot validly receive the Sacrament of Orders. This is a matter of fact, of reality, of objective truth, of the cosmic order of the universe, of the Divinely established settlement of the Church. It cannot be altered by the will of anyone except Almighty God; but God has given us, once for all, the Catholic Religion, which is necessarily Catholic in time as well as in space, for there is a necessary continuity in the true religion. The truth of God does not change from one century to another, or from one millennium to another, for Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and for ever; and to Him a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years are as a day. The order in which God has established things has nothing to do with anyone's opinion, but with the truth.
The article by Zmirak demonstrated that all the other religions besides Judaism and Christianity, or to be more accurate and more correct, the Catholic Church, had female priests. Therefore there must be a reason inherent in Judaism and Catholicity for the absence of priestesses in these religions.
The truth is an objective thing, and does not admit of the possibility of its own opposite. The truth is not dependent upon the human mind. The human mind must conform itself to the truth, and not the truth to the human mind, still less to the human will. I believe the truth because it is there, and not because it is my own opinion. Reality is not an opinion.
Since the proclamation of Pope John Paul's Apostolic Letter "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis," of 1994, it is beyond contestation, though nothing is beyond the contestation of rebels, that the Catholic Church does not, never has had, and never will have, the authority to ordain women. I would advise a reading of that Apostolic Letter; it is not very long, and that it expresses an irreformable teaching is quite obvious from the words towards its end:
"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of Our ministry of confirming the brethren: We declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be held definitively by all the Church's faithful."
"Ut igitur omne dubium auferatur circa rem magni momenti, quae ad ipsam Ecclesiae divinam constitutionem pertinet, virtute ministerii Nostri confirmandi fratres (Luc. 22, 32), Declaramus Ecclesiam facultatem nullatenus habere ordinationem sacerdotalem mulieribus conferendi, hancque sententiam ab omnibus Ecclesiae fidelibus esse definitive tenendam."
That this paragraph invokes papal infallibility is unquestionable: though there will doubtless be those who will question the unquestionable. The author of the article at http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT points this out very clearly, calling it "a textbook case of infallibility in action."
"There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: the Pope must be
(1) intending to teach
(2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority
(3) a matter of Faith or morals
(4) to be held by the Universal Church.
Ordinatio sacerdotalis not only passes all four tests, but it is manifest that the Pope delibrately phrased the teaching to ensure this would be obvious.
...
First, it is not strictly correct to refer to a Church document as infallible. The Pope, under certain conditions, is infallible; what he teaches under those conditions us "irreformable" - that is, unchangeable because certainly true.
...Fourth and finally, the definition of infallibility at Vatican I does not limit infallibility to those extraordinary cases in which the Holy Father states he is formally defining a new dogma. Whether or not he would call Ordinatio Sacerdotalis a dogmatic definition, the Pope has stated infallibly a doctrine that has always been known, taught, and believed by the great body of Catholic faithful - namely that the Church has no authority to ordain women. He has, in other words, irreformably formulated a proper understanding of a limitation on the authority of the Church.
""I think that what we are witnessing in the denial of 'infallibility' to 'Ordinatio Sacerdotalis' results from the long struggle of orthodoxy with modernism over the last generation. Faithful Catholics are enormously frustrated and what they want is a document that will, frankly, shut the dissidents up and make them go away. When the dissidents respond to a document by pointing out a number of reasons why it really isn't the last word, faithful Catholics tend to think that they must be right; otherwise the question would really be settled.
"But this credits the dissidents with far too much intellectual honesty. The fact is that no document can close a question for someone who is in rebellion against legitimate authority. ...
What is needed to make the dissidents go away, of course, is discipline. But you don't get discipline from a document (though it can be a good starting point).
...Without discipline, the best we can do is understand infallibility properly and live by it ourselves. Papal infallibility rests on three basic arguments: from Tradition (or history); from Scripture; and from ecclesiology (the logic of the Church's situation).
The argument from Tradition or history is simply that, from the earliest times, Catholics have credited the successors of Peter with the authority to settle disputes and teach the Faith without error. This is manifest in the works of the Fathers, for example.... See more
The argument from Scripture is based in those passages which bear upon the authority of Peter: his name as Rock; the conferral of the keys to the Kingdom; the power of binding and loosing; and, as the Pope pointed out, the guarantee of Christ that Peter would not fail in Faith and must confirm his brethren. To take into account the Petrine succession, we add the logical argument that these powers were essential to the Church, that Christ knew He would not come again before Peter died, and that it would be tantamount to a new dispensation if Christ had not intended (as Tradition makes clear) that these powers would also be exercised by Peter's successors - all vicars of Christ - until He comes.
The argument from ecclesiology is based upon the logical necessity of having a supreme power of this type at work in the Church if Christ's promise to be with the Church forever is to have any real meaning. By Scripture and Tradition we know that the popes can bind the faithful to believe something as Divinely revealed. Clearly Christ's promise would be violated if a Pope ever bound the faithful to believe something false in a matter relating to their salvation. Hence, it must be impossible for a Pope to do this. He simply MUST be protected by the Holy Spirit when teaching about a matter of faith and morals, by virtue of his supreme authority, with the intention of compelling the assent of the entire Church."
Before I finish, I wish to reiterate the point is that it is not essential to, though it is the duty of, a priest to preach: rather, a priest shares in the omnipotence of God by being able to consecrate the Eucharist for the nourishment of our souls, and in the Sacrament of Confession to unlock the gates of hell for sinners who are imprisoned there. No one has a right to the awful and terrible power of the Catholic priest, but those whom God has called to that dignity; and it is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that no woman is called to that appalling dignity.
In promulgating "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis," therefore, Pope John Paul II was merely repeating un unchangeable teaching of the Catholic Church; unchangeable, that is, because certainly true.
It is my opinion that this lamentable state of affairs derives not simply from the conflict of orthodoxy with modernism, but also and moreover with the paganistic egocentrism that has infected our culture since the eighteenth century and its so-called Enlightenment (which "Enlightenment" led, of course, to the horrors of the French Revolution, among other things). There are residues of a once-Christian culture in Western society, "a smouldering," as Hilaire Belloc wrote at the end of "The Servile State," "of the old fires:" and since the fire is not quite burnt out we may hope to rekindle it yet. Only God knows what the future of this apparently moribund society shall be: but one thing is certain, and that is that unless it returns to the Catholic Church, which nourished it and brought it to its zenith, it will crumble and wither away.
I conclude with the words that end "The Servile State:"
"And as I am upon the whole hopeful that the Faith will recover its intimate and guiding place in the heart of Europe, so I believe that this sinking back into our original Paganism...will in due time be halted and reversed.
"Videat Deus."
Is your father an Anglican or a Catholic priest?
There is that notoriously irritating thing, a Conflict Of Worldviews, in this argument.
... See more
Everytime you have mentioned priesthood, vocation, etc., you have always talked about it in terms of "preaching," "teaching," "spreading the word of God." Certainly these things appertain to the priestly ministry. But they are not of its essence.
The essence of the Catholic priesthood consists in the ability to offer up the Sacrifice of the Mass.
The Sacrifice of the Mass is one and the same sacrifice with that of Calvary, only it is offered in an unbloody manner. It is the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ to His Father. Jesus Christ is offered to His Father under the sacramental species of bread and wine. The bread and wine become, through the same omnipotent creative power that brought heaven and earth into existence out of nothing, that is to say, through the omnipotence of God, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Therefore, the Eucharist is God (De Fide). To effect this transformation, as I have said, requires the omnipotence of God. No one who is not possessed of the omnipotence of God can do this; and the Sacrament of Orders gives its recipient a share in the omnipotence of God. Obviously for an omnipotent God, transsubstantiation does not seem any harder, in fact it seems a great deal easier to my imagination, than the creation of heaven and earth. Now surely it is patently obvious that not anyone who feels called to it has a right to the power of God. God will bestow His own power on those only whom He Himself chooses. The same omnipotence is required to sanctify a sinner in the Sacrament of Penance. A priestly vocation requires not only an internal sense, but also the external call of one's bishop.
A priest exists to administer the sacraments of Communion, Confession, and Extreme Unction. Only Jesus Christ and His priests have the power to confect the Eucharist; only Jesus Christ and His priests have the power to absolve sinners: "I absolve you from your sins in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" would be blasphemy in the mouths of anybody else.
There is certainly no inherent reason why a woman cannot preach or teach religion or spread the word of God. But a woman simply cannot be a Catholic priest, just as a woman under the Old Dispensation could not be a Jewish priest, neither could any man who was not of the tribe of Levi. Was this discrimination against the other eleven tribes?
A woman cannot be a Catholic priest because she cannot validly receive the Sacrament of Orders. This is a matter of fact, of reality, of objective truth, of the cosmic order of the universe, of the Divinely established settlement of the Church. It cannot be altered by the will of anyone except Almighty God; but God has given us, once for all, the Catholic Religion, which is necessarily Catholic in time as well as in space, for there is a necessary continuity in the true religion. The truth of God does not change from one century to another, or from one millennium to another, for Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and for ever; and to Him a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years are as a day. The order in which God has established things has nothing to do with anyone's opinion, but with the truth.
The article by Zmirak demonstrated that all the other religions besides Judaism and Christianity, or to be more accurate and more correct, the Catholic Church, had female priests. Therefore there must be a reason inherent in Judaism and Catholicity for the absence of priestesses in these religions.
The truth is an objective thing, and does not admit of the possibility of its own opposite. The truth is not dependent upon the human mind. The human mind must conform itself to the truth, and not the truth to the human mind, still less to the human will. I believe the truth because it is there, and not because it is my own opinion. Reality is not an opinion.
Since the proclamation of Pope John Paul's Apostolic Letter "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis," of 1994, it is beyond contestation, though nothing is beyond the contestation of rebels, that the Catholic Church does not, never has had, and never will have, the authority to ordain women. I would advise a reading of that Apostolic Letter; it is not very long, and that it expresses an irreformable teaching is quite obvious from the words towards its end:
"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of Our ministry of confirming the brethren: We declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be held definitively by all the Church's faithful."
"Ut igitur omne dubium auferatur circa rem magni momenti, quae ad ipsam Ecclesiae divinam constitutionem pertinet, virtute ministerii Nostri confirmandi fratres (Luc. 22, 32), Declaramus Ecclesiam facultatem nullatenus habere ordinationem sacerdotalem mulieribus conferendi, hancque sententiam ab omnibus Ecclesiae fidelibus esse definitive tenendam."
That this paragraph invokes papal infallibility is unquestionable: though there will doubtless be those who will question the unquestionable. The author of the article at http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT points this out very clearly, calling it "a textbook case of infallibility in action."
"There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: the Pope must be
(1) intending to teach
(2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority
(3) a matter of Faith or morals
(4) to be held by the Universal Church.
Ordinatio sacerdotalis not only passes all four tests, but it is manifest that the Pope delibrately phrased the teaching to ensure this would be obvious.
...
First, it is not strictly correct to refer to a Church document as infallible. The Pope, under certain conditions, is infallible; what he teaches under those conditions us "irreformable" - that is, unchangeable because certainly true.
...Fourth and finally, the definition of infallibility at Vatican I does not limit infallibility to those extraordinary cases in which the Holy Father states he is formally defining a new dogma. Whether or not he would call Ordinatio Sacerdotalis a dogmatic definition, the Pope has stated infallibly a doctrine that has always been known, taught, and believed by the great body of Catholic faithful - namely that the Church has no authority to ordain women. He has, in other words, irreformably formulated a proper understanding of a limitation on the authority of the Church.
""I think that what we are witnessing in the denial of 'infallibility' to 'Ordinatio Sacerdotalis' results from the long struggle of orthodoxy with modernism over the last generation. Faithful Catholics are enormously frustrated and what they want is a document that will, frankly, shut the dissidents up and make them go away. When the dissidents respond to a document by pointing out a number of reasons why it really isn't the last word, faithful Catholics tend to think that they must be right; otherwise the question would really be settled.
"But this credits the dissidents with far too much intellectual honesty. The fact is that no document can close a question for someone who is in rebellion against legitimate authority. ...
What is needed to make the dissidents go away, of course, is discipline. But you don't get discipline from a document (though it can be a good starting point).
...Without discipline, the best we can do is understand infallibility properly and live by it ourselves. Papal infallibility rests on three basic arguments: from Tradition (or history); from Scripture; and from ecclesiology (the logic of the Church's situation).
The argument from Tradition or history is simply that, from the earliest times, Catholics have credited the successors of Peter with the authority to settle disputes and teach the Faith without error. This is manifest in the works of the Fathers, for example.... See more
The argument from Scripture is based in those passages which bear upon the authority of Peter: his name as Rock; the conferral of the keys to the Kingdom; the power of binding and loosing; and, as the Pope pointed out, the guarantee of Christ that Peter would not fail in Faith and must confirm his brethren. To take into account the Petrine succession, we add the logical argument that these powers were essential to the Church, that Christ knew He would not come again before Peter died, and that it would be tantamount to a new dispensation if Christ had not intended (as Tradition makes clear) that these powers would also be exercised by Peter's successors - all vicars of Christ - until He comes.
The argument from ecclesiology is based upon the logical necessity of having a supreme power of this type at work in the Church if Christ's promise to be with the Church forever is to have any real meaning. By Scripture and Tradition we know that the popes can bind the faithful to believe something as Divinely revealed. Clearly Christ's promise would be violated if a Pope ever bound the faithful to believe something false in a matter relating to their salvation. Hence, it must be impossible for a Pope to do this. He simply MUST be protected by the Holy Spirit when teaching about a matter of faith and morals, by virtue of his supreme authority, with the intention of compelling the assent of the entire Church."
Before I finish, I wish to reiterate the point is that it is not essential to, though it is the duty of, a priest to preach: rather, a priest shares in the omnipotence of God by being able to consecrate the Eucharist for the nourishment of our souls, and in the Sacrament of Confession to unlock the gates of hell for sinners who are imprisoned there. No one has a right to the awful and terrible power of the Catholic priest, but those whom God has called to that dignity; and it is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that no woman is called to that appalling dignity.
In promulgating "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis," therefore, Pope John Paul II was merely repeating un unchangeable teaching of the Catholic Church; unchangeable, that is, because certainly true.
It is my opinion that this lamentable state of affairs derives not simply from the conflict of orthodoxy with modernism, but also and moreover with the paganistic egocentrism that has infected our culture since the eighteenth century and its so-called Enlightenment (which "Enlightenment" led, of course, to the horrors of the French Revolution, among other things). There are residues of a once-Christian culture in Western society, "a smouldering," as Hilaire Belloc wrote at the end of "The Servile State," "of the old fires:" and since the fire is not quite burnt out we may hope to rekindle it yet. Only God knows what the future of this apparently moribund society shall be: but one thing is certain, and that is that unless it returns to the Catholic Church, which nourished it and brought it to its zenith, it will crumble and wither away.
I conclude with the words that end "The Servile State:"
"And as I am upon the whole hopeful that the Faith will recover its intimate and guiding place in the heart of Europe, so I believe that this sinking back into our original Paganism...will in due time be halted and reversed.
"Videat Deus."
Thursday 11 March 2010
Kings and paper crowns
While I was walking from Palace Green Library to Queen's Court today, I heard a woman say to her son, "Watch out for your crown; it's falling down." A very young man, I doubt more than six, no less than four, was walking along wearing a paper crown upon his head, upon which I could see the word "KING," but did not walk round him to see what the name of this king was.
When I saw this monarch, something in me wanted to bow down before him and say something such as Pumbaa says to Simba: "Your Majesty! I gravel at your feet." And Timon says, "It's grovel, not gravel..." Anyway, gravel or grovel, I thought to myself, here is a king. Perhaps it was the way his mother had referred to his crown: "your crown." Here was a man wearing a crown, unashamedly displaying his regal status; no one was complaining about how much he cost the British taxpayer; no one was complaining about class division - though I am not aware of any society, even that of heaven, in which there is no class division. Even the saints in heaven are not equal: some are greater saints than others; none of them would claim to be the equal of the Blessed Virgin Mary, for that would be blasphemy. That all men are worth the same is, it appears to me, totally false. All human life is priceless, yes: but that men are unequal in terms of morality, social status, health, intelligence, cooking, confidence, emphathy, circulation, knowledge, veracity, passion, appetite, opinion, and skills, appears to me to be so obvious that the vague assertion that all men are equal sounds like to me like an almost meaningless cant phrase. It is not totally meaningless, for every soul is invaluable in the sight of God. But aristocratic government is based on the idea that all men are not equal, but that some are better than others, or more suited to governing than others. England used to be an aristocracy; ancient Carthage was an aristocracy; medieval Venice was an aristocracy. But I know so little about politics that I had better leave it alone.
That boy who was wearing that crown filled me with joy. Any boy could have been wearing that crown, and if I had pretended to be a loyal subject any boy would have continued to play at being king.
I had never seen a living king in the flesh before; and so I was deeply moved by the sight of this monarch. I did not know where he was king of: but I thought that perhaps he ought to rule this country. If it were possible, I fancy I should vote for him at the next election.
But this country is of course a constitutional monarchy. In theory the monarch has a great deal of power. I have often wished that that power were used, since it is the only counterbalance that we have - since the odious 1911 Parliament Act - to the insidious power of the House of Commons. I wonder whether we would be better off now if Guy Fawkes had succeeded in blowing up that abominable institution. I wonder whether the English monarchy, properly so called, would then have been extinguished on that evil January day in 1649.
I seriously think, though, that that arbitrarily selected boy, if he had no court of self-serving politicians about him, would, if he were allowed to run this country for even one day, do this country a great deal of good.
But then this is the point of a monarchy: hereditary monarchs are selected at random - by no means other than hereditary means. And that means that we have in effect a randomly chosen person at the head of our commonwealth. A king should not be a politician: it is when kings are politicians that we end up with leaders like Adolf Hitler (his government was, of course, monarchic). Now it seems obvious that to take a boy or girl from the street and make them king is a far better way of governing a country than our farcical parliamentary system. And this is why it is such a shame that the Queen reigns, but does not rule. It is because she does not rule that people regard her as unnecessary. But she is necessary to counteract the evil influence of our parliamentary system; she is the only person with that power.
There is a legal maxim, "The king never dies," also expressed in the French phrase: "Le roi est mort! Vive le roi!" The monarchy has been an integral part of our constitution for more than a thousand years, and it is one of those forms of government most natural to men. And if monarchical government were inherently evil, then surely we should be very concerned about little boys wearing paper crowns with the word "KING" on their heads. But that will take us to the ancient Romans, who hated the word, but only the word, "king" - but that's another story.
When I saw this monarch, something in me wanted to bow down before him and say something such as Pumbaa says to Simba: "Your Majesty! I gravel at your feet." And Timon says, "It's grovel, not gravel..." Anyway, gravel or grovel, I thought to myself, here is a king. Perhaps it was the way his mother had referred to his crown: "your crown." Here was a man wearing a crown, unashamedly displaying his regal status; no one was complaining about how much he cost the British taxpayer; no one was complaining about class division - though I am not aware of any society, even that of heaven, in which there is no class division. Even the saints in heaven are not equal: some are greater saints than others; none of them would claim to be the equal of the Blessed Virgin Mary, for that would be blasphemy. That all men are worth the same is, it appears to me, totally false. All human life is priceless, yes: but that men are unequal in terms of morality, social status, health, intelligence, cooking, confidence, emphathy, circulation, knowledge, veracity, passion, appetite, opinion, and skills, appears to me to be so obvious that the vague assertion that all men are equal sounds like to me like an almost meaningless cant phrase. It is not totally meaningless, for every soul is invaluable in the sight of God. But aristocratic government is based on the idea that all men are not equal, but that some are better than others, or more suited to governing than others. England used to be an aristocracy; ancient Carthage was an aristocracy; medieval Venice was an aristocracy. But I know so little about politics that I had better leave it alone.
That boy who was wearing that crown filled me with joy. Any boy could have been wearing that crown, and if I had pretended to be a loyal subject any boy would have continued to play at being king.
I had never seen a living king in the flesh before; and so I was deeply moved by the sight of this monarch. I did not know where he was king of: but I thought that perhaps he ought to rule this country. If it were possible, I fancy I should vote for him at the next election.
But this country is of course a constitutional monarchy. In theory the monarch has a great deal of power. I have often wished that that power were used, since it is the only counterbalance that we have - since the odious 1911 Parliament Act - to the insidious power of the House of Commons. I wonder whether we would be better off now if Guy Fawkes had succeeded in blowing up that abominable institution. I wonder whether the English monarchy, properly so called, would then have been extinguished on that evil January day in 1649.
I seriously think, though, that that arbitrarily selected boy, if he had no court of self-serving politicians about him, would, if he were allowed to run this country for even one day, do this country a great deal of good.
But then this is the point of a monarchy: hereditary monarchs are selected at random - by no means other than hereditary means. And that means that we have in effect a randomly chosen person at the head of our commonwealth. A king should not be a politician: it is when kings are politicians that we end up with leaders like Adolf Hitler (his government was, of course, monarchic). Now it seems obvious that to take a boy or girl from the street and make them king is a far better way of governing a country than our farcical parliamentary system. And this is why it is such a shame that the Queen reigns, but does not rule. It is because she does not rule that people regard her as unnecessary. But she is necessary to counteract the evil influence of our parliamentary system; she is the only person with that power.
There is a legal maxim, "The king never dies," also expressed in the French phrase: "Le roi est mort! Vive le roi!" The monarchy has been an integral part of our constitution for more than a thousand years, and it is one of those forms of government most natural to men. And if monarchical government were inherently evil, then surely we should be very concerned about little boys wearing paper crowns with the word "KING" on their heads. But that will take us to the ancient Romans, who hated the word, but only the word, "king" - but that's another story.
Wednesday 10 March 2010
Dear Gentle Reader, I said that I hoped I would be able to publish at more length today. I appear to be able to, so I shall endeavour to say something useful.
ON THE DEPLORABLE STATE OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY
When I write, "the deplorable state of Catholic theology," I am not meaning the words in a literal sense. That is to say, I am not saying that Catholic theology, considered in itself, is deplorable. What is deplorable, and what I consequently deplore, is the substitution for Catholic theology that has replaced Catholic theology in the minds of many who, apparently with no consciousness of irony, describes themselves as Catholic. Now there are certain names familiar to everyone in Catholic intellectual circles the very sound of which bring sorrow to the heart and tears to the eyes. One such is Hans Küng. Now I have not read anything by Hans Küng, except two dispiriting articles, one in the current edition of The Tablet, wherein he argued in favour of the abolition of the celibacy law, and for women priests; and another published in The Guardian on the 27th of October last year. He also, incidentally, mentioned someone called the Roman Pope, as if there were a Venetian Pope, a Glaswegian Pope, and a Parisian Pope, and they all had to be distinguished from each other. It is not my purpose here to write a defence of the ecclesiastical law requiring sacertodal celibacy, though I could do so without much difficulty; but I will make a remark concerning the incessantly proposed and equally (and rightly) incessantly rejected ordination of women: it is not that the thing is wrong, it is that it is impossible. It is metaphysically impossible. It is as impossible to make a woman into a priest as it is to make a teapot into a flying carpet. Some people might object to the phrase "make a woman into a priest" as if when a woman were, per impossibile, made into a priest, she would cease to a woman. It will be easier to discuss this issue if we think in terms of reality, with what is actually possible in this world that God made. When a man is ordained a priest, it is not literally true that he ceases to be a man. But in a very real sense he does cease to be a man. He ceases to be an ordinary man, and he cannot be changed back again into an ordinary man: for the Sacrament of Order, like that of Baptism and that of Confirmation, plants an indelible character upon the soul. Great heavens above, man, this is basic, basic theology! And yet people who are not only not theological experts but know not even basic, basic theology - I do not mean people like Hans Küng, but people who read The Tablet - think that they can dictate to the Church of God what she can and cannot do! Not even what she ought or ought not to do, but what she is able and is not able to do.
With someone like Hans Küng, on the other hand, who for some reason teaches theology at the University of Tübingen, though his faculties for teaching theology were withdrawn by the Vatican in 1979 after he wrote a book denying the revealed dogma of papal infallibility, which alone makes him a heretic: with someone like this, it is much harder to understand him. How can he, a priest, have so little understanding of the basics of Catholic theology? And why does he, who has so little understanding of the basics of Catholic theology, (a) write books against Catholic theology, (b) call those books against Catholic theology books of Catholic theology, and (c) teach theology at the University of Tübingen?
In itself this would not be a problem if people merely laughed at him. But they don't: they take this moron so seriously that it nearly destroys my faith in humanity.
"Since the Second Vatican Council in the 60s, many episcopal conferences, pastors and believers have been calling for the abolition of the medieval prohibition of marriage for priests, a prohibition which, in the last few decades, has deprived almost half of our parishes of their own pastor. Time and again, the reformers have run into Ratzinger's stubborn, uncomprehending intransigence. And now these Catholic priests are expected to tolerate married, convert priests alongside themselves. When they want themselves to marry, should they first turn Anglican, and then return to the church?"
Does Father Küng not already know that there are married Anglican priests? Does he think that exceptions prove rules? Oh, and "medieval". The nincompoops love that word: "medieval". Anything more than about a hundred years old, and which they don't like because it's old, they call "medieval", and poof! There is an end of the argument. Married convert priests already exist. And in answer to his question, no, they should not, and only a fool would suggest such a thing.
But I seem to have had the ill fortune to run into Father Küng's stubborn, uncomprehending intransigence.
ON THE DEPLORABLE STATE OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY
When I write, "the deplorable state of Catholic theology," I am not meaning the words in a literal sense. That is to say, I am not saying that Catholic theology, considered in itself, is deplorable. What is deplorable, and what I consequently deplore, is the substitution for Catholic theology that has replaced Catholic theology in the minds of many who, apparently with no consciousness of irony, describes themselves as Catholic. Now there are certain names familiar to everyone in Catholic intellectual circles the very sound of which bring sorrow to the heart and tears to the eyes. One such is Hans Küng. Now I have not read anything by Hans Küng, except two dispiriting articles, one in the current edition of The Tablet, wherein he argued in favour of the abolition of the celibacy law, and for women priests; and another published in The Guardian on the 27th of October last year. He also, incidentally, mentioned someone called the Roman Pope, as if there were a Venetian Pope, a Glaswegian Pope, and a Parisian Pope, and they all had to be distinguished from each other. It is not my purpose here to write a defence of the ecclesiastical law requiring sacertodal celibacy, though I could do so without much difficulty; but I will make a remark concerning the incessantly proposed and equally (and rightly) incessantly rejected ordination of women: it is not that the thing is wrong, it is that it is impossible. It is metaphysically impossible. It is as impossible to make a woman into a priest as it is to make a teapot into a flying carpet. Some people might object to the phrase "make a woman into a priest" as if when a woman were, per impossibile, made into a priest, she would cease to a woman. It will be easier to discuss this issue if we think in terms of reality, with what is actually possible in this world that God made. When a man is ordained a priest, it is not literally true that he ceases to be a man. But in a very real sense he does cease to be a man. He ceases to be an ordinary man, and he cannot be changed back again into an ordinary man: for the Sacrament of Order, like that of Baptism and that of Confirmation, plants an indelible character upon the soul. Great heavens above, man, this is basic, basic theology! And yet people who are not only not theological experts but know not even basic, basic theology - I do not mean people like Hans Küng, but people who read The Tablet - think that they can dictate to the Church of God what she can and cannot do! Not even what she ought or ought not to do, but what she is able and is not able to do.
With someone like Hans Küng, on the other hand, who for some reason teaches theology at the University of Tübingen, though his faculties for teaching theology were withdrawn by the Vatican in 1979 after he wrote a book denying the revealed dogma of papal infallibility, which alone makes him a heretic: with someone like this, it is much harder to understand him. How can he, a priest, have so little understanding of the basics of Catholic theology? And why does he, who has so little understanding of the basics of Catholic theology, (a) write books against Catholic theology, (b) call those books against Catholic theology books of Catholic theology, and (c) teach theology at the University of Tübingen?
In itself this would not be a problem if people merely laughed at him. But they don't: they take this moron so seriously that it nearly destroys my faith in humanity.
"Since the Second Vatican Council in the 60s, many episcopal conferences, pastors and believers have been calling for the abolition of the medieval prohibition of marriage for priests, a prohibition which, in the last few decades, has deprived almost half of our parishes of their own pastor. Time and again, the reformers have run into Ratzinger's stubborn, uncomprehending intransigence. And now these Catholic priests are expected to tolerate married, convert priests alongside themselves. When they want themselves to marry, should they first turn Anglican, and then return to the church?"
Does Father Küng not already know that there are married Anglican priests? Does he think that exceptions prove rules? Oh, and "medieval". The nincompoops love that word: "medieval". Anything more than about a hundred years old, and which they don't like because it's old, they call "medieval", and poof! There is an end of the argument. Married convert priests already exist. And in answer to his question, no, they should not, and only a fool would suggest such a thing.
But I seem to have had the ill fortune to run into Father Küng's stubborn, uncomprehending intransigence.
Tuesday 9 March 2010
My dear Reader, I must apologize once again for being so brief; I have only a few minutes, again. Today has been a comparatively ordinary day; I found my energy levels rather low, I think, in the early afternoon on account of the weather. Also, I wish that my favourite toilet, on Level 1 of the University Library, did not have single-ply toilet-paper. I hope that tomorrow I shall be able to post something at greater length for you, since you are such a fine fellow.
Monday 8 March 2010
Saturday 6 March 2010
Angels with Dirty Faces
I am feeling rather tired at the end of a tiring week.
This evening I saw Angels with Dirty Faces at the chaplaincy. It was a good and moving film, and I liked it very much.
Good night.
This evening I saw Angels with Dirty Faces at the chaplaincy. It was a good and moving film, and I liked it very much.
Good night.
Friday 5 March 2010
Gentle Reader, I apologize for the umpteenth time for not updating yesterday. I forgot about the blog, for which I hope you will forgive me if I say that I had a summative assignment due in today at 1 o'clock which had to take precedence over everything else. That is now submitted. I shall not describe here the concert in the old people's home yesterday, other than to say that it went satisfactorily.
I am very tired after a very tiring week; it is now 11.08 on Friday evening, and I shall ensconce myself in my bed and dormire.
I am very tired after a very tiring week; it is now 11.08 on Friday evening, and I shall ensconce myself in my bed and dormire.
Wednesday 3 March 2010
Happy St Winnaloe's Day
First comes David, then comes Chad,
Then comes Winnaloe roaring mad.
And then, at any rate in the new calendar, comes Casimir.
I need to be up at 7.30 in the morning.
I have had a meeting with P.Z. today. I have read some more of The Catholic Lifetime Reading Plan. I have had a rehearsal for the concert which is tomorrow.
I apologize for the brevity of this article, but I need to go to bed, or I shall not get enough sleep.
Tomorrow's article may of necessity be brief also, for I have much to do and a deadline on Friday. In fact, I had a deadline today, but succeeded in getting it extended. But of course the concert is tomorrow morning. And tomorrow afternoon I have various commitments. So that I suspect another long evening; or it will have to be an early start on Friday - a not altogether remote possibility: but I really must go to bed.
Then comes Winnaloe roaring mad.
And then, at any rate in the new calendar, comes Casimir.
I need to be up at 7.30 in the morning.
I have had a meeting with P.Z. today. I have read some more of The Catholic Lifetime Reading Plan. I have had a rehearsal for the concert which is tomorrow.
I apologize for the brevity of this article, but I need to go to bed, or I shall not get enough sleep.
Tomorrow's article may of necessity be brief also, for I have much to do and a deadline on Friday. In fact, I had a deadline today, but succeeded in getting it extended. But of course the concert is tomorrow morning. And tomorrow afternoon I have various commitments. So that I suspect another long evening; or it will have to be an early start on Friday - a not altogether remote possibility: but I really must go to bed.
Tuesday 2 March 2010
St Chad's Day, summative assignments, pressus temporis, non-orange futures
Greetings once again, Gentle Reader. I am rather short for time today, so this entry will be fairly short; at least, less than ten thousand words. Today is St Chad's Day; St Chad, for some inexplicable reason, is neither in the general nor the national calendar but only, to my knowledge, in the local calendar of the Archdiocese of Birmingham; and this, I am sure you will agree, is a great pity. At least, I agree with myself, and therefore so should you.
I have a summative assignment due in in fourteen hours and eighteen minutes, of which I have written none of approximately three thousand words. I have, however, compiled a bibliography of more than a hundred sources, and planned vaguely what I am going to say, and I have a vague idea of where I am going with it. Or rather, going to go. However, sleep does not seem very proximate at the moment. I cannot spare you any more time, I am afraid, Gentle Reader, but I hope that your future is not orange.
I have a summative assignment due in in fourteen hours and eighteen minutes, of which I have written none of approximately three thousand words. I have, however, compiled a bibliography of more than a hundred sources, and planned vaguely what I am going to say, and I have a vague idea of where I am going with it. Or rather, going to go. However, sleep does not seem very proximate at the moment. I cannot spare you any more time, I am afraid, Gentle Reader, but I hope that your future is not orange.
Monday 1 March 2010
St David's Day, Margaret Thatcher, and Stultification
My dear Reader, I apologize for not having regaled you with an update of my life in the last few days. I thought it was a lot longer than a few days because the last update was on the 25th of February and it is now March, but I had forgotten how few days there were in February. Today is of course my name day, so sanabituranima is going to make me some leek soup, and I have bought some Cake wherewith to celebrate the occasion. I went to Mass at St Cuthbert's at 9.15 this morning; I did not succeed in rising at 6.30; I did succeed in rising at 8.45, or perhaps 8.43 or so. I had intended to spend some time in prayer before Mass; instead I did that after I had had breakfast, which I had in Brown Sugar. I know it is not called Brown Sugar, but I call it Brown Sugar anyway: it used to be its name, and so I shall still call it that, be it what colour or thing it be may. I had lunch in college; then I did about fifty minutes of piano practice. I had finished - at 1.45, for I had to go to a lecture - when a man came to the door and spoke to me to complain about my playing being "repetitive." How do you practise anything without it being repetitive? I am sorry but if you are to learn something you have to repeat it. He used the adjective "hammering," and there is one little bit, of about four seconds, which I might have hammered - though I did play it a large number of times. How else am I supposed to learn it? Anyway, I had finished. He said it was tuneful up to that point. I was not entirely sure whether it was myself, or Chopin, or my interpretation of Chopin, that he was criticizing.
Then I went to my music-therapy lecture which was taken by Janet Graham, who is the chief music-therapist in the North-East. I did not expect the lecture to be interesting, but it was more interesting than previous lectures have been. I have not seen Rachel Darnley-Smith, our usual music-therapy lecturer, for a month now. Anyhow, we had that lecture, then our group practised until about a quarter to six - from 2.15 to 5.45 is three and a half hours, so we have worked hard this afternoon. It was after that session that I bought the chocolate cake with which to celebrate St David's Day. I found out that if you want to use a machine and pay by cash you have to use a particular one which was not the one I was using since the one I was using came up with zero every time I tried to scan the cake. Also, when I walked in and out of the shop, the alarm sounded; I attributed it to my cello. No one has arrested me yet. Those alarms go off so frequently with so many false alarms that they seem to me to be almost entirely self-defeating. Not that I have any strong opinions on anything.
Well, that's not quite true. I have strong opinions on everything from Tolstoy to a teapot; Margaret Thatcher is the only thing on which I have no opinion. I do not feel I know enough about her to have an informed opinion, and the views that I have heard about her differ so much from each other that it has not been possible for me to imbibe a prejudice one way or the other by a process of osmosis.
On a not very related note, I think it does not do any good for a child to be laughed at for not understanding something, or for someone to say "How can you possibly not know / understand that?" I think it does positive harm. I don't know or understand something; you tell me, without expressing it in words, that you think I am stupid; therefore I do not ask anything of anybody who might be able to help me because they might react in the same way that you do - implying that I am stupid because I don't know or understand something -; and in failing, through this fear and false pride that you have taught me, to ask questions, or to ask for help, I paralyse myself and am unable to make any progress at all; or rather, I stultify myself; and so your unexpressed accusation of stupidity, of which you may have been entirely unconscious, has become a prophecy that has almost fulfilled itself. It is true that my pride is my own fault: but you taught it to me.
Then I went to my music-therapy lecture which was taken by Janet Graham, who is the chief music-therapist in the North-East. I did not expect the lecture to be interesting, but it was more interesting than previous lectures have been. I have not seen Rachel Darnley-Smith, our usual music-therapy lecturer, for a month now. Anyhow, we had that lecture, then our group practised until about a quarter to six - from 2.15 to 5.45 is three and a half hours, so we have worked hard this afternoon. It was after that session that I bought the chocolate cake with which to celebrate St David's Day. I found out that if you want to use a machine and pay by cash you have to use a particular one which was not the one I was using since the one I was using came up with zero every time I tried to scan the cake. Also, when I walked in and out of the shop, the alarm sounded; I attributed it to my cello. No one has arrested me yet. Those alarms go off so frequently with so many false alarms that they seem to me to be almost entirely self-defeating. Not that I have any strong opinions on anything.
Well, that's not quite true. I have strong opinions on everything from Tolstoy to a teapot; Margaret Thatcher is the only thing on which I have no opinion. I do not feel I know enough about her to have an informed opinion, and the views that I have heard about her differ so much from each other that it has not been possible for me to imbibe a prejudice one way or the other by a process of osmosis.
On a not very related note, I think it does not do any good for a child to be laughed at for not understanding something, or for someone to say "How can you possibly not know / understand that?" I think it does positive harm. I don't know or understand something; you tell me, without expressing it in words, that you think I am stupid; therefore I do not ask anything of anybody who might be able to help me because they might react in the same way that you do - implying that I am stupid because I don't know or understand something -; and in failing, through this fear and false pride that you have taught me, to ask questions, or to ask for help, I paralyse myself and am unable to make any progress at all; or rather, I stultify myself; and so your unexpressed accusation of stupidity, of which you may have been entirely unconscious, has become a prophecy that has almost fulfilled itself. It is true that my pride is my own fault: but you taught it to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)