My Interview with Chris Ferrara

I recently had the opportunity to interview Chris Ferrara about his new book the The Church and the Libertarian, which is available from the Remnant.

It is a good interview, and a good way to gauge if you think you should get the book. Here is an excerpt:

TDR: Some Catholics have said, or will say: “Whoa, this is the same guy who wrote a book attacking the Pope and Vatican II [The Great Facade] and who wrote a book critical of the EWTN network. I don’t think I want to associate myself with any of that.” How would you respond to such criticisms? Why should people with such reservations read your book?

CF: The Great Façade actually defends the Pope and the Magisterium against a claim which, if accepted, would be disastrous for the integrity of the Faith, would undermine belief in the divine institution of the Church, and would lead people into the error of sedevacantism: the claim that the Faith in some way “changed” during and after the Second Vatican Council. As the title suggests, neither the Council nor any Pope has ever imposed upon the universal Church a single change in what Catholics must believe or do to be Catholics since 1962.

One of the many examples the book cites is the acknowledgment by John Paul II in his inaugural encyclical, Redemptor hominis (1979) that Catholics have the right to express the opinion that “ecumenical endeavours have brought negative results…Some even express the opinion that these efforts are harmful to the cause of the Gospel, are leading to a further rupture in the Church, are causing confusion of ideas in questions of faith and morals and are ending up with a specific indifferentism. It is perhaps a good thing that the spokesmen for these opinions should express their fears.” Now, the Pope added that in expressing these opinions “correct limits must be maintained,” but he does not deny the spokesmen for these opinions their right to question “ecumenism” which, unlike the social teaching, is not a doctrine of our Faith but a novel pastoral program that was unknown in the Church before Vatican II.

The main thesis of the book was resoundingly vindicated with Pope Benedict’s proclamation that the traditional Latin Mass—the attempted suppression of which is at the heart of the current crisis in the Church—was “never abrogated… and in principle was always permitted.” I am still waiting for someone to tell me what new doctrines Vatican II announced! And, if there are none, then the title The Great Façade should be self-explanatory.

As for my book on EWTN, I will repeat here what I noted on the St. Austin Review website. That book stresses on its very first pages that much of what EWTN broadcasts is quite good, and praises the courage and traditionalism of Mother Angelica before she lost control of the network (as seen in her famous opposition to Cardinal Mahony).
On the other hand, the book objects to certain gravely problematical and even scandalous aspects of EWTN’s content, many of which have been remedied since the book appeared. Some examples: (1) Christopher West’s take on the “theology of the body” which is now widely acknowledged as a problem in the Church and has led to his six-month “sabbatical”; (2) One of EWTN’s kooky celebrity hosts, whose show has carried parental warnings—on a Catholic network?–has since resigned in a sex scandal which he confessed on the air.
(3) An EWTN “expert” on sexuality, who had a series on EWTN, who maintains that the Big Bang was a divine orgasm (among other revolting propositions) and has published positively filthy discussions of his sex life as “advice” to other Catholics.
(4) EWTN’s aggressive promotion of the idea, advanced by the Association of Hebrew Catholics (AHC), that there should be a “Hebrew Catholic” branch of Catholicism, for Jewish converts only, because “For the last 1700 years the Church has been sociologically Gentile.” (Consider the implications of that opinion for the Church’s divine institution and indefectibility.)

And consider this: recently Mark Shea quite rightly, and quite courageously, condemned what he calls “The Disgrace of EWTN’s ‘The World Over’” for its defense of the Bush administration’s torture policy and its belittling of contrary Church teaching.

My basic objection to these and other aspects of EWTN’s content is this: We must beware of allowing ourselves to slip into a sliding scale orthodoxy not unlike that which has diluted the term “conservative” in politics today. The objective truth demonstrated in the EWTN book is that a great Pope like Saint Pius X would view with horror much of what passes for “conservative” in the human element of the Church today. We must be honest about this and not allow the Faith to be relativized in the manner of culture at large merely because much of what EWTN presents is indeed sound and even laudable.

None of this is to deny the good that EWTN has done, especially with its recent promotion of the traditional Latin Mass. But a mixed bag is still a mixed bag, and when some of the contents of the bag are questionable and even plainly contrary to sound orthodoxy and chastity–as the book has shown without any real contradiction from anyone—we have every right to question the bad elements just as publicly as they are presented. This is all the more true where, as where, what is presented is essentially the production of laymen and not the Magisterium.

Having said all that, people with reservations about my earlier work should recognize that The Church and the Libertarian defends the Social Teaching, which is something on which all Catholics not only can, but must, agree, as the last sainted Pope insisted.

You can read the rest on the Distributist Review.

Inspiration "for the sake of our salvation"

Dei Verbum 11. Few Conciliar documents give me more headaches than this one passage out of the Constitution on Divine Revelation. The passage states that the Bible "teaches, without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation."

As we know, this passage is universally misapplied by modern Scripture scholars to mean that only those things pertaining to salvation can be considered to be truly inspired. Nor is this interpretation made by liberal or modernist scholars either; otherwise orthodox Scripture scholars read the document the same way. Back when I was at Ave Maria, our professor of Sacred Scripture (who happened to be the Academic Dean and is still employed by AMU) had us read Dei Verbum and told us that only those parts of the Scriptures that pertained to faith and morals could be considered inspired, and therefore infallible. When I objected and stated that he was misinterpreting Dei Verbum 11, he looked at me blankly and said that he was "not aware of any other interpretation."

Reading any of the other pre-Vatican II Magisterial documents that treated on Scripture study would have put the passage in context; apparently this professor had never read them. When we read other documents, especially Providentissimus Deus of Leo XIII, we see that the correct way to interpret Dei Verbum's "for the sake of our salvation" passage is that the Bible is immune from error in everything it says, and everything it says God wanted there for the sake of our salvation.

Modern interpretation tends to favor a narrower scope for infallibility: that the Bible is immune from error in so far as it teaches about salvation, but can err when it treats of other topics. By the way, lest we think that this narrower interpretation of inspiration is not as widespread as I am making it out to be, we need only look to the 2008 Synod on the Word of God and their working document, "The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church." In this document, in which the Synod proposed to "rediscover Dei Verbum" (2), we see the following restatement of Dei Verbum 11 on the topic of inspiration:

...with regards to what might be inspired in the many parts of Sacred Scripture, inerrancy applies only to 'that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation' (15)

If Dei Verbum 11 is problematic, this passage is downright useless. With such qualifying statements as "might" and "only", we are left wondering if there is any way to tell what is inspired and what isn't. Clearly, the Synod was leaning more towards the liberal intepretation of Dei Verbum (thankfully this document never turned into an encyclical). This should serve as a sober reminder of how widespread this narrow view of inspiration is in the Church.

While I have already dealt elsewhere with the proper understanding of the "for the sake of our salvation" passage, it remains to be explained what the Council Fathers were thinking exactly when they chose this phrase, "for the sake of our salvation." To get an insight into this, we can turn to the memoirs of Augustine Cardinal Bea, primary author of Dei Verbum. Regarding the drafting of the document, he says:

An earlier schema (the third in succession) said that the sacred books teach 'truth without error'. The following schema, the fourth, inspired by words of St. Augustine, added the adjective 'saving', so that the text asserted that the Scriptures taught 'firmly, faithfully, wholly and without error the saving truth.' In the voting which followed one hundred and eighty-four council fathers asked for the adjective 'saving' to be removed, because they feared it might lead to misunderstandings, as if the inerrancy of Scripture referred only to matters of faith and morality, whereas there might be error in the treatment of other matters. The Holy Father, to a certain extent sharing this anxiety, decided to ask the Commission to consider whether it would not be better to omit the adjective, as it might lead to some misunderstanding. (Augustin Cardinal Bea, The Word of God and Mankind (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1967), 188.

Bea then proceeds to raise the question: "Does the inerrancy asserted in this document cover also the account of these historical events?", which he answers:

For my own part I think that this question must be answered affirmatively, that is, that these 'background' events also are described without error. In fact, we declare in general that there is no limit set to this inerrancy, and that it applies to all that the inspired writer, and therefore all that the Holy Spirit by his means, affirms.... This thought, which re-occurs in various forms in the recent documents of the Magisterium of the Church is here clearly understood in a sense which excludes the possibility of the Scriptures containing any statement contrary to the reality of the facts. In particular, these documents of the Magisterium require us to recognize that Scripture gives a true account of events, naturally not in the sense that it always offers a complete and scientifically studied account, but in the sense that what is asserted in Scripture - even if it does not offer a complete picture - never contradicts the reality of the fact. If therefore the Council had wished to introduce here a new conception, different from that presented in these recent documents of the supreme teaching authority, which reflects the beliefs of the early fathers, it would have had to state this clearly and explicitly. Let us now ask whether there may be any indications to suggest such a restricted interpretation of inerrancy. The answer is decidedly negative. There is not the slightest sign of any such indication. On the contrary everything points against a restrictive interpretation." (189-190).

From Cardinal Bea's commentary we can see that the use of the adjective "saving" was considered too ambiguous; unfortunately, the final phrase, "for the sake of our salvation" nostrae salutis causa) proved equally problematic. We see that the use of this concept of "saving truth" was disputed from the very beginning.

This idea, though open to misinterpretation, is certainly not unorthodox, however. I'm guessing the Council Fathers probably had in mind the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, who says in the very first article of the Summa:

It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation (STh, I. Q. 1 A. 1). 

This is what Dei Verbum was getting it - it is not the specifically the content of Scripture that it is referring to when it says "for the sake of our salvation," but the fact of Divine Revelation: because God willed to save us, He graciously and condescendingly chose to impart to us such truths as we could not have known without His revealing them to us. Of course, the content of Divine Revelation is salvific as well, but the context of the passage is referring not to Revelation's content but to Revelation as a mode of transmission.

Pope Pius XII echoes Aquinas in the first paragraphs of Humani Generis:

For though, absolutely speaking, human reason by its own natural force and light can arrive at a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, Who by His providence watches over and governs the world, and also of the natural law, which the Creator has written in our hearts, still there are not a few obstacles to prevent reason from making efficient and fruitful use of its natural ability. The truths that have to do with God and the relations between God and men, completely surpass the sensible order and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation in order to be put into practice and to influence practical life. Now the human intellect, in gaining the knowledge of such truths is hampered both by the activity of the senses and the imagination, and by evil passions arising from original sin. Hence men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful. It is for this reason that divine revelation must be considered morally necessary so that those religious and moral truths which are not of their nature beyond the reach of reason in the present condition of the human race, may be known by all mean readily with a firm certainty and with freedom from all error (Humani Generis, 2-3).

Once again, what is necessary for our salvation is the fact of Divine Revelation - because man is incapable of coming to the fullness of the truth with certainty by his own unaided reason, God has made a revelation of Himself to mankind, in the Scriptures but ultimately in the Person of Christ; the giving of this revelation was done "for the sake of our salvation."

The memoirs of Cardinal Bea, the teaching of Aquinas and the words of Pope Pius XII, coupled with the teachings of other popes on the issue of inspiration, should give us no doubt as to the true interpretation of Dei Verbum 11. Thus we can unhesitatingly affirm with Pope Leo XIII that:

It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred... For all the books which the Church receives as Sacred and Canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not True. This is the ancient and unchanging Faith of the Church... [T]hose who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error (Providentissimus Deus, 20).

Pope St. Pius X, pray for us!

In these times, when the meager attempts by Pope Benedict to make reforms are met with outright hostility in many places of the world, it is worth recalling the great Saint the Church celebrates today, the first Pope to be canonized since St. Pius V.

St. Pius X was from a small farm and a poor family, and yet by his holiness and God's design was made Pope. Realizing the depth of the modernist crisis from having been on the front lines as a parish priest, this Holy Pope had drafted, and promulgated the great encyclical Pascendi dealing with the errors and dangers of our times.

Of course the Popes warnings were ultimately set aside, and sure enough the modernists triumphed, getting into every sphere, even into Vatican congregations. The Liturgical movement, though it had some remarkable and notably good people in it, was actually started by modernists and supported by them, for they realized that while they could no longer after Pascendi put their doctrines in the open, they could put them into liturgical action.

Therefore it is good to recall some of the great Pontiff's teachings in Pascendi:

And thus, Venerable Brethren, the road is open for us to study the Modernists in the theological arena - a difficult task, yet one that may be disposed of briefly. The end to be attained is the conciliation of faith with science, always, however, saving the primacy of science over faith. In this branch the Modernist theologian avails himself of exactly the same principles which we have seen employed by the Modernist philosopher, and applies them to the believer: the principles of immanence and symbolism. The process is an extremely simple one. The philosopher has declared: The principle of faith is immanent; the believer has added: This principle is God; and the theologian draws the conclusion: God is immanent in man. Thus we have theological immanence. [i.e. truth starts in the individual] So too, the philosopher regards as certain that the representations of the object of faith are merely symbolical; the believer has affirmed that the object of faith is God in Himself; and the theologian proceeds to affirm that: The representations of the divine reality are symbolical. And thus we have theological symbolism. Truly enormous errors both, the pernicious character of which will be seen clearly from an examination of their consequences. For, to begin with symbolism, since symbols are but symbols in regard to their objects and only instruments in regard to the believer, it is necessary first of all, according to the teachings of the Modernists, that the believer do not lay too much stress on the formula, but avail himself of it only with the scope of uniting himself to the absolute truth which the formula at once reveals and conceals, that is to say, endeavours to express but without succeeding in doing so. They would also have the believer avail himself of the formulas only in as far as they are useful to him, for they are given to be a help and not a hindrance; with proper regard, however, for the social respect due to formulas which the public magisterium has deemed suitable for expressing the common consciousness until such time as the same magisterium provide otherwise. Concerning immanence it is not easy to determine what Modernists mean by it, for their own opinions on the subject vary. Some understand it in the sense that God working in man is more intimately present in him than man is in even himself, and this conception, if properly understood, is free from reproach. Others hold that the divine action is one with the action of nature, as the action of the first cause is one with the action of the secondary cause, and this would destroy the supernatural order. Others, finally, explain it in a way which savours of pantheism and this, in truth, is the sense which tallies best with the rest of their doctrines.

With this principle of immanence is connected another which may be called the principle of divine permanence. It differs from the first in much the same way as the private experience differs from the experience transmitted by tradition. An example will illustrate what is meant, and this example is offered by the Church and the Sacraments. The Church and the Sacraments, they say, are not to be regarded as having been instituted by Christ Himself. This is forbidden by agnosticism, which sees in Christ nothing more than a man whose religious consciousness has been, like that of all men, formed by degrees; it is also forbidden by the law of immanence which rejects what they call external application; it is further forbidden by the law of evolution which requires for the development of the germs a certain time and a certain series of circumstances; it is, finally, forbidden by history, which shows that such in fact has been the course of things. Still it is to be held that both Church and Sacraments have been founded mediately by Christ. But how? In this way: All Christian consciences were, they affirm, in a manner virtually included in the conscience of Christ as the plant is included in the seed. But as the shoots live the life of the seed, so, too, all Christians are to be said to live the life of Christ. But the life of Christ is according to faith, and so, too, is the life of Christians. And since this life produced, in the courses of ages, both the Church and the Sacraments, it is quite right to say that their origin is from Christ and is divine. In the same way they prove that the Scriptures and the dogmas are divine. And thus the Modernistic theology may be said to be complete. No great thing, in truth, but more than enough for the theologian who professes that the conclusions of science must always, and in all things, be respected. The application of these theories to the other points We shall proceed to expound, anybody may easily make for himself.

Dogma and the Sacraments

Thus far We have spoken of the origin and nature of faith. But as faith has many shoots, and chief among them the Church, dogma, worship, the Books which we call "Sacred," of these also we must know what is taught by the Modernists. To begin with dogma, we have already indicated its origin and nature. Dogma is born of the species of impulse or necessity by virtue of which the believer is constrained to elaborate his religious thought so as to render it clearer for himself and others. This elaboration consists entirely in the process of penetrating and refining the primitive formula, not indeed in itself and according to logical development, but as required by circumstances, or vitally as the Modernists more abstrusely put it. Hence it happens that around the primitive formula secondary formulas gradually continue to be formed, and these subsequently grouped into bodies of doctrine, or into doctrinal constructions as they prefer to call them, and further sanctioned by the public magisterium as responding to the common consciousness, are called dogma. Dogma is to be carefully distinguished from the speculations of theologians which, although not alive with the life of dogma, are not without their utility as serving to harmonise religion with science and remove opposition between the two, in such a way as to throw light from without on religion, and it may be even to prepare the matter for future dogma. Concerning worship there would not be much to be said, were it not that under this head are comprised the Sacraments, concerning which the Modernists fall into the gravest errors. For them the Sacraments are the resultant of a double need - for, as we have seen, everything in their system is explained by inner impulses or necessities. In the present case, the first need is that of giving some sensible manifestation to religion; the second is that of propagating it, which could not be done without some sensible form and consecrating acts, and these are called sacraments. But for the Modernists the Sacraments are mere symbols or signs, though not devoid of a certain efficacy - an efficacy, they tell us, like that of certain phrases vulgarly described as having "caught on," inasmuch as they have become the vehicle for the diffusion of certain great ideas which strike the public mind. What the phrases are to the ideas, that the Sacraments are to the religious sentiment - that and nothing more. The Modernists would be speaking more clearly were they to affirm that the Sacraments are instituted solely to foster the faith - but this is condemned by the Council of Trent: If anyone say that these sacraments are instituted solely to foster the faith, let him be anathema.

The Holy Scriptures

We have already touched upon the nature and origin of the Sacred Books. According to the principles of the Modernists they may be rightly described as a collection of experiences, not indeed of the kind that may come to anybody, but those extraordinary and striking ones which have happened in any religion. And this is precisely what they teach about our books of the Old and New Testament. But to suit their own theories they note with remarkable ingenuity that, although experience is something belonging to the present, still it may derive its material from the past and the future alike, inasmuch as the believer by memory lives the past over again after the manner of the present, and lives the future already by anticipation. This explains how it is that the historical and apocalyptical books are included among the Sacred Writings. God does indeed speak in these books - through the medium of the believer, but only, according to Modernistic theology, by vital immanence and permanence. Do we inquire concerning inspiration? Inspiration, they reply, is distinguished only by its vehemence from that impulse which stimulates the believer to reveal the faith that is in him by words or writing. It is something like what happens in poetical inspiration, of which it has been said: There is God in us, and when he stirreth he sets us afire. And it is precisely in this sense that God is said to be the origin of the inspiration of the Sacred Books. The Modernists affirm, too, that there is nothing in these books which is not inspired. In this respect some might be disposed to consider them as more orthodox than certain other moderns who somewhat restrict inspiration, as, for instance, in what have been put forward as tacit citations. But it is all mere juggling of words. For if we take the Bible, according to the tenets of agnosticism, to be a human work, made by men for men, but allowing the theologian to proclaim that it is divine by immanence, what room is there left in it for inspiration? General inspiration in the Modernist sense it is easy to find, but of inspiration in the Catholic sense there is not a trace.

The Church

A wider field for comment is opened when you come to treat of the vagaries devised by the Modernist school concerning the Church. You must start with the supposition that the Church has its birth in a double need, the need of the individual believer, especially if he has had some original and special experience, to communicate his faith to others, and the need of the mass, when the faith has become common to many, to form itself into a society and to guard, increase, and propagate the common good. What, then, is the Church? It is the product of the collective conscience, that is to say of the society of individual consciences which by virtue of the principle of vital permanence, all depend on one first believer, who for Catholics is Christ. Now every society needs a directing authority to guide its members towards the common end, to conserve prudently the elements of cohesion which in a religious society are doctrine and worship.

Hence the triple authority in the Catholic Church, disciplinary, dogmatic, liturgical. The nature of this authority is to be gathered from its origin, and its rights and duties from its nature. In past times it was a common error that authority came to the Church from without, that is to say directly from God; and it was then rightly held to be autocratic. But his conception had now grown obsolete. For in the same way as the Church is a vital emanation of the collectivity of consciences, so too authority emanates vitally from the Church itself. Authority therefore, like the Church, has its origin in the religious conscience, and, that being so, is subject to it. Should it disown this dependence it becomes a tyranny. For we are living in an age when the sense of liberty has reached its fullest development, and when the public conscience has in the civil order introduced popular government. Now there are not two consciences in man, any more than there are two lives. It is for the ecclesiastical authority, therefore, to shape itself to democratic forms, unless it wishes to provoke and foment an intestine conflict in the consciences of mankind. The penalty of refusal is disaster. For it is madness to think that the sentiment of liberty, as it is now spread abroad, can surrender. Were it forcibly confined and held in bonds, terrible would be its outburst, sweeping away at once both Church and religion. Such is the situation for the Modernists, and their one great anxiety is, in consequence, to find a way of conciliation between the authority of the Church and the liberty of believers.

The Relations Between Church and State

But it is not with its own members alone that the Church must come to an amicable arrangement - besides its relations with those within, it has others outside. The Church does not occupy the world all by itself; there are other societies in the world, with which it must necessarily have contact and relations. The rights and duties of the Church towards civil societies must, therefore, be determined, and determined, of course, by its own nature as it has been already described. The rules to be applied in this matter are those which have been laid down for science and faith, though in the latter case the question is one of objects while here we have one of ends. In the same way, then, as faith and science are strangers to each other by reason of the diversity of their objects, Church and State are strangers by reason of the diversity of their ends, that of the Church being spiritual while that of the State is temporal. Formerly it was possible to subordinate the temporal to the spiritual and to speak of some questions as mixed, allowing to the Church the position of queen and mistress in all such, because the Church was then regarded as having been instituted immediately by God as the author of the supernatural order. But his doctrine is today repudiated alike by philosophy and history. The State must, therefore, be separated from the Church, and the Catholic from the citizen. Every Catholic, from the fact that he is also a citizen, has the right and the duty to work for the common good in the way he thinks best, without troubling himself about the authority of the Church, without paying any heed to its wishes, its counsels, its orders - nay, even in spite of its reprimands. To trace out and prescribe for the citizen any line of conduct, on any pretext whatsoever, is to be guilty of an abuse of ecclesiastical authority, against which one is bound to act with all one's might. The principles from which these doctrines spring have been solemnly condemned by our predecessor Pius VI. in his Constitution Auctorem fidei. (Pascendi, nos 19-24)

King St. Louis IX

The humility of holy kings is not forgetfulness of the great office they fulfill in God's name; their abnegation could not consist in giving up rights which are also duties, any more than charity could cast out justice, or love of peace could oppose the virtues of the warrior. St. Louis, without an army, felt himself superior as a Christian to the victorious infidel, and treated him accordingly; moreover the west discovered very early, and more and more as his sanctity increased with his years, that this king, who spent his nights in prayer, and his days in serving the poor was not the man to yield to anyone the prerogatives of the crown.

-Dom Guearanger
The Liturgical Year, bk 14 pg. 75

Smokers' Etiquette

One of the main complaints people today have against smoking is the uncouth way that smokers generally tend to conduct themselves. Cigarette butts are in the parks, they are at camp grounds, they line the beaches, sometimes they blow smoke in your face, sometimes they have to make a point of smoking around you. Thus people form their picture of smoking based around the disgusting practices of some cigarette smokers.

I would suggest however that the distaste that many have today for smoking is based on two things
a) The wasteful, sloppy and careless attitude many Americans have for others' property and
b) The fact that cigarettes are cheap tobacco filled with artificial chemicals.

The proof of this is in two things. In the first place, you do not find the prevalence of cigarette butts in Europe for example. (I can't speak for other places such as Africa or Asia or the Middle East because I haven't been there). I never went to a beach or a park or a monument littered with cigarettes unless it was a big tourist area. Take Vienna for example. Vienna is possibly the cleanest and most beautiful city I ever lived in. At least it was, until hordes of American tourists went through and threw their cigarettes everywhere, sometimes with a trash can 2 feet away. Is it any wonder that Europeans grow tired of Americans? Nevertheless, even in Italy which has a reputation for being dirty, people at least dig a hole in the ground to throw their cigarettes in if there is no trash can. Frequently there are many, with a well maintained recycling service. Obviously not every American is like this, and certainly Americans did not used to be, it is a recent development in our culture to be inherently wasteful and destructive. The animus delendi is almost a way to "rebel" for some, without getting a rebel's reward, which is jail.

Now, with respect to our second point, the proof is in this. When people see someone smoking a cigarette they say "yuck". When they see someone smoking a pipe (especially someone younger such as myself) they say "Oh, my grandfather used to smoke a pipe." One would think everyone's grandfather smoked a pipe for as many times as I've heard it. The mood changes, (the tobacco we smoke for the most part is good premium tobacco with a nice scent) the general feeling is that is something interesting and good. Furthermore what do we do with our ash? When pipe tobacco is finished the ash is out, no more burning, so it goes neatly into the trash. Or if its windy and it should fly out, or we should empty it on the ground it flies away and turns to dust. You can't see it anymore! A cigarette butt with a fiberglass filter might last 500 years.

More than that, there is not only a certain reverence on the part of one encountering a smoker, there is a reverence on the part of the one smoking a pipe or a cigar. For them (us) it is a hobby, not a habit, to be carried on at will and put down at will. I don't smoke on days when the Church traditionally commanded fast or abstinence, I might even forget the next day, then pick it up again another. I've read reports from those vehemently against tobacco who admit, "I've never heard of anyone being addicted to premium cigars." There is one thing more however, namely that since cigar and pipe smokers treat it like a hobby they have a general respect and etiquette that they maintain, or should maintain. For instance we generally walk away from people who are coming up, unless we know them, in say a park or a forest even though it takes us longer to get where we are going just for the sake of respect. They may not like the smoke, so why offend? We take care to dispose of the ends of our cigar by crinkling it up into our pipes and finishing them off of course, yet even if one only smokes cigars, we look for trash cans or like I saw some men in Italy do, bury it. Premium tobacco will just decay, not being full of artificial additives or flame retardant paper. We take care of our things in places we go and use them responsibly. If we're supposed to be working, we're working and not ducking out for that cigarette break (another advantage to a hobby vs. a habit).

The temperament of cigar and pipe smokers is also generally very relaxed. So if someone comes to us to complain about our smoking, the normal smoker generally writes it off "Sorry you feel that way ma'am." Someone once came and complained at a parade where some other fellows and I were enjoying a good cigar, and asked us to put it out for the childrens' sake. Now the "children" were 12-15 and 30 yards away so we simply said "Well I'm sorry ma'am but I don't even think they notice."
Sometimes people like to come point out the immense cost that we are taking out on society by smoking. I love to point out that with one exception I have not been to a doctor in 10 years and that is the time I have been smoking cigars and pipe roughly. George Burns for instance, smoked 14 cigars a day and lived to 99 (I was under the impression it was 105, thanks to the reader for the correction!). Yet even besides that, the taxes smokers pay (particularly pipe and cigar smokers who bear a heavy tax yet have very few if any smoking related illnesses compared with cigarettes) more than compensate for any health problems.

Yet in the face of that, the smoker who enjoys his hobby is cool and recollected and does worry about the frustrations and annoyances from the anti-smoking groups. He uses discretion in the enjoyment of tobacco, for instance not sneaking away from work in order to smoke when he should be working, and things of that sort. Another example might be school grounds. It would be a good and healthy thing for kids who are 16 who might have an interest in smoking to cultivate smoking a pipe as a hobby once in a while. In truth however, given where we are as a society they will see you smoking and think its okay to smoke cigarettes and sadly they won't pick up the American Spirits or the Nat Shermans. So one exercises discretion and does not smoke on the school grounds. Again, you know in advance you are going to a cook-out or something at a house where there will be people who really don't like smoking so you refrain from smoking there, simple as that. I have done that plenty of times.

The increase in etiquette by smokers would help not only their images, but society as a whole.

Interview with Chris Ferrara

There is an interview with Chris Ferrara conducted by my colleague Jeremiah Bannister at the new Distributist Review. It is on his new book the Church and the Libertarian. It should open up on your computer in Windows Media Player.

Interview with Chris Ferrara by Jeremiah Bannister

Theological Treatise on the Assumption

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a dogma of the Catholic faith, solemnly declared as a dogma ex cathedra by Pope Pius XII in the document Munificentissimus Deus on 1 November 1950. This Dogma teaches formally that Mary, was assumed, body and soul into heaven at the end of her earthly life and that her body did not suffer corruption.

This dogma is among what are called the “negative prerogatives” of the Blessed Virgin, because they are lacking a certain defect. As the Immaculate Conception lacks original sin, so the Assumption lacks bodily corruption. We see also a strong connection between this doctrine and the Immaculate Conception which was also solemnly declared ex cathedra by the Pope, whereas the other Marian dogmas were confirmed by early councils. Pope Pius XII taught in his solemn definition:

“And, although the Church has always recognized this supreme generosity and the perfect harmony of graces and has daily studied them more and more throughout the course of the centuries, still it is in our own age that the privilege of the bodily Assumption into heaven of Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, has certainly shone forth more clearly.

That privilege has shone forth in new radiance since our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the loving Mother of God's Immaculate Conception. These two privileges are most closely bound to one another. Christ overcame sin and death by his own death, and one who through Baptism has been born again in a supernatural way has conquered sin and death through the same Christ. Yet, according to the general rule, God does not will to grant to the just the full effect of the victory over death until the end of time has come. And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul.

Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.”[1]

Moreover, the Fathers at the First Vatican Council, beseeched Bl. Pius IX for a solemn definition by drawing the same theological link with the Immaculate Conception in the Protoevangelium (which is Genesis):

“According to the Apostolic teaching [recorded in Rom. V,8; I Cor. XV, 24, 26, 54, 57, Heb. II, 14, 15 and other texts] when Jesus triumphed over the Ancient Serpent (Satan) He gained a threefold victory over sin and its effects, i..e concupiscence and death. Since the Mother of God is associated in a singular manner in this triumph with her Son, (Gen. III:15), which is also the unanimous opinion of the Fathers: we do not doubt that in the aforementioned [Scriptural] passage this same Blessed Virgin is pre-signified as illustrious by that threefold victory: over sin by her immaculate conception, over concupiscence by her virginal motherhood, and in like manner over hostile death by a triumphant resurrection similar to that of her son.”[2] In fact, had it not been so, as the theologian Joseph Pohle makes the observation that death would in fact have triumphed over Mary had she suffered bodily corruption.[3] Mary triumphs rather with her Divine Son and through His redemptive work over death completely.

The Death of the Blessed Virgin

While the dogmatic definition of Pius XII teaches that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven, it does not teach explicitly on the manner by which Mary died. So the discussion about the death of the Blessed Virgin is not subject to the dogmatic definition per se. Based on this there are certain theologians who run around today saying that because Pius XII did not specifically address the manner of Mary’s death, that there is no proof that Mary died and thus claim she is immortal. At the time of the definition there were likewise some who pointed to it as proof of there position. The first one known to have suggested Mary’s immortality is St. Epiphianus, yet he does not deny it either and as Cardinal Baronius suggests, he was merely defending Mary’s virginity against impious heretics by saying Scripture does not even say if she died. There were some 4^th century traditions holding to Mary’s immortality, and more recently the theologians Roschini and Gallus (pre-Vat.2) advocated this position. Roschini maintained, that since Munificentissimus Deus makes no mention of the death of the Blessed Virgin, the number of those holding to Mary’s immortality will increase.[4]

This is not the case however, as the common opinion of the Church provides a moral unanimity that Mary in fact died, and that those who claim otherwise actually deny the teaching authority of Tradition. The reason is, as Alastruey notes is that “[it] is immediately connected with the revealed truths concerning original sin and the general economy of the redemption of the human race. Therefore the question of the Virgin’s death is not a matter of opinion nor a pious belief which can be disputed freely; it is a firm and consistent teaching which should be venerated for its antiquity.”[5]

Moreover St. Ephrem (doctor of the Church) states explicitly that Mary was a virgin all her life and died a virgin. St. John Damascene points out that as her son did not refuse to die, neither did she. St. Andrew of Crete “She who made heavenly the dust of the earth laid aside the dust of the earth; she put aside the covering which she received through generation and returned to the earth what is of the earth.” St. John of Thessalonica says that the all-glorious Virgin Mother of God, after spending some time with the apostles until they by command of the Holy Ghost, had spread throughout the world to preach the gospel, left the earth by a natural death. St. Modestus of Jerusalem gave his first sermon on the death of the Blessed Virgin.[6] The Greek word used to describe the Assumption is κοίμησις, which means literally “falling asleep” and when used with reference to the end of someone’s life, as in English (eternal rest) it means death. This word not only appears in the Greek liturgy but is used by all the Greek Fathers to speak of the Assumption.

Furthermore, most theologians teach that Mary did in fact die. Merklbach calls it a certain teaching, lest the mother should be seen as greater than the son.[7] The Theologians Billuart and Novato treat the death of the Virgin as certissima.[8] Most other theologians, particularly Roman Theologians who treat the subject concur.

Moreover, Mary’s death is affirmed by the ancient liturgy of the Assumption in the Roman missal, which reads: This festival of the day, O Lord, being venerable to us, on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death who has begotten Thy Son our Lord incarnate from herself.”[9] An 8^th century chant from the Chaldean Church likewise affirms: “Admirable in her mortal life, marvellous in her life-giving death, living she was dead to the world, dying she raised the dead to life. The apostles hasten to her from distant lands, the angels descend from on high to pay her honour due.”[10]

Yet, if Mary did in fact die, does this not mean that she was subject to original sin in some manner? No it does not in two ways. Firstly, Mary did not suffer corruption, so that if there was a temporary separation of body and soul, (the matter of death) her body did not rot in the grave, but as Our Lord’s remained inviolate so that when her soul reunited with it she was assumed straight to heaven. Secondly, though it was not necessary for Mary to die at all, since not being conceived with original sin, she was not subject to its affects, it was fitting.

Merklbach teaches further in his work on Mariology that: “Christ voluntarily subjected himself to the law of God commanding death, and also by his suffering and death redeemed the human race from sin, Mary also, having cooperated in the work of redemption, ought to, as Christ, suffer and die and also subject herself to the command of death.”[11] St. Albert the Great taught that Mary died from a longing of love so powerful that she could not bear separation from her Son and Saviour. While the exact manner of the death is unkown to us, it is clear that Mary did in fact die, and this death was completely fitting since it modeled the path our Lord took also.

The Dogma in Tradition

Sometimes Catholics who have no grasping of the Tradition will assert, as it is sometimes done for the Immaculate Conception, that there was no doctrine of the Assumption or no Mass for it and that the Pope just declared it ex cathedra. I once met a priest who argued that we could create new masses, after all there wasn’t a Mass for the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption prior to the dogmatic definitions. This however could not be further from the truth. In fact, some object to the dogma (including Protestants) claiming that since it was only declared in 1950 it can’t really be of tradition.

This dogma is not only very old liturgically, it is of ancient origin. Though good theological arguments can be presented in favor of this doctrine, it is primarily in Ecclesiastical Tradition that we have the most verification of the truth of this doctrine outside of the Solemn Definition of Pius XII.

East and West Fathers and Doctors of the Church supported it, from the 5^th century on to the present. In the beginning there were several apocryphal stories, one which is most famous being that of Pseudo-Dionysius who claimed that all the apostles had gathered for Mary’s death, and the Church denied the authenticity or even condemned some of these over time. Yet, the continual faith in the Assumption has continued east and west in unbroken succession since the 5^th century, which helps to prove that the sensus fidelium was not based on the apocryphal legends since it persisted when their authenticity was called into doubt. In the 6^th century the Eastern Emperor Maurice had ordered the feast of the κοίμησις to be celebrated each August 15^th in Constantinople, and just as so many Eastern Fathers (most notably St. Andrew of Crete and St. John Damascene) have preached in favor of the Assumption, so the Eastern Church even out of communion with Rome has maintained this feast. In 1672 at Jerusalem the Orthodox Churches confessed in a council “Though the immaculate body of Mary was locked in the tomb, yet like Christ, she was assumed and migrated to Heaven on the third day.”[12] St. Gregory of Tours had taught “The Lord commanded the Holy Body of the Blessed Virgin to be borne on a cloud to Paradise, where, reunited to its soul, and exulting with the Elect, it enjoys the never ending bliss of eternity.”[13] The writings in the East of St. Sophronius, St. Andrew of Crete, St. Fermanus and most preeminently St. John Damascene serve as foundational witnesses in the East, while this doctrine flowered in the West through the Latin Fathers and theologians, decoratively adorned in all the Western Liturgies, and wonderfully attested to in Pius XII’s document examining the Tradition on Our Lady’s Assumption. This is a sign for us that even when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is not making new doctrine, neither does he recklessly declare the opinion of the day, but prudently and eruditely examines all the factors, histories, traditions etc, and Pius XII shows us this in Munificentissimus Deus where does not cite only the theological arguments such as that presented at Vatican I, no matter how good it is, he carefully went over the whole tradition, because we are not a Church of the theological opinions in sway today, but a Church of tradition which believes what has always and everywhere been believed by those professing divine and Catholic faith.

---

[1] Munificentissimus Deus, nos 3-5

[2] Quum iuxta apostolicam doctrinam {Rom. V, 8; I Cor. XV, 24, 26, 54, 57; Heb. II, 14, 15) aliisque locis traditam triplici victoria de peccato et de peccati fructibus: concupiscentia et morte veluti ex partibus integrantibus constituatur ille triumphus, quem de satana, antiquo serpente, Christus retulit, quumque Gen. III, 15 Deipara exhibeatur singulariter associata Filio suo in hoc triumpho accedente unanimi SS. Patrum suffragio: non dubitamus quin in praefato oraculo eadem B. Virgo triplici illa victoria praesignificetur illustris adeoque non secus ac de peccato per immaculatam conceptionem et concupiscentia per virginalem maternitatem, sic etiam de inimica morte singularem triumphum relatura per acceleratam ad similitudinem Filii sui resurrectionem ibidem praenuntiata fuit. (Collec. Lacensis, vol. VII, pg. 869)

[3] Pohle-Preuss, Mariology, pg. 114)

[4] Roschini, Il Problema della morte di Maria SS. Dopo la constituzione dogmatica Munificentissimus Deus

[5] Alastruey, The Blessed Virgin Mary, vol. 1, pg. 253

[6] Encomium in B.V; PG, LXXXVI, 3280

[7] ... “B. Virgo fuierit morti subjecta, ut Filio suo conformaretur, nec Matris potior quam Filii conditio videretur.” Merklbach, Mariologia, pg. 266

[8] Novato, De eminentia Deip. Virg. Mariae, II, c.8; Billuart, De myst. Christi, diss. 14, art1-2

[9] Veneranda nobis, Domine, hujus est diei festivitas in qua sancta Dei genitrix mortem subiit temporalem, nec tamen mortis nexibus deprimi potuit, quae Filium tuum Dominum nostrum de se genuit incarnatum.” (Migne, P.L., LXXVIII, 133)

[10] Gureranger, The Liturgical Year, vol. 13, pg. 388

[11] Christus voluntarie debebat se subiicere legi Dei mortem statuenti, atque passione sua et morte genus humanum a peccato redimere, Maria quoque, in opere redemptionis consociata, sicut Christus debebat pati et mori, atque mandato mortis se subiicere. Quod fecit consentiendo in hoc quod esset mater Dei-Redemptoris, Merklbach, Mariologia, pg. 267-268

[12] Pohle, Mariology pg. 116

[13] Dominus susceptum corpus sanctum in nube deferri jussit in paradisum, ubi nunc resumpta anima cum electis ejus exsultans aeternitatis bonis nullo occasuris fine perfruitur. Migne, P.L., LXXI, 708)

On Masculinity

Note: This article cross-posted on Donald Goodman's personal blog.
By Donald Goodman

As Catholics, we're faced constantly with statements about what it is to be a woman, and that's a very good thing. Real, genuine womanhood has been under violent assault from feminism on one side and misogyny on another for well over a century, and countering that with such delightful and informative works as Alice von Hildebrand's The Privilege of Being a Woman is important. But we rarely hear anything about what it is to be a man, and by "man" here I mean not simply a rational animal but a male rational animal. What does it mean to be a man? Is there a privilege to being a man, as there is to being a woman?

The first thing to address here is that we can consider "being a man" in two senses: the natural and the supernatural; that is, the order of nature and the order of grace. Grace perfects nature, it does not change it; but man is a natural being, who by nature has a supernatural soul but not grace, and consequently we must consider the question from both these vantage points. We'll begin with being a man in the order of nature, and move on to being a man in the order of grace.

In the order of nature, man is fundamentally a husband and a father; that is his primary role in life. It is true, of course, that some men voluntarily give up the joys and trials of wife and children in order to dedicate themselves to the service of God, but we must remember that this sacrifice is fundamentally one of grace, not one of nature. To show this (granted, this is not a demonstration, but it's still very persuasive dialectically), we need merely look to the account of the creation of man, in which God gives His charge to His new creature:

et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam ad imaginem Dei creavit illum masculum et feminam creavit eos benedixitque illis Deus et ait crescite et multiplicamini et replete terram et subicite eam et dominamini piscibus maris et volatilibus caeli et universis animantibus quae moventur super terram

Which can be translated (Englished by myself):

And God created man to His own image; He created him to the image of God, He created them male and female; and God blessed them, and said, "Increase and be multiplied, and fill the earth, and make it subject; and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the flying things of the sky, and all living things which move upon the earth.

The very first things that the Scriptures tell us about man are the following:

1. He is made in the image of God; that is, he has a spiritual soul.


2. He is male and female.


3. He is to increase and be multiplied.


4. He is to be lord of the earth.

The Scriptures, wisely as always, tell us very simply and directly what man is and then what man is for on the natural level; by which I do not mean on the physical level only, but rather in the order of nature. Man is a spiritual being, made in the image of God; man is also a physical being, in which he is divided into male and female; man is ordered toward an increase in numbers, which as we all know is accomplished by the relationship between male and female; and man is to be the lord of creation.

More, our own reason tells us that fundamentally man is a husband and father before all else. Man is, as we know, a social being; he cannot thrive---reach his appropriate end, the contemplation of God---except within a community of other men. Man belongs to many such communities, the highest of which is the state, and the lowest of which is the family. It is clear that the family, consisting of a husband, wife, children, and sometimes others, is the most basic of those communities, because it is ordered to the most basic of human needs. That is, it is ordered toward the provision of the daily needs of mankind and to the continuation of the human species. Consequently, on the most basic level, man is part of a family; but the role of the man, the male human being, in the family is that of husband and father. Therefore, husband and father is man's most basic role.

Now, the above falls far short of demonstration; it assumes certain principles and it skips certain steps. But the assumptions are those that could hardly be doubted by any believing Catholic, so I will not spend any further time examining them. It's clear that a man is a husband and father at the most basic level of the order of nature; we can proceed now to determining what exactly that means, at which point we enter the order of grace.

Once again, the Depositum fidei, the Deposit of Faith, tells us exactly what it means to be a husband and father:

mulieres viris suis subditae sint sicut Domino quoniam vir caput est mulieris sicut Christus caput est ecclesiae ipse salvator corporis sed ut ecclesia subiecta est Christo ita et mulieres viris suis in omnibus viri diligite uxores sicut et Christus dilexit ecclesiam et se ipsum tradidit pro ea ut illam sanctificaret mundans lavacro aquae in verbo ut exhiberet ipse sibi gloriosam ecclesiam non habentem maculam aut rugam aut aliquid eiusmodi sed ut sit sancta et inmaculata ita et viri debent diligere uxores suas ut corpora sua qui suam uxorem diligit se ipsum diligit nemo enim umquam carnem suam odio habuit sed nutrit et fovet eam sicut et Christus ecclesiam quia membra sumus corporis eius de carne eius et de ossibus eius propter hoc relinquet homo patrem et matrem suam et adherebit uxori suae et erunt duo in carne una sacramentum hoc magnum est ego autem dico in Christo et in ecclesia verumtamen et vos singuli unusquisque suam uxorem sicut se ipsum diligat uxor autem ut timeat virum

Which, being Englished, means:

Women, be subject to your own men, as to the Lord; for the man is the head of the woman, as Christ is the head of the Church; He is the savior of the body. But as the Church is put under Christ, so also women to their own men in all things. Men, love [your] wives as also Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself up for her, in order that He might sanctify her, cleaning [her] with a washing of water in the Word. That He might show to her the glory of the Church, having no spot or wrinkle or anything of that type, but that she might be holy and unspotted. So also men ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his own wife loves himself. For no one ever holds his own flesh in hatred, but nourishes and maintains it, as Christ does the Church. For we are the members of His Body, from His flesh and from His bones. Because of this a man leaves his own father and mother and clings to his wife, and they shall be in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church. Nevertheless, may each one of you love his own wife as himself; and let the woman fear the man.

This requires exegesis, of course, but everything we need know about husband and wife is contained at least in seed in this single passage.

First, notice that there is nothing about mutual subjection here.* There is not a mutual subjection of husband to wife and wife to husband; St. Paul says nothing of the sort. He says, in fact, that wives should be subject to their husbands "as the Church is put under Christ" (ut ecclesia subiecta est Christo). To say, then, that the husband should be subject to his wife just as the wife is subject to the husband is to say that the Church is subject to Christ just as Christ is subject to the Church, which is blasphemy. Christ is not subject to the Church, nor is a husband subject to his wife. Rather, he is "the head of the woman, as Christ is the head of the Church" (vir caput est mulieris sicut Christus caput est ecclesiae).

However, the man is the head of his wife "as Christ is the head of the Church." This means that his role in the family is that of savior; "for He is the savior of the body" (ipse salvator corporis). His role is not that of a tyrant, lording it over his wife like some Byzantine emperor; he is the head of his wife as Christ is the Head of the Church, which means his role is one of sacrifice, not of opulence.


St. Paul tells men to "love [your] wives as also Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself up for her, in order that He might sanctify her" (viri diligite uxores sicut et Christus dilexit ecclesiam et se ipsum tradidit pro ea). And remember how Christ gave Himself up for the Church; He sacrificed His entire life, from the moment of His birth until that of His agonizing death, doing everything for the sake of His Body, the Church. So must a man do for his wife, and of course for his children. He must give himself up for them, indeed pour himself out for them, as Christ poured out His very Blood for the Church.

This sacrificial leadership will take many different forms. Sometimes, of course, it will take the form of martyrdom, as Christ's did. More often, however, the necessities of family life will lead to a different type of leadership. Men must be prepared to sacrifice their own comforts for the good of their family, for example. Primarily, they must remember that as the head of the house, they are an example for the house; they must regulate their behavior carefully, providing a good example for all, especially any children. They must be moderate in their expenses. They must remember that no matter how much fishing or drinking may attract them, they have more important duties to which they must attend.


Men must carefully mortify their senses, directing themselves by the reason and not by the passions. For if the head of the body (in this case, the house) cannot govern itself rationally, then how can it govern the body rationally? A necessary part of this mortification is, of course, the fast. Little can be more impressive to the youthful mind than the all-powerful father, the head of the house, voluntarily sacrificing such a basic necessity in pursuit of higher ends. But the bulk of a father's mortification will more likely be simple and mundane. Rather than watching a baseball game, he goes out and plays one with his children. Rather than reading a book to himself, he takes up one for his children. Rather than sleeping in in the morning, he awakes early with the children and allows his wife to do so. These are all minor things, barely worth mentioning in themselves; yet what more powerful witness to the family can there be? What better imitation of Christ in daily life, than to constantly sacrifice small things, as He did? What better way, absent a direct martyrdom, to give up one's whole life in sacrifice for one's family? Majorem hac dilectionem nemo habet, ut animam suam ponat qui pro amicis suis ("no one hath a love greater than this, that a man should lay down his own self for his friends"; St. John 15:13). It is not a direct and single outpouring of a lot of blood, to be sure, but it is a constant pouring out of a little. This is truly a fundamental aspect of manly character.

This sacrifice takes its greatest form in the order of grace, outside of the family; namely, a man sacrifices the very joys of wife and children in order to better serve God. As Christ, Who Himself determined to forgo those joys, told us:

Sunt enim eunuchi, qui de matris utero sic nati sunt : et sunt eunuchi, qui facti sunt ab hominibus : et sunt eunuchi, qui seipsos castraverunt propter regnum cælorum.

Englished:

For there are eunuchs who are born thus from the womb of the mother; and there are eunuchs who are made by men; and there are eunuchs who have castrated themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

Our Lord is not here advocating deliberate self-mutilation, of course; He is telling us that some men can and should forgo this great joy and this great blessing, in order to obtain still greater ones; namely, the kingdom of heaven. This state, which we call celibacy, is objectively a greater one than marriage; as St. Paul said,

Volo enim omnes vos esse sicut meipsum : sed unusquisque proprium donum habet ex Deo : alius quidem sic, alius vero sic. Dico autem non nuptis, et viduis : bonum est illis si sic permaneant, sicut et ego. Quod si non se continent, nubant. Melius est enim nubere, quam uri.

Englished:

For I wish that all of you be as I myself am; but each one has a proper gift from God. One indeed has this [gift], another truly has that [gift]. But I speak to the unmarried and to the widows: it is good for them if they remain thus, as also I do. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burned.

In other words, each has his own proper gift; and for those to whom celibacy is given, it is objectively better to take it than to leave it. This is truly the greatest sacrifice short of martyrdom that it is possible to undertake; a great and manly sacrifice, a sacrifice of the greatest and most natural joys of this earthly life. Not all are called to it, but it is a great calling nevertheless.

Those called to the sacrifice of celibacy have lives which involve many other sacrifices, as well, as do those not so called. One thing that the celibate generally also sacrifice is the masculine gift of militancy. Men are militant; it is a fundamental and inexorable part of our natures. Men love contest and struggle; we love sport precisely because it permits such struggle. Even many of our less physical games are martial in spirit and terms; think of chess as an example. Even tasks as simple as crossword puzzles are made by men into physical combat, where one finishing before the other is seen as a triumph, and analogies to real, martial battle are easily and naturally drawn.

This militancy is rooted in the nature of mankind. Essentially, the physical basis for it is simple: men do not get pregnant, while women do. This is the fundamental reason that almost all warriors in almost all societies throughout history have been males; it is the reason why physiological differences between men and women are what they are. Men, as a whole, are bigger, stronger, and faster than women are; this is because of our martial role. We are the warriors of the human race; this is both our sorrow and our pride.


Men, as the leaders of a family, are primarily responsible for a wife and for children. As such, when that wife and those children come under physical threat, it is man's responsibility to fight against that threat. Men have risen to this throughout the ages, and only in very recent times has anyone seriously denied it. Women, particularly when pregnant but also when caring for children, are vulnerable; they are also more vulnerable than men simply because they are not built for physical altercation, as men are. Man's militancy is directed to the protection of his woman and of his children; he has a duty to train himself in the use of the tools necessary for that protection, and to keep himself as far as possible in the physical condition which will allow him to use them, if necessary.

This militancy also extends beyond the family, to larger communities and to the state as a whole. Sometimes this means that a man must leave his wife and children in order to protect them. This is a great sorrow for both man and family, and it should only be required of men when absolutely necessary, and when the necessity of it can be unambiguously demonstrated under just war doctrine.

Man's militancy further extends, under Christian guidance, to what is now called chivalry; that is, to the protection of the poor, the weak, and those otherwise unable to defend themselves. The Catholic man will defend his family; but he will also defend other women without anyone to protect them; children; the poor; orphans; widows; those in the religious life; and anyone else who requires it. Chivalry is not limited to martial defense; the chivalrous man, the man who really embraces and directs the militancy which is a real and necessary part of the masculine character, will go well beyond that, offering his physical assistance to anyone who may require it. This extends from things as simple as helping old ladies cross the street to things as complex as volunteering for local "big brother" programs. The specifics will always vary according to time, resources, talents, and inclinations; but that the good man is also a chivalrous man is not open to doubt.

This, then, is the fundamental nature of being a man; leadership and sacrifice, in imitation of the greatest Leader of all. Truly, there is a privilege to being a man, just as there is to being a woman.

Praise be to Christ the King!

* Yes, I know about the late pope's words in Mulieris Dignitatem. The English translation posted on the Vatican's website reads, "whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the "subjection" is not one-sided but mutual" (Mulieris Dignitatem, no. 24). This passage is disturbing on a number of levels, most especially because it directly and quite transparently contradicts the words of Ephesians 5, which specifically state that the subjection of the wife to the husband is "as" the subject of the Church to Christ. The English here does seem to be a fair translation of the Latin text (Sed, cum in necessitudine Christi-Ecclesiae, subiectio solius Ecclesiae sit, in necessitudine mariti-uxoris, subiectio non est unius dumtaxat partis, verum prorsus reciproca), which means we cannot simply pass this off as an erroneous translation, as we can so often with troublesome statements in this sad times. Can the late pope's words be interpreted in a way that does not offend the Scriptures? Yes, they can; but they must be interpreted as meaning that the man's subjection is one of service, not one of obedience, in the way that Christ was the servant of the Apostles when He washed their feet, even though He was truly their Master. Calling this a "subjection," however, especially a mutual subjection, is extremely misleading and should not be perpetuated.

Mors peccatorum pessima

The saints tell us that the death of sinners is filled with problems. In this sense they do not mean sinners in the broad sense, because we are all sinners, rather sinners with respect to the unrepentant, those who have not yet turned away from their sins and more than likely don't want to.

There is a aberrant idea today, that on one's deathbed he is going to get all kinds of graces to convert and have sorrow for one's sins. While it is possible, no such teaching exists in scripture and tradition. In fact it is the opposite. St. Jerome teaches: "I hold as certain that he who lived an evil life cannot have a good end." The bible uses the expression "Mors peccatorum pessima" (Psalm XXXIII:22), the death of sinners is the worst. St. Thomas says concerning this:

Deinde cum dicit, mors peccatorum, ponit effectus divinae providentiae quantum ad malos: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim ponuntur pericula malorum. Secundo ostenditur quomodo ab his liberat sanctos suos, ibi, redimet.
Corporalis quidem haec est pessima in malis, quia mittuntur ad pessimum locum. Luc. : mortuus est dives, et sepultus est in inferno. item quia perdunt spem gratiae post mortem. (prover. 11) : mortuo homine impio, nulla erit amplius spes. mors ergo peccatorum pessima est, quia moriuntur in corpore et in anima. spiritualis.

Thus when he says the death of sinners, he places the effect of divine providence in such a manner toward the wicked, and concerning this he does two things. First he describes the perils of the wicked; second, it is shown how God liberates his saints from the wicked, at He shall redeem.
The bodily [death] is certainly the worst among the wicked, for they are sent to the worst place. As Luke says: the rich man died and was buried in Hell. The same [sinners] lose the hope of grace after death. As Proverbs 11 says: when the wicked man dies, there will be no hope. Therefore the death of sinners is worst of all, for they die in both body and soul. (Commentary Psalm 33)

St. Alphonsus teaches in his preparation for death:

How will the dying man, who has always lived in sin, be able, in the midst of the pains, the stupefaction, and the confusion of death, to repent sincerely of all his past iniquities ? I say sincerely, because it is not enough to say and to promise with the tongue: it is necessary to promise with the heart? (Book I, ch. 5)

On one's death bed, the demons will appear and tempt a person with their most predominant fault or perhaps worse things, and if the sinner has not lead a life of grace and holiness there is ample material for one to be tempted. A very holy priest told me once a story from a nurse in a hospital, of an evil man who was brought there to die, and the nurses could tell he was evil just by the things he would say. Once the nurse looked in because she heard the man screaming in total fright, and saw a dark object standing in front of the man, almost like a void which light could not penetrate and immediately the man died. The demon had come to claim him, because when one lives a life of habitual sin the demons will come and claim their property.

St. Alphonsus teaches again from the same work:

The poor dying sinner will be assailed, not by one,but by many causes of distress and anguish. On the one hand, the devils will torment him. At death these horrid enemies exert all their strength to secure the perdition of the soul that is about to leave this world. They know that they have but little time to gain it, and that if they lose it at death, they shall lose it forever. The Devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time (Apoc. xii, 12). The dying man will be tempted, not by one, but by innumerable devils, who will labor for his damnation. Their houses shall be filled with serpents (Isa. xiii, 21). One will say: Fear not; you will recover. Another: You have been deaf to the inspirations of God for so many years, and do you now expect that he will have mercy on you? Another will ask: How can you make satisfaction for all the injuries you have done to the property and character of your neighbors? Another: Do you not see that your confessions have been null, that they have been made without sorrow or a purpose of amendment? How will you now be able to repair them? On the other hand, the dying man will see himself surrounded by his sins. Evils, says David, shall catch the unjust man unto destruction (Ps. cxxxix, 12).

These sins, says St. Bernard, like so many satellites, shall keep him in chains, and shall say unto him: “We are your works; we shall not desert you" (Medit. C. 2). We are your offspring; we will not leave you; we will accompany you to the other world, and will present ourselves with you to the Eternal Judge. The dying man will then wish to shake off such enemies; but, to get rid of them, he must detest them, he must return sincerely to God. His mind is darkened, and his heart hardened. (ibid)

There is yet another story, far more haunting as it is educational, from a Catholic midwife in Germany. This was during World War I, of a case where a woman was brought to her who was bleeding inexplicably, and the horrific things this woman saw when she was dying.

The wife of the canteen proprietor had been brought to the hospital- in a high fever, half unconscious, delirious, bleeding. "Some woman's trouble," said the matron. At that time the sisters refused on principle to deal with such cases. It was forbidden by the rules of the Order.

Alas! yes a woman's trouble [that is an arranged miscarriage]. As had happened so often of late. But the woman's general condition pointed to very grave complications. It was not a normal miscarriage. There must be some cause for the high temperature. I racked my brains in search of a clue. These people had come to our village shortly before the War and had taken over a canteen. When the war industries were in full swing they had added a casino for the workers, and later they had opened a cinema... Of course the proprietor of the canteen made a lot of money. Why he was not called up for military service nobody knew. All sorts of stories were whispered about. Tales of secret uproarious nights behind closed shutters, of secluded little nooks and corners to which people could withdraw when they wished to be unseen; of guests from outside who frequented the place. There was a lot of talk, but not a word of anything good.

I have never seen the wife in Church-neither in the Catholic Church, nor in the Evangelical Hall for Worship, nor among the Jewish congregation which sometimes met in one of the schoolrooms.
There was no means of knowing whether I ought to send for priest or parson. The sick woman had nothing with her that afforded a clue to any religious interests; only powder, lipstick, eye-drops, nail file, comb, mirror- a dozen unnecessary things; and a card with a name and the words "healer and masseur," and written below it in pencil "Successor of Dr. M" [who was discovered earlier to be a secret abortionist]. Then I knew that there was something at the back of this. I removed a large clot of black coagulated blood and with it the arm of a child about five months old. 'Matron, you must get everything ready for an operation before the doctor comes,' I said. 'If there is any chance of saving her life, it will only be by an operation.'
Then followed a terrible night, the most terrible I have ever known; and some gruesome days and nights succeeded it. Yet I wished that my experience could have been shared by all those whom the devil ever tempts with thoughts of abortion.
A midwife is accustomed to so many things- to groans and screams, pain and anguish, blood and horror. Where other women would have long since fallen down in a faint or run away, we have to stay and do our work quietly, firmly and resolutely, as though it were not a living body we held in our hands and as though our own heart were not trembling and bleeding. But such an ed as that of this young woman of thirty I hope that I shall never again be called upon to witness.
The twelve strokes of the church clock sounded through the still warm summer night. It had been an oppressively hot day. All the windows had been flung open to let in the coolness of the night. As a rule, sick people like to hear the hour strike. But when this woman heard it, she stared at the door with eyes full of boundless horror; her gaze flickered in the wide-open eyes; her hair stood on end and she tried to leap out of bed and fling herself out of the open window. "Away-let me get away-" panted the pale lips. Beads of sweat stood out on her brow. It took all our strength to hold her down. Then she huddled herself under the blanket and cried and whimpered in terror and anguish...
Yet there was nothing there. Nothing. Not a shadow not a ray of light. The room was wrapped in peaceful semi-darkness. We turned on another of the lights, but the room almost dark, but then she was worse than ever. At length we had recourse to an injection [pain-killer].
We were very loath to do it, but we could not let the woman remain for hours in such a state of excitement. We were already worn out. We could not rid her of her delirious fancies; we did not know whence they arose; and our attempts to reason with here were quite fruitless.
For a time she lay back exhausted, line one dead. With her haggard, waxen face she might have been a woman of seventy. The the horror crept up to her again and she began to talk...
"Now...now they're coming again... one after the other, one... two, three.. that one is quite big, almost full-grown...four...five...that one is still quite small....six...seven...eight.that one has his head torn off, how he's carrying it in his hand, nine...ten...that one has lost his legs, but he's still moving...he's been cut in two and he's bleeding...eleven...twelve...and now only an arm and a leg... What have you done with your head...and your other limbs? Why haven't you any eyes?"

Suddenly she pulled up the blanket and pressed over her face. "No...no...no...go away...go away... you have no right to live..." and she fell back exhausted.
After a while she started again: "Can you hear them talking? Can you hear them... 'we cannot see the eternal light...we cannot see the eternal light...give us your eyes mother! You have taken away our eyes, give us yours'. Can't you hear them?...there...one two...three..." And again the terrible counting up to thirteen.
My heart stood still with horror as I suddenly grasped what it meant. Not, it was impossible. They must be mere fevered dreams, delirious fancies. But I could not rid my mind of the thought, and her last words confirmed it: an arm and a leg had so far come away from the child which had been criminally done to death in its mother's womb. But that it should be the thirteenth....
"What do you want here...now...today? You are dead...you have never lived...I have no children...who sent you here? There...there...they're all coming back...one...two...three...Can you hear them calling...can you hear them? 'We cannot enter into eternal rest...we cannot enter into the eternal rest. You have robbed us of our peace...made us homeless...driven us out of our mother's womb...you have stolen our rest...give us the eternal rest.' And the eyes... the dreadful hollow eyes."
The thin fingers of the dying woman pointed to the wall as she began to count once more"Two...four...six...go away...go away." She stretched out against invisible shapes until she once more collapsed. But she could not rest. A new horror assailed her:
"There...there...one...two...three...bruised...naked..." and she shuddered as though overcome with loathing. "Don't touch me... go away...away. Don't you see anything...don't you hear how they whimper and wail, how they sob and scream...there...and now again...'we have no garment of grace to cover our nakedness...no wedding garment for the eternal marriage feast...we are shut out...frozen...hungry...give us light...make us warm'... Can't you hear anything? there...here...one...two...three..."
And suddenly, growing quite frantic again, she screamed out: "Go away...don't touch me...let...let me go...they want to take my eyes...my heart...let me go...let me go..."
She thrust the Sister violently to one side. But fortunately at this moment the doctor arrived. The head of the child was pushed out with a stream of blood. A rapid diagnosis: immediate operation.
The result confirmed my expectation. The child had been cut to pieces in an attempt to remove it; the mother had received several injuries and peritonitis was already developing. What with this and the prolonged hemorrhage, the end might be expected the following day. Word was sent to the husband.
He took the news very calmly until he learned that legal proceedings would certainly follow [abortion was still against the law in Germany, and would remain so until the Nazis legalized it]. Then he too, began to storm-about lawyers, who had nothing better to do than to poke their noses into other people's married life, instead of looking after their own. While he was cursing, the poor woman who was still partly under the influence of narcotic, began to count once more. The man ran away as though the Furies were after him.
The poor woman screamed and groaned for three days and three nights. Not even the strongest doses of narcotic could procure her rest and oblivion for any length of time. Again and again she saw her thirteen children who had been murdered in her womb come to her with their wailings and reproaches and entreaties. She never recovered consciousness sufficiently to enable us to try and bring her to repentance and guide her back to God, or to ease her of this dreadful torment by reminding her of God's mercy and goodness. And yet her anguish and distress would not let her die.
After four days her mind suddenly cleared; or at any rate, so it appeared. We sent word to the priest to come once more; and we also sent for the husband. The priest came, but after he had spoken a few words she broke in:
"There are thirteen of them, yes. There is no need to ask..." and as he was to speak of God's mercy, she said with a last effort: "Let me go...I want to go to hell...I want to pay back the dirty scoundrel for all eternity...." "Dirty scoundrel," she repeated with her last breath as her husband entered-and with that she died.
-All for the Love of Mothers, pg. 242-247

Our Lord spoke of this when he said: "Behold, the days shall come wherein they shall say: Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that have not borne, and the paps that have not given suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains: Fall upon us, and to the hills: Cover us. (Luke XXIII:28)

Mors peccatorum pessima