Soul's Journey On

2010-12-22T13:32:00.000-08:00

I have found a book containing some of what Pope Benedict XIV said about Heroic Virtue. Here I link to the first volume.

I am going to conclude this blog today. I am rather tired of it, and I tend only to update it out of a sense of duty. I do not feel that this is necessary any more. I think this has reached its end.

I should perhaps write something more extended than usual on this occasion. It is traditional to write something poignant at the end of such things, and I suppose there is a certain poignancy in the finality of it anyway. Every moment of my time is precious; and I do not think writing very little for very few people has proved the best way of spending it.

I hope that those of you who have followed this blog have found it of some use or benefit: and I leave you with my blessing.

May Almighty God bless you, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

And may the souls of the Faithful Departed, through the Mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Et in perpetuum, fratres, ave atque vale.

2010-12-21T15:06:00.000-08:00

I am very tired. I must sleep, since I have an appointment on the morrow. I have emoted this evening. Bonam noctem.

2010-12-20T13:46:00.000-08:00

I am 22 today!

I would like at some point to write a commentary on the theologically bad film "The Nativity Story." But not on my birthday.

I am blessed to have received a Rosary today, blessed by Ven. Pope John Paul II!

:D

I have had a very nice day.

We went out for a meal in the evening (en famille); I watched the 25th anniversary concert of Les Misérables on Blu-Ray in the afternoon.

My brother also bought me a Benedetto XVI Calendario 2011.

Huzzah!

2010-12-19T14:05:00.001-08:00

If we wish to become saints, we should have some sort of Rule of Life. We should, ideally, go to Mass every day, meditate for at least 15 minutes each day, and say at least 5 decades of the Rosary each day. We should say grace before and after meals; we should say some familiar prayers when we rise and when we go to bed; and we should say the Angelus (or Regina Caeli during the Easter season) thrice a day. We should go to Confession at least monthly, preferably more often.

It is generally best, I think, to receive Communion daily. But certainly we should receive it at least weekly. St Alphonsus recommends receiving the Sacraments weekly (he does not say we should not receive them more); and going to Mass daily. He urges everyone to do a half-hour's mental prayer each day, and recommends 15 minutes of spiritual reading.

The Divine Office is a very powerful prayer, of course, since it is the prayer of the Church.

Good night.

2010-12-18T15:00:00.000-08:00

Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Jesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.

I am writing this to clarify whether it is a sin or not to use foul language.

It depends, not on the words themselves in se, but on the intention, whether that is a good intention or a bad one.

It is a mortal sin to use such language in the presence of those who are so weak-spirited that they will suffer scandal, and especially in front of children. It will be a mortal sin to use foul language when there is danger of spiritual ruin to oneself or another.

To use immodest words ex vano solatio, vel joco, is a venial sin.

If the words are very lascivious, I think one should act conscious of the much higher likelihood that hearers will suffer scandal.

It is worth remembering that those who habitually use impure words are likely inadvertently to use them in front of children, who, as a result of hearing such words, will commit a thousand sins.

I have taken this mostly from St Alphonsus.

Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Jesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.

2010-12-17T14:51:00.000-08:00

The 17th of December, and the beginning of the great O Antiphons... The Church's liturgy heightens in energy, if I may so express it, in anticipation of our Lord's coming at Bethlehem.

O SAPIENTIA, QUAE EX ORE ALTISSIMI PRODIISTI,
ATTINGENS A FINE USQUE AD FINEM,
FORTITER SUAVITERQUE DISPONENS OMNIA:
VENI AD DOCENDUM NOS VIAM PRUDENTIAE.

I shall not translate that for you; you can look up a translation yourself, or, better, translate it yourself. Or you may not need to translate it; you may be able to read Latin without carrying the words across (trans-lating) into another language.

Once again I urge my Reader to say the Rosary every day, at least 5 decades. It is well to conclude it with the Litany of the Blessed Virgin.

2010-12-16T14:16:00.000-08:00

The naïve, at whom I never know whether to laugh or cry or tremble, would profit from reading this:

The Books were a Front for the Porn

2010-12-15T11:57:00.000-08:00

Gentle Reader,

Tomorrow morning I shall be off home. I hope that I shall be able to recuperate my energies to some degree over the break. I also hope that I shall get some things sorted out with regard to the future.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

David

2010-12-14T14:52:00.000-08:00

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

GENTLE READER, I counsel you, again, to go to Mass every single day, as far as possible. If that means getting up earlier, get up earlier. If getting up earlier means you must go to bed earlier, then go to bed earlier.

In fact, if I had only one piece of advice to give you, it would be to go to Mass every day. Because you need the grace. Why would anybody not desire to go to Mass every day? I can understand difficulty but how can a Catholic lack the desire?

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

2010-12-13T15:04:00.001-08:00

This is extremely beautiful and brought tears to my eyes. Lines 2-5 of the first Tieh are by Wang Wei (699-759 A.D.)

First Tieh

1 Bright and joyous spring,

2 The early morning rain at Wei-ch’eng moistens the light dust.

3 The Willow tree next to the inn shines in fresh greeness.

4 Please, bottoms-up once more, for now you are leaving to the West;

5 Outside the Yang-kuan gate there is no old friend.

6 Walk fast, walk fast on that faraway road.

7 One will pass gates and cross rivers

8 With endless hardship, with endless hardship

9 During this ever endless hardship,

10 Please take care of yourself, take care of yourself

Second Tieh

(Repeat lines 2 through 5 of First Tieh)

To long for and worry about you, parting unwillingly,

The falling tears stain my handkerchief.

After bidding farewell, how lonely it will be,

How lonely it will be.

I shall miss you day by day, night by night.

With whom can I share my thoughts? With whom can I share my thoughts?

My melancholy heart shall follow you day by day,

Follow you day by day.

Third Tieh

(Repeat lines 2 through 5 of First Tieh)

Oh, the delicate wine! Oh, the delicate wine!

I have drunk it all, for my heart is already intoxicated.

Soon you will begin your journey on a grey horse to the far distance.

You will ride away on a grey horse to the far distance.

When will I be able to hear your returning carriage sound?

Today, in this brief moment how many cups of wine can we drink together?

Even after a thousand cups of wine there will always be an end.

Within my heart you will not be forgotten.

Alas, here is the everlasting sadness!

We shall write to each other our loving thoughts, our frequent messages

As if we are still together, as if we are still together.

IN PRAISE OF MARY (IV)

2010-12-11T05:21:00.000-08:00

This is my fourth Facebook note of this kind.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art Thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of Thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.

Ah, Lady, how can I ever begin to thank Thee for the graces Thou hast gained from Thy Son for me? Grant that I may get a Priest of Thy Son to say a Votive Mass in Thine honour. Every grace I have received from God I have received through Thee; and Thou hast lifted me up from the quagmire of sin, not once but many times. Without Thee who knows where I would be? I think I would be a wretch with such a weak and flabby will that I would not be able to resist the least temptation. I would be an unspeakable monster of vice and sin. It is true that I have sinned exceedingly greatly in my life, such that the very thought of my sins makes me tremble; but it is thanks to Thee, my Mother, that I have not died in them, as in strict justice I deserve. But God's Justice, while remaining perfectly infinite, is tempered by His Mercy, which is also perfectly infinite.

I had intended, my dearest Mother, to write, this Wednesday past, of Thine Immaculate Conception. I began to do so, but never brought the task to completion. Forgive me. I shall write of it here.

Alone of all the daughters of our first mother, Thou alone wast conceived without original sin. All her other daughters, and all her sons excepting only One, were conceived in sin: for terrible is God's Justice. Under the New Law, original sin is purged from the soul by the Sacrament of Baptism. There were some theologians who held the false view, which dishonoureth Thee, that Thou wast conceived in sin, but purified immediately, in the second instant of time, that moment immediately after the moment wherein Thou wast conceived. No! No! A thousand, ten thousand, ten thousand times ten thousand times no! Never, never, O never, was there the least hint, the least penumbra, the least simulacrum, the least shadow of a shadow of a stain of sin in Thy beautiful soul! Let nobody, nobody, say otherwise! "Tota pulchra es, Virgo Maria, et macula originalis non est in te." Non est in te, my dearest Mother, nec umquam in te fuit! Numquam! Numquam![1] Never! Never! God, in becoming man, could have chosen a Mother worthy of Himself, or a Mother unworthy of Himself. He could create a Mother who was free from original sin in the first moment of Her conception, or He could have done otherwise. Which redounds the greater to His glory? Which is more perfect? God could choose a Mother worthy of Himself; He could do it, and He has done it!

What of the fact that many theologians, of great virtue and intelligence, did not believe in what is now a defined article of the Catholic Faith? Is it possible for a large number of intelligent theologians...to be wrong?! Is it possible for theologians, even a St Thomas Aquinas, to be wrong? Yes! This is precisely why we have an infallible Church! How could an infallible Christ institute a fallible Church? Deny the infallibility of the Church that Christ instituted, you deny the infallibility of Christ. It is one thing to deny the infallibility of Christ; it is another thing to deny it and claim to be Christian.

Eve was created immaculate! God could create an Eve immaculate, and you say He could not create Mary immaculate? Shall God's own Mother be less than the mother of mankind?

Although some theologians have denied the Immaculate Conception, there has never been a time when the Church, as a whole, did not believe in it. The development of the doctrine is outlined by Bl. Pope Pius IX in the document wherein he promulgated the dogma as an article of the Faith, to be believed on pain of heresy, entitled Deus ineffabilis: a magnificent document; I recommend that it be read every year on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception.

Mary, Thou wast not, like us sinners, conceived in sin: nor didst Thou ever commit the slightest sin: Thou wast preserved from both original sin and actual sin: and, concerning actual sin, Thou wast preserved both from mortal and from venial sin; from venial sin, both deliberate and semi-deliberate. And not only didst Thou never sin: Thou wast utterly faithful to God's grace every moment of Thy life: Thou wast free from every imperfection. Excluding the human Nature of Christ (for, let us remember, Christ Himself, the Second Person of the Trinity, is not a creature but the very Creator of Heaven and Earth - for He is God), Thou art the most perfect of all the creatures of God.

Shall we not then venerate Thee; shall we not give Thee that respect which is Thy due? Thee, Who art the Mother of God, Perpetual Virgin, ante partum, in partu, et post partum;[2] Thee, Who art the perfectest of women?

No, we do not honour Thee exceedingly. How could we possibly honour Thee exceedingly? By giving that worship to Thee which is due to God alone. We struggle to give Thee that honour which is Thy due: how can we call our praise of Thee excessive?

I once heard a woman say, and how true it is, that a person's orthodoxy can be told by his attitude to Mary. Why is this? Perhaps because "Thou alone hast destroyed all the heresies in the universal world." How right St Louis de Montfort was when he said, in his masterpiece, True Devotion to Mary, "Heretics learn and say the Our Father, but not the Hail Mary...they would rather wear a serpent round their neck than a rosary." As for those who have nothing but contempt for Our Lady, and for Our Lady's Psalter, let us pray for them; I fear for their salvation.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art Thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of Thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Saturday, 11th December, 2010

[1] The Latin reads: Thou art all beautiful, O Virgin Mary, and the original stain is not in thee. Is not in thee...nor ever was in thee! Never! Never!

[2] Before giving birth, in giving birth, and after giving birth.

Because you need the grace!

2010-12-10T15:43:00.000-08:00

We must pray as we have never prayed before.

GO TO MASS EVERY DAY. You need the grace. And pray for me, that I get to Mass every day. I need the grace too. RECEIVE COMMUNION EVERY DAY (unless you are in a bad state, in which case GO TO CONFESSION!).

SAY THE ROSARY EVERY DAY. I know one of my readers does this (she made a vow to say 20 decades every day until the end of this year; I would advise her to continue saying 20 decades a day next year). Say at least 5 decades, in the Name of God! You need the grace.

MENTAL PRAYER EVERY DAY. At least 15 minutes. I am trying to do half an hour at the moment. I repeat, we need to pray as we have never prayed before. It is better to make one's meditation in the morning, when possible.

ANGELUS THREE TIMES A DAY.

MORNING AND NIGHT PRAYERS.

GRACE BEFORE AND BLESSING AFTER MEALS (at least in your head if you cannot say it aloud.)

AVOID UNNECESSARY OCCASIONS OF SIN.

FREQUENT THE SACRAMENTS (Confession should be at least once a month. Communion, I say, every day.)

THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THESE IS DAILY MASS.

2010-12-09T15:45:00.000-08:00

At some point I should like to write something more extended on this blog than a couple of sentences. At present the blog tends to be something that happens at the end of the day; I do not tend to regard it as generally of particular importance, and when I come to write things in it I am usually quite tired. Tomorrow, perhaps, I shall write at more length.

I wish the Modernists would stop pretending to be Catholic. I wish they would either convert to Catholicism or leave us alone and stop poisoning our minds with their quasi-Catholic Agnosticism. It is not so much that their ideas are insane, or that they are wrong - it is not that alone, but it is the infliction of these ideas under the title of Catholic that should drive us up the wall, or rather it should drive us to lie flat on our faces begging God for mercy, and praying as we have never prayed before, and it should drive us to study the Faith and learn it and know it as we have never needed to know it before. When a Catholic says "I think the Church should change its teaching," I hear heresy bells a-ringing, and I think something like "mindset! mindset!" I FIND IT VERY DISTURBING TO HEAR CATHOLICS TALK LIKE PROTESTANTS. When the Real Presence is explained in a wriggling manner, and no mention is made of the belief of Catholics that the consecrated Host is the Body of Jesus Christ, and a sort of apology is made for the doctrine of transsubstantiation, I find myself quite shaken. Was my Faith shaken? I don't think so; but I know that I was severely shaken.

I sincerely believe that it would be better for Catholics to be taught nothing than to be brainwashed with intellectual poison masquerading as Catholic truth.

2010-12-08T14:29:00.001-08:00

We must know the Faith to a degree we have never needed to know it before.
We must pray as we have never prayed before.

2010-12-07T15:54:00.000-08:00

I wish you all a happy Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception tomorrow. Hip, hip, hurrah!

A Facebook note on this dogma may be on its way tomorrow (Wednesday, the feast day itself.)

An Answer to Tim Minchin's Last Question In His Somewhat Irritating Song Entitled "If You Open Your Mind Too Much, Your Brain Will Fall Out"

2010-12-06T15:09:00.000-08:00

St Thomas Aquinas.

2010-12-05T15:27:00.001-08:00

Catholics are not to believe that capital punishment is intrinsically evil. It cannot be equated with abortion and euthanasia by one who submits to the authority of the Church. It is part of the traditional teaching of the Church that this severest of penalties is only to be used when certain conditions are fulfilled; one has to have the authority to execute this punishment. Punishment has four ends - retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the peace of society.

"To judge justly, one must
1 have the right intention
2 have authority over the one judged
3 know the truth." - St Thomas Aquinas

2010-12-03T15:36:00.000-08:00

I have had an excellent evening; I am pressed for time, so I shall not write very much now. I shall perhaps write at greater length tomorrow. Incidentally, some people are very silly. Others are terrifyingly naïve. The naïveté of many very good people terrifies me.

2010-12-02T14:06:00.000-08:00

I particularly dislike Julian the Apostate, who apparently caused the martyrdom of St Bibiana.

Tomorrow is the Feast of St Francis Xavier.

I am tired.

2010-12-01T14:22:00.000-08:00

I have written a draft editorial for a new issue of The Mitchell Mail - though I am starting to think I should give this a new title since it is not really the same thing as The Mitchell Mail.

Anyhow, here it is:

AS we enter a new liturgical year, so we also embark upon a new series of this long-neglected paper. It is the hope of the Editor that the new series will be fuller and more informative than those which preceded it. We are aware that there has been a lapse of several years since our last issue; and for this we beg the pardon of the Gentle Reader, who is requested to bear in mind the pressures of time and other things we have been under with regard to a University degree and other matters. We have decided to begin this new series at no. 1.
We are some way into the academic year, but we have only just begun the liturgical year. We are in year A, and so we shall be hearing the Gospel of St Matthew read at Mass. We were privileged to begin this liturgical year in the Cathedral Church of St Mary, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, at the Vigil of Prayer for Nascent Life—requested for all the dioceses of the Universal Church throughout the world by the present Holy Father. We were privileged to hear our Bishop, Seamus Cunningham, preach eloquently and, we respectfully submit, loudly, while we were there. The Joyful Mysteries of the Rosary were each introduced by various people—a pair of Catholic doctors, a pair of elderly Catholics, and so on. We wondered how the world would react to this vigil of prayer; interestingly, we have not seen any of the virulent reaction we might have expected, though we recall reading a comment on the Internet to the effect that the writer did not mind our praying, so long as we did not vote. There was a reading from St Matthew’s Gospel—that concerning men going about their business right up until the day when Noah went into the ark.
We intend, as in former numbers, to provide the Gentle Reader with information in the real and full sense of that word—which is from the verb to inform. We intend also to provide the reader with information regarding events in which he might have an interest; and we intend to provide reviews of concerts, books, and such things. We shall publish news that relates particularly to the University of Durham, the parish of St Cuthbert in that city, to the city itself, and to St Theresa’s parish in Lexden, Colchester; but we shall not restrict ourselves to these matters. We shall provide reflections and meditations for the spiritual benefit of the reader. In fact if our writings do not benefit the reader spiritually, we consider that we have failed in our efforts.
We make no apology for the fact that this paper will be, and is, intended to be Catholic in manner, tone, style, and spirit. We do not apologize for the truth of the Catholic Faith, still less do we in any sense retract or withdraw it. We shall include some pieces on Catholic devotional life—for it is the spiritual life that matters—but we shall not restrict ourselves, in religious matters, to spirituality: and we certainly shall not follow the absurd mantra of those who desire to “keep religion out of politics.” No: on the contrary, for as long as politics concerns itself with moral matters or any matters pertaining to Divine Revelation, so long is it the duty of the Church, and consequently our duty as members of that Mystical Body, to concern ourselves with political matters. And it does not seem probable to us that politics will keep itself out of these matters for a very long time to come.
We should like to publish some portion at least of such correspondence as we may in future receive. We hope that this paper will never be used for commercial advertising, though we shall, if we may be permitted to use the expression, personally advertise for such events, &c., as we deem may be of interest to the Reader.
We are determined that this journal shall be of unimpeachable Catholic orthodoxy. We live in times of theological crisis, in which bad theology has been popularized in Catholic circles, so that the Catholic Church is divided, in the words of Michael Voris, into “the faithful, the unfaithful, and the confused.” We have no intention whatever of increasing the number of the two latter. We have every intention of augmenting the number of the former, until Christ reigns in the heart of every man, woman, and child, on God’s earth; and we are at no pains to conceal the fact. For what other reason than this did Christ establish His Church? We repeat, we are determined that this journal shall always be solidly orthodox; and may God forbid that anything not in perfect conformity with the holy Catholic Faith should ever be stated in these pages. There is a cynical spirit that falls short of unorthodoxy, but it sneers at the authority of the Church and it utterly reeks with pride. We intend to publish no articles of that kind. We intend to put a stop—a screeching, grinding halt—as far as the same is within our power—to the confusion within the Church; and while this paper is but one very small step, and unlikely to do much in that way on its own, we hope that the combined efforts of many, together with the grace of God, will combine to achieve the desired end.
We consider also that by publishing the real teaching of the Church, and not the ersatz Modernist-cum-Socialist emetic that many Catholics have been force-fed, particularly among many who attended schools called Catholic schools, we may perhaps give a better idea of the Church to those outside Her communion than some of them may have formed from sources of so-called Catholics who have despised their own Mother.
We shall always exhort our Catholic readership to stand up for what they know to be true. It has been said before that “God will have no cowards in his service.” Yet so many Catholics are cowards. How many cowards are there in heaven? None! Revelation, chapter 21, verse 8. No: we shall not sit by and watch, while souls fall into hell like the snowflakes we see falling from the sky. Cowards cannot win a war; and we are at war. We are engaged in the most terrible war ever undertaken, and our troops think they can just shrug their shoulders and smile. The idiocy! Everything, all we have, our very selves, are at stake in this battle; and we watch those who should be our comrades-in-arms lay down their weapons. What can we be expected to think? What can we be expected to feel? Or sometimes we find that our fellow soldiers have not even been trained—not only not properly, but not at all! How would you expect an army to succeed that did not train men for war? The training of a soldier is not pleasant; it is not comfortable; and something would be very seriously wrong if it were. Can we then imagine that the training of a soldier of Christ will be pleasant or comfortable? No, of course not. It is our intention, then, to bring the gravity of this crisis to our readers’ attention, and stimulate them to play their part in the battle to the uttermost of their power. Great emphasis will be placed on this, because it is one of the most important issues with which we are concerned. For until men are aware of the spiritual realities around them, we can expect no outcome but disaster, and specifically spiritual disaster, which is the worst kind of disaster.
We shall provide our readership with spiritual reading from the great writers of our tradition—Thomas à Kempis, Lorenzo Scupoli, St Francis de Sales, St Alphonsus Liguori, St Augustine, &c. We shall provide commentary on liturgical prayers; we shall also provide social and political commentary. We shall provide objections to the interminable objections we have heard against our holy Religion, but have not been able to refute them—such as the never-ending case of Galileo.
It is our opinion that the quality of one’s reading is of much greater importance than its extent. We desire that all that we publish shall be of good literary quality; for hereby it will be a greater pleasure for the Gentle Reader, and we are aware of the power of literary style. We understand that many books have had great effect for evil upon the world on account of their literary style (Voltaire’s works, for instance). But while quality is of greater importance than quantity, it is nevertheless one of our aims to improve the armoury of the Reader in being able to defend the Faith—and, we may add, himself: and to this end it is necessary to provide him, we think, with a great deal of knowledge; quantity is, in this case, of not inconsiderable importance.
We also desire to direct our Reader to other writings that will help him in his spiritual life; and so we should remark that we shall not restrict our reviews to modern books, but also to older works which we consider may be of interest to our readership. All our reading, like everything we do, should be for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. Everything we do should be directed to that end; if it is not, it is wasted.
It should be remembered, of course, that we were made to know, love, and serve God—and that while knowledge comes first, it is less important than the other two. As Abp Fulton Sheen has said, “Character resides in the will, not in the intellect;” and we are of the opinion that there is some danger that a work of this kind may appear to overemphasize the intellect. We hope that we shall be able to treat of both in their right proportion.
This paper, then, will have aspects of a newspaper and aspects of a periodical. It is our intention that it shall deal with various matters, and we do not intend to exclude anything that we consider to be relevant to us and of interest to our actual or potential, but we hope actual, readers.
We are well aware that the contents of these journals will not infrequently be offensive to some people; we insist that we do not set out to offend anybody for the sake of it; rather, we say what we know to be Truth, and we should be most amazed if the Truth did not offend anyone.
We hope that these periodical journals will be found informative, and that they will bear fruit. We hope that if they do not inspire their Readers with apostolical zeal, those Readers will learn something, at least, from them; and we may be sure the inclusion of readings from Scripture and the writings of Saints will be spiritually fruitful, even if none of our original writings are found to benefit anybody.
Finally we should like to remind our readers of the vocation of all men, and specifically of the vocation of the laity. All men without exception are called to holiness, and finally to enjoy the Beatific Vision. We dare to hope that our work may play some small part in leading at least some one soul in the direction of holiness. But the particular vocation of the laity is to evangelize: to bring Christ to others. And how can we evangelize, as Bp Seamus Cunningham said at St Dominic’s Priory on Advent Sunday, if we are not evangelized ourselves? Let us then allow Christ to come to us, let us allow ourselves to be made holy by Him, that we may bring Him to all others. And in Advent we await His Coming to us at Christmas. Let these seasons be times of great grace for you all.

Plus ça change

2010-11-26T15:57:00.000-08:00

"We have now to enter on the story of the long and bitter disputes between the bishops and some of the leaders of the Catholic laity which form so unpleasant a feature of this period of our history. It is difficult to define the causes of the rising at this time of an anti-clerical spirit in the Catholic body, or to analyse the feelings which in their ultimate issue resulted in actions which seem now almost incredible."

- Bernard Ward, The Dawn of the Catholic Revival in England, vol. 1, p. 87

2010-11-25T14:56:00.000-08:00

Gentle Reader, please expect a blog post on the concept of Sacred Space and Profane Space.

2010-11-23T15:57:00.001-08:00

I would like to be fluent in many languages.

I shall perhaps write something substantial tomorrow, since I have a free day.

2010-11-22T15:32:00.001-08:00

It has been an extremely busy day. I suspect tomorrow will be the same. Praise the Lord!

2010-11-21T14:20:00.000-08:00

I cite this very impressive comment of sanabituranima's in a Facebook debate.

Of course the Church is an institution. What on earth is your point.

" What proof do you have that I am wrong?"

The burden of proof lies with you. You must prove you are right.
...
When there is widespread testimony that you have cured incurable illnesses, walked on water and raised the dead (and the people giving that testimony have no good reason to lie - indeed, they continue to speak of these miracles EVEN WHEN THEY ARE THREATENED WITH DEATH FOR DOING SO) then I might think about believing you.

When this divine inspiration inspires something as heart-wrenchingly beautiful as the Gospel of John, as passionate and persuasive as the epistles of Paul, as simple yet compelling as the gospel of Mark, as filled with compassion for the oppressed as the gospel of Luke, as life-changing as the sermon on the mount as recounted by Matthew, then I might think about believing you.

When people hear your message and are willing to be tortured and murdered for the sake of it, in their thousands, and the tortures and murders do not discourage but rather encourage belief in your message, then I might think about believing you.

When your message is enough to satisfy the intellects of men and women as intellegent as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John Chrysostom, St. Iranaeus, St. Anselm etc, and yet simple enough to be understood and loved by little children, then I might think about believing you.

When your views have been attacked on every single point for two thousands years, and withstood environments that were indifferent, derisive or outright persecutory for two thousand years, then I might think about believing you.

When what you say has inspired heroic charity like that of Saint Vincent De Paul, Blessed Mother Teresa, Father Damien of Molokai or Saint Aloyius Gozanga then I might think about believing you.

Heck, if you can even convince me that you understand the instituaion you are criticisng, I might think about believing you.

Until then, I am going to carry on with my life and Robot Unicorn (hopefully more of the former than the latter, although perhaps that is somewhat optimistic!)

2010-11-20T15:53:00.000-08:00

I am sure we learn more from teaching than from anything else. I spend some hours this evening endeavouring to improve a Chinese student's English. We spent two hours on the first page or so of Dombey and Son. I learned a lot more than I would have done if I had simply read that page and swiftly read on. Is not that interesting?

From Fr Garrigou-Lagrange, OP

2010-11-19T15:47:00.001-08:00

Ch 24: The Active Purification of the Senses or of the Sensible Appetites

"If thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee." Matt. 5: 29

Now that we have discussed the sins to be avoided, their consequences to be mortified, and the passions to be disciplined, we must treat of the active purification of the senses and of the sensible appetites, then of that of the intellect and the will. We shall then speak of the purification of the soul through the sacraments and prayer, and finally of the passive purification of the senses, which, according to St. John of the Cross, is at the threshold of the illuminative way.

THE PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED

When we treated (1) of mortification in general according to the Gospel and St. Paul, we saw that it is imposed on us for four principal motives: (I) because of the consequences of original sin, especially of concupiscence; (2) because of the effects of our personal sins; (3) because of the infinite elevation of our supernatural end (God seen as He sees Himself), which demands a subjection not only of the senses to reason, but of reason to the spirit of faith and to charity; (4) finally, because of the necessity of carrying the cross in order to follow Christ who died for us.

We must now apply these principles and see, first of all, what the mortification or active purification of the senses and of the sensible appetites should be.

St. Thomas treats this subject at length when he discusses the passions in general and in particular, also the seven. capital sins and their results, and finally when he speaks of the virtues that have their seat in the sensible appetites, such as temperance, chastity, fortitude, patience, meekness, and so on.

Among the great masters of the spiritual life, St. John of the Cross deals with this same subject in The Ascent of Mount Carmel (2) and at the beginning of The Dark Night (3) where he discusses the faults of beginners, or the seven capital sins transposed into the spiritual order: spiritual pride, spiritual gluttony, spiritual sloth, and so on.

Here we should recall the necessity of observing the precepts, especially the supreme precepts of love of God and of our neighbor, consequently of avoiding every mortal sin, and also of guarding ourselves better against our more or less deliberate venial sins. Although a man cannot, without a very special help which the Blessed Virgin received, continually avoid all venial sins taken together, he can avoid each one of them in particular. He should also strive more and more to suppress imperfection, which is a lesser good, an act of a lesser degree of generosity in the service of God. The lesser good is not an evil; but, in the order of good, one should not stop at the lowest rung of the ladder, at the least degree of light and warmth. The happy medium of the acquired virtue of temperance, described by Aristotle, is doubtless already a good, but we should aspire higher, that is, to the happy mean of infused temperance, which, moreover, rises in proportion to the growth of this virtue, united to that of penance, especially when the gifts of the Holy Spirit, like that of fear, incline us to greater generosity in order the better to overcome ourselves and advance more rapidly.(4) Besides, there are still many degrees in this greater generosity, according, for example, as one ascends toward the summit of perfection by the winding road, which is easier, or by the straight road traced by St. John of the Cross, which reaches its goal more rapidly and leads higher.

To avoid sin and imperfection, we must remember here that the capital sins dispose to others, which are often more serious, as vainglory does to disobedience, anger to blasphemy, avarice to hardness, gluttony to impurity, luxury to the hatred of God. We could never beg God too fervently for light to see the gravity of sin and to have a greater contrition for our faults. With fraternal charity, it is one of the greatest signs of spiritual progress.

We must also remember that venial sin, especially if it is repeated, disposes to mortal sin; for he who easily commits venial sin loses purity of intention, and if the occasion presents itself, he may sin mortally. Venial sin is thus on a dangerous slope, like a wall which hinders us from reaching union with God. On the road of perfection, he who does not advance, falls back.

Likewise imperfection, or an act not wholly generous, disposes us to venial sin. Acts that do not measure up to our degree of charity and of the other virtues (actus remissi), although they may still be meritorious, indirectly dispose us to redescend, for they do not exclude as much as they ought the inordinate inclinations which may cause us to fall. We shall discuss especially the mortification of sensuality and of anger.

I quote this here for your edification.
Pray excuse my lack of posts for the last several days.

2010-11-16T04:46:00.000-08:00

There is an amazing collection of ancient MSS. and books in the Cathedral Library. I wanted to look at an 11th-c. MS. of the Rule of St Benedict. Apparently I have to get my supervisor to make a case for it being necessary for me to see it. But it isn't necessary; I just want to view it out of historico-antiquarian interest. Perhaps I could get my supervisor to write this:

Dear Librarian,

My student, David Mitchell, wishes to view MS 12345 (Regula Sancti Benedicti), since he is interested in (1) history, (2) religion, (3) medieval manuscripts, (4) palaeographic Latin abbreviations, (5) the monastic life in medieval Europe, (6) the Rule of St Benedict. He does not need to see it but he will be very upset if permission is not granted.
Yours at a moderately warm temperature,

Dr Alphabetagammadeltaepisolenzetaetathetaiotakappalambdamunuxiomnicronpirhosigmatauupsilonphichpsiomega

Hey ho.

A Deplorable State of Affairs

2010-11-15T14:09:00.001-08:00

I urge you, ex corde, to watch this video:

http://www.realcatholictv.com/cia/05rebellion/

2010-11-14T15:24:00.000-08:00

Today's resolution: to go to Mass as often as possible henceforward. We shall not be able (quoth Fr Hardon) to practise Christian chastity without so doing.

2010-11-13T15:31:00.001-08:00

Today I forgot the comparative of magnus. Let it never happen again.

2010-11-12T15:54:00.000-08:00

Today is the first day of the Novena of the Presentation of our Lady. I urge you to make some preparation for that great Feast (21st November). For my part my daily meditations shall be upon the Presentation of our Lady for the next few days. Read some of St Alphonsus's Glories of Mary; there is a section on this Mystery.

I have finished Verbum Domini. I hope to write something on it soon.

I have been fairly busy today. I had a piano lesson and an essay to complete and hand in. It was also Nan's 91st birthday. 91! My goodness... Do pray for her. Both my grandmothers are good women.

I am still listening to Fr Hardon, that great Servant of God.

Did you realize Pope John Paul II had been declared Venerable? I only realized this yesterday. The declaration was made by the Holy Father the day before my twenty-first birthday.

2010-11-11T15:51:00.001-08:00

Today the Pope published the most important papal document on Sacred Scripture since Dei Verbum. It is called Verbum Domini. I shall comment on it when I have read it. It is a long document - 200 pages. I am reading it now.

2010-11-10T15:53:00.000-08:00

Today was my grandmother's birthday. I rang her when I woke up at 1.30 this afternoon. She said I had made her day, which was a joy to hear.

Secondly: I am sure that Satan attacks converts with great vehemence, particularly those whom God wants to play a particularly strong part in His plan.

2010-11-09T15:56:00.001-08:00

I hope my brother will forgive me for posting this, if he reads it. I was praying the Sorrowful Mysteries tonight, and came to the Crown of Thorns, and by a train of thought came to think of my brother. He is so good, he has borne so much, he is so kind, he is so guileless, his heart is so great, his soul appears to me to be so beautiful, I have been crying for a quarter of an hour. He is a good man. He is so much better than I. I love him very much. God loves him more. Please pray for him.

2010-11-08T15:48:00.000-08:00

I wonder if there are any particular devotions to St Pius X? He was an extremely holy man.

2010-11-07T15:52:00.000-08:00

Gentle Reader, I advise you not to leave it until your last tablet before going to see a doctor to renew your prescription.
I also advise against farting loudly.

Good night.

2010-11-06T16:58:00.001-07:00

I have been listening to Fr Hardon quite a lot lately. He was a great and holy man. Let us ask his intercession. Fr Hardon, pray for us!

2010-11-05T13:07:00.000-07:00

Is ubi legationem ad civitates suscepit, in eo itinere persuadet Castico, Catamantaloedis filio, Sequano, cuius pater regnum in Sequanis multos annos obtinuerat et a senatu populi Romani amicus appellatus erat, ut regnum in civitate sua occuparet, quod pater ante habuerit; itemque Dumnorigi Haeduo, fratri Diviciaci, qui eo tempore principatum in civitate obtinebat ac maxime plebi acceptus erat, ut idem conaretur persuadet eique filiam suam in matrimonium dat.

Gentle Reader, you would not believe the brain-ache that that sentence has given me over the last half hour.

2010-11-04T13:54:00.000-07:00

Hello. A happy Feast of St Charles Borromeo to you.
I have been listening to Fr Hardon lectures, from the Real Presence website.
He was a very holy man.
Surely he is in Heaven.

2010-11-03T16:22:00.000-07:00

Lots to do and a short space of time. I suppose this is a good thing. Only I want rest at the moment, not work. Time pressure has its benefits, though. It means, or should mean, that more gets done than might otherwise. Hey ho.
I do hope you are all having a happy Octave of All Saints. Let us call upon them all. Here is a prayer that invokes all of them:

Sancti Dei omnes, intercedere dignemini pro nostra omniumque salute.

V. Lætamini in Domino, et exultate, justi.
R. Et gloriamini, omnes recti corde.

Oremus.

Protege, Domine, populum tuum, et apostolorum tuorum Petri et Pauli, et aliorum apostolorum patrocinio confidentem, perpetua defensione conserva.
Omnes Sancti tui, quæsumus, Domine, nos ubique adjuvent; ut dum eorum merita recolimus, patrocinia sentiamus: et pacem tuam nostris concede temporibus, et ab Ecclesia tua cunctam repelle nequitiam: iter, actus, et voluntates nostras, et ominum famulorum tuorum in salutis tuæ prosperitate dispone: benefactoribus nostris sempiterna bona retribue, et omnibus fidelibus defunctis requiem æternam concede. Per Dominum, &c.

This was at one time used in the Little Office of Our Lady.

Here is the translation in the Baronius edition of the Lt. Office:

O all ye Saints of God, vouchsafe to intercede for our salvation, and that of all mankind.

V. Rejoice in the Lord, and be glad, O ye just.
R. And glory, all ye that are right of heart.

Let us pray.

Protect thy people, O Lord, and preserve them by thy continual defence, who trust in the patronage of Peter and Paul, and all thy other apostles.
Let all thy Saints, we beseech thee, O Lord, assist us every where; that, while we honour their merits, we may experience their patronage: grant us thy peace in our times, and repel all wickedness from thy Church: dispose our way, our acts, and wills, and those of all thy servants, in the good success of thy salvation: render to our benefactors everlasting blessings, and to all the faithful departed grant eternal rest. Through our Lord, &c.

2010-11-01T16:26:00.001-07:00

1. Why do I have so much to do?
2. Why do I leave everything to the last minute?

2010-10-31T14:57:00.000-07:00

This evening I came across this on Facebook:

"don't kid yourself; just because you say things that folk find hard to hear and harder still to concur with doesn't make you a martyr for truth. It just makes you wrong. And a gobs***e"

I could not help thinking this might apply to me, though it might not. I still suspect it.

*shrugs*

In Praise of Mary (II)

2010-10-30T11:11:00.001-07:00

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

How can I begin to praise Thee, O my Mother?
We are approaching the Feast of All Saints; and Thou, my Mother, art the greatest and the Queen of all Saints. Yea, Thou art my Queen and the Queen of Heaven crowned. Thou hast greater love in Thine Immaculate Heart than all the love of all the mothers in the world put together. Thou desirest nothing more than that God be loved and that souls be saved.
Grant that I may love Thee, Mary; grant that I may love Thee. Thou dispensest the graces of God. He that loves Thee cannot despair; Thou givest hope to men. He that loves Thee will love Thy Son. How can a man love Thy Son Jesus, when he loves not Thee?
Let all be devoted to Thee, my Mother; let all know and love Thee! How soon the world would be rescued from its deplorable state, if only it knew and loved Thee! Let us love Thee, and let us never faint. Thy children are never lost. Let us be children of Thine, then we shall be brothers to Thy Son. Let us imitate Thy virtues, most especially (1) Thy humility, (2) Thy charity towards God, (3) Thy charity towards Thy neighbour, (4) Thy faith, (5) Thy hope, (6) Thy chastity, (7) Thy poverty, (8) Thine obedience, (9) Thy patience, (10) Thy prayer.
If we knew Thee better, how much the better should we know Thy Son! He Who, though He was God, lived nine months within Thy womb, dependent utterly on Thee, His Mother, for His bodily life. Think, good Mother, that Thine acceptance, Thy Fiat! brought about His Incarnation: indeed, if it is not too much to say, the fate of the world hinged upon Thine answer. Most perfect of all the creatures of God! Greatest of created beings, greater than the Seraphim! With love more ardent than theirs! Ah, Mary, would that we all had a tithe of a tithe of Thy fortitude and Thy willingness to do God’s will; that we all could say to God, Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum. How reluctant we are, and how resistant, to co-operate with the impulses of grace! How cowardly we are in God’s service! How huge a mountain seems the smallest request God asks of us! Yet all that is evil in us comes from ourselves, and all that is good is a gift of God. All that we have of our own is evil. Every good thing we have, from existence downwards, comes from God. Let that humble us! But, oh! will anything humble us, proud as lions as we are? Alas! how easily we imitate the lion in his pride! But when a difficulty approaches we are as timid as a mouse. Grant us the grace of diligence, O Mary, that we may overcome this coward’s sloth.
Thou art most beautiful, Lady! Would to God that I could love Thee as thou dost deserve! That I might serve Thee as a knight his lady! Thou art my Lady, and I thy servant—but what an inept and miserable servant I am! How lazy and reluctant to obey my mistress! How selfish and proud! Thou knowest that my words are true. Oh, grant that I may love thee more! Let me not allow myself to neglect serving You on account of fatigue, hunger, or thirst! Let me not neglect to say one Ave, though I be ever so exhausted! What excuses do we not have for sloth!
Lady, listen to my supplications when I call upon Thee! Grant me, Mary, for the sake of Thy Son and for my own sake, the grace of holy purity. Grant that I may be constant and fervid in devotion to Thee. And do not let me babble when I pray to Thee. Let me not rattle through rosaries unthinking; let me hear what I am saying when I pray! Grant that I may persevere in the recitation of Thy Rosary until the day of my death; let me never forsake devotion to Thee; rather, let me increase in it until I die. Mary, pray for me. I am Thy slave—but an unfaithful slave deserving of severe punishment. Indeed Roman masters had (in law) power of life and death over their slaves—I am deserving of death at Thy hand. Thou art without sin—therefore Thou canst cast the first stone—yet Thou wilt not, such is Thy mercy.
Teach me how to serve Thy Son: for none has served Him as well as Thou. Thou art the greatest of Saints. Thou art the Mediatrix of all graces. Every grace that comes from God is dispensed through Thy beautiful hands.
Thou art the Cause of our Joy, and, as St Bernard said, “the reason for my hope.” How many souls hast Thou not rescued from hell! How many sinners hast Thou not converted by Thy prayers?

How foolish are they, then, who, knowing the great source of confidence and the great refuge they have in Thee, neglect to call upon Thee! How foolish are they who neglect and despise devotion to Thee, those who look upon Thy Rosary as a devotion for the simple and for old women, and not equally for the learned and for young men. Let us pay no heed to the proud and haughty critics and scholars (who so proud as the scholar, save the heretic?) who sneer at devotion to Thee: let us pay no more attention to them than to those who object that in venerating Thee we are somehow making Thee equal with God. No: let us pay no heed to those who scorn us; and we know how many there are who scorn those who serve Thee, and especially there are those who scorn those who say the Rosary. It is astonishing how widespread this cancer of derision is. It stems from pride and is contagious.—Say the Rosary in public, and see how people mock you, and how the number of people who deride you will grow. It is extraordinary.
O my Mother, I ask of Thee this, that I never shall neglect to call upon Thee. I know that if I call upon Thee I shall be secure; but I fear lest I should abandon Thee. It is my own negligence I fear.
Mary, in my last and darkest hour I pray Thee come to me, and carry me safely over the dread chasm of death. I pray for the grace to spend every moment from this one until the article of death in preparation for that journey. I pray Thee lighten the darkness of this journey. Amen.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

(30th October, 2010, Vigil of All Saints’ Day)

2010-10-29T14:05:00.003-07:00

This post, with its accompanying videos, are very fine:

Click here.

2010-10-28T16:54:00.000-07:00

I am remembering.

2010-10-28T08:38:00.001-07:00

I am feeling much better.

2010-10-26T15:54:00.000-07:00

I shall be fine this time tomorrow. I am just rather agitated actuellement.

2010-10-25T16:55:00.000-07:00

Vexor. Cur adhuc vexor? Vexandus non sum. Me vexat.

2010-10-23T16:07:00.002-07:00

I have had a wonderful evening at the concert in Sunderland and with various friends of Patrick Zuk. Huzzah!

Continued

2010-10-22T09:38:00.000-07:00

VIII. De Introitu, Kyrie eleison, et Gloria in excelsis.

1. INTROITUS semper eodem modo dicitur cum Gloria Patri, ut in Ordinario, præterquam tempore Passionis, et in Missis Defunctorum, ut etiam ibi annotatum est.
2. Kyrie eleison, dicitur novies post Introitum alternatim cum ministro, id est, ter Kyrie eleison, ter Christe eleison, ter Kyrie eleison.
3. Gloria in excelsis dicitur quandocumque in Matutino dictus est Hymnus Te Deum, præterquam in Missa feriæ quintæ in Cœna Domini, et Sabbati sancti in quibus Gloria in excelsis dicitur, quamvis in Officio non sit dictum Te Deum.
4. In Missis votivis non dicitur, etiam tempore Paschali, vel infra Octavas, nisi in Missa beatæ Mariæ in Sabbato, et Angelorum: et nisi Missa votiva solemniter dicenda sit pro re gravi, vel pro publica Ecclesiæ causa, dummodo non dicatur Missa cum paramentis violaceis. Neque dicitur in Missis Defunctorum.

IX. De Orationibus.

1. IN festis Duplicibus dicitur una tantum oratio; nisi facienda sit aliqua commemoratio, ut dictum est supra.
2. In Festis Semiduplicibus occurrentibus ab Octava Pentecostes usque ad Adventum, et a Purificatione usque ad Quadragesimam, dicitur secunda oratio. A cunctis, tertia ad libitum.
3. In festis Semiduplicibus occurrentibus ab Octava Epiphaniæ usque ad Purificationem, dicitur secunda oratio, Deus qui salutis, tertia, Ecclesiæ, vel pro Papa, Deus, omnium fidelium.
4. In festis Semiduplicibus, a feria quarta Cinerum usque ad Dominicam Passionis, secunda oratio de feria: tertia, A cunctis.
5. In Semiduplicibus a Dominica Passionis usque ad Dominicam Palmarum, secunda oratio de feria, tertia Ecclesiæ, vel pro Papa.
6. In festis Semiduplicibus, ab Octava Paschæ usque ad Ascensionem, secunda oratio de S. Maria, Concede nos, tertia, Ecclesiæ, vel pro Papa.
7. In festis Semiduplicibus infra Octavas occurrentibus, secunda oratio dicitur de Octava, tertia, quæ secundo loco infra Octavam ponitur.
8. Infra Octavas Paschæ, et Pentecostes, in Missa de Octava dicuntur duæ tantum orationes, una de die, alia, Ecclesiæ, vel pro Papa.
9. Infra alias Octavas, et in Vigiliis quæ jejunantur (excepta Vigilia Nativitatis Domini, et Pentecostes) dicuntur tres orationes, una de die, secunda de S. Maria, tertia, Ecclesiæ, vel pro Papa. Sed infra Octavas S. Mariæ, et in Vigilia et infra Octavam omnium Sanctorum, secunda oratio dicitur de Spiritu sancto, Deus, qui corda, tertia, Ecclesiæ, vel pro Papa.
10. In Dominicis infra Octavas occurrentibus dicuntur duæ orationes, una de Dominica, secunda de Octava, et in die octava dicitur una tantum oratio, nisi facienda sit aliqua commemoratio.
11. In Dominicis dicuntur tres, ut in Ordinario assignantur, quibusdam exceptis, ut suis etiam locis notatur.
12. In festis Simplicibus, et feriis per annum, nisi aliter in propriis locis notetur, dicuntur tres, ut in Semiduplicibus, aut quinque: possunt etiam dici septem ad libitum.
13. In feriis Quatuor Temporum, et ubi plures leguntur Lectiones, hujusmodi plures orationes dicuntur post ultimam orationem ante Epistolam, ut suis locis in Proprio Missarum de Tempore.
14. In Missis votivis, quando solemniter dicuntur pro re gravi, vel pro publica Ecclesiæ causa, dicitur una tantum oratio: sed in Missa pro gratiarum actione additur alia oratio, ut in proprio loco notatur. In aliis autem dicuntur plures, ut in festis Simplicibus.
15. In votivis beatæ Mariæ secunda oratio dicitur de Officio illius diei, et tertia de Spiritu sancto: sed in Sabbato, quando de ea factum est Officium, secunda oratio erit de Spiritu sancto, tertia, Ecclesiæ tuæ, vel pro Papa. In votivis de Apostolis, quando ponitur oratio A cunctis, ejus loco dicitur oratio de sancta Maria: Concede nos, famulos.
16. Si, cum plures dicuntur orationes, occurrat fieri commemorationem alicujus Sancti, ea ponitur secundo loco, et tertia oratio dicitur, quæ alias secundo loco dicenda erat.
17. In conclusione orationum hic modus servatur: Si oratio dirigatur ad Patrem, concluditur, Per Dominum nostrum, etc. Si ad Filium, Qui vivis et regnas cum Deo Patre, etc. Si in principio orationis fiat mentio Filii, concluditur, Per eumdem Dominum nostrum, etc. Si in fine orationis ejus fiat mentio, Qui tecum vivit, etc. Si facta sit mentio Spiritus sancti, in conclusione dicitur, In unitate ejusdem Spiritus sancti, etc. Alia quoque in dicendis orationibus serventur, quæ superius in Rubrica de Commemorationibus dicta sunt.

X. De Epistola, Graduali, Alleluia et Tractu, ac de Evangelio.

1. POST ultimam orationem dicitur Epistola. Qua finita, a ministris respondetur, Deo gratias. Et similiter quando leguntur plures Lectiones, post singulas dicitur, Deo gratias, præterquam in fine quintæ Lectionis Danielis in Sabbatis Quatuor Temporum, et in fine Lectionum feriæ sextæ in Parasceve, et Sabbati sancti.
2. Post Epistolam dicitur Graduale, quod semper dicitur, præterquam tempore Paschali, cujus loco tunc dicuntur duo versus, ut habetur in Rubrica in Sabbato in Albis.
3. Post Graduale dicuntur duo Alleluia, deinde versus, et post versum, unum Alleluia. Tempore Paschali, quando non dicitur Graduale, dicitur aliud Alleluia, post secundum versum: et quando dicitur Sequentia, non dicitur post ultimum versum, sed post Sequentiam.
4. A Septuagesima usque ad Sabbatum sanctum non dicitur Alleluia, neque dicitur in Missis de feria in Adventu, Quatuor Temporibus, et Vigiliis quæ jejunantur, exceptis Vigilia Nativitatis Domini, si venerit in Dominica, et Vigilia Paschæ et Pentecostes, ac Quatuor Temporibus Pentecostes: nec dicitur in festo SS. Innocentium, nisi venerit in Dominica.
5. A Septuagesima usque ad Pascha, ejus loco dicitur Tractus, qui Tractus prædicto tempore in aliquibus feriis non dicitur, ut suis locis ponitur: nec dicitur in feriis a Septuagesima usque ad Quadragesimam, quando repetitur Missa Dominicæ.
6. Dicto Graduali, seu Alleluia, seu Tractu, dicitur Evangelium, Et in principio Evangelii dicitur, Dominus vobiscum. R. Et cum spiritu tuo. Deinde Sequentia sancti Evangelii secundum N. R. Gloria tibi, Domine. In fine Evangelii a ministro respondetur, Laus tibi, Christe. Quod etiam dicitur in fine illius partis Passionis, quæ legitur in tono Evangelii, præterquam in Parasceve. Postea, si dicendum est, dicitur Credo.

I find this fascinating

2010-10-21T16:01:00.000-07:00

MISSA quotidie dicitur secundum ordinem Officii, de festo Duplici, vel Semiduplici, vel Simplici: de Dominica, vel Feria, vel Vigilia, vel Octava: et extra ordinem Officii, Votiva, vel pro Defunctis.

I. De Duplici.

MISSA dicitur de Duplici illis diebus, quibus in Kalendario ponitur hæc nota Duplex, et in festis mobilibus, quandocumque Officium est Duplex. In Duplicibus dicitur una tantum oratio, nisi aliqua commemoratio fieri debeat. Alia omnia dicuntur ut in propriis Missis assignatum est. Quando dici debeat Gloria in excelsis, et Credo, inferius ponitur in propriis Rubricis.

II. De Semiduplici, et Simplici.

MISSA de Semiduplici dicitur quando in Kalendario ponitur hæc vox Semiduplex. Præterea in Dominicis, et diebus infra Octavas. In Semiduplicibus tam festis, quam Dominicis, et infra Octavas, dicuntur plures orationes, ut infra dicetur in Rubrica de Orationibus. Infra Octavam dicitur Missa sicut in die festi, nisi propriam Missam habuerit; in Dominicis vero sicut in propriis locis assignatur. De Simplici dicitur Missa sicut de Semiduplici, ut suis locis ponuntur.

III. De Feria, et Vigilia.

1. MISSA de feria dicitur quando non occurrit festum, vel Octava, vel Sabbatum in quo fiat Officium B. Mariæ. In feriis tamen Quadragesimæ, Quatuor Temporum, Rogationum, et Vigiliarum, etiamsi Duplex, vel Semiduplex festum, vel Octava occurrat, in ecclesiis cathedralibus et collegiatis cantantur duæ Missæ, una de festo post Tertiam, alia de feria post Nonam.
2. In Vigiliis autem et feriis Quatuor Temporum, vel feria secunda Rogationum, quæ veniunt infra Octavam, Missa dicitur de Vigilia, vel feriis supradictis cum commemoratione Octavæ: præterquam infra Octavam Corporis Christi, in qua in ecclesiis cathedralibus et collegiatis cantantur duæ Missæ, una de Octava post Tertiam, alia de Vigilia post Nonam: In Missis autem privatis dicitur Missa de Octava com commemoratione Vigiliæ. Si autem in die Vigiliæ, vel prædictis feriis fiat Officium de aliquo festo, tunc dicitur Missa de festo cum commemoratione Octavæ, et Vigiliæ, vel feriarum prædictarum. Quod si Vigilia occurrat in die alicujus festi ex majoribus primæ classis, in Missa non fit commemoration de ea, sicut nec in Officio.
3. Si festum habens Vigiliam celebretur feria secunda, Missa Vigiliæ dicitur in Sabbato, sicut etiam de ea fit Officium: excepta Vigilia Nativitatis Domini, et Epiphaniæ.
4. Missa Vigiliæ in Adventu occurrentis dicitur cum commem. feriæ Adventus, licet de ea non sit factum Officium: Vigilia Nativitatis excepta.
5. Si in Quadragesima, et Quatuor Temporibus occurrat Vigilia, dicatur Missa de Feria cum commemoratione Vigiliæ.
6. Tempore Paschali non dicitur Missa de Vigilia, nisi in Vigilia Ascensionis, quæ tamen non jejunatur, sicut nec Vigilia Epiphaniæ.

IV. De Missis Votivis S. Mariæ, et aliis.

1. IN Sabbatis non impeditis festo Duplici vel Semiduplici, Octava, Vigilia, feria Quadragesimæ, vel Quatuor Temporum, vel Officio alicujus Dominicæ quæ supersit, in præcedens Sabbatum translato, dicitur Missa de S. Maria secundum varietatem temporum, ut in fine Missalis ponitur.
2. In Adventu autem licet Officium non fiat de S. Maria in Sabbato, dicitur tamen Missa principalis de ea cum commemoratione de Adventu, nisi fuerint Quatuor Tempora, vel Vigilia, ut supra.
3. Aliis diebus infra hebdomadam, quando Officium fit de feria, et non est resumenda Missa Dominicæ præcedentis, quæ fuerit impedita, (exceptis feriis Adventus, Quadragesimæ, Quatuor Temporum, Rogationum, et Vigiliarum) dici potest aliqua ex Missis votivis, etiam in principali Missa quæ vocatur conventualis, secundum ordinem dierum in fine Missalis assignatum, cum commemoratione feriæ, de qua factum est Officium. Quæ tamen Missæ, et omnes aliæ votivæ, in Missis privatis dici possunt pro arbitrio sacerdotum, quocumque die Officium non est Duplex, aut Dominica cum commemoratione ejus, de quo factum est Officium et commemoratione item festi Simplicis, si de aliquo occurrat eo die fieri commemorationem in Officio. Id vero passim non fiat, nisi rationabili de causa. Et quoad fieri potest, Missa cum Officio conveniat.

V. De Missis Defunctorum.

1. PRIMA die cujusque mensis (extra Adventum, Quadragesimam, et tempus Paschale) non impedita Officio Duplici, vel Semiduplici, dicitur Missa principalis generaliter pro defunctis sacerdotibus, benefactoribus, et aliis. Si vero in ea fuerit festum Simplex, vel feria, quæ propriam habeat Missam, aut resumenda sit Missa Dominicæ præcedentis, quæ fuerit impedita, et infra hebdomadam non occurrat alius dies in quo resumi possit: in ecclesiis cathedralibus et collegiatis dicantur duæ Missæ, una pro Defunctis, alia de festo Simplici, vel feria prædicta. Sed in ecclesiis non cathedralibus nec collegiatis dicatur Missa de die cum commemoratione generaliter pro Defunctis.
2. Præterea feria secunda cujusque hebdomadæ, in qua Officium fit de feria, Missa principalis dici potest pro Defunctis. Si autem fuerit propria Missa de Feria, vel de festo Simplici, vel resumenda sit Missa Dominicæ præcedentis, ut supra, in Missa de die fiat commemoratio (ut dictum est) pro Defunctis. Excipitur tamen Quadragesima, et totum tempus Paschale, et quando per annum Officium est Duplex, vel Semiduplex: quibus temporibus non dicitur Missa conventualis pro Defunctis, (nisi in die depositionis Defuncti, et in anniversario pro Defunctis) neque pro eis fit commemoratio. Missæ autem privatæ pro Defunctis quocumque die dici possunt, præterquam in festis Duplicibus, et Dominicis diebus.
3. In die commemorationis omnium Defunctorum, et in die depositionis, et in anniversario Defuncti, dicitur una tantum oratio; et similiter in die tertia, septima, trigesima, et quandocumque pro Defunctis solemniter celebratur: in aliis Missis plures, ut de feriis et Simplicibus dicetur infra in Rubrica de Orationibus.
4. Sequentia pro Defunctis dicitur in die commemorationis omnium fidelium Defunctorum, et depositionis Defuncti, et quandocumque in Missa dicitur una tantum oratio: in aliis autem Missis pro Defunctis dicatur ad arbitrium sacerdotis.

VI. De Translatione festorum.

IN dicendis Missis servetur ordo Breviarii de translatione festorum Duplicium et Semiduplicium quando majori aliquo festo, seu Dominica impediuntur. In ecclesiis autem, ubi titulus est ecclesiæ, vel concursus populi ad celebrandum festum quod transferri debet, possunt cantari duæ Missæ, una de die, alia de festo: excepta Dominica prima Adventus, feria quarta Cinerum, Dominica prima Quadragesimæ, Dominica Palmarum cum tota hebdomada majori, Dominica Resurrectionis, et Dominica Pentecostes cum duobus diebus sequentibus, die Nativitatis Domini, Epiphaniæ, Ascensionis, et festo Corporis Christi.

VII. De Commemorationibus.

1. COMMEMORATIONES in Missis fiunt sicut in Officio. De festo Simplici fit commemoratio in Missa, quando de eo in Officio facta est commemoratio in primis Vesperis. Quando autem de eo fit commemoratio tantum ad Laudes, in Missa solemni non fit commemoratio de eo, sed in Missis tantum privatis. Excipitur Dominica Palmarum, et Vigilia Pentecostes, in quibus nulla fit commemoratio, etiam in Missis privatis, de festo Simplici occurrente, licet facta sit in Officio. De Dominica fit commemoratio, quando in ea agitur de festo Duplici. De Octava fit commemoratio, quando infra Octavam celebratur aliquod festum, nisi illud festum fuerit de exceptis in Rubrica Breviarii de Commemorationibus. Item quando infra Octavam fit de Dominica.
2. De feria fit commemoratio in Adventu, Quadragesima, Quatuor Temporibus, Rogationibus, et Vigiliis, quando Missa dicenda est de festo illis temporibus occurrente. Sed in ecclesiis cathedralibus et collegiatis, ubi plures sacerdotes quotidie celebrant, in feriis, Rogationibus et Vigiliis prædictis; quæ habent Missas proprias, dicuntur duæ Missæ, una de festo, alia de feria, Rogationibus et Vigilia, absque ulla utrumque commemoratione: in festis tamen majoribus primæ classis nihil fit de Vigilia occurrente, ut dictum est supra.
3. Quando infra Hebdomadam dicuntur Missæ votivæ, post primam orationem semper dicatur oratio ejus de quo fit Officium, ut supra explicatum est in propria Rubrica.
4. Quando fit commemoratio de feria Quatuor Temporum, pro feriæ commemoratione dicitur prima Oratio, quæ concordat cum Officio.
5. In faciendis commemorationibus servetur ordo ut in Breviario. De Dominica, ante diem infra Octavam: de die infra Octavam, ante ferias prædictas: de feriis prædictis, ante festum Simplex: de festo Simplici, ante orationes quæ secundo vel tertio loco dicendæ assignantur, et hæ dicantur ante orationes votivas: in quibus votivis servetur deinde dignitas orationum, ut de sanctissima Trinitate, de Spiritu sancto, de SS. Sacramento, de S. Cruce, ante votivam de B. Maria, et de Angelis, et de S. Joanne Baptista, ante Apostolos, et similiter in aliis.
6. Si facienda sit commemoratio pro Defunctis, semper ponitur penultimo loco. In Missis autem Defunctorum nulla fit commemoratio pro vivis, etiam si Oratio esset communis pro vivis et Defunctis.
7. Quando dicuntur plures orationes, prima tantum et ultima cum sua conclusione terminantur: et ante primam et secundam orationem tantum dicitur Oremus, ante primam dicitur etiam Dominus vobiscum.
8. Cum vero dicuntur plures orationes, et una oratio eadem sit cum alia ibidem dicena, oratio hujusmodi, illa scilicet quæ eadem est, non alia, commutetur cum alia de Communi, vel Proprio, quæ sit diversa. Idem servetur in Secretis, et Orationibus post Communionem.

(From Rubricæ generales Missalis, from an old (1866) Missal. I am pleased to find that that Latin is not difficult at all. The only trouble I had (at all) was with the words "quod" and "diversa".

2010-10-20T16:56:00.001-07:00

Egad! I have not gebloggen this biduum! Mine apologiae. Let us pray that priests always celebrate Mass in accordance with the rubrics.

2010-10-17T16:23:00.000-07:00

Well, tonight was, I suppose, my last Candlelit Procession... Hey ho...
It has been a good and in its own way a productive day. I am pleased. Bye.

On Progressivism & The Barbarians

2010-10-16T16:56:00.000-07:00

There seems to be hardly any intellectual virus more tenacious than this particular strain; yet the emptiness of the idea should be self-evident to any thinking person. The idea is that the present is better than the past, because this is the present and the past is the past, and consequent upon this piece of monumental imbecility is the idea that anything old, however venerable it really is, is unworthy of attention and contemptible. This strange mentality is enamoured of buzzwords, particularly the word forward as well as the very obvious progress. They both mean the same thing, of course. We must move forward! (Why?) You are stuck in the past! You cling to ancient and outmoded ideas! Your outlook upon life is medieval!

Anyone who seriously thinks in this way needs to examine this philosophy and see what basis it has in reason. It is true that certain advances have been made in medicine, and discoveries in the physical sciences generally: and I think it is this discovery that creates an illusion of progress. Something once discovered is unlikely to be forgotten for a long time, generally speaking. And continuous discovery creates an impression that things are getting better, and insofar as the expansion of knowledge in particular fields is concerned, this may be the case. But to extrapolate from this that old things are to be done away with and new things to be welcomed is stupid.

I hope the reader does not think, when I use words such as "stupid," "monumental imbecility," "self-evident to any thinking person," I am merely extolling my own opinions and despising those of others. I would not use such words, or any words, if I were not determined to insist upon reality. I have no desire to irritate people for the sake of it; that would be odious and futile. I sincerely hope and pray that I would never descend to such depths. I should also make it clear that when I use words, I try to express my meaning in the words that give that meaning. It is amusing, sometimes, to see people infer subtexts that I had not intended. It is also somewhat vexing.

I hope nobody thinks that because I object to the Progressivist Philosophy (if it can be called that) I think that old things must always be revered because they are old, and that new things must be resisted because they are new: this would be the exactly opposite error, of precisely equal gravity to that which I am opposing. I am suggesting that we consider reasonably what is new and what old, that we exercise due caution in rejecting old things and accepting new, that when old things become noxious they must be reformed or done away with, and that when new things are harmful they must be cast away.

I find that this Progressivist outlook tends (though not invariably) to belong to that category of persons whom Belloc called "The Barbarians," mentioned by Frederick D. Wilhelmsen in his essay on Belloc. Here are Wilhelmsen's words:

“The Barbarian” within is the man who laughs at the fixed convictions of our inheritance. He is the man with a perpetual sneer on his lips. He is above it all: he judges the poor believer in the street or in the church, some old woman huddled before a shrine of the Virgin mumbling her beads, and he judges her harshly. It is hard enough to come by belief and to live in it, but to throw it away for a cheap joke is despicable. Such are the Barbarians.

And these are Belloc's:

The Barbarian hopes — and that is the mark of him, that he can have his cake and eat it too. He will consume what civilization has slowly produced after generations of selection and effort, but he will not be at pains to replace such goods, nor indeed has he a comprehension of the virtue that has brought them into being. Discipline seems to him irrational, on which account he is ever marvelling that civilization should have offended him with priests and soldiers .... In a word, the Barbarian is discoverable everywhere in this, that he cannot make: that he can befog and destroy but that he cannot sustain; and of every Barbarian in the decline or peril of every civilization exactly that has been true.

And these are Belloc's also; and with them I conclude:

We sit by and watch the Barbarian, we tolerate him; in the long stretches of peace we are not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence, his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creeds refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond: and on these faces there is no smile.

15th October, 2010

On Transubstantiation

2010-10-15T16:59:00.000-07:00

HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM.

St Dominic Barberi replied to someone pestering him about this matter: "Our Lord said, 'This is My Body.' You say it is not His Body. I prefer to believe Jesus Christ."

The words of Institution could not possibly be plainer.

If someone believes that Jesus Christ is God; that He is the Truth; then they must believe that all His Words are true, and that He does not waste words. It is perfectly logical to deny that the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ and that the Bread and Wine themselves utterly cease to be - if one does not believe in the Divinity of Christ in the first place. But one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Truth must believe that all his words are true. There is no word more incontrovertible than the word est, is, ist, è, εστιν. Could Our Lord have used a clearer word than is, when He uttered the words of Consecration? If when He said, "This is my Body," it was not His Body, then there would have been a disjunction between what He said and what He thought: a lie: and Who will dare to accuse Jesus Christ of a lie? He said, "This is my Body;" he did not say "This is a simulacrum of My Body," or "This represents My Body," or "This is kind of like My Body," or "This is a symbol of My Body;" and with good reason: for if that had been the case, He would have been instituting a more or less pointless ceremony. No: he said, "This is My Body," and those who try to interpret those four words, which are as plain as the sun at noonday, nay, ten thousand times plainer, in any manner besides their literal and obvious signification, implicitly accuse Jesus Christ of a lie.

A metaphor, you say? No. Is it conceivable that Jesus Christ would have allowed the slightest ambiguity in this solemn moment? If what He was doing was something other than changing the bread He held into His Body, why did He use such a turn of phrase? What would He have said if He had intended to change bread into His body? It may be said that He could have used a formula which expressed the process of change. But clearest and most unambiguous of all are the words "This IS My Body."

What are we to understand by the word is? Any metaphorical or symbolic interpretation of the word is makes it absolutely synonymous with is not; and this is at worst a lie and at best a noxious waste of words. Can we accuse Our Saviour of either of those things?

Such a metaphor, at such a moment, would be pointless and dangerous.

It may be objected that if Jesus Christ could, and did, carry out this act, it does not follow that we can. We cannot change a created thing into the Uncreated Creator. No: and that is why Our Lord then said, Do this in memory of Me. Some will use the words "in memory of Me" as an argument against Transubstantiation; yet how they negate the words This is My Body I am at a loss to understand. When Our Lord uttered the words Do this in memory of Me he was giving His Apostles Sacramental Power: the Power to do what He was doing: to change bread and wine into God the Son, that the Faithful might be nourished by God the Son. That is the meaning of the words "Do this." And that sentence, Do this in memory of Me, was the formula instituting the Sacrament of Order, which gave the Apostles the Sacramental Power, I say, to confect the Eucharist, but also, importantly, to ordain their successors, that other men (viri) might be able to perform their office of priests of Christ.

Let it be clearly understood that the priesthood is not a job; it is the possession of Sacramental Power whereby a man (vir) participates in the Omnipotence of God.

(15th October, 2010. (St Teresa of Avila))

IN ARTICULO MORTIS

2010-10-14T16:32:00.001-07:00

Dread thought, whereat I shudder and I tremble,

That moment, hated moment, needs must come

Within a lifetime's instant—to dissemble

Cannot be done. The distant thundering drum

Is not so distant after all. More sound

And more, and quicker, threat'ning as an axe

To sever me from me. I look around

At all that I have known; think of the tracks

Trod by my wayward spirit. I can no more;

What is this? I am dying, must be gone,

God knoweth where. Reality is sore:

What am I when it snaps? Let me live on!

No, I must die; temptations fierce assail;

God help me! Am I ready? Michael, Mary,

Saints, pray for me! I languish, now I fail;

Have mercy on me, Lord; can I be wary

In this my evil hour? I am, I fade.

The Fury's shears! No more! avaunt! avaunt!

Ah, terror!—Mercy! I to calm am sway'd;

But sure a dreadful spectre comes to daunt.

I now approach the End; some seconds more:

Christ, Mary, cling, I love You, be my shields;

One only thing of You I do implore:

Let me awaken in Elysian fields.

(14th October, 2010.)

"The End of Christendom" (FBN)

2010-10-13T15:17:00.001-07:00

Sometimes it looks as though the civilization which began in our Europe is lying on its bed of death.

Christendom, that is, Europe, or Western Civilization, was fathered by ancient Rome and mothered by the Faith. The Roman Empire, in time, came to cover most of Europe; and, when the Empire was declining, and had proceeded too far in that decline for the Faith to save it altogether, it was gradually converted from a by then decrepit Paganism to Catholicism, renewing and revivifying its spirit. Who knows what barbarism Europe would have descended to if it had lacked the Faith? (Hint: look around you.)

The soul of Europe, then, is Catholic and is Roman. The last to assume the title of Emperor in Europe was, I think, Napoleon. But things are to be judged as they are, as things, and not by their names: and the Empire, which is Christendom, which is Europe, still exists - for the time being.

We are all aware of the great religious disaster of the sixteenth century - which is miscalled "The Reformation" - and how it destroyed the unity of Western Christendom. It need hardly be said that the only feasible manner of gaining Christian unity is by a return to what was lost at that time. But that is by the bye. We are aware, I say, of the lamentable revolution which is glorified in anti-Catholic books, pamphlets, documentaries, on websites and by cities and by nations. We know how that came as near as anything to destroying Europe, and how in a manner it succeeded. We are aware, also, of the secularization of much of Europe (though not of Ireland, South Germany, or Poland) by the present day; and we are aware of the vacousness and imbecility of the New Secularism. It is difficult to know whether to laugh or to cry: we feel like Gargantua when Pantagruel was born and Badebec died, though the parallel stops there.

We are aware, of course, of the immorality, emptiness, and despair, of the generation in which we find ourselves. We live in an age in which the use of the reason seems to have come to end, an age in which men gratify themselves at the expense of all else, an age in which the meaning of the word love is not known, in which people are bewildered by a lack of purpose in their lives, in which there is rampant impurity, in which many people are mentally ill: an age of self-will and self-idolatry: and the explanation is simple. God is not loved. This lovelessness is a disease and a contagion. It is like a heresy; nay, it is a heresy; a disease of the intellect, which will spread over all the earth like the plague that it is if it be unchecked.

We, we of the Faith, and we alone, have the remedy for this demonic evil. For we alone possess the Truth of God; and we alone have the efficacious remedies for sin, thanks to the love of God, His Truth (which we alone possess in its entirety), and the power He has given to His Priests. The Catholic alone is sane: for he is in tune with reality.

We are aware of these evils - the religious revolution of the sixteenth century, the decline of morality in the twentieth, the despair of the beginning of the twenty-first - and they may tempt us to think that our civilization is approaching its end. Indeed it looks more likely than at any previous time in our history.

While this notion has some justification, I think it may be exaggerated by a misreading of history.

We tend to imagine that for a thousand years before the so-called Reformation the Catholic Church existed in unquestioned and unparalleled splendour. I doubt if that era lasted for two lifetimes (say 1220-1350, that is, from after the victory at the Battle of Muret (1213) to the time of the Black Death); and perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the Church's zenith was but one long lifetime - from 1220 to 1300. But in any case at the Black Death there came a crash, as is hardly surprising, and perhaps it was that shock that was the ultimate cause, in terrestrial terms, of the Reformation.

The Church has always, we must never forget, been hated by its enemies, and always has the potential to do so. When we think what the Church claims to be, and indeed is: the expositor of revealed Truth, taught by God, and reprimanding man for his lust, for his avarice, for his ambition, for his pride; and when we think what man, of himself, is: then it is not difficult to understand why there should be such a conflict between man's sinful nature and the Catholic Church.

The Church has, therefore, always had enemies within and without, terrestrial and infernal.

I think one of the reasons we think of the Church as having been an impregnable monolith for a thousand years is because from the Council of Trent until the Second Vatican Council the Church had a certain monolithic character to it: and that was necessary, to preserve and renew the life of the Church. But the Church does not need to be always as monolithic as it then was; it needs to live and to breathe in the present.

But the Church has often had a precarious life; and if we had lost the Battle of Muret to the Albigensians, then Europe would have been stifled and destroyed by a peculiarly vile creed indeed. Were it not for the conversion of the great Clovis, we might be Arians who say that Jesus Christ is not God. We were nearly wiped out by Islam in the seventh century, and by the Scandinavian Pagans, and by the infamous Mongolian hordes - "the Huns:" perhaps this all-out attack from all sides was the fiercest we have ever had to endure. These attacks lasted on and off for centuries. It is true that the Faith itself stands immovable in the midst of these things, and that the Catholic Church cannot be destroyed; but this does not mean that it could not at any time be, for instance, destroyed in a whole nation, or a whole continent. The Church, and the civilization she has mothered, very frequently looked as if they were doomed to extinction.

And we find ourselves at the present time in a similar predicament. It looks as though our civilization is doomed. Our families, which are microcosms of the State, are breaking down. Our society is coming apart like the pieces of a jigsaw-puzzle. These things have their roots in doctrine, of course: in the minds of men. We can trace, if we will, the history of how people thought: the process whereby divorce became acceptable (it was introduced into English law in 1669 and was made generally legal for all in 1857); the process whereby so many became indoctrinated in the contraception mentality; the process whereby our nation apostatized; the process whereby cohabitation became not only socially acceptable but almost universal; I could go on and on. I am not going to.

I think we shall endure. We have lived through times of peril in our past history, and we have weathered the storm. This is no guarantee, it is true; and this seems to be the greatest storm through which we have had to pass. But all is not lost, and there are Saints upon this earth yet. God will not destroy Sodom for forty good men, nor for thirty, nor for twenty, nor for ten: and God knows that we deserve a worse fate than Sodom did. But there is much to hope for: not least the Mercy of God. And if we hope in that Mercy, and only if we hope therein, we shall be saved.

For my part, I think we shall endure.

(13th October, 2010.)

My Note "On 'The Real World'"

2010-10-12T02:24:00.000-07:00

It is a hilarious irony that those who are the most enamoured of this phrase are precisely the same people who are the least interested in reality. Doubly ironic is their obliviousness to this fact.

There are few of us who have reached manhood who do not know how gruelling and ghastly the real world is. But many of us also know that this so cruel world is, in its essence, good: for existence exists and is good. (That statement is, in its skeleton, the proof for the existence of God, by the way. God is Existence. Existence cannot create itself; yet we know existence exists. So there must be an Uncreated Existence.)

Now the Reader, if he knows me and certain facts about me, will not be surprised to learn that I have had the "real world" insult offered to me. It is somewhat like a man's curse issued against another turning back upon himself. There is a great and dreadful irony in it. The reference was, of course, to my religion.

Now the reason I hold my religion is because it is the true one. I am not a Catholic because I hold an opinion to that effect; opinion is naught compared with Truth. I was reading Urquhart's translation of Rabelais this evening and came across these words: "Believe it if you will, or otherwise believe it not, I care not which of them you do, they are both alike to me, it shall be sufficient for my Purpose to have told you the Truth, and the Truth I will tell you." [1] I agree with all of that, except that I do care which you do: though indeed, for my sake, my allegiance is to Truth and to Reality, and not to you. If you want to live in an imaginary world of your own creation, furnished with moral relativism and substituting emotion for thought, and to tell me that gender is a social construct and that (as nearly became, or did it actually become, law in California?) "people are not born male or female," then that is up to you. If you want to be damned then that is up to you; the demons will welcome you; but I love you, and would have it otherwise. "Zeal," as a Saint has said, "springs from love."

It is not my purpose in this Note to provide any of the many converging proofs of the objective truth of Catholicism. I do wish, however, to point out two arguments which I find very strong. They are (1) the eternal hatred of the Catholic Church on the part of Her enemies (with its concomitant the eternal love of Her friends and devotees), and (2) the multiplicity of the character of what I shall call confirmed Catholics. By "confirmed Catholics" I do not mean those who have received that awe-filled Sacrament; I mean (a) those raised Catholic, who left the Church and returned; (b) those brought up Catholic who never the left the Church, but whose Faith was confirmed by the experience of life; and (c) converts (I do not include those contemptible men who "convert" for reasons of politics or expediency), whose sincerity none can question. I shall take these two in their turn.

For the first, I shall take the liberty of a long quotation from the great and holy Hilaire Belloc, in his magnificent book Survivals and New Arrivals: Enemies of the Catholic Church Old and New.

The curious have remarked that one institution alone for now nineteen hundred years has been attacked not by one opposing principle but from every conceivable point.

It has been denounced upon all sides and for reasons successively incompatible: it has suffered the contempt, the hatred and the ephemeral triumph of enemies as diverse as the diversity of things could produce.

This institution is the Catholic Church.

Alone of moral things present among men it has been rejected, criticized, or cursed, on grounds which have not only varied from age to age, but have been always of conflicting and often of contradictory kinds.

No one attacking force seems to have cared whether its particular form of assault were in agreement with others past, or even contemporary, so long as its assault were directed against Catholicism. Each is so concerned, in each case, with the thing attacked that it ignores all else. Each is indifferent to learn that the very defects it finds in this Institution are elsewhere put forward as the special virtues of some other opponent. Each is at heart concerned not so much with its own doctrine as with the destruction of the Faith.

Thus we have had the Church in Her first days sneered at for insisting on the presence of the full Divine nature in one whom many knew only as a man; at the very same time She was called Blasphemous for admitting that a Divine personality could be burdened with a suffering human nature. She was furiously condemned, in later ages, for laxity in discipline and for extravagant severity; for softness in organization and for tyranny; for combating the appetites natural to man, and for allowing them excess and even perversion; for ridiculously putting forward a mass of Jewish folklore as the Word of God, and for neglecting that same Word of God; for reducing everything to reason—that is, to logic, which is the form of reason—and for appealing to mere emotion. Today She is equally condemned for affirming dogmatically the improbable survival of human personality after death, and for refusing to admit necromantic proofs of it—and pronouncing the search for them accursed.

The Church has been presented, and by one set of Her enemies, as based upon the ignorance and folly of Her members—they were either of weak intellect or drawn from the least instructed classes. By another set of enemies She has been ridiculed as teaching a vainly subtle philosophy, splitting hairs, and so systematizing Her instruction that it needs a trained intelligence to deal with Her theology as a special subject.

This unique experience suffered by the Church, this fact that She alone is attacked from every side, has been appealed to by Her doctors throughout the ages as a proof of Her central position in the scheme of reality; for truth is one and error multiple.

It has also been used as an argument for the unnatural and evil quality of Catholicism that it should have aroused from the first century to the twentieth such varied and unceasing hostility.

But what has been more rarely undertaken, and what is of particular interest to our own day, is an examination of the battle's phases. Which of the attacks are getting old-fashioned? Which new offensives are beginning to appear, and from what direction do they come? Which are the main assaults of the moment? What is the weight of each, and with what success are they being received and thrown back?

I say, this cataloging of the attacks in their order of succession, from those growing outworn in any period to the new ones just appearing, has been neglected. A general view of the procession is rarely taken. Yet to make such an appreciation should be of value. The situation of the Church at any one time can be estimated only by noting what forms of attack are failing, and why; with what degree of resistance the still vigorous ones are being combated; what novel forms of offensive are appearing. It is only so that we can judge how the whole position stood or stands in any one historical period.

Now the historical period in which we have most practical interest is our own. To grasp the situation of the Catholic Church today we must appreciate which of the forces opposing her are today growing feeble, which are today in full vigor, which are today appearing as new antagonists, hardly yet in their vigor but increasing.

As for the Faith itself it stands immovable in the midst of all such hostile things; they arise and pass before that majestic presence:

"Stat et stabit, manet et manebit: spectator orbis." [2]

And there is something wonderful in seeing the Church ever immovable, against the intelligent forces of evil that try to wound Her as much as they can, and the stupid agents of evil who try to destroy Her: who know not that She cannot be destroyed, so feeble is their grasp of the reality of spiritual things.

Secondly, when one examines the nature of those who become Catholics, there is no common thread linking them, none at all, apart from their humanity and their Catholicism. All Catholics, but it is true of converts (and that is to be noted), are about as like to one another as a hairbrush to a glass of water, as the sun to a frog, and as a tweed jacket to a roast potato. I do not mean that there will not be similarities in personality and common interests in golf or art or Romantic poetry or philately or the Renaissance in France or tectonics or the works of Catullus. I mean that there is no such thing as a typical Catholic, whereas there is such a thing as a typical Anglo-Catholic or a typical Calvinistic Methodist or a typical Plymouth Brother.

I find these two things, among twenty thousand others, strong arguments in favour of Catholic truth; and these myriad taken all together I find amount to a certainty.

The Catholic Church is the prime reality of the world.

Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane,

But the Church of Jesus constant will remain.

All great States and civilizations come to their end: Carthage, Venice, Rome. There is nothing that endures. But there is one thing which shall endure until the end of time; and it shall endure until the end of time, yes, because Christ has given his promise - but what is a promise? A promise is an assurance of Truth with reference to some act either begun in the future or already begun and continuing into it. A promise coming from Jesus Christ, Who is Truth itself, will not be broken.

I have not endeavoured to prove Catholic truth in this essay; if the Reader cares enough about reality, he may read some Catholic books for himself to find out the Church's dogmas and the reasons behind those dogmas. If he does not care about reality, he will attack the Church anyhow and in any way, "without," as Defoe put it, "knowing whether Popery [be] a man or a horse."

I should wish to emphasize the distinction which must be made between holding a strong opinion to the effect that something is true, and knowing that something is true: as the Catholic knows that his religion is true, and that all other religions, whether they be Muslim or Protestant or atheist, are, precisely insofar as they contradict Catholic truth, false. It is those who are clinging tenaciously to opinion, rather than those with a sure and certain knowledge of truth, who write such charitable remarks as this:

May the faeries at the bottom of your garden keep your milk fresh, the elves under your bed ease your muscles while you sleep and the ignorant fool inhabiting your body wake up to the world soon. [3]

Perhaps people who write such things should read the Pilgrim's Progress, paying particular attention to the character of Mr Worldly-Wiseman. He is very busy these days.

Finally, I pray that all my Readers may have awakened in them an interest in reality. For reality is great and terrible; and reality is much more interesting, also, than the warpings and falsifications of it caused by religious bias. "Reality," it must be said, "is harsh to the feet of shadows." [4]

[1] Rabelais, François, "Garguanta et Pantagruel," tr. Urquhart, Navarre Society Limited Edition, vol. 2, p. 73.

[2] Belloc, Hilaire, "Survivals and New Arrivals," "http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/surviv.htm"

[3] Glendinning, Robbie, comment on Stuart Abram's link to the Youth Declaration to the UN on abortion and family rights

[4] Lewis, C.S., "The Great Divorce."

Stuart's Note

2010-10-11T14:58:00.001-07:00

Of the rights of unborn children, the right education of children and sundry other matters
by Stuart Abram on Monday, 11 October 2010 at 22:21

The following was to-day (11/x/10) posted in response to my facebook post requesting my friends to peruse and sign up to the Youth Declaration to the UN. This can be found at http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.c-fam.org%2Fyouth%2Flid.2%2Fdefault.asp&h=6abba . In response to this, an acquaintance of mine posted two comments, the more substantial of which I reproduce below in its entirety:

Unwanted children become problems in society, giving parents the choice to abort a fetus before it is a sentient being reduces the problems in society.To over stress the role of the family marginalises those who do not have family, for what...ever reason. Marginalising people causes problems in later life.Gender, as in one's self identity of gender, is not an objective thing and to try and force people into one gender or another if they are not subjectively of those genders is psychologically harmful, because gender roles are not black and white, but shades of grey.

I agree that unborn children, once they are children, have rights that must be protected but those rights are not the same as those of a child.I agree that the right to life is an important measure but this statement denies the right to death that we must consider moving forward as we continue to increase our ability to stay alive until decrepitation.I agree that sexual education needs to instill a sense of responsibility, self respect and understanding of the full effects of sexual acts, but this bill denies that sex outside marriage can ever be a good thing. Couples who do not see if they are sexually compatible before they wed are demonstrably less happy and psychologically stable than those who do sleep with each other while courting.I agree that exploitation is a very bad thing that we all need to be protected from but this statement denies that any work in the sex trade is not exploitative. However in a well regulated sex trade it can be a fulfilling job that gives rise to wealth. In societies where it is treated as wholly wrong far more exploitation occurs because the demand still exists.

As for point 2, a parent has a DUTY not a RIGHT to educate their child with the truth. Religious education, in the common form of gentle indoctrination is extremely harmful to children, and those raised in highly religious homes are intellectually inferior for the rest of their lives.

Other than points 3 & 5 I cannot agree with any of the points in this statement wholly, or with the subtext, because the world would be worse off if any of the rest of them were fulfilled.

Let us deal with the points in turn. I apologise to the reader if this is somewhat dull, but it suits the purposes of our sport. My interlocutor disputes that unborn children do not possess rights as they are not 'sentient' and/or it is convenient to give parents the 'right' to dispose of them before they become an inconvenience. The first response to this is that logically, parents should therefore have the right to kill newborn children until about the age of two, when they might first be categorised as 'sentient'. Birth, by this standard, is a mere stage in the progress to the magical moment whereupon one becomes 'sentient'. Logically this argument also leads to a 'right' or even perhaps a 'duty' to dispatch those whose understanding is impaired to such an extent that they are not 'sentient'; so all you depressives, mental defectives, sexual deviants (i.e. those married and with children, without the desire to have the right to kill them) and those with learning difficulties should step forward (if you are capable of this) and prepare for extermination.

One wonders what 'problems' are solved by the extirpation of the unborn. Financial and emotional difficulties have always been problems for any society yet in a country with a generous and comprehensive Welfare State and a National Health Service of which we may be rightly proud (and which is free at the point of delivery), one wonders at what point necessity requires or permits the killing of innocent life. Forgive my impatience with this, but it was an eminent member, respectable without question, of ancient Jewish society that remarked that it would be better for one man to die for the country than for the nation to perish. Although one can understand the mathematics and the temptation of it, to kill a being fully capable of human life for advantages that in almost all cases could be given by a proper and generous use of public services seems cowardly and murderous in the extreme.

This first paragraph is trapped in what appears to be a web of emotivism and illogicality. The force of the first line is that children themselves cause these problems, as if they had called themselves into the world to wreak unconscionable havoc ('Unwanted children become problems in society'), ignoring the responsibility of human beings in the first instance to conduct themselves in such a way as the dignity of sexual congress requires. A short attack then ensues on the position of the family; those who find themselves not belonging to one should not be harmed, it is argued, lest one feel 'marginalised' (although in that case there is nothing to be marginalised from, if there is no family). This ignores the vast amount of scientific research that shows that stable, married family life is the best context for the raising of children and the sexual maturity of both parties. To marginalise the family risks marginalising a great deal of people who will not haave the structures of friends, school, university or profession to cling onto. For many people still, the family, even in its degraded state, is their only hope and their only refuge. The most deprived themselves have most to lose from the fall of the traditional family and of sexual morality; the effects on the middle and upper classes may be mitigated by wealth and advantage but for these people, it hits hardest, eating away at their very selves. The poor, of all people, have most need of strong families. One last point is that marginalising people causes problems later on. I agree. That is why I am in favour of the only structure where one is really welcome, come what may, the family.

The argument on 'gender roles' is curious. On face value it would appear to be right. We assume 'roles' when we act in a play, for instance. But biological gender places upon us roles and obligations that go beyond any notion of playacting. The respective and equal (albeit different) dignities of fatherhood and motherhood, whether exercised conventionally or 'spiritually' in some other role such as being an aunt or uncle or nun or priest, stem from a biological and ontological difference that is universally accepted in the light of reason. Only when we do construct 'gender roles', assuming that a certain pattern of individual outward behaviour and sexual conduct (as opposed to a full-understanding of the procreative role) constitute a certain 'gender' does the argument begin to become tenable. Yet this divorces humanity from reality in an extreme idolatry of the will. According to this we are whatever we say, and perhaps feel. In that case, I am a Persian elephant called Friedrich III. According to this argument, no one could disabuse me of this notion no matter how unpersian, unelephant-like and unFriedrich-like I may be. That I am free to ignore my humanity or the biological facts of my existence does not mean they are not there.

There follows a litany of non-sequiturs. My opponent concedes that 'unborn children, once children, have rights that must be protected', yet 'those rights are not the same as those of a child'. One wonders whether, given the fact that babies and the unborn are not sufficiently 'sentient', this is perhaps a less unlovely method of extermination than forcing a miscarriage, cutting a child up (potentially while still alive) in the womb or sucking its brains out. Burning alive perhaps. This no doubt is part of the apparent 'right to death' that he is now convinced exists, in the Name of Progress no doubt, despite its absence from the ECHR and the entire corpus of English Law. Until the 1960s, English Law forbade (attempted) suicide and to this day forbids assisting or abetting it (cf. Suicide Act 1961). The 'right to death', which historically seems to quickly morph into the 'right to kill' frankly does not exist. As apparent proof of this, the concomitant duty of the right to kill becomes the duty to die, we are to 'moving forward as we continue to increase our ability to stay alive until decrepitation [sic]'. One wonders when the National Institute for Geriatric Advancement will come into being to 'move forward' those felt to have had a good innings.

My opponent, perhaps surprisingly, is agreed that 'sexual education needs to instill a sense of responsibility, self respect and understanding of the full effects of sexual acts', yet he advocates, on utilitarian grounds, that sexual relations outside of marriage may be beneficial, helping couples to discern whether they are 'sexually compatible', on psychological grounds. The immediate impression this gives is of treating sexual congress as a game. It is eminently reasonable that those who treat it as a game will prefer the company of those who do likewise. They may indeed derive greater pleasure and satisfaction from their 'love-making', but in doing so they will probably have missed the point entirely, taking the pursuit of pleasure very seriously. The inseparable union of two beings, in my interlocutor's eyes, is no such thing. It is temporary and really quite tawdry, little deserving of respect or awe, save insomuch as we derive self-satisfaction from it. Gone is the notion of inviolable gift to the other, of self-sacrifice and surrender, which are rightly quite difficult and demanding. Gone is the adventure of love. Newly arrived is the boredom of self-seeking.

The final eye-rolling episode in this litany of unreality is that on exploitation; all exploitation is bad it seems, but perhaps not all the time. One would love to know how he derives the conclusion that prostitution 'in a well regulated sex trade it can be a fulfilling job that gives rise to wealth'. Having worked with the down and outs of Paris, had friends who worked in the porn trade or even sold themselves, I can assure him and you, dear reader, that I have never met a 'happy whore'. Addiction cannot be thought of in the same light as professional commitment, nor whatever residual pleasure may remain in the sexual act as 'fulfilment'. Only a rather warped humanity could be fufilled thus. The sordid sum that indicates, in rather specious language, that it 'gives rise to wealth' underlines this with an unlikely and unintended eloquence.

In this unhappy and irrational world of sexual experimentation, gender-by-preference and careerist whoring, religious parents seem to have a 'duty' to educate their children in its truth. We are self-rightelously informed that, 'Religious education, in the common form of gentle indoctrination is extremely harmful to children' but, presumably, killing them in the womb or afterwards (see my argument above), downplaying any notion of family beyond the convenient or politically acceptable, abandoning them to the worst of their desires, discouraging them (implicitly) from having any sort of objective, gender-based identity, teaching them that picking a sexual partner or spouse is rather like picking flavours of ice-cream at Sainsbury's and that prostitution can be a fulfilling, profitable activity is not. We people of faith destine such benighted children, apparent, to be 'intellectually inferior', perhaps because they will not give way to the unreason, unreality and intellectual blindness of my dear accuser. Would they perhaps not be classed as 'sentient'? Would they be encouraged (or forced) to 'move forward' for the common good?

Give me the 'obscurantism' of Catholic Christianity with its love and protection of human life and right from conception until natural death, the dignity of the marital act, objective gender and the condemnation of sexual exploitation any day over the pompous, blind, hypocritical, dangerous, illogical, irrational and uncaring approach, suggested by what warped 'reason' I know not, suggested above by my foe. May the Lord englighten his mind and soul and bring us together in the last day as friends in joy.

2010-10-10T16:18:00.000-07:00

Has there ever been such deceit and treason as in the crisis of 1688? Woe!
I have just signed the Statement of Youth to the UN and the World. I hope many will support it.
Somebody on Facebook commented on Stuart Abram's link to it: "this declaration would harm the world if anybody in power took it seriously, I can't believe you support it." Yes, my friends, I am afraid we cannot ignore those who cannot punctuate, for the world will not ignore them.

2010-10-09T16:34:00.000-07:00

Alas! Alas for the Woes of 1688!
I have practically rewritten, by expanding it, the Wikipedia article on the Seven Bishops. Hooray!

2010-10-08T16:49:00.000-07:00

I am studying the chapter "The Ordeal" from Belloc's "James II" with considerable interest and attention.

2010-10-06T15:38:00.001-07:00

2010-10-05T03:06:00.001-07:00

It is curious to note that most historians of the battle, allowing a rate of sailing of some 3 1/2 knots and the length of the line to be between 9 and 10 miles, think that the Dutch and English fleets took some three hours to pass each other. They forget that, with the fleets sailing in opposite directions, the time should be halved. The relative speed of passing was not 3 1/2 knots but 7. There is here no necessity to read Einstein." - Belloc, brilliant as usual.

Belloc, brilliant as usual. (James II, p. 98, note.)

2010-10-04T15:46:00.001-07:00

I have done some reading today, listened to Beethoven's 3rd Symphony. I have finished Part I of Gautier's "Miracles Nostre Dame." How tired I am! I shall say my prayers in a short time.

2010-10-03T16:19:00.000-07:00

Sunday, the 27th in Ordinary Time. Ordinary Time seems to be dragging on for ever...

Monday, the 4th of October, is the Feast (or Memoria, as it is in the new calendar) of St Francis of Assisi.

St Francis, pray for us!

I should know more about this Saint. He is a Saint to whom I am not really devoted at all, and have never really felt much attracted to for some reason. All the same, I think I should learn more about him.

2010-10-02T05:37:00.000-07:00

Mere, fait il, au roi del ciel,
Qui plus iez douce de nul miel,
Qui plus iez douce et savoureuse,
Plus debonaire et plus piteuse
Et plus souef et plus benigne
Et plus tres sainte et plus tres digne
Que ne porroit langue retraire,
A bone fin me daingne traire.
Ha, mere au roi qui tot cria,
Ainz nus de cuer ne te pria
Cui ta douceurs feïst le sort.
Dame en cui toute douceurs sort,
Sacree virge debonaire,
Ne sai que dire ne que faire
Se ta douceurs ne me regarde.
M'ame et mon cors met en ta garde.

2010-10-01T16:42:00.001-07:00

I am reading Gautier de Coincy, Belloc, and Tovey - but not all at the same time. Time is short, I am afraid. Bye for now!

2010-09-30T16:03:00.000-07:00

Most of today was spent looking for something important. I did not find it. I did, however, manage to get a new one, very easily (contrary to what I had been led to expect).

I seem to enjoy the company of my fellow postgraduates; this pleases me - it would be very difficult to be a postgraduate and not get on well with one's fellow postgraduates, for that would be a very lonely existence.

Beethoven was a great genius. I would like to get a picture of him.

2010-09-29T14:52:00.000-07:00

I am reading Belloc's _On Nothing And Kindred Subjects._ It is, of course, very good.

2010-09-27T15:27:00.000-07:00

I have just finished chap. 3 of Macaulay. It is finely written, but partly falsified by Whiggery - indeed, Macaulay is the Whig par excellence of the nineteenth century. He also seems to be unaware or hardly aware of the fact that a shilling in 1685 is worth much more than a shilling in 1848. Or am I imagining that?

2010-09-26T16:11:00.000-07:00

I am *still* reading Macaulay. I am going to Durham on Wednesday; I cannot bpack five volumes of Macaulay, so I wish I had more time to read in the next few days. I shall see how much reading I can do.

2010-09-24T16:38:00.000-07:00

I am reading Macaulay, that epitome of Whiggery. Our official history, it cannot be sufficiently emphasized, IS bunk.

2010-09-23T16:26:00.000-07:00

I have set my political views on Facebook to "Justice and Right," and my religious views to "Catholic Truth."

2010-09-22T15:07:00.000-07:00

This has caused so much controversy it is incredible. It has been misinterpreted and misunderstood in the few hours since it was written. The point of the story is the righteousness of Lot.

GENGHIS. How did that fellow - what's his name?

HANNIBAL. Lot.

GENGHIS. Lot. How the hell did that fool Lot get on to the Borough Council?

HANNIBAL. I can't remember. He's been mixed up with politics since - well, since as long as I can remember.

GENGHIS. I suppose you're too young to remember Abraham's political life. Anyhow, Lot's gay rights voting record is appalling.

HANNIBAL (effeminately). Oh, I know, I know.

GENGHIS. I read an article in The Times this morning about him. There [giving HANNIBAL The Times] - can you read?

(HANNIBAL shakes head. Puts the newspaper on the table next him.)

GENGHIS. Well, it will be a good day for Sodom the day he leaves it, you mark my words. Just you mark my words. He's voted against gay couples adopting children, against gay marriage; I heard the other day he was in favour of criminalizing gay sex. He really has a problem with LGBT people. Do you know what I think?

HANNIBAL. No.

GENGHIS. I think he's a self-righteous hypocritical homophobic narrow-minded stupid pompous stuck-up right-wing naïve pretentious vile uncomprehending ignorant pious witless holier-than-thou neurotic obsessive Telegraph-reading fundamentalist deranged medieval psychopathic zealot with no experience of life.

(HANNIBAL nods in agreement.)

Enter FREDERICK.

FREDERICK. Oh, is that Lot you're talking about? Our family call him Snot.

(All three roll about laughing for thirty-five minutes.)

[FREDERICK.] But I don't think it's true that he's got no experience of life - he has some experience. Of...

GENGHIS. Of what? Being on the Council?! (Snorts.)

FREDERICK. Well, he has some experience of political life.

GENGHIS. Experience, yes, but I don't think he's learned anything from his experience. Remember the time when...damn! I've forgotten.

HANNIBAL. What do you mean?

GENGHIS. He still insists on his outdated views and wants to impose them on the rest of us. Out of touch! He's out of touch with the people of this country, and it will bring about his downfall. A dinosaur, straight out of the Cretaceous era.

HANNIBAL. Out of the what?

GENGHIS. The... oh, never mind.

FREDERICK. I think his presence in this city is a public scandal, and we'd be better off without him.

GENGHIS & HANNIBAL. Hear, hear!

GENGHIS. Yes, that's just what I was saying. Personally I think he just sets out to be controversial for the sake of it. I think he sets out to rile people.

HANNIBAL. I agree.

FREDERICK. I hope so, otherwise there must be something wrong with him. For anyone to hold the views he has with such...God damn it... (looking for the right word) CONVICTION... must have mental health problems in my opinion. I am serious.

GENGHIS. But, as I was saying to Hannibal here, Lot's voting record in the Council on gay rights is positively appalling. The sooner we are rid of that obnoxious, evil man, the better.

HANNIBAL & FREDERICK. Hear, hear!

GENGHIS. Oh, Hannibal, could you hand me the paper again?

(Hannibal hands Genghis The Times.)

[GENGHIS.] I wanted to look at the weather forecast. (Reading.) Tuesday: rain, very hot.

(22nd September, 2010.)

Needless to say, that provoked a reaction. And that is good.

2010-09-21T15:41:00.000-07:00

I read the Redemptorist Rule (not the Constitutions) today. Some of it was interesting, some of it not. St Alphonsus specifically states that the Divine Office must be said without chant (for Redemptorists). I suppose because of their stress on poverty, and on mortification.

2010-09-20T15:34:00.000-07:00

Today's University Challenge was very one-sided. I am still reading "Danton: A Study." It is quite heavy, because I am totally unfamiliar with the subject matter. I have transcribed some of St Alphonsus's "Theologia Moralis." That is a VERY IMPORTANT BOOK, and it should be known by every priest.

Good night.

2010-09-19T15:23:00.001-07:00

Cardinal Newman has been beatified! Hooray!

2010-09-18T15:58:00.001-07:00

Today I appeared on the Mercury theatre stage in a production similar to that of the 28th of November, 2004.

From the 28th of November, 2004, to the 18th of September, 2010: what great changes have happened in my life since then! What journeys! What watersheds!

By Stuart Abram: Respect vs Tolerance

2010-09-16T14:48:00.001-07:00

In the last few weeks much thought and discussion has been given to the issue of "tolerance" and the place of religion in the public life of the nation. Various terms in the debate such as "tolerance" have themselves, rightly, inspired mini-debates. What perhaps has been less discussed is the place of religion in society as a whole. Professor Grayling, of Birkbeck College, University of London, a prominent secularist and party to a letter published in to-day's Guardian by he and his co-(ir)religionists appeared on the BBC commenting on the Pope's visit. He emphasised the fact that different religious (or irreligious) views were now more equally considered and he pointed to the irreligious thought of the ancients (without citing any particular names; implicitly I think he was referring to the Pre-Socratics (beloved of Nietzsche) and perhaps Epicurus, Aristotle (who was more agnostic than irreligious, although his thought is rightly associated with, and developed by, St. Thomas Aquinas with tremendous understanding) other acclaimed thinkers such as Plato and Marcus Aurelius have an unmistakably religious dimension, it is also worth mentioning that the Academy was itself a religious foundation). The great renewal of philosophical thought in the West, however, is associated with the acceptance of Christianity and represented in such figures as Augustine and Anselm.

Yet the question persists of how we as a society and nation, whose foundations are unmistakably Christian, are to engage with religious thought. As Baroness Warsi points out, we live in a world where more and more people belong to the major religions of the world than a century ago. Islam and Christianity are major forces in the world, largely for good. This, at least in the case of Christianity, provoked the atheist Matthew Parris to suggest that we dispatch (as once we did, and still do to some extent) missionaries to Africa instead of, or in addition to, mere material aid. We, as both individuals and a nation, have no choice in the matter, we must do God for both our own good and that of those people we desire to help. The figures, furnished in the speech of Baroness Warsi, prove that people do, indeed, do God more and more often. We are not an increasingly secular society, quite the reverse it seems. The speech can be found at http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservatives.com%2FNews%2FSpeeches%2F2010%2F09%2FSayeeda_Warsi_The_importance_of_faith_to_life_in_Britain.aspx&h=3070e .

Here, the question of language, considered in its broadest sense becomes crucial. We are accustomed to think in terms of "tolerance" and not of respect. An important distinction between the two lies in the respective implications they have for the place in society of what is being tolerated or respected. The former implies that something alien to the mores of society, a foreign body or even a parasite, is allowed to exist in an act of concession. We tolerate screaming children on public transport or particularly annoying colleagues at work. We do not really want to have much to do with them unless we have to, and even then we do it grudgingly. Despite the relative poverty of this word, it is, alas, a buzzword. In its name, Christian registrars have been sacked, adoption agencies threatened with closure, dangerous cross-wearing air stewards disciplined and street-preachers who might have disagreed with a liberal stance on homosexuality have been prosecuted. The innate moral superiority which itself grants "tolerance" is always capable (and often willing) to show those tolerated (often described themselves as "intolerant") who is really boss. The long-term message can only be, conform.

The inspiration for such a position is largely one of power. Implicit within Professor Grayling's rejoicing that Christianity has (or seems to have) been knocked of its cultural pedastal is that his movement is now more powerful. It can militate, in a deeply intolerant and hypocritical way, for its own religious agenda. Out with faith schools. Boo and hiss to church/religious community projects. Boo! Hiss! Religion is intolerant and stupid! Boo!!! Hiss!!!!

The rather obvious aim and solution to this rather unsatisfactory situation is true respect. This is not, thankfully, a souped-up version of tolerance (God forbid) but an approach eliciting of all this nation's citizens an understanding and brotherhood which enables dialogue, common endeavour and (dare I say it) personal spiritual reflection. Furthermore, respect does not merely tolerate but recognises the implicit right of religious communities to observe, practice and preach their religion as equal citizens. These rights are enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights (Article 9). The grudging concessions granted recently in the Equality Act enabling faith communities to employ people who agree with and practice their doctrines do not show respect but condescension and illiberal "tolerance". The bizarre policies and acts of some companies and public bodies likewise seem inspired by an intolerance (in the name of tolerance, of course) that can only serve to inflame resentment and misunderstanding. This does not make for a balanced and peaceful society and defies the spirit and word of the ECHR as originally conceived where exceptions to this freedom are greatly restricted, especially given the importance of intellectual freedom and moral discourse (threatened by some who wish to apply hate laws to merely disapproving of homosexual intercourse). This is utterly inimical to the traditional and hard-won liberties of this land.

If, in matters of law, the English common law has proved to be a very capable if not perfect guardian of civil liberties, it is because it is rooted in the history and thought of the people it serves. In matters of religious discourse, the large-scale loss of even basic religious knowledge has created a wide-gulf between those who practise almost any religion and those who, largely perhaps out of ignorance, can conceive of no spiritual force in their lives other than various forms of emotion (however elevated) or a vague belief in the paranormal (it is interesting to note that belief in the occult has grown threefold [from five to fifteen per cent] in the last fifty or sixty years). In this age, the treasures of Christianity, which radiate a rich spiritual beauty coupled with a deeply intellectual and coherent theological belief, can only prove to be a shallow aesthetic experience at best. Heart needs head.

The disintegration of much of English and Western European culture, and especially the appreciation of that of the past, is largely a result of this widespread philistinism. I was once shocked to hear in the corridors of the School of Modern Languages and Cultures complaints about the expectation that students should have a basic understanding of the Bible. Likewise, in Dante Studies, a voluntary course, there was exasperation at the thought of the necessity of some coherent basic theological knowledge. These students, most of whom will gain 2:1s or better, are incapable of understanding Western culture, and thus also Western history, in any real depth. One can only but conjecture what implication this has for Europeans' understanding of American society and culture. In large part, Europe is ignorant of her past nobility and richness due to her abandonment of Christian knowledge and faith.

To engage with any other culture requires and brings a similar engagement with one's own. Daniel Hannan discusses the otherwise surprising fact that Eurosceptics tend to be better linguists than Europhiles (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/3679101/Eurosceptics_make_dazzling_linguists/). Likewise, any engagement with religious thought (and this will be necessary in a world and society where it is an increasingly important presence) requires a similar engagement with one's own. A boy who knows no or little English history will find French history even more alienating and foreign than it would otherwise be. For Europeans, the historic faith and backbone of the continent is Christianity; most comprehensively and effectively in Catholicism. In the current environment, the widespread ignorance in religious matters is coupled with a spiritual and cultural malaise, where, for example in art, form becomes art itself, in the implicit confession that there is no substance in contemporary thought. Faith, properly understood, is a deeply human thing (I am not denying its supernatural and transcendent elements) that, in the experience of both ancients and moderns, is capable of expanding the ambit of the soul and knowledge. It is perhaps surprising that out of all the contenders for intellectual dominance in the last three centuries, only Christianity remains fresh and fully-human, if sometimes very much ignored. Marxism has yielded Stalian and the Soviet Union. Eugenics helped give birth to Nazism, mass-murder and enforced sterilisation. Only the orthodox Christianity represented in the Pope resisted both of these monstrous forces; Pope John Paul II being credited with helping to bring down the Soviet oppression and Pius XII (and numerous others) providing both resistance to the Nazis and aid to the Jews.

To conclude, respect is borne of humanity and self-understanding. A practising Christian and a practising Muslim will often find a certain rapport and respect. The fruitful interreligious dialogue of recent decades is evidence for this. Pope Benedict himself has expended much effort on this, with both Jews and Muslims, as well as other Christians, seeing it as vital for the future peace of the world. On the other hand, the brand of aggressive atheism preached by Dawkins et al. has already proved itself to be a denier of ancient civil liberties and true respect. Bent on alienating an historically Christian society from its rich past to impose its own unprovable, negative (in the technical and pejorative senses) and arguably inhuman dogma, it is a malign religious force whose intolerance and venom risks being highly productive of an alienation from much of mankind in the universal human search within and without. It is time to call time on its cant.

2010-09-14T16:13:00.001-07:00

I am reading Belloc's study of Danton at the moment. Belloc is one of my heroes. Danton was one of Belloc's. I think there are certain characteristics common to both men.

I should write earlier in the day, then I would not be so tired, and perhaps would say more.

2010-09-13T14:55:00.001-07:00

I have had a very tumultuous time lately.

I am feeling all right at the moment.

Please pray.

2010-09-03T13:34:00.000-07:00

Today is a First Friday, and so I have endeavoured to spend the day more in the presence of God than perhaps I would normally. I have not been on Facebook, nor checked my emails, nor have I had my phone on. I am sure I have received abundant graces today: graces are often painful - I hope I am not complaining - but they should be welcome nonetheless. I am afraid there is no way to become a Saint but the way of suffering. The easiest way is (pacè Durham InterCollegiate Christian Union) the way of Mary. She does not indeed take away our crosses, but she helps us bear them.
Talking of Mary, I should remind you that the 8th of September is the Feast of Her Nativity. Today is the fifth day (it seems later to me) of the Novena in preparation for that Feast. I hope I shall have something useful to say in my blog on that feast day.
It seems to me that the lack of reverence shown by, for example, certain Christian Unions, to our Lady, does not make a lot of sense. But I do not intend to expound upon that now.

Today is the Feast of St Gregory (and in this country it actually is a Feast now, and not a mere Memoria). I am glad that St Gregory - a Doctor of the Universal Church! - has been (in England) given a somewhat higher rank than "Memoria."

In addition, I have discovered that the Saint venerated in this diocese on the 1st of September is St Sebbi. He was a King of the East Saxons, the husband of St Osyth; this was in the seventh century. He abdicated, and became a monk: a thing I think the modern world would regard with bemused incomprehension.

Another thought of mine relates to Stephen Hawking. The other day I said that I thought he had posited an effect without a prior cause, which is absurd. Upon reflection, he might have meant that "laws pre-existing in nothingness" were the first cause, which certainly seems to make more sense. But it implies that laws can create something out of nothing, and creation implies a will. Laws of themselves cannot do anything. Indeed it seems to me that the very notion of law requires a will: for a law can only exist in reference to the will of the lawgiver. But if the laws are the first cause, then they would be their own lawgiver, and then what? This does not make sense. This makes law and will the same thing. Or it implies that the laws are not given: that they are of themselves, and also (to follow the logical sequence) eternal (since they are outside time). There is no reason why a law cannot be eternal, but a law has to be given, otherwise it is not a law at all.

There is no contradiction here: a law can certainly be eternal. But there is one necessary conrequisite (I have deliberately refrained from the word "prerequisite"): that the Lawgiver be eternal.

But the Lawgiver must cause the Law, so the Law cannot be the First Cause.

2010-09-02T09:33:00.001-07:00

"If God gives you an abundant harvest of trials, it is a sign of great holiness which He desires you to attain. Do you want to become a great saint? Ask God to send you many sufferings. The flame of Divine Love never rises higher than when fed with the wood of the Cross, which the infinite charity of the Savior used to... finish His sacrifice. All the pleasures of the world are nothing compared with the sweetness found in the gall and vinegar offered to Jesus Christ. That is, hard and painful things endured for Jesus Christ and with Jesus Christ." - Saint Ignatius of Loyola

2010-09-01T11:54:00.001-07:00

2010-08-31T14:43:00.000-07:00

No one is conquered until he has given up the struggle.

The remedy for pride is humility.

The only way to attain to humility is to be humble.

We conquer self-love by loving God.

We must never give up hope.

We are to love God above all things in the world.

We are to hate sin, so that we are resolved never to commit one wilful sin, for the love or fear of anyone or anything whatsoever. [Slightly altered from the Penny Catechism by me.]

We should not answer with impatience, but bear wrongs patiently.

If we wish to become saints, we should never complain about anything. If we wish to become saints, we should never complain about anything, even on the inside. [~Fr Hardon]

"Humility is truth." (St Theresa of Ávila)

"It is our business to give up all for whatever is truth." - Belloc

It is impossible to be humble or chaste without prayer.

"Pray continually."

"God resists the proud."

The frequentation of the Sacraments is the easiest way to become a Saint. (If I followed my own advice, I would be a Saint. I have to confess that I do not follow my own advice, for I cannot refuse this advice to you, but I could not give it to you and not admit that.)

Without God WE CAN DO NOTHING! NOTHING! Not "a little bit"! NOTHING!!! (Paraphrased from St Augustine, from Our Lord)

If we love God, we shall be hated by men. Shall we then cease to love God?

"Daily Communion is the quickest and surest way to heaven." - St Pius X. I repeat what I said above.

The practice of humility shows itself in obedience.

The unchaste and the proud will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Full stop. Eternal full stop.

Two errors: 1. Trying to do too much, abandoning these efforts and collapsing back to either where one was before, a little above, or even less, or, worse yet, to nothing.
2. Not doing enough.

MENTAL PRAYER. I cannot stress the importance of this. 15 minutes each day minimum. Preferably first thing in the morning: ideally before people have got up, to avoid interruptions, which make 15 minutes take all that is left of the morning.

Mortification. You cannot become overcome unchastity without mortification, so how can you possibly expect to become a Saint without it. With regard to external mortifications, I say, only do them under obedience, to avoid the danger of vainglory. Internal mortifications (e.g. not answering back) you do not need the permission of a director for.

Pray before and after Mass. WHY DO PEOPLE GET UP AND WALK OUT IMMEDIATELY AFTER COMMUNION? DO THEY HAVE NO RESPECT???? GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.........

Being angry with yourself after a sin is pride.

When you fall into a sin, immediately make an act of contrition, resolve to confess it (if it is mortal, or a venial sin that you wish to confess), then get up. The worst thing to do if you have fallen is not to get up.

"Never do anything that you cannot offer to God." - St John Vianney.

Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. (KJV)

2010-08-30T15:50:00.000-07:00

Personally I think it would be better for the economy if the Banks had a Holiday 365 days a year, with an extra one in leap years.

* * *

I turned the computer on, then forgot what I had put it on for. I put it on to blog.

I would like to ask for your prayers: I need strength; I would like to ask you also to pray for me for the strength to pray. Of course prayer is the one grace which we are certain God will never take away from us, so there can never be a time when we cannot pray; nevertheless there are times when we neglect to pray sufficiently: and this is disastrous, for we dare not slacken for one moment in our love for God.

I know that I have a great capacity for loving (I believe I am not saying this from pride); but the temptation to love oneself rather than God is an ever-present one - and that is the cause, if I may say so, of every problem in the entire world.

2010-08-29T12:38:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow is the beginning of the Novena for the Feast of the Nativity of Mary (8th September.)

30th August: Day 1.
31st August: Day 2.
1st September: Day 3.
2nd September: Day 4.
3rd September: Day 5. Also First Friday.
4th September: Day 6.
5th September: Day 7.
6th September: Day 8.
7th September: Day 9.

8th September: THE NATIVITY OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY.

With permission of your confessor or spiritual director, you may wish to fast on the 7th of September.

I quote from St Alphonsus with regard to the Novenas of Marian Feasts.

The servants of Mary are very attentive and fervent in celebrating the Novenas of her Feasts; and during these the holy Virgin, full of love, dispenses to them innumerable and special blessings. One day St. Gertrude saw under the mantle of Mary innumerable souls, whom our Lady was looking upon with great affection, and she understood them to be those who, on the preceding days, had prepared themselves, by devout exercises, for the feast of the Assumption. The devotions to be used for the Novenas are the following:
1st. Mental prayer, morning and evening, with a visit to the most holy Sacrament, with the addition of an "Our Father," "Hail Mary," and "Glory be to the Father, &c.", repeated nine times.
2nd. Three visits to some image of Mary, thanking the Lord for the graces granted to her, and asking of the Virgin every time some special favor; and at one of these visits the prayer which is placed at the end of each of her feasts should be read.
3d. Make many acts of love, at least one hundred, or fifty, to Mary and to Jesus, for we can do nothing more pleasing to her, as she said to St. Bridget, than to love her Son: If you wish to become dear to me, love my Son Jesus: "Si te mihi vis devincire, ama filium meum Jesum."
4th. Read every day of the Novena, for a quarter of an hour, some book which treats of her glories.
5th. Make some external mortification of hair-cloth, discipline, &c., with fasting, or some abstinence at table from fruits or other agreeable food, at least in part; chewing also some bitter herb: and on the vigil of the feast fast on bread and water. But all this must be done always with the permission of a spiritual Father.

But better than all these are the practices in the Novenas of internal mortifications, as abstaining from the indulgence of curiosity, either through the eye or the ear; remaining retired and silent; obeying, not answering with impatience; bearing contradictions, and other things of the sort, which may be used with less danger of vainglory and greater merit; and for these, too, the permission of a director is not needed. The most useful exercise is to propose, at the beginning, the amending of some fault into which we are most liable to fall. And to this end it is well, at the end of each of the visits above named, to ask pardon for some past sin, renew the intention of avoiding it in future, and implore the help of Mary, in keeping this resolution. The honor most dear to the Virgin is the imitation of her virtues; wherefore it is well in every Novena to propose to one's self some special virtue of Mary, particularly adapted to the mystery; as for example, on the feast of the Conception, purity of intention; of her Nativity, the renewing of the spirit and the awakening from tepidity; of her Presentation, detachment from something to which we are most attached; of the Annunciation, humility in bearing contempt, &c.; of the Visitation, charity towards the neighbor, alms-giving, &c., or at least, the praying for sinners; of the Purification, obedience to superiors; and finally, of the Assumption, the practice of detachment, and doing all things as a preparation for death, living as if every day were to be the last. In this way the Novena will prove of great service.

6th. Besides the communion on the day of the feast, it is well to ask it more frequently of the spiritual Father on the days of the Novena. Father Segneri said that we cannot honor Mary better than with Jesus. For she herself, as Father Crasset relates, revealed to a holy soul that nothing dearer could be offered to her than the holy communion, for there Jesus Christ gathers in his soul the fruit of his passion. Hence it appears that the Virgin desires nothing from her servants more than the holy communion, saying, "Come, eat the bread and drink the wine that I have prepared for you." Finally, on the day of the feast after communion we should offer ourselves for the service of this divine mother by asking of her the grace of the virtue proposed in the Novena, or some other special favor. And it is well every year to set apart among others some feasts of the Virgin, to which we have the greatest devotion and tenderness, and make a particular preparation for this by dedicating ourselves anew, and in a more especial manner, to her service; choosing her for our Lady, advocate, and mother. Then we should ask pardon for our negligence in her service during the past year, promising her greater fidelity for the year that is to come. In a word, let us pray her to accept us as her servants, and obtain for us a holy death.

2010-08-28T15:37:00.001-07:00

Well, pop goes another friendship - or one that apparently did not exist, since we had not, I am told, even the foundation of one.

Still this is the price one pays for devotion to the Truth.

It is extraordinary how everybody teaches their children always to tell the truth, while habitually giving bad example by living, cheating, stealing, swindling, etc., etc.

Then they have the gall to complain that their children don't respect them!

(Let me say that I am not talking about my own parents here; it is a general assertion that sprang from another train of thought.)

I have written this:

TRUTH.

No, there shall be no compromise on Truth,

Not though the sky should, loud with peals of thunder,

Fall to the earth, crash land and sea asunder,

Mankind in torment die, both men in youth

And men in age lie screaming flat in pain

Through their last agony: not though men rally

To Error's vast battalions forth to sally:

Truth shall not be denied, no, not for gain

Of comfort, friends, gold, peace, security,

Or whatsoever else! So they shall hate

Us - what do you expect?! - But we are free,

Devoted to the Truth; of thralls their fate:

But they prefer their slavery, forsooth.

No, there shall be no compromise on Truth.

(Feast of St Augustine, 2010.)

Bankers should read Rabelais

2010-08-27T13:37:00.000-07:00

"Go your ways in the name of God, prosecute good enterprises, show your king what is amiss, and never counsel him with regard unto your own particular profit, for the public loss will swallow up the private benefit." - Book 1, Chap. 46.

2010-08-26T14:40:00.000-07:00

I am particularly pleased with this essay:—

I

“How horrid,” the comment on my post began, “to read a very upsetting and homophobic response to this link. Not something I wanted to find on Facebook.” Another comment, addressed to another objector, wrote: “Quite frankly Stuart, you come across as homophobic as does the catholic adoption agency. It is difficult to see how anyone who is not homophobic can object to a gay couple’s right to adopt.”

Now I wish to discuss this word “homophobic,” and its cognate substantive, “homophobia.” In these days in which we live, wherein the habitual use of the human intelligence has sunk to its lowest, it is considered a triumph in argument to demonstrate that one’s opponent is homophobic or intolerant. “Homophobic” is taken to mean, by those who have forgotten how to think, or never learned, “intolerant of homosexual people”—as my comments were called. The notion that one can be tolerant of homosexual people and intolerant of homosexual acts, which are evil—and I shall explain why they are evil in a moment—eludes the nincompoops, who (since they have forgotten how to think) cannot distinguish between an action and its agent. I have written elsewhere of how the maxim that we should “hate the sin and love the sinner” has transmuted into “love the sin and hate the sinner.” For to hate a sin is to love its agent, and to prevent him from harming himself; and to love a sin is to hate its agent. Those who have scars along the length of their arms from the times they have harmed themselves in a more visible fashion will perhaps understand what I mean.

The first distinction to be made is between an action and its agent. It is true that an action can only be done by an agent, and it is from this, I think, that the confusion arises. Nevertheless they are separate.

There are so many first principles that need to be explained that I am not entirely sure where to begin. But it is necessary for our opponents to understand why we believe what we believe, and for them to understand that our objections are not the result of mere prejudice. Personally I think many of them do think our objections are but the fruit of prejudice; and if that were true, they would be right to object to our objections. But this arises from a misunderstanding.

It does not help when we try to explain our morality in such a way as not to offend our secular opponents. It means we miss out at least half of the reasoning necessary to defend our arguments, and consequently we fail. For example, to oppose euthanasia without mentioning the simple fact that it cannot be more charitable to put a man in hell than to allow him to endure temporal suffering—this can only arise from fear of offending others.

Every one of us is guilty of evil, myself (I think) of more evil than most. But the fact that we are all guilty of evil does not justify the evil we have done, or that we shall do. We are free to resist evil, and God will give us the grace necessary thereto if we pray for it. In order for an act to be subject to the laws of morality, it must be what theologians call “a human act,” and (in this life) it must be free. A human act, my manual of moral theology tells me, is one that proceeds from knowledge and free will, such as writing. A human act, or actus humanus, is to be distinguished from an act of man, or actus hominis—so that writing is a human act, while breathing is an act of man.

The requisite knowledge entails that of (1) the action, (2) the object of the action, and (3) the possibility of not acting or of acting otherwise. Knowledge of the action entails that the man must be aware of what he is doing, saying, or thinking. Let me explain the meaning of the phrase “the object of the action.” To be clear I should say what my manual of moral theology says: “The object of the action with all its proximate circumstances.” So for instance if a man shoots at another man, believing him to be a bear, and having no thought that it might not be a bear, then the man is not guilty of homicide. Indeed he is not guilty of anything, for it is no sin to shoot a bear.

This will be a good point, I think, at which to explain the difference between material and formal sin. Now let us suppose that our first man shot at the second, believing the second man to be a bear. He was guilty of nothing, but there was what is called a material sin of homicide. I repeat the man was not guilty of homicide, but the matter of homicide—i.e. the killing of a man—was there. In a second scenario, our first man shoots the other, knowing him to be a man. Here there is a formal sin of homicide—our first man incurs the guilt of murder. It is only formal sin that is, strictly speaking, sin; by material sin we mean that which would be a sin if it were known and willed. I hope I express myself clearly. Material sin is not culpable, at all: but it has the same consequences, broadly (and somewhat inaccurately) speaking, as formal sin does.

My third numbered point was the possibility of acting otherwise or not at all—for “Only when this possibility is recognized can there be free consent of the will, without which neither good nor evil deeds are imputable.”

The second requisite is free consent of the will. The only subdivision I shall mention here is that of perfectly and imperfectly voluntary—for an act to be perfectly voluntary there must be full knowledge and full consent; if either of these or both is to some degree lacking, the act will be imperfectly voluntary. If both are absent, the act is not voluntary at all.

Next—the imputability of human acts. “The imputability of a human act consists in this that one may be declared the free author of an action and its consequences and may be held responsible for the same.”

An act may be directly or indirectly voluntary. Indirectly voluntary means that it follows as a consequence of another act which is directly voluntary.

Directly voluntary acts are always imputed to the agent; indirectly voluntary are only attributed to the agent when there is question of an evil effect, and then only in certain circumstances, which do not concern our present purpose.

Obstacles to human acts include ignorance, which is often culpable, violence, fear, concupiscence, and habit, among others.

It should be clear from all of this that an act may in itself be evil and yet not attributable to the agent as evil—the agent may act in perfect innocence, but his act may, considered in the abstract, be wrong; it may even be very evil. For instance, none of my readers, I hope, will deny that homicide is very evil, and that if someone were alerted to the fact that our first man above was about to kill another man, however inadvertently, this third person would be bound to do what he could to prevent it—even though the first man were in all morals quite innocent.

But what has all this to do with homophobia?

II

I do not deny—I do not know if many, or any, will deny—that many people who engage in homosexual activity are perfectly innocent of all wrongdoing. It is important, very important, to grasp the principle that if you do not know that something is wrong, and it does not occur to you that it may be wrong, you do nothing wrong. But if a real doubt (rather than a scruple) comes into your mind, you are bound to refrain from action, until you have settled the matter. For to act when to act may or may not be evil is to be willing to do something evil—and such a conscience is malicious.

While the matter is not as serious as that of an inadvertent homicide, it is nonetheless grave. We hold that there are certain acts, besides adultery, forbidden by the sixth commandment of God. The acts that I can immediately recall forbidden by this commandment are fornication, adultery, rape, criminal assault, incest, sacrilege, masturbation, sodomy, and bestiality. It also forbids all impurity in thought and word, and it even forbids, under pain of mortal sin, any directly voluntary consent whatsoever to the irregular motions of the flesh. (Here it is important to distinguish directly from indirectly voluntary.) Now with the majority of these sins the non-Catholic world has not yet gone so far in its descent to the abyss of amorality as to have denied the evil of most of these: it is true that fornication and masturbation seem to have been virtually struck off the list, and sodomy appears to be the next one to go.

Now discussion of these matters is not a pleasant subject. But I should make some attempt to explain why we believe these things are wrong. They all come under the one commandment. There is not a separate commandment forbidding adultery and sodomy. They are forbidden, we hold, by the one commandment: it is sins against chastity that are forbidden.

Sins of lust are forbidden because they do harm to those who indulge in them. They are forbidden on pain of mortal sin because they do great harm to those who indulge in them. Those who have been enslaved to these sins for any length of time, and examine themselves honestly, seeing themselves as they are, as God sees them, cannot possibly deny the harm that these sins do. They harm one’s health, physical and mental; they destroy families; they wreck people’s lives—and they wreck nobody’s life more than that of the sinner himself. They are addictive; it is easier to break an addiction to heroin than to break an addiction to sins against chastity. They lead to misery in this life and in the next. They make a man resemble a demon. They form the most abundant matter for sacramental confession by far; they are an express ticket to hell. As sins, they are greater than theft and than detraction. They are the curse of the proud.

I wish to expand on that phrase, “the curse of the proud.” Proud people are unchaste; humble people are chaste. The proud are intent upon their own will: that is what pride is. The humble sacrifice their own will. God abandons the proud to their own destruction. The humble he exalts. Proud people will fall into sins against chastity: God allows this in order for them to recognize their own pride, and their need of Him. Shame is necessary sometimes to conquer pride.

The consequences of sins against chastity, as enumerated by St Gregory, are these. Memorize this list. Love of self; hatred of God; love of the present life; horror of the future life; rashness; inconstancy; inconsiderateness; spiritual blindness. Memorize the list, and examine your conscience.

It should be borne in mind throughout all of this that I am discussing not homosexuality alone, but all sins against chastity. Those of us who have been the slaves of mortal sin know what it is: it is the greatest of all evils, and we do not desire anyone else to suffer it.

III

THE REMEDY

I write “the remedy;” I suspect nothing else will lay me more open to the infamous charge of “homophobia” than the use of this word. But I am referring to the means that should be taken by all those who have, or have ever had, the evil habit of impurity in any form.

The means to be undertaken in order to be freed from vices opposed to chastity are, first, prayer, humble, trusting, persevering, without which nothing can be accomplished—both vocal and mental prayer—; secondly, the Sacraments, if one is a Catholic, should be frequented. One should pray assiduously, and not neglect always to pray in temptation—as soon as one is conscious of the temptation, and until it goes away, one should, at least mentally, call upon the names of Jesus and Mary. Nor should one be discouraged after a fall, but endeavour to pick oneself up again immediately. Failing the Sacraments—if one cannot make use of sacramental confession: one should find someone, good, wise, and holy, to whom one will allow oneself to be accountable. There can be no chastity without humility; and I do not see a great deal of humility in those who use the word “homophobe” like the mallet of the March Hare.

Remember that Mary is the refuge of sinners, and there is no-one who, if he does but turn to her, will not be assisted by her with graces beyond his dreaming.

IV

A few words on the initial comments I quoted at the beginning. First, the word homophobic is used derogatorily. If we used it, we should use it to mean someone who was intolerant of homosexual people (as my comments were called). Our opponents use it, however, to mean someone who is intolerant of homosexual acts.

In these matters there seems usually to be a struggle with conscience, expressed outwardly in violent terms. “Methinks the lady doth protest too much.” It is this much protesting that should perhaps concern us most deeply.

If the word homophobic does indeed mean somebody who is opposed to homosexual acts, and not someone who is “intolerant of homosexual people,” then yes, we are homophobic.

There is a certain irony, I think, in the calling of those who have same-sex attraction, and are striving to live chastely, “homophobic”—for these people are indeed intolerant of homosexual acts, and none, I think, more so than they. They will, of course, oppose such things as adoption by homosexual couples.

But no-one ever mentions these people.

I wonder why.

(26th August, 2010.)

2010-08-25T16:29:00.001-07:00

2010-08-24T14:42:00.001-07:00

My own sinfulness saddens me.

2010-08-23T15:41:00.001-07:00

I have been given many graces today - some crosses and humiliations.

2010-08-22T15:45:00.001-07:00

I am very tired. A grace-full day.

2010-08-20T14:34:00.001-07:00

The world really is pretty terrifying sometimes.

This is disturbing - not the final outcome, which is good, but that it happened at all.

2010-08-19T15:10:00.000-07:00

I link to the story of the Pope and the Teddy Bear, and to the story of a remarkable grace:

The Pope and the Teddy Bear
Man reconciles with Church after 80 years

On Ignorance of History

2010-08-18T15:18:00.001-07:00

Edit
On Ignorance of History
by David Mitchell on Wednesday, 18 August 2010 at 20:17

I make no pretence to a sufficiently deep or sufficiently broad knowledge of History; but I would not dare to write this article if I were not making some attempts to further and to deepen my own historical knowledge.

I believe that the knowledge of our own history is important, for many reasons; but I believe it to be of particular importance at the present time, in which we are witnessing before our very eyes the apparent collapse of the West—but even now it is not too late to save it.

I hope I shall be forgiven for saying that if we do not understand our fathers, we cannot fully understand ourselves. I do not mean that all that has happened in the past is of equal importance, or that we need to know every action and event that has taken place since the beginning of time. I mean that we need to know certain things in order to understand other things. We cannot understand the breakdown of Western civilization, which we are witnessing, if we do not know what that civilization is. We cannot know what that civilization is if we do not know what made that civilization—to wit, if we do not know what the Roman Empire was (from which we all derive), and what the Catholic Church, I do not say *was*, but *is*—for She exists still, and indeed in eternity. We need to understand the Catholic Church in order to understand Islam, for Islam is a perversion of Catholicism, and we need to understand the Catholic Church in order to understand those denominations that have broken off from her, but to whom they owe their origin, and without whose existence they simply could not be. We need to understand the Catholic Church in order to understand the New Atheism which is a consequence of the shipwreck of five hundred years ago. It is not necessary to an understanding of the Church, or the Empire, or the West in general, that we ourselves be of the Faith, for our province here is not that of Theology but that of History. We are dealing with matters of demonstrable historical fact. Of course there are also many factors in History upon which we cannot be sure, but this does not counteract my general assertion.

I wish to lay an especial stress upon *religious* history: in particular, that of the Catholic Church, which preserved all that could be preserved of the Roman Empire in the decline of that Empire, and which has renewed, and continues to renew, the spiritual life of the world—*not* because I believe that that Church is the true one, but because without understanding that Church, we cannot understand what has been in Europe. The two primary questions of history, as Belloc remarks on the first page of *How the Reformation Happened*, are the conversion of the Roman Empire to Catholicism, and the religious breakdown of the sixteenth century. It is not my place in this short essay to discuss how these things came to be: rather, I wish to affirm that these were great *spiritual* changes—they affected most profoundly the *minds* of men—and it is in the minds of men that reality is most living. I wish people more strongly appreciated the place of the *mind* in human history: the importance of *ideas*.

We may use the word *doctrine* if we prefer it to *ideas*. If we particularly dislike a set of ideas, we call it an *ideology*.

I wish more people appreciated the power of ideas. Ideas are far more powerful than dynamite, and ten thousand times as dangerous. All ideas are not equal; nor, it seems to me, is a man free to hold any ideas he pleases. Some ideas are good; other ideas are evil. If one idea is good, its contradictory is evil. Are we free to hold beliefs which are evil? If we hold the strange doctrine of complete freedom of thought, we must conclude that we are. But while many people will praise intellectual freedom—without making it clear what it is that they wish to be free *from*—few take their notion of mental freedom quite that far—as yet.

Now I do not think that when a person uses the phrase "ignorance of history," we should automatically accuse him of "mere name-calling." *Mere* is a very strong word in any case. For it may be that he is not in the act of addressing a meaningless contumely at his adversary. He may in fact be making the criticism that his opponent is ignorant of History—or, at any rate, of *some* history—or of that history which relates to the subject in question, and which either his opponent ought to know or the knowledge of which would enlighten his opponent. He may be right or wrong in supposing that this knowledge—real or imaginary knowledge—will enlighten his opponent-in-argument; but to accuse him of "mere name-calling" appears to me to be unjust and inaccurate.

It is a great error in historiography—I understand that Gibbon is notorious for this—to neglect the spiritual state of men. It derives, I suppose, from a materialist outlook on the world: the idea that those things only are real which can be seen, heard, felt, smelt, and tasted. That matter alone is, and—logically—that mind, soul, spirit, therefore are not. In our day hardly anybody will deny the existence of the mind, though they may deny the soul because they do not know what a soul is. This brings to my mind the epigram of Belloc's:

ON PUGLEY: A DON

Pugley denies the soul? Why, so do I

The soul, of Pugley, heartily deny.

There are many, I imagine, who believe in spirits of one kind or another. But we are not wholly freed from the materialist outlook: indeed in some quarters it seems to be gaining—in works on popular science, for example, which are often written from an atheist materialist perspective. In such works, and sometimes in documentaries on television, it is *presumed* that the reader or viewer, being a Cultivated Fellow, is an atheist materialist—or he is addressed as such. It is as if it has been demonstrably proved that Nothing can turn itself into Something (O miracle of miracles!) [1], and that what is not material does not exist. The non-material will escape the observation of the scientist—*whose business it is to examine material objects closely*—for it is not the business of physical science to observe immaterial things! It is the business of physical science to observe *material* things—and the observation and measurement of material things and their properties requires no especial talent. [2] And in the close observation of matter, it is natural that *if* one simultaneously neglects to observe that which is spiritual (i.e. not material), then one will magnify the importance of matter and proportionately diminish that of spirit. It does not logically follow from the fact of one's failure to see something that that thing is not there.

Now this *need* not be the case. There is no intrinsic reason why practitioners of physical science should be spiritually blind; and not all scientists are. I fear that the less intelligent of my readers will interpret this part of my essay as an attack upon science. It is not that at all. It is an observation of an historical trend upon the part of some persons. If the spiritual state of the scientist is healthy—that is, if he does not neglect the spiritual life—his scientific work will be healthy and beneficial. But when his scientific work, his material life, becomes a substitute for his spiritual life, then will the former become disordered and out of touch with reality.

By and large, the scientific work [3] undertaken in the high intellectual life of the Middle Ages was undertaken in such an environment. And later, Herschel (who discovered that Uranus was a planet and not a star); that great Catholic scientist Galileo (whose condemnation did not derive from "the Catholic Church" and which was not for "holding heretical beliefs," as I was once misinformed in a University lecture); Mendel (the Augustinian monk); Pasteur (a convert); the great Jesuit Father Athanasius Kircher; the Catholic priest Fr McEnery (1796-1841), the founder of modern Anthropology—whose discoveries at Torbay were suppressed by those scientists (not churchmen) who opposed him, and suppressed so successfully that almost nobody has heard of him, and he does not even have a Wikipedia article—; and a myriad of further names I might add, are sufficient to demonstrate that there is no intrinsic contradiction between Science and Faith. There may be a conflict between Science and Victorian English Protestantism (as witness the silencing of Dr McEnery); and perhaps this is part of the difficulty with those who think that science has exploded theology: that they call Victorian English Protestantism by such silly names as "the foundations of Western religion."

So much for those who do not think, but merely repeat, like parrots, what others have told them.

When I say "history," I have in mind not only those events of importance which have happened in the past, but the human (and the deeper than human) motives which led to those events. I also have in mind the conception that there is a true and a false history. Our historical writing in English has, with certain exceptions, particularly before History became a scientific study, been warped by an anti-Catholic bias so strong that it has falsified history. A man may, conceivably and at least in theory, be biased against the Catholic Church and yet write true history—but when his bias leads him so to distort events as to render his narration the narration of things very different from those which actually occurred (as witness the amazing distortion of the business of Alaric), then he is not writing true history. If anybody doubts that our official historians of once upon a time falsified history, let him undertake the following steps. Let him read the official historians, and let him read the original documents. Then I shall be prepared to listen to him; and if he can prove himself to be right, I shall accept his argument. Since, however, there is a great cleft between the original documents and our traditionally accepted historians, he will not succeed. Fortunately this school of history can no longer be taken seriously. It has been debunked. But it held sway for so long that its residual scum is still with us.

For there are many ways of keeping people ignorant of history. One is this method of teaching them false history. Another is teaching them parts of history, and ignoring vast important tracts, as is done at the present time in the schools of this country. Another is by a false sense of proportion: setting such importance on one unimportant element, and skimming over something else which is of very great importance. All these are but a few of the many various methods of telling a lie.

In order to extricate myself from the rut of my own ignorance I am endeavouring, as I said at the beginning, to educate myself in the subject of History—a subject which seems to me to be of much more importance than I had realized (though I knew it was important), if we are to understand the downfall we witness around us. I repeat, I do not mean by History all that has happened: I mean that which has made us what we are. For if we do not know how and why we have come to be what we are, then surely we cannot understand ourselves, at least not fully; neither can we understand whither we are led. Do you not agree?

(18th August, 2010.)

[1] The only alternative would be that the universe is uncreated and exists in eternity—yet the doctrine of the eternity of the universe is never asserted at the present day. This would make the universe into the Supreme Being, for nothing would then be greater than the universe.

[2] Nor does the attempt to draw conclusions from them (which may be right or wrong) require any intellectual or creative ability beyond that of any normal man - though the inference of correct conclusions may in some circumstances be the outward expression of a genius lurking behind.

Also, a man does not become more or less intelligent, or right in his judgement of morality, of theology, of the metaphysic, etc., by virtue of being "a famous scientist." There is no correlation between fame and intelligence, nor between fame and scientific ability. But my point is the materialist consequence to the soul of the isolation of what is (or used to be) called the Scientific Method.

[3] Which may be read of in the somewhat unequal book *God's Philosophers* by James Hannam (Icon Books, 2009).

2010-08-17T06:23:00.000-07:00

I have finished "The Glories of Mary." I am currently studying "How the Reformation Happened:" I am trying to transfer all the history in the book into my memory, so that I actually *know* it and don't need to look everything up and feel that I do not have a sure knowledge of the matter.
I am rather tired; I went to bed late last night.