Different Gospels

In Matins for today, January 22, we begin a sampling of readings from St. Paul's letter to the Galatians. Readers are undoubtedly familiar with the often surprising way in which Sacred Scripture presents messages relevant to the events and concerns of our time and our individual lives, and today's reading was a great example.  Here is an excerpt, emphasizing the verse that particularly caught my attention:

(Galatians 1:8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

(Emphasis added.)

In your correspondent's opinion (which I hope is humble), these verses ought right now to be a subject of deep reflection on the part of certain Bishops and Cardinals of the Church.  I mean those who are telling the faithful that "pastoral accompaniment" and "discernment" allow for practices involving the Sacrament of Reconciliation and the Holy Eucharist which are quite clearly contrary to the bimillenial praxis and teachings of the Church. For the most glaring example thus far, go here. Not incidentally, these practices are just as clearly contrary to the words of our Lord Jesus Christ himself--which, come to think of it, might just be why the Church teaching has been what it has been for almost 2,000 years.  (Sarcasm off.)  One of several examples from the Gospels follows (emphasis added):

(Mark 10)

2 And the Pharisees coming to him, asked him: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 But he answering, saith to them: What did Moses command you?
4 They said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away.
5 Jesus answering, said to them: Because of the hardness of your heart, he wrote you that precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.
7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife.
8 And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
10 And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing.
11 And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Similar words can be found in Matthew 5, Matthew 19, and Luke 16; see also 1 Corinthians 7:10.

Now, your correspondent is just an ordinary layman, trying to live according to the Lord's Commandments and example, and probably not doing a great job of it.  So I don't presume to know what could be in the hearts and minds of prelates and shepherds of the Church who are creating what looks an awful lot like a de facto schism by telling other ordinary laypeople that what the Church has strictly prohibited for almost 2,000 years is suddenly now OK.  I'm no historian and certainly no theologian, but I'm also not an idiot, and I know a logical contradiction when I see one.  It cannot possibly be OK in one diocese but a serious sin in the next one for a person living in a second "marriage", without having had the first marriage declared invalid, to be admitted to confession and holy communion with no intent to cease marital relations with the second "spouse." Yet, that is exactly the situation we now see before us, in the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the one founded by Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth and the life.  One of the two cases is seriously wrong, and while I'm also not a betting man, I would put pretty much all I own on the 2,000 year old practice, which matches the words of Sacred Scripture, being the right one.  Again, I do not and cannot know what is in the hearts and minds of the bishops and cardinals who are promoting the other practice, but it seems to me, based on their words and actions, to be one designed to please men, not God.  Whereas, St. Paul wrote..."If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

Please pray and fast and offer sacrifices for the Pope and all the Bishops and all of our priests.  This is a matter affecting the eternal salvation of souls, starting with theirs. "And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required...". Luke 12:48b.

Laudator Jesus Christus!

Second Sunday of Lent: The Transfiguration of Christ

The Gospel reading in both Traditional and Novus Ordo Masses for the Second Sunday of Lent was the Transfiguration of the Lord, from Chapter 17 of the Gospel of St. Matthew (Traditional) or St. Luke (N.O., year C for 2016.)  Here is the passage from Luke, in the RSV-CE translation.  (I know the "official" translation for the United States is the RNAB, but I simply cannot bring myself to use it. Bad enough that I have to listen to it at Mass.  The late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, founder of First Things magazine, used to call the NAB translation "unfortunate."  He was, of course, being charitable.)

Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray.  And as he was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white. And behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Elijah,  who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem.  Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with sleep, and when they wakened they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him.  And as the men were parting from him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is well that we are here; let us make three booths, one for you and one for Moses and one for Eli'jah" -- not knowing what he said.  As he said this, a cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were afraid as they entered the cloud.  And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!"  And when the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silence and told no one in those days anything of what they had seen. Lk 9:28-36.

I have always found this account, essentially the same in all three of the Synoptic Gospels, to be both puzzling and slightly amusing in its depiction of Peter's reaction to the vision.  First, the puzzle: How did Peter (and, presumably, James and John also) know that the two men were who appeared with Jesus were Moses and Elijah (or Elias, in the TLM translation)?  Both had been dead for centuries, and we can be fairly certain they were not wearing name tags.  Was this knowledge simply placed in the Apostles' consciousness by Divine action?  That's the best option I can think of, since none of the Scriptural accounts tell us what happened.  Second, the humor: Peter's offer to build booths (or tents, or tabernacles, again depending on the translation) for Jesus, Moses and Elijah, resembles nothing so much as the babbling of an extraordinarily frightened man.  Luke even seems to make reference to this, noting that Peter spoke "not knowing what he said."  The common homiletic suggestion that Peter was trying to "preserve the moment" assumes, in my view, a most unrealistic degree of calm acceptance of the miracle on Peter's part.  Keep in mind that Peter was a manual laborer, accustomed to such tasks as repairing his fishing boat and sewing torn nets.  Confronted with the astounding vision of the transfigured Christ and his two unusual visitors, it seems natural that he would fall back on something he knew-in this case, suggesting the building of a temporary shelter, as a sort of defense mechanism against the power of the miraculous vision.  We see in this story and elsewhere in the Gospels plenty of evidence that Peter was, despite his clear position as the leader of the Apostles, just an ordinary man, a sinner like the rest of us, and here, his instinctive response totally missed the point of the whole event.  My reaction probably would have been even worse.  In any case, I tend to imagine Jesus doing a divine eye-roll at the apostle's tent-building suggestion, even though he must have known in advance that it would occur.  So much for the humor.

The homily I heard this week concentrated on the Father's command, (This is my Son...listen to him!), a sound and salutary point.  We were reminded, among other things, that the intended audience of the Father's voice was not only Peter, James and John, but all of us who live and have lived through the millennia since the time our Lord walked this Earth. We believe, after all, that Sacred Scripture is the living Word of God, through which the Triune God speaks to us every time we read or hear it, and it greatly behooves us to pay attention!

But as always with the Scriptures, there are layers of meaning here, and there is only so much that even the most effective preacher can say in ten minutes or so; thus, we are always called to enter more deeply into the Word than is possible during the short time allotted for the Liturgy of the Word and the homily.  In this instance, let's take a look at how St. Thomas Aquinas discussed the Transfiguration in his greatest work, the Summa Theologica.  Among many other points, the Angelic Doctor suggests that the Lord's glorified appearance was a foretaste of that which we all hope to attain, the resurrection of our own bodies in eternal glory and the "beatific vision" of Christ:

"Therefore it was fitting that He should show His disciples the glory of His clarity (which is to be transfigured), to which He will configure those who are His; according to Philippians 3:21: "(Who) will reform the body of our lowness configured [Douay: 'made like'] to the body of His glory." Hence Bede says on Mark 8:39: "By His loving foresight He allowed them to taste for a short time the contemplation of eternal joy, so that they might bear persecution bravely." Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III.45.1 (Emphasis added.)

In addition, St. Thomas draws an allegorical (or is it anagogical?) comparison with the Lord's Baptism, in showing how both events, which he calls the "first regeneration" and the "second regeneration", reveal the Holy Trinity:

"Just as in the Baptism, where the mystery of the first regeneration was proclaimed, the operation of the whole Trinity was made manifest, because the Son Incarnate was there, the Holy Ghost appeared under the form of a dove, and the Father made Himself known in the voice; so also in the transfiguration, which is the mystery of the second regeneration, the whole Trinity appears--the Father in the voice, the Son in the man, the Holy Ghost in the bright cloud; for just as in baptism He confers innocence, signified by the simplicity of the dove, so in the resurrection will He give His elect the clarity of glory and refreshment from all sorts of evil, which are signified by the bright cloud. Summa Theologica, III.45.4. (Emphasis added.)

Thus, as we enter the second full week of the discipline of Lent, aided by the exegesis of St. Thomas, the story of the Transfiguration gives us spiritual meat to replace whatever we sacrifice (including, of course, abstaining from meat at least on Friday, if not other days of our own choosing), by pointing our hearts to the purpose of our journey--to reach the eternal home where:

"[t]here shall no more be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and his servants shall worship him; they shall see his face, and his name shall be on their foreheads. And night shall be no more; they need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they shall reign for ever and ever." Rev. 22:3-5.

God's blessings to all, for a holy and rewarding second week of Lent.

Laudator Jesus Christus!

Christ Cleanses the Temple: Respect for God's House

Yesterday's Gospel reading at the Traditional Mass was the story of Jesus running the money changers and sellers of sacrificial animals out of the Jerusalem Temple, from Matthew 21:10-17:

At that time, when Jesus entered Jerusalem, all the city was thrown into commotion, saying, Who is this? But the crowds kept on saying, This is Jesus the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee. And Jesus entered the temple of God, and cast out all those who were selling and buying in the temple, and He overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold the doves. And He said to them, It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you have made it a den of thieves. And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them. But the chief priests and the Scribes, seeing the wonderful deeds that He did, and the children crying out in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David, were indignant, and said to Him, Do You hear what these are saying? And Jesus said to them, Yes; have you never read, ‘Out of the mouth of infants and sucklings You have perfected praise’? And leaving them, He went out of the city to Bethany and He stayed there.

The standard exegesis of this passage is the righteous anger of our Lord at the desecration of the Father's house, coupled with one of the many examples of the "chief priests and the Scribes" getting upset with him.  But an additional view is provided by the Readings from Matins for the same day, from a sermon by the Venerable Bede, Priest (emphasis added):

If, therefore, the Lord would not have to be sold in the temple, even such things as He willed should be offered therein, (On account, that is, of the greed or dishonesty which is often the stain of such transactions,) with what anger, suppose ye, would He visit such as He might find laughing or gossiping there, or yielding to any other sin? If the Lord suffer not to be carried on in His house such worldly business as may be freely done elsewhere, how much more shall such things as ought never to be done anywhere, draw down the anger of God if they be done in His own holy house?

 How much more, indeed!  It never before occurred to me, I am sorry to admit, that the way we behave at church should be measured by the criteria Jesus applied to the money-changers and merchants in the Temple, but now it seems obvious.  This should be a sobering thought for all the faithful, calling for an examination of conscience concerning all aspects of our actions before and after Mass, as well as how we dress for the occasion.  We are there for prayer, worship and, if properly disposed, receiving the Blessed Sacrament, not to attend a social club or be entertained.

Laudator Jesus Christus!
 

First Sunday of Lent: The Temptation of Christ

Traditionally, on this first Sunday of Lent, the Church hears and teaches about the temptation of Our Lord in the desert (or wilderness, depending on your Bible translation) by none other than Satan himself, the Father of Lies.  In the Traditional liturgy, the Gospel reading today is always from St. Matthew, as follows:

Matt. 4:1-11
At that time, Jesus was led into the desert by the Spirit, to be tempted by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, He was hungry. And the tempter came and said to Him, If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become loaves of bread. But He answered and said, It is written, ‘Not by bread alone does man live, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.’ Then the devil took Him into the holy city and set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘He has given His angels charge concerning You; and upon their hands they shall bear You up, lest You dash Your foot against a stone.’ Jesus said to him, It is written further, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’ Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them. And he said to Him, All these things will I give You, if You will fall down and worship me. Then Jesus said to him, Begone, Satan, for it is written, ‘The Lord your God shall you worship and Him only shall you serve.’ Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and ministered to Him.

(Copied from http://divinumofficium.com/cgi-bin/missa/missa.pl)

In the Novus Ordo, this liturgical year is "Year C", so the Gospel is from St. Luke, but it is essentially the same story, although the order of the second and third temptations is reversed.

What interests me the most about this Gospel is how it shows us that even Lucifer, who possesses the highly elevated intellect of an angel (albeit a fallen one), remains unsure whether Jesus is in fact the Son of God, God made Man.  Tradition teaches that it was God's revelation to his Angels of his intention to incarnate the Son as a man to redeem humanity which led Lucifer to revolt against God in the first place, taking a third of the angels to Hell along with him; these we now know as demons.  Yet even so, Lucifer felt the need to subject Jesus to these temptations in an effort to make sure of His identity as the Son.  I think he was finally convinced after his temptations failed to have any effect on our Lord.

Another interesting and very important point for all of us to keep in mind is the Devil's obvious knowledge of Scripture, which at that time consisted only of what we now call the Old Testament.  This reminds us to exercise the greatest of care in discernment whenever we are presented with arguments or contentions about our faith and the Church, even when cast in Scriptural terms or context.

One of the best commentaries I have seen on today's Gospel comes from the illustrious Jesuit scholar Fr. John A. Hardon, of happy memory, whose teaching hearkens back to the days when faithful Catholics could actually trust priests of the Society of Jesus to present solid catechesis and Scriptural exegesis, rather than the Modernist claptrap that dominates that once great order today.

I quote here from Fr. Hardon's commentary, (with added emphasis in bold font,) followed by a link to the website where I found it, and I encourage you to read the entire thing:

"In the third temptation, the devil does not start by saying that you are the Son of God. Rather he took the Savior to a very high mountain. On the high mountain from which a large view of the surrounding territory could be seen for miles up to the horizon. Commentators on the scriptures tell us that what the devil showed Christ was not only the land and the buildings surrounding a physical mountain in Palestine. It was a global view of all the kingdoms of the world and their majestic glory.
It was the devil’s last effort to tempt the Savior. But this time it was a temptation that only the devil, as the prince of this world, could offer. He told Jesus, “All these things I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.”
What was the devil telling our Lord? He was telling Him that as the one who is lord and master of the earthly pleasures that the kings of this world over the subjects, he would give everything to Christ on one condition. All Christ would have to do is fall on His knees and worship the evil spirit.
The history of the human race is a history of a conflict between two powers, the power of the devil over the worldly possessions of our planet, and the power of God over the humble souls who are willing to sacrifice everything in this world rather than abandon their service of God.
This was enough. Christ’s reply has become one of the most known imperatives in the human language, “Begone, Satan!” The devil could just go so far, and no further. Christ told the demon, again quoting from the scriptures, that there are two kinds of adoration that human beings can practice: either adoring the evil spirit as the ruler of this world, or adoring the true God, who is the only One whom we may serve.
St. Augustine’s City of God is the masterpiece in Christian literature explaining through a score of chapters what is the only real warfare that had ever been fought in world history. It is a war between the City of God, whose Leader is Christ, the Son of God; and the City of Man, whose master is Lucifer.
We are so accustomed to thinking of idolatry as an ancient form of paganism that no longer exists. The exact contrary is the truth. Idolatry in the modern world is widespread. It is nothing less than the worship of Self, inspired by the father of lies who tells people it is their will which they are to follow; it is their choices they are to make; it is their world in which they are living, and not the fantasy that religious zealots picture as created and ruled by an infinite God.

Prayer

Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the universe, protect us from the wiles of the evil spirit, teach us to follow your example of humility in submitting our wills to the will of your divine Son. He conquered the evil spirit and gave us the grace to follow His example. Amen.

 For the full text of Fr. Hardon's commentary go here:

 Laudator Jesus Christus!

Ash Wednesday, Lent and Sacrifice

And so it begins, the annual period of penance and preparation for the great festival of the Lord's Paschal Mystery.  I hope everyone made it to Mass today, and that you were able to fight your way through the crowds of occasional Catholics who tend to help fill the churches on Ash Wednesday--and I would guess probably a fair number of non-Catholics, as well.  Indeed, the observance of Lent for many people has descended to the secular level, having been robbed of all or nearly all religious significance. 

I have a personal theory about this, and it has to do with the message of today's Gospel reading, which is essentially the same in both the Novus Ordo and Traditional Latin Mass.  You all know the drift:  Our Lord instructs the faithful during the Sermon on the Mount on the things to avoid in the "Lenten triad" of prayer, fasting and almsgiving, in addition to giving us the Our Father. Essentially, Jesus admonishes us against showing off:  don't stand around praying on street corners, don't heap up empty words in prayer like the pagans, and when giving alms don't let the left hand know what the right is doing. 

Yet hundreds of people descend on every parish on Ash Wednesday who rarely if ever darken the door any other day, perhaps with the exception of Christmas and Easter.  Why?  Forgive me if I suggest that for most of these, their purpose probably is not to reconcile with our Lord and his Church through a faithful pursuit of the Lenten discipline of prayer, fasting and almsgiving, going to confession and attending Mass every week and possibly even some weekdays.

A goodly number of them are there for one thing, and one thing only: to get those ashes applied to their foreheads.  In my experience, after the imposition of ashes a significant number of people head for the exits, not even sticking around for the real purpose of the Mass.  Even those who stay, if they are occasional Mass-goers, probably are only there for the ashes.

Do any of these people comprehend and internalize the meaning of the ashes, as a symbol of dying to self and seeking to rise in new life with Christ through repentance and conversion of heart, or understand what Lent is supposed to be all about? I think not; if they did, they wouldn't be occasional Catholics in the first place.  It's all about the badge, a show-off sign for their friends and family and the public.  "Look at me, I'm holy." They will flaunt their badges, brag to their friends about how they are giving up chocolate or coffee or something equally trite, and disappear from church for the next six and a half weeks.  In other words, exactly what Christ warned against in the Gospel today.   I pray that at least some of these people might respond to the grace they received by attending Holy Mass and truly enter into the season of Lent with the purpose for which the Church gives it to us.

And speaking of that purpose...I just criticized as "trite" the giving up of chocolate or coffee, which seem to be widespread choices for Lenten "discipline", if my anecdotal experience over many years in the workplace, combined with references seen in the popular media, is any indication.  This sort of choice reflects two things, in my view: First, the aforementioned general secularization of the season, and second, the loss of the meaning of the Lenten discipline even among many nominally practicing Catholics.  In a secularized environment, where for most people Lent has become nothing more than a short-term variant of a New Year's resolution, giving up something relatively insignificant is an easy way to be cool and do a little showing off, just like getting the ashes on the forehead.  For those 25% or so of self-identified Catholics who actually go to Mass at least weekly, however, a more elevated understanding of the nature and purpose of Lenten sacrifice should be the rule, rather than the exception.  Sadly this seems not to be the case.

As an RCIA catechist I have had a number of chances to discuss this issue with inquirers, candidates and Catechumens over the past nine years, and I have been unpleasantly surprised at the usual reaction to my standard opening statement: "Lent is not about giving up chocolate!"  Wide-eyed shock is the prevailing response.  Even after an explanation of the need for genuine personal sacrifice, made with a disposition of sincere contrition and desire to grow closer to God, too many still appear not to comprehend.  The cause might be aided by a little more attention to the subject of sacrifice from the pulpit, not only during Lent, but all during the year, although you can probably guess how often that happens.  It seems that the Modernist reduction of the essence of the Mass itself into nothing more than a communal meal of self-celebration has had a similarly negative impact on the observance of Lent.  Fasting and abstinence were already reduced to a minimum by Paul VI in 1966, with only two required fasting days and abstinence from meat only on Lenten Fridays, rather than both Fridays and Saturdays, so the subsequent deterioration of Lenten piety in general is perhaps no surprise.  It behooves each of us to do our part to reverse this scandal, for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls, starting with ourselves and our families.

Laudator Jesus Christus!

Crazy College Kids, the Pope in Africa, the African Church and...Catholic Revival in France?!

Insanity In The University
 
"...a bawling nursery of expensively diapered howling half-wits."

I love a finely-turned phrase, especially when it expresses the equivalent of hundreds of words in one short, rapier-like thrust to the heart of a matter.  So I invite you to read the piece in which it appeared, a marvelous essay by Kevin Williamson on National Review Online that deals with yet another of the suddenly fashionable instances of adolescent preening (a/k/a "student protest") that pepper the news these days, this one at Princeton University.  It seems that a group of Princeton students have determined that it is no longer politically correct for the University's School of Public and International Affairs to be named after Woodrow Wilson, and have been making their displeasure known in various noisy ways.  Williamson's work is a political essay, and doesn't even mention the Church, so it may be a bit out of place here, but I couldn't resist giving it a plug.  That said, there are certain parallels between Wilson's brand of "progressivism" and the Modernist faction within the Church, which has become quite bold under the current pontificate.  The basic approach of both secular and Catholic "progressives" is the presumption that anything old is bad and needs to be changed, especially if it involves the application of standards and principles to human thought and activity of any kind.  To see the Williamson piece go here.

The Pope Visits Africa

Please pray for the safety of Pope Francis and his entourage during the visit to Africa this week.  Unfortunately there are some dangers involved in the areas to which he is traveling, from domestic political unrest in some areas to the risks of attack from various Islamic jihadist terror groups such as Boko Haram.  Short of destroying the Vatican itself, which is a publicly professed goal of ISIS, the jihadis would like nothing better than to bump off the Vicar of Christ.  Regardless of what one may think about how Francis is performing his vocation, (and I have some issues with it myself, as you may know), his personal safety should be of great concern to all of us.  To physically attack the pope is to physically attack the Church, which means us!  God's will be done, but I don't think we need any more martyrs right now, least of all the Holy Father himself.  ISIS and the rest of the Islamic jihadist whackos out there are making plenty of them already.

And speaking of Africa...

The State of the Church in Africa

If you've been paying attention, you probably know that the Church in Africa is strongly orthodox and growing at an amazing pace.  Some of the strongest defenders of true Catholic teachings at the recent Synod on the Family were Africans, most especially Cardinal Robert Sarah, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.  There are so many priestly vocations there that men are being sent out from African dioceses to help alleviate the needs of other areas where vocations have been suffering in the post-Vatican II Church, especially Europe and North America.  My own parish has been blessed with two excellent and holy priests from Nigeria serving as Parochial Vicars in the six years we have lived in our current home, for which we are most thankful.  I believe it would be a marvelous thing for the Church as a whole if the next pope were to be from Africa.  The African Church is a tremendous source of hope for the future of the faith.

And, Would You Believe...France?

I happened to hear part of an interview today by EWTN's Teresa Tomeo with Dr. Samuel Gregg of the Acton Institute, in which Dr. Gregg discussed a growing movement of orthodox Catholicism in France, one of the most secularized nations in Europe, once known as the "Eldest Daughter of the Church."  To hear Dr. Gregg tell it, there is much good going on there, led by lay Catholics and a generation of young priests, plus a few solid bishops.  The discussion led me to peruse Dr. Gregg's recent online essay on the subject at the Catholic World Report web site.  You should not miss it.

That's all for now.  Have a happy and blessed Thanksgiving feast!  Also, please don't forget to go to Mass and to do something for the homeless and the needy, who don't have much to look forward to on a day like Thanksgiving.

Laudator Jesus Christus!

The Coming Tribulation? Or Just Another Day in the Life of the Church?

“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”

Francis Cardinal George, former Archbishop of Chicago (d. 2015)


I have been silent in this space for a little over three months now.  So much has been going on in the Church, with first the Pope's trip to Cuba and the USA, the World Meeting of Families, and then the Synod on the Family, that I've spent all my "blog time" reading my favorite commentators (and commenting quite a bit myself on other blogs) leaving little or no time and inclination to write for my own.  Despite the wide and deep well of subject matter, it always seemed that I didn't have much to say that wasn't already being said by others. 

So after three months, if I am going to be serious about this endeavor, it's time to get back to work.  Here we go.

With all the noise generated by the Pope's trip (which I found rather disappointing, but maybe that will be grist for another post at some point) and the Synod on the Family (which was confusing, at best, but isn't really over until we get some kind of papal document, so we wait for that), I continue to be intrigued by one thread that seems to be running through many of the blog posts and comments I've been seeing: the idea that the Church is facing a crisis unlike any other in its history, and that the resemblance of the present situation to apocalyptic prophecies in 20th Century private revelations, especially Our Lady's appearances at Fatima and Akita, is strong enough to warrant the most serious concern.  The End is near!  Fear, fire, foes! Awake! (Apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien.)

Well, OK then.  It does seem clear to many (most?) of an orthodox mindset that the Church is indeed in a state of crisis, and I have a hard time disagreeing with such an assessment. See my August 10 post, for example.  To run through another brief summary of the "bad stuff":  In recent times we have witnessed the violent slaughter of many thousands of Christians (mostly Catholics and Orthodox) in the very birthplace of the Faith, together with wanton destruction of their churches and holy treasures, by barbaric Jihadists bent on eradication of everything and everyone that is not Muslim; the near total collapse of European Christendom; a seeming rush of North and South America to follow suit via declining Mass attendance, millions of annual defections to "evangelical" or "none" status, the enshrinement in secular law of false marriages and the concomitant state and media persecution of Catholics and Catholic institutions who refuse to affirm them; and a papacy that praises material heretics (e.g. certain German Cardinals) while excoriating as "pharisees" those who stand for traditional doctrine and practice, and which sometimes seems more concerned with pleasing the international secular media than with the salvation of souls and the preservation of the deposit of faith.  To be fair, at other times we hear strikingly orthodox statements and exhortations of the type to which we have grown accustomed over the past several pontificates.  (Confused?  So am I.)

Even so, however, is it really as bad as some maintain?  Stated another way, whatever the magnitude of the crisis, is it in fact unprecedented?  Or is it just another day in the life of the Church that Our Lord promised would prevail to "the close of the age" (Cf. Mt 16:18, 28:20), despite being constantly under attack? (Cf. Mt 5:10-11; 10:16-23).

After all, the Arian heresy had most of the bishops in the world in its grasp at one point, and it took not one, but two ecumenical Councils (Nicea and Constantinople) to put it to rest.  (See here.)  In fact, legend has it that the Council of Nicea included the spectacle of Saint Nicholas (yes, that Saint Nicholas) punching out the heresiarch himself, in full view of the entire assembly.  Indeed, one could argue that at least a stepchild of Arianism survives to this day in certain quarters, where Modernists (see extensive discussion of Modernism here) insist upon a distinction between "the historical Jesus" and "the Christ of faith."  The former, these enlightened scholars solemnly inform us, was merely a man, albeit a wise man and great teacher, while the latter, the Son of God co-equal and consubstantial with the Father, is a mythical construct of a self-interested Church fearful of "reason and truth", which virtues the Modernist claims as exclusively his own. We beg to differ.

In any case, there were other serious heresies throughout the early Church, not to mention two major schisms, first the departure of the Eastern churches in the Eleventh Century A.D., followed by the Protestant revolt in the Sixteenth.  Finally, let's not forget how close Christendom came to being swallowed up by the Muslim hordes, not long after Luther and Calvin took their toys and went home.  The Battle of Lepanto, at which a massive Ottoman fleet bent on the sack of Vienna was defeated by a coalition put together by Pope St. Pius V, was a close-run thing, and many (including St. Pius V) believed the victory to have been secured only through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. (See here.)  Now, those were crises!  Can today's situation match up, and more importantly, are we really on the verge of the Last Days?

In my view, the most likely answer to both queries is "no."  Nevertheless, it is not hard to understand why people are fretting.  I find myself doing it too, more often than I care to admit.  See that August 10 post again, for example.

Of course, I wasn't there for any of the events just listed, so I don't know what it was like for the lay faithful in those times.  But it seems pretty certain that most of them, given the absence of any sort of rapid communication over long distances and the general illiteracy of the vast majority of the population, didn't even know anything was wrong.  Taking the Arian case for example, if your average layman was told by his bishop that Jesus was not really a God-man, but a mere creature given great power by God the Father, he probably just shrugged or nodded and kept praying, and going to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days.  Ignorance was bliss, one might say with some degree of assurance.

For better or worse, we no longer have this luxury.  In our day and age, when even the most trivial matters can gain world-wide attention via social media in a matter of minutes or hours, we have immediate access at any given moment to more information than, until very recently, even the most industrious seeker of knowledge could have acquired in a lifetime.  We know of many things occurring in the Church at large and in the Holy See in particular that were never before open to all the world as they are now.  Frequently, the result is information overload, and unless we are very careful we can find ourselves, in the classic idiom, unable to see the forest for the trees.  In a more recent idiom, we suffer from "TMI", or "too much information."  In this light, it seems prudent to keep in mind the following:

First, we have the aforementioned guarantee of Jesus himself that his Church will survive until his return, and we should take some comfort in the fact that the Church has survived for nearly two millennia despite all the challenges She has faced.  This is not something to be taken lightly.  No human institution has ever lasted more than a few hundred years, and most didn't make it that long.  Only a Divine institution could still be around after this much time.  God is in charge; let him take care of it!

Second, recall the vast time scale of the Church and of Salvation History.  Even if we go back to the very dawn of humanity, we are only talking about a few thousand years.  This is nothing in the sight of God.  Man has a natural tendency to view all things through his own extremely limited lens, where around eighty years is an average lifetime and even a single hour, if spent with, say, an extremely boring speaker, can seem interminable.  When we add up all the bad news available to us now, we conclude rather easily that things could not possibly ever have been worse, so the end must be near.  But in the "big picture", we exist in a blink of God's eye.  Father John Zuhlsdorf, a/k/a Father Z, a prolific and excellent blogger of traditional bent, recently exhorted his readers:

I am trying to take the longer view.  I remind myself that each pontificate is a parenthesis in the long history of the Church and of our Salvation.  This parenthesis will close one day and another will open.

Wise advice from a wise and holy priest.

Third, recall and heed the advice Jesus gave the Apostles just before his Ascension:

So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority.  But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth." Acts 1:6-8 (Emphasis supplied.)

It is not for us to know when the Last Days will come.  In the meantime, we share in the Great Commission given by the Lord here and in Mt 28:18-20.  See next point.

Fourth, there are only a few things we lay members of the Church Militant can do, and we ought to be doing all of them anyway.  We can share the Gospel of Christ with the world.  We can obey the Commandments.  We can pray, a lot.  We can fast.  We can perform the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.  We can (must!) continue going to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days.  We can attend weekday Mass.  We can go to Confession regularly.  Cardinal Burke has encouraged us to stay faithful!  The great Twentieth Century Saint Pio (Padre Pio) frequently advised everyone to "Pray, hope and don't worry."

If we do all these things, we can rest assured of Christ's promise: the Church will prevail over the gates of Hell, and those who persevere will be saved.  In the end, it doesn't really matter when the Great Tribulation and the Second Coming will occur.  What I do know is that my Day of Judgment is coming, and even assuming I survive to a ripe old age, it's coming a lot faster than I like to think about.  The same applies to every one of us, regardless of age.

I conclude with another Scriptural quote, one of my favorites:

"Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me.  In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?  And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.  And you know the way where I am going." Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?"  Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.  If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him." Jn 14:1-7.

Laudator Jesus Christus!

On Criticism of the Pope

One of my favorite Catholic blogs, Rorate Caeli, posted a very good article yesterday, reproducing a letter memorandum written back in 1976 by a prominent publisher and writer, Neil McCaffrey, and sent to a number of prominent Catholics including, among others, Dr. & Mrs. Dietrich von Hildebrand.  In light of some of my remarks about Pope Francis in my previous post ("These Are Disturbing Times"), I thought it appropriate to also comment on the McCaffrey memo and link to it here. 

The gist of Mr. McCaffrey's commentary was that constructive criticism of a pope is not only appropriate but necessary.  Unfortunately, at the time he wrote his memo and perhaps even more so today, many Catholic commentators seem to believe that any criticism whatsoever by Catholics of the Holy Father is verboten.  This involves, I believe, a serious misunderstanding of the relationship between the Vicar of Christ and the Catholic faithful, as we all serve the One King of the Universe, our Lord Jesus Christ, who requires that we speak the truth at all times, in all situations, subject only to the limitations of the sin of detraction.  When we believe in good faith that our Holy Father is in error in matters not subject to the dogma of papal infallibility, it is incumbent upon us to raise our criticisms, charitably but without dancing around the point.  A couple of examples:

“There being an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glosa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2,14), ‘St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if they should stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects’” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Turin/Rome: Marietti, 1948, II-II, q.33, a.4). (Source)

“Since [Christ] has given you authority and you have accepted it, you ought to be using the power and strength that is yours.  If you don’t intend to use it, it would be better and more to God’s honor and the good of your soul to resign….If I were in your place, I would be afraid of incurring divine judgment.”  -St. Catherine of Siena, in a letter to Pope Gregory XI. (Source)

Let there be no mistake, I love our Holy Father, in the Christian way--I desire only the greatest good for him, I pray for him every day, and I have absolute respect for him and for the office itself, the See of Peter, established by Christ until the end of the age.  (Mt. 16:18-19).  In light of the above, I believe that I stated my criticisms appropriately in my previous post.  But I am a fallen man, a sinner, so if you disagree, please let me know.  I avail myself of the Sacrament of Reconciliation frequently, and one more item added to the list next time around will not be a problem.  :)

Laudator Jesus Christus!

These Are Disturbing Times

The Catholic blogs I regularly read (see "Recommended" over to the right for my list), especially the more traditionally-oriented ones, have been taking on a decidedly dark and foreboding tone in the past couple of years, and the foreboding has deepened in recent months. I can't say I blame them, as recent events in this country and in Europe, Africa and the Middle East have not been particularly kind to followers of our Lord Jesus Christ.  I have been silent on this blog all summer long thus far, while viewing events with a sense of growing discomfort myself.  I finally decided the best way to step back, take a hard look at the present situation and organize my thoughts would be to write a post, so here it is.  It's long and somewhat rambling, so please forgive both defects. 

Chief among my concerns are the systematic slaughter by Islamic jihadists of Christians in Africa, Iraq, Syria, etc.; the desecration and destruction of holy sites throughout the lands where Christianity has existed since literally the time of Christ, also by Islamic jihadists; the social and legal attacks on Christians in Europe and Canada, often based on the application of the noxious idea of "hate crimes"  to statements defending traditional marriage; and the growing pattern of anti-Christian behavior right here in the good old U.S.A., from the Executive Branch and the Supreme Court right on down the line to local governments and both social and commercial media. 

In case you missed it, for example, the U.S. health care reform law has resulted in the Federal government (through an administrative agency, not directly by the Congress itself) dictating to Christian businesses and institutions that they must pay for contraceptive and abortifacient drugs for their employees regardless of their religious beliefs, on pain of fines so large they would mean the literal death of the business or institution in most cases. (The so-called accommodation given by the Obama Administration in the wake of many, many protests and legal actions does not really change anything; it merely makes the mandated payment indirect rather than direct. It still amounts to a violation of conscience for those who adhere to Christian doctrine that holds abortion and contraception are inherently and gravely sinful.) The Administration argues in both words and effect that the First Amendment only protects freedom of worship, not the fully free exercise  of religion promised by the text. (Note to the White House and HHS: they had "freedom of worship" in the old Soviet Union. Is that your model?)  Not incidentally, the same law, which its supporters assured us would not result in more taxpayer funding of abortions, has in fact increased such funding significantly.  To the extent existing law purports to prohibit Federal funding of abortion, the current Administration simply ignores it.  So much for the system of Constitutional checks and balances, eh? 

In addition, a pattern of vicious public condemnation of anyone who dares to speak out or act against the agenda of the increasingly powerful and well-funded homosexual lobby in the U.S. has been underway for some time--just ask Brendan Eich and the owners of "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" how their First Amendment rights are doing.  Talk about the tail wagging the dog...all of this fuss is over a tiny minority of no more than two or three percent of the population, by any credible measure, yet the rest of us are told we must bow down and affirm them in their way of life, regardless of our deeply held religious beliefs.  And make no mistake, the situation for faithful Christians will only become more serious and widespread in the wake of the unbelievably arrogant and legally fatuous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges.  There, a 5-4 Court majority led by putative Catholic Anthony Kennedy discovered a heretofore unimagined right in the Constitution for same-sex couples to be "married" nationwide.  In stark contrast to Justice Kennedy's bizarre New Age reasoning, faithful Christians and Jews know that marriage is a sacrament instituted by God between one man and one woman, and no human person or institution has the slightest power to change that, period.  If the Church in the United States were not so thoroughly infected with Modernism, Justice Kennedy would be at risk of formal excommunication.  Fat chance of that happening today, especially in the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., where the reaction to the decision by Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the reigning Ordinary, was "The law of the land is the law of the land."  No word on where the law of God might fit into the picture.  With all due respect, Your Eminence, you sound more like a politician than a Cardinal Archbishop of the Catholic Church.

To be clear, I don't doubt that two people of the same sex can really love each other, at least in the somewhat truncated manner in which this culture understands the nature of love.  We as Christians are called to love them as well, as brothers and sisters made in the image and likeness of God, and since true Christian love means willing the ultimate good of the other as other,  that means we must sincerely desire the other's eternal salvation.  But whatever a same-sex living relationship is, it can never be marriage as instituted by God because it is not naturally ordered to procreation.  As for their physical relationships, despite the attempts of homosexual apologists to find support for same-sex unions in Sacred Scripture, the truth is that homosexual acts are strongly condemned in both the Old and New Testaments, as are fornication and adultery--in short, any sexual activity outside the bounds of sacramental marriage constitutes serious sin.  And faithful Christians cannot affirm any such way of life, for to do so is to be at serious risk of committing the grave sin of scandal. See Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2284-2285 (emphasis added):

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."⁸⁶ Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.⁸⁷

 86 Mt 18:6; cf. 1 Cor 8:10-13. 87 Cf. Mt 7:15

Let it not be forgotten in this regard that as Christians we all are obliged by nature to teach and educate others--it's called evangelization.  Jesus left no doubt that he expects his followers to evangelize, to bring his Gospel to the whole world, and the Church has always taught that three of the spiritual works of mercy required of all Christians are to instruct the ignorant, counsel the doubtful and admonish sinners.  Thus, we cannot evade the sin of scandal by claiming "it's not my job to say anything about this."

If memory serves, it was St. Augustine of Hippo who originally said “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”  The idea of same-sex marriage is simply and eternally wrong, and ultimately it will not stand, although the journey back to truth will be painful for all concerned.  In the meantime, the Obergefell ruling, this travesty of Constitutional law which has no rational connection to anything actually written or implied in the Constitution, will be the launching pad for serious persecutions in this country of anyone who stands for the truth about marriage and human sexuality.  Well, such is the lot of the true follower of Christ, for which our Lord offers this consolation in the Sermon on the Mount:

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5:10-12.

And as long as we're on the subject of perpetrating and affirming grave sin, how about Planned Parenthood?  (One excellent Catholic blogger refers to them as "Planned Barrenhood."  Zing!)  The series of undercover videos released in the past few weeks has been eye-opening, to say the least, and has generated predictable hyperventilation from the secular Left in the U.S. (excepting the Administration, who yawningly inform us they haven't watched the videos and have no plans to do so), along with, one hopes and prays, a fair amount of soul-searching among people of good will on all points of the secular political spectrum.  Putting aside the issues of secular legality, the words and actions shown in the videos speak for themselves, and the reality of the evil that is abortion is finally sinking in for a lot of people.  The souls of the tens of millions of aborted children cry out to Heaven, as the hearts of medical practitioners (!) who perpetrate not only the acts of abortion, but also engage in trafficking in the body parts of the aborted, are revealed as cold and hard as the stone of a tomb. We must pray for their conversion and repentance, of course, and engage in prayer and penance for ourselves and the world for allowing these evils to occur.  It must also be said that the reaction of the Catholic Bishops in the United States has been underwhelming, to say the least.  Many have spoken clearly and forcefully in condemnation of this egregious evil, but many others have issued weak-kneed statements that should embarrass any committed Christian, and this shameful list includes the Archbishops of Boston, Washington, D.C., and Chicago, to name just three.  On the other hand, one of the better statements, in my humble estimation, came from Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, who hasn't always been so clear recently on other matters of faith and morals, so bravo to him!  You can see his statement here.

All in all, I'd say that's plenty to be dark and foreboding about.  But it's by no means all that is worrisome today. We have another whole set of serious concerns within the hierarchy of the Church.

Standing at the top of this list is the highly public campaign being led by Cardinal Walter Kasper and some other Catholic prelates in Germany, France and Switzerland to change the practice of the Church with respect to Catholics who have undergone civil divorce and been remarried, without a declaration of invalidity of the previous marriage by the Church.  According to the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, these people are living in a state of open adultery, violating the Sixth Commandment every time they engage in the conjugal act, not to mention giving scandal every day of their lives simply by living together.  (Cf., Mt 5:31-32; Lk 16:18). This is every bit as inherently sinful as the same-sex relationships discussed above.  But Kasper, et al. are suggesting in all seriousness that there can be some "pastoral" way to permit such persons to receive the Holy Eucharist without true repentance, i.e., contrition and a firm purpose of amendment.

The Church has taught for as long as anyone can remember that it is necessary for civilly re-married couples whose prior marriages remain canonically valid to commit to living as brother and sister, and better yet, to separate completely from their adulterous union, before they can obtain valid absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and be properly disposed to receive Holy Communion.  And yet, under the guise of mercy, we are being told by Cardinals and Bishops that it should be possible for these Catholics, living in mortal sin, to be admitted to Communion without taking either of these steps. We are also assured by the same group that this would not really be a change in Church doctrine.  Not to put too fine a point on it, this contention is facially absurd.  Many other Cardinals and Bishops have responded by reminding all concerned of the words of our Lord in the Gospels, of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians, and the millennia-old Church practice, based on Sacred Tradition as well as Sacred Scripture, concerning reception of the Eucharist.

But the outcome of this issue in the upcoming Synod remains in doubt at this writing, primarily because the Holy Father has mostly remained silent through all the public campaigning of the Kasperite group and the responses by the more orthodox prelates. And the logical mind must conclude that if this Synod indeed endorses a practice of permitting reception of the Eucharist by civilly remarried persons in a non-repentant state of grave sin, the extension of the practice to persons actively and unrepentantly practicing homosexual acts will follow in short order.  Could this happen? Yes. Christ's promise that the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church does not preclude the human beings who occupy positions of ecclesial authority from becoming heretics or apostates; this has happened before and can happen again.  The Synod will not be an "ex cathedra" proclamation of dogma, so the charism of papal infallibility will not be in play.  Nevertheless, the results of such a Synodal declaration would be devastating, and would lead many souls to perdition.  Scandal, anyone?  Perpetrated by Cardinals and Bishops, and possibly even with the support of the Pope himself?  I pray daily that this will not be permitted, but only God knows.

If one were of an apocalyptic frame of mind, one might view this simmering dispute as a very ominous sign, indeed.  In one of a series of apparitions in Japan in 1973, (and approved by the local Bishop as worthy of belief, although not yet definitively approved by the Holy See), Our Lady of Akita gave the following message on October 13 of that year (emphasis added):

"As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never [have] seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests."

"The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres...churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord."

Given that this was a private revelation, all are free to make of it whatever they will.  But I wouldn't call it very comforting, and it sure does appear timely.  On the other hand, it's only been 42 years since this message, which is a mere eyeblink in God's eternity, so maybe we still have some time to make things right.  For "the rest of the story" as related by EWTN, go here.

And this brings us to Pope Francis himself.  In Francis we have a Pope who says and does many uplifting, inspirational things, most prominently in leading by example in the application of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the poor, the marginalized, the downtrodden...all the people Jesus made it his business, and ours, to love and care for as we love ourselves.  His installation of rest rooms and showers for the homeless in the immediate vicinity of St. Peter's Square is a good example, although it has not thrilled some of the business owners in the area.  Francis also is one who takes pains to show personal humility, and to speak directly to people, even if it means going "over the heads" of his advisors and schedulers.  He professes to be a "Son of the Church" and says the "right" things about matters of faith and morals with some regularity in his prepared homilies and remarks.  These traits have made him quite popular among Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and a darling of the mass media, (the latter, so far at least.)

Yet at the same time, when a Pope is a media darling, is that really a good thing?  We are called to be in this world, but not of it, and pleasing the mass media in this day and age is by definition a very worldly pursuit.  As a relatively recent convert (2005) who believes that the authority of the Pope is one of the most important characteristics of the Church, which stands on Sacred Scripture as strong evidence that it is the one Church established by Jesus Christ (See Mt 16:13-19), I am reluctant to be critical of the occupant of the Chair of Peter.  But in Francis we have a Pope who has managed to confuse, insult and denigrate a large portion of his own flock with a long and continuing series of statements and actions that seem always to need explaining and clarification; who said early in his pontificate that we spend too much time "obsessing" about topics such as abortion and contraception, two of the gravest evils afflicting our culture, and who characterized attempts to convert non-Catholics to the one true Faith as "solemn nonsense"; who has taken actions against orthodox Cardinals and Bishops that are difficult not to perceive as exile or demotion; and who at the same time has appointed men to important positions in the Vatican and in dioceses and archdioceses around the world who seem to go out of their way to show disdain for orthodoxy and tradition (as well as orthodox clergy and lay faithful) in favor of a modernistic, almost secular approach to Church teaching. This is not to mention the inexplicable appointment to an influential Vatican post of an openly dissident priest who blasphemously calls the act of sodomy "Eucharistic", and his selection of a notorious atheist German politician, who has suggested that six billion people need to die to save the Earth, as one of the spokesmen for the release of the encyclical Laudato Si.

Ah, yes, Laudato Si.  Most puzzling of all, to me at least, in this, his first encyclical not partially inherited from his predecessor, the Holy Father jumped headlong into a secular political controversy, lecturing the world about "climate change" and environmentalism in a manner bordering on pantheism, while thousands of babies are murdered in the womb daily, Christians are being martyred and churches demolished in the Middle East and Africa, and Mass attendance in Europe, once the cultural heart of the Church, is in single-digit percentages and continues to fall, with Church buildings being converted into mosques at an alarming rate. Also worthy of note is the extreme paucity of references in the encyclical to Christ, or to sin and salvation, and what few clearly Catholic statements it contains are all but lost amidst thousands of words that could have been taken directly from a screed by those faithful Christians over at Greenpeace. (/sarc) As the redoubtable traditionalist Catholic writer Christopher Ferrara so eloquently put it:

"One must ask how it is possible to take seriously a call to respect God’s creation in an encyclical that mourns the loss of plants and animals as an offense against God we have no right to commit, but then, many pages later, weakly criticizes the mass murder of unborn children because it “compromises the very meaning of our struggle for the sake of the environment,” is inconsistent with “concern for other vulnerable beings,” and “everything is connected.”

Perhaps it would be enough to say that any encyclical in which a papal condemnation of excessive air-conditioning appears 62 paragraphs before the first muted mention of the legalized murder of “human embryos” is a mockery of the papal Magisterium. But the overall thematic way in which this “pro-embryo” encyclical treats the infinite value of even a single human life in comparison with plants and animals shocks the sensus catholicus. The abortion holocaust rages on while Francis eulogizes lost fish, mammals and flowers our children will never see, never mentioning the murdered children our children will never see. This is ridiculous."

For the full text of the article, which I recommend most highly, go here.

And the hits just keep on coming... within the past few months, there have been two more extremely confusing and disturbing events centering on the Holy Father.  First was his acceptance during the Apostolic visit to South America of a shockingly blasphemous crucifix in the shape of the "hammer and sickle" emblem of international Communism, the atheistic creed that has resulted in the deaths of scores of millions of people in the last century.  It is difficult to imagine a more anti-Christian belief system than Communism, whose leaders repeatedly expressed the intention to eradicate Christianity entirely.  Yet Francis not only smilingly accepted this "gift", but took it with him back to Rome, when it should have been tossed in the nearest dumpster.  At least it probably won't be displayed in the Papal apartments, where Francis ostentatiously declines to live.

Then there was the Pope's statement, in a homily given during the same South American visit, attributing the Gospel miracle of the loaves and fishes to people "sharing what was their own", a piece of modernistic historical-critical exegesis that flies in the face of the clear words of the Scriptural text.  This view also, it must be said, works to undercut the deeper meaning of the miracle as a type of the Eucharist, the reality of which is so clearly taught in St. John's Gospel later in the same chapter containing St. John's narrative of the miracle itself.  (John 6:35-69.) Let's also not forget that the miracle of the loaves and fishes is the only one of Christ's miracles which is related in all four Gospels.  Yes, it's that important...but apparently Christ's Vicar on Earth doesn't believe it really happened the way Scripture says it happened. 

In the wake of all of this, Catholics who honestly try to live out all aspects of the Faith handed down to us from Christ and his Apostles over nearly two thousand years, and who think it improper to entangle the Church in secular politics and worldly disputes over matters of prudential judgment, have begun to wonder if our Holy Father really believes the same things we believe.  Whether or not these misgivings are well-founded, they exist, and a lot more people have them than I think anyone realizes.

What, then, is the faithful Catholic in the pews to do? Persecution is rampant abroad and looms here at home, our culture glorifies mortal sin and viciously attacks those who demur, millions of souls have left the Church if not abandoning faith altogether, and the highest levels of the Church hierarchy act as if none of this matters as much as giving communion to adulterers and sodomites and taking action against climate change.**  

Clearly we must remain faithful to the teachings of the Church, which after all are the teachings of Jesus Christ.  We must pray much, fast and do other forms of penance, and give alms to those in need. We must not be afraid to stand up and speak up for our Lord, his Church, and the eternal truths of natural law and divine revelation.  We must speak in charity to our family and friends who hold beliefs or are living lives inconsistent with these truths, and pray and offer Masses for them and the whole world.  And we must prepare for martyrdom, whether it be the "soft" martyrdom of economic and social loss, or the martyrdom of blood now being suffered by our brethren abroad. 

It is probably a good idea to find a parish where the priests and deacons are not afraid to tell the people what we need to hear, rather than just what we want to hear, and shift your financial support there along with your worship and participation in parish ministries. I also recommend serious study of Sacred Scripture and the writings of the great saints, especially the Doctors of the Church, such as Augustine, Aquinas, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross and Therese of Liseux, to name just a few. Follow their guidance in developing your prayer life and daily practices. All but Therese are rather difficult reading, but the rewards will be great.
 
In the end, we know who wins, but we also know that "...the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few." Mt 7:14. On that same note, recall the admonition of St. Paul in the letter to the Romans: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” Rom 12:2. It's time to be devoting as much energy as we possibly can to discerning the will of God and finding that narrow gate, because regardless of when the End Times arrive, the day of individual judgment for each of us is nearer than we care to think about, and may even be hastened by the trials that lie ahead. And through it all, as we are reminded by that great saint of the 20th Century, Pio of Pietrelcina, "Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer."

So...go to Mass as often as possible. Pray the Rosary. Pray the Divine Office. Pray the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. Ask the saints to pray with you. Then pray in your own words, as well. Pray for the Church, for the Holy Father, for this Nation. Pray for all of our bishops and priests, our deacons and seminarians, our religious sisters and brothers, and those in formation or discernment. Pray for our secular leaders--the President, the Congress, administrators, judges, state governors and legislators, tax collectors, everyone! And one final quotation from St. Paul:

"Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain. For he says, "At the acceptable time I have listened to you, and helped you on the day of salvation." Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation."  2 Cor. 6:1-2.

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.

Laudator Jesus Christus!

**--As to climate change, by the way, contrary to the unquestioning acceptance by the Holy See of the full plate of alarmist rhetoric issuing from various governments, the U.N., and other non-governmental organizations, the science is by no means "settled"--science by definition is never "settled", and many reputable experts in the field of climatology and related disciplines do not accept the contentions either that carbon dioxide is a pollutant or that an increase of a few degrees or fractions of degrees in global temperatures, even if it were to occur, is principally caused by human activity.  Rather, such fluctuations as have been reliably measured, as opposed to being erroneously predicted by various "models", are more likely caused by natural climatic cycles.  For more information on this issue, which exceeds the scope of this post, go here.