"Let us be frank. Our opinions were not honestly come by..."

People are ignorant. This is a permanent part of the human condition (we have limited intellectual capacity, limited resources for developing those capacities, and limited will to do so). Thus, ignorance, just in itself, is not at all a moral defect. (In itself ignorance is purely intellectual, that is, in itself ignorance is not imputable to the will).

But people are not wholly ignorant (again, we do at least have limited intellectual capacity, limited resources for developing those capacities, and a limited will to do so). So ignorance, together with the concrete circumstances in which it arises, very often is connected to moral defect. (It very often does involve a defect of the will, i.e., evil choices.)

A priest-friend commented earlier this week to a small group of us that he simply couldn’t understand how so many people could go through life ignoring God, not praying, not seeking the truth, not seeking to know God’s will and plan for them. It utterly baffled him! His simply confessed bafflement made me smile and chuckle a bit, I’m not entirely sure why, but I suppose I felt a kind of delight because his bafflement, so frankly and simply expressed, is in fact so well justified: no matter how confused and ignorant people are (including, often, the seemingly most clever people), at bottom it is that simple and there’s nothing complicated about it: God is important and it’s very difficult to come up with any good excuses for failing to recognize that and do something about it.

“Let us be frank. Our opinions were not honestly come by. We simply found ourselves in contact with a certain current of ideas and plunged into it because it seemed modern and successful. At College, you know, we just started automatically writing the kind of essays that got good marks and saying the kind of things that won applause. When, in our whole lives, did we honestly face, in solitude, the one question on which all turned: whether after all the Supernatural might not in fact occur? When did we put up one moment's real resistance to the loss of our faith?”

(C.S. Lewis, “The Great Divorce”)

Environmentalism and intrinsic evil

What should we say about someone who, faced with the option of voting for a Nazi candidate, urges careful consideration of the pros and cons? “We should avoid violent anti-Semitism and such. But we also need to promote effective strategies for national stability and security through economic recovery. We face very difficult choices.” Hopefully we would not be impressed. Why? Because such a person fails to recognize that you cannot promote or cooperate with something that is intrinsically evil (violent anti-Semitism) in order to gain something that is good (economic recovery).

What should we say about someone who, faced with the option of voting for a Nazi candidate, urges careful consideration only of the pros? “The Nazis have an effective plan for restoring our ruined economy. It is very important that we get out and vote.” Such a person appears not to even care about the intrinsic evil being promoted by the Nazis. In this case, even more than in the first, anyone who has a well-formed conscience should be disgusted and angry in the face of such rhetoric.

The first case here is analogous to that of the CCCB’s shameful and useless “Election Guide” (http://www.cccb.ca/site/eng/).

The second is analogous to the agenda promoted by Development and Peace (https://www.devp.org/en).

The second also corresponds to the recent urging of our parish D&P rep to "get out and vote because we need change" (the clear implication for us being, for anyone with even the slightest mastery of logic: get rid of our incumbent pro-life Conservative candidate!). And the change that we need is what? The only issue she mentioned was what? Saving planet earth! To think that that is compatible with the gospel of Christ is gravely erroneous and surely betrays a malformed conscience.

Of course, I am aware of Pope Francis’s Laudato si, wherein he points out that the earth is our common home and that we must care for it and exercise responsible stewardship. These general points are true and indeed obvious, although it is not at all obvious, and certainly not within the authoritative competency of the pope as such, how best to go about actually exercising responsible stewardship (to insinuate otherwise is either grossly naïve or simply disingenuous). But to think that Laudato si constitutes an excuse for those who would completely ignore basic issues regarding intrinsically evil acts (abortion, contraception, euthanasia, violation of conscience, etc.), in order to promote highly debatable and tendentious prudential recommendations directed towards exercising responsible stewardship of the earth? Surely no one could seriously believe this!

It is not always possible or obligatory to do good (ponder well the words of St Paul: “created nature has been condemned to frustration”); but it is always possible and obligatory to refuse to do evil. In the words of Pope Saint John Paul II (Veritatis splendor, §52): “It is always possible that man, as the result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than to do evil.”* And for those who want to ignore this, who want to promote good by ignoring and cooperating with intrinsic evil, consider directly the gospel of Christ: “What sorrow awaits the world, because it tempts people to sin. Temptations are inevitable, but what sorrow awaits the person who does the tempting.” Or another translation: “Woe to the world, for the hurt done to consciences! It must needs be that such hurt should come, but woe to the man through whom it comes!” (Matthew 18, 7)

*[This idea is powerfully evoked by Dostoevski in The Brothers Karamazov:  “Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last [perhaps even saving Mother Earth!], but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature – that little child beating its breast with its fist, for instance – and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth.”]

So go ahead and consider Laudato si; or, if you like, consider this synod intervention of Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles: “I believe that the church must present a new evangelical catechesis on creation, as an essential element of the new evangelization. We must proclaim the beauty of God's plan of love for creation, for the human person, and for the human family. Our new evangelization must proclaim an integral human ecology that reveals the nature, vocation and theology of the human person as created by God.” Would such statements in any way suggest that we may now ignore and cooperate with intrinsic evil, in order to promote this ‘integral human ecology’? Of course not! That would be an absurd suggestion. Any Catholic with a well-formed conscience must clearly understand that an integral, indeed the most fundamental, part of any authentic ‘integral human ecology’ must be the recognition of the intrinsic dignity and inviolability of all innocent human life, from conception until natural death. To promote more recycling and energy-efficient practices at the expense of ignoring this fundamental imperative is unconscionable. It is utterly incompatible with both the natural law and with the gospel of Christ, the revelation handed down through the apostles, the deposit of faith.

Any Catholic who thinks to appeal to Pope Francis to justify some other view should ponder this: “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in order that, by his revelation, they might disclose new teachings, but so that, by His assistance, they might devoutly guard the revelation handed down from the apostles, the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth” (from the Decrees of the First Vatican Council). In the words of St Paul: “Friends, though it were we ourselves [the apostle Paul himself!], though it were an angel from heaven that should preach to you a gospel other than the gospel we preached to you, a curse upon him! I repeat now the warning we gave you before it happened, if anyone preaches to you what is contrary to the tradition you received, a curse upon him!” These are strong words, but the Church and the world urgently need clarity here: in promoting some project that we think is good, we are not permitted to promote, cooperate in, or ignore intrinsic evil.

"My kingdom is not of this world" - but vote! (or not)

"My kingdom is not of this world" - but vote! (Unless you are young and/or foolish and have no understanding of the important issues, have a poorly formed conscience, etc. - in that case, don't vote!) We have recently had a couple of spiels after mass from our parish D&P rep. I wrote the following as a response:


“My kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18)

“Created nature has been condemned to frustration.” (Romans 8)

“What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but to lose his very soul?” (Mark 8)

“To live the life of nature is to think the thoughts of nature; to live the life of the spirit is to think the thoughts of the spirit; and natural wisdom brings only death, whereas the wisdom of the spirit brings life and peace. That is because natural wisdom is at enmity with God, not submitting itself to his law; it is impossible that it should. Those who live the life of nature [e.g., of amoral environmentalism] cannot be acceptable to God; but you live the life of the spirit, not the life of nature; that is, if the Spirit of God dwells in you.” (Romans 8)

“I am astounded that you should be so quick to desert one who called you to the grace of Christ, and go over to another gospel; this can only mean, that certain people are causing disquiet among you, in their eagerness to pervert the gospel of Christ. Friends, though it were we ourselves [the apostle Paul himself!], though it were an angel from heaven that should preach to you a gospel other than the gospel we preached to you, a curse upon him! I repeat now the warning we gave you before it happened, if anyone preaches to you what is contrary to the tradition you received, a curse upon him! Do you think it is man’s favour, or God’s, that I am trying to win now? Shall I be told, now, that I am courting the good will of men? If, after all these years, I were still courting the favour of men, I should not be what I am, the slave of Christ.” (Galatians 1)

Our gospel, the Christian gospel, the gospel we have received from our Lord Jesus Christ and from his apostles, is not about saving mother earth. It is about saving souls! A curse upon those who are eager to pervert the gospel of Christ.

Here is a powerful prophetic voice from the poor, joyously evangelical Church in Guinea, a country that is 85% Islamic and currently at the centre of an ebola epidemic. Robert Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments:

I say frankly that in the previous Synod, on various issues one sensed the temptation to yield to the mentality of the secularized world and individualistic West. Recognizing the so-called “realities of life” as a locus theologicus means giving up hope in the transforming power of faith and the Gospel. The Gospel that once transformed cultures is now in danger of being transformed by them. Furthermore, some of the procedures used did not seem aimed at enriching discussion and communion as much as they did to promote a way of seeing typical of certain fringe groups of the wealthiest churches. [This obviously refers to people like German Cardinal Kasper, who wants to dismiss the voice of the Church in Africa, but also to organizations like Development and Peace.] This is contrary to a poor Church, a joyously evangelical and prophetic sign of contradiction to worldliness. Nor does one understand why some statements that are not shared by the qualified majority of the last Synod still ended up in the Relatio and then in the Lineamenta and the Instrumentum laboris when other pressing and very current issues (such as gender ideology) are instead ignored.

The first hope is therefore that, in our work, there be more freedom, transparency and objectivity. For this, it would be beneficial to publish the summaries of the interventions, to facilitate discussion and avoid any prejudice or discrimination in accepting the pronouncements of the synod Fathers.

Discernment of history and of spirits

A second hope: that the Synod honor its historic mission and not limit itself to speaking only about certain pastoral issues (such as the possible communion for divorced and remarried) but help the Holy Father to enunciate clearly certain truths and useful guidance on a global level. For there are new challenges with respect to the synod celebrated in 1980. A theological discernment enables us to see in our time two unexpected threats (almost like two “apocalyptic beasts”) located on opposite poles: on the one hand, the idolatry of Western freedom; on the other, Islamic fundamentalism: atheistic secularism versus religious fanaticism. To use a slogan, we find ourselves between “gender ideology and ISIS”. Islamic massacres and libertarian demands regularly contend for the front page of the newspapers. (Let us remember what happened last June 26!). From these two radicalizations arise the two major threats to the family: its subjectivist disintegration in the secularized West through quick and easy divorce, abortion, homosexual unions, euthanasia etc. (cf. Gender theory, the ‘Femen’, the LGBT lobby, IPPF …). On the other hand, the pseudo-family of ideologized Islam which legitimizes polygamy, female subservience, sexual slavery, child marriage etc. (cf. Al Qaeda, Isis, Boko Haram ...)

Several clues enable us to intuit the same demonic origin of these two movements. Unlike the Spirit of Truth that promotes communion in the distinction (perichoresis), these encourage confusion (homo-gamy) or subordination (poly-gamy). Furthermore, they demand a universal and totalitarian rule, are violently intolerant, destroyers of families, society and the Church, and are openly Christianophobic.

Who is Cardinal Sarah referring to here? Is he concerned about greenhouse gases, ‘carbon footprints,’ more recycling? No. Remember: Cardinal Sarah is from Guinea, a country that is 85% Islamic and currently at the centre of an ebola epidemic. He doesn’t care about currently fashionable bourgeois crusades like that. He has far more urgent concerns. This is a man who comes from a truly poor people, who sees and understands acute suffering. He is also a man of faith, a true Christian. We should pay attention to his concerns.

First of all, no doubt he understands that “The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in [non-Christian] religions.” [see Nostra aetate, Vatican II’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions”] But the African Cardinal is not interested in diluting the gospel of Christ, turning away from Christ towards native religions or new-age environmentalism, or in putting the two side by side as if there was some kind of parity between them.

On the political side of things, our D&P rep (like D&P in general) has urged the parishioners of OLMM to make a difference by listening to her urgent message about making a difference to 'save the planet' - and voting as if this should be our primary concern! It is well-known that Development and Peace – like the Church in general – has long been infested by certain bearers of a false gospel, committed to promoting world-wide acceptance of abortion, and population control through promotion of intrinsically evil (and environmentally harmful!) methods like the birth control pill. Obviously this is not the case for every person working for D&P, but this is a major systemic problem for that organization. Abuses have been so bad and so scandalous that in recent history a number of our usually very forebearing Canadian bishops have been moved to suspend promoting collection of funds for D&P!

Now what is the situation in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (our federal riding), politically? What are our choices? We have Pierre Lemieux, a father of five, a solidly pro-life Catholic family man, representing the Conservative Party. This is the guy that the D&P people (in particular our parish rep) pretty plainly imply we urgently need to oust, lest we “destroy our planet.” Obviously I’m not so sure we should believe the simplistic rhetoric we hear from D&P and the eco-alarmists – I’m pretty sure Mr. Lemieux does not want to destroy mother earth, leaving his five beloved children with no decent place to live. But what are the alternatives to Lemieux, the Conservative candidate? Not one of the other parties would allow a decent believing Christian man like Pierre Lemieux, who believes in and promotes the dignity of all innocent human life, anywhere near running for them. They are all, in the words of Cardinal Sarah, “violently intolerant, destroyers of families, society, and the Church, and are openly Christianophobic.” – Of course, they are also liars, because they sometimes like to pretend that their views are compatible with Christian and Catholic faith, when they plainly are not. They openly, intolerantly, and aggressively promote the killing of innocent babies as a human right! And they want to spread this gospel of death to every corner of the world.

As for the Election Guide put out by the Episcopal Commission for Justice and Peace of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, this document is useless and shameful. It presents all issues as being on par: it marks no distinction between the imperative to obey the fifth commandment and a completely morally neutral issue like “honouring international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” The document reads as if these two issues (and there are many such examples) are morally equivalent! This is absurd and shameful.

 

For those who are fixated on a quixotic mission of ‘saving the earth from destruction,’ and never mention the hundreds of thousands of innocent children that we rich westerners tear to pieces in their mothers' wombs, please read and ponder some Dostoyevski:

“Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature - that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance - and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."
"No, I wouldn't consent," said Alyosha softly."
"And can you admit the idea that men for whom you are building it would agree to accept their happiness on the foundation of the unexpiated blood of a little victim? And accepting it would remain happy for ever?"
"No, I can't admit it."

Fr Hunwicke on Archbishop Durocher and Fr Rosica

Fr. John Hunwicke is a rare and precious combination of courage, erudition, intelligence, and wit.  I wonder if Fr. Tom Rosica will be suing him? A recent post from Fr. Hunwicke's blog:

Oct 7, 2015

MORE BORING been there and done that

(1) Some daft Canadian Archbishop [Gatineau's Paul-Andre Durocher] wants women deacons. That is how, in Anglicanism, people were softened up for women priests.

(2) That poisonous fellow Rosica, whose duties seem to include telling the Synod Fathers what they should think, says that the admission of the remarried divorced to Communion should be decided regionally. As Anglicans, our technical term for this was Provincial Autonomy. It's a brilliant way of perverting the Faith ... you get some perversion started in one place and then you rely on a combination of bullying and creep to spread it. 

Can the Devil really think he can get away with these games in the Catholic Church when the evidence of what it all leads to is so obviously displayed to view in Anglicanism? But he seems to, and he has a history of success.

Truly we should pray for more priests of Fr. Hunwicke's calibre.

[I apologize to all of my faithful blog readers who anxiously await my post every month: I seem to have forgotten to post in July, August, and September.]