Chernobyl, the Dictatorship of Relativism, and the Errors of Russia

I'd been listening to Whittaker Chambers' book Witness recently. And last night, I first got into some of the coverage of the new HBO miniseries Chernobyl. Both give a glimpse into the nobility and sacrifice inherent in the Russian character, as well as the insanity, lies, and slaughter at the heart of Communism.

In light of Our Lady's clear warning at Fatima about Russia and the toxic intellectual pollution that was and would emanate from the ancient country, there is something perfectly symbolic about Chernobyl. There is something perfectly symbolic about a series of lies, of acts of insanity and/or carelessness, of hubris, leading to a tragedy of historic proportions. And there is something symbolic about the further lies told in order to save face, in order to protect the reputation, the influence, the misplaced trust in the Communist Party, in the Soviet system, in man and his ability to control all things, to replace God.

Our Lady warned us:

... If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. ...

Like the toxic cloud arising from the exposed core of Chernobyl, those many errors have arisen and spread out of Russia these past 100 years. And chief among them is "anything in the name of."

Anything in the name of the worker.

Anything in the name of justice.

Anything in the name of our party, or our state, or our country, or my family, or national security, or...

Anything in the name of the true, the good, and the beautiful, including telling a lie; doing evil; creating ugliness.

Anything in the name of, which inevitably leads to betraying the thing in whose name you have been acting.

Everything in the name of--yes, do everything in the name of God! Do everything with your eyes fixed on the good, the true, the beautiful, and do everything for love of them.

But anything in the name of is a fast track into the lowermost depths of hell.

J.R.R.Tolkien did a masterful job of dissecting this temptation in Lord of the Rings. Gandalf, Galadriel, Sam, Aragorn, Faramir--all are tempted to take up the One Ring, the Master Ring, in order to defeat the Dark Lord Sauron, and all refuse it, knowing that they could win, but in the winning, would lose everything. Denethor, Boromir, and Saruman were not so wise.

So it was at the root of Communism, and before, in Tsarist Russia. Anything in the name of the state; anything in the name of the preservation of our system; anything in the name of the Revolution; anything in the name of Soviet Communism; anything in the name of Comrade Stalin; anything in the name of defeating the Nazis; anything in the name of winning the Cold War; anything in the name of putting down counter-revolutionary forces; anything in the name of political correctness; anything in the name of...

So the tsars and their Okhrana helped give birth to the Revolution and to the many iterations of an internal security apparatus that eventually became the KGB, and then post-Soviet FSB, and the Russia of Vladimir Putin. Anything in the name of helped spawn anything in the name of once again. Oppressors and oppressed switched places, and set in motion the next cycle of revolution; switched places again, or perhaps merely reshuffled the cards for the next hand.

Anything in the name of gave us Chernobyl. Anything in the name of gave us the Cold War.

Anything in the name of justified the culture of the lie in the Soviet Union so well exposed and so aptly criticized by Chernobyl. Anything in the name of creates the People of the Lie dissected by M. Scott Peck, George Orwell, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, Vaclav Havel, and St. John Paul II.

Anything in the name of is the dominant mode of politics and economics tempting us across the world today.

Time, once again, to say: Pray the Rosary daily for peace in the world. Make the First Saturday devotion. Learn about the Blessed Virgin Mary, and do the devotions to the Immaculate Heart.

International Theological Commission

Their documents are all online! And most in English (haven't checked all of them).

Here.

Infrastructure of Tyranny--Solutions

So, in light of this long list of unthinkable realities, what is to be done?

• Pray, especially the Rosary and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy.  Pray for our politicians, our military and law enforcement personnel, our allies overseas, our enemies at home and abroad--everyone.  Pray for their conversion and sanctification, the Holy Spirit in their hearts and minds, the transformation of the Indwelling Trinity for them now and into eternity.  Pray!  As grace is unleashed into the world by our inviting God in, more people will become holy.  A civilization of love depends upon a society of saints--a whole generation of people who answer the universal call to holiness.  That's how the culture of death and fear will be confounded and the culture of life will win out.  We won't be able to discern light from darkness without prayer.  Nor will our actions have supernatural power or our words be full of truth if we aren't regularly getting in touch with God, the way, the truth, and the life.  Don;t forget to fast, as well!
• Accept the antique maxim "Give me liberty or give me death!"  We must remember that if we surrender all our liberties for security, we shall have neither liberty nor security.  Be willing that there should be casualties in a free society, or else we shall give all our rights away for no sure security.
• Know and love your neighbors.  Join groups.  Form networks of friends, acquaintances, relatives, that cannot be sundered if you lose your phone or are offline for a time.  Get to know the people around you.  Love them.  Pray for them.  Go to church, or temple, or mosque, or whatever house of worship you choose--but join.  Join the Knights of Columbus, or the PTA, or a book club, or something, just to better know and love the people around you.  Take local community and family seriously.  They're the ones who'll be around for you when you're old or ill or in need.  If you haven't built those relationships, you will truly be all alone with no attachments to anything larger than yourself should the bottom ever fall out of your life.
• Do works of mercy and don't stop.  Find the needs which your time, talents, or treasure can best answer, then meet those needs.
• Get involved in local politics.  It's the local politicians of today who, in a few years or decades, will be the national and international powerhouses.  If you want to see good, honorable people in national politics, start encouraging good, honorable people to get involved in local politics.  Get involved yourself!  Stop complaining about the people on offer and get your name or the name of the best and wisest human beings you have ever known on the ballot.
• Join one of the major parties and stand your ground.  There must be criticism from within.  There must be pro-life Democrats and Republicans who refuse to accept "anything in the name of national security."  There must be people who will not go with the flow, who will be living things and go against the current, to paraphrase Chesterton.  Only then will the parties come to their senses.
• Speak the truth.  Write letters to the editor.  Write blogs.  Post on Facebook.  Don't go quietly into this looming night.  Speak!  If enough of us talk about these impossible, insane, unthinkable realities which are falling into place around us, then we will live in an educated electorate.  There will be hope for real democratic change based upon a knowledge of the severity of the situation and, at the same time, a sense of empowerment to make a change.  Remember the methods used by Vaclav Havel, Pope John Paul II, Solzhenitsyn, and others to fight the doublethink and the culture of the lie they faced.  Take to heart the wisdom of George Orwell:  “In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”  The truth is powerful--always has been, always will be.  "And then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."  John 8:32.
• Be holy as your Father in heaven is holy.  Here's how, and here, and here, and here.

Fatima, The Holy Fathers, and The Present

The Law of the Gift

The New York Times asks:

Is Giving the Secret to Getting Ahead?

Yes--because the dynamic at the heart of the Trinity is utter and absolute self-gift. Since the Trinity is the source all of that is, the universe is set up to sacramentally mediate self-gift through time and space between God and creatures, as well as between created beings. This is why life demands everything from us--either we participate in the dynamic of self-donation and receiving gratefully the gifts of others, or we attempt to control others and retain ourselves.

More simply: "For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it." (Luke 9:24; Matthew 16:25; Luke 17:33; Mark 8:35; Matthew 10:39; John 12:25)

It's all in John Paul II, all in John Paul II--bless me, what do they teach in schools these days!

Happy Divine Mercy Sunday!

Pope Francis: A Round-Up of Reactions

Man, Hugh Hewitt gets some good guests!

Father Robert Spitzer, SJ, author, former president of Gonzaga University, and founder of the Magis Institute (among a whole ton of others), reacts here.

Father Robert Barron, author, rector of Mundelein Seminary, and founder of the Word on Fire ministry, reacts here, including some interesting predictions on who will be replaced within the Vatican itself.

Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, founder of Ignatius Press, reacts here.

Rocco Palmo, blogger at Whispers in the Loggia, reacts here

Mark Steyn, author, columnist, and all-around rabble-rouser reacts here.  (Very interesting commentary on the western reaction to Blessed Pope John Paul II's death here.)

Dr. Albert Mohler, author, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and one of the country's leading Protestant theologians, reacts here.

Father C.J. McCloskey, author, a research fellow of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C, and a priest of Opus Dei, reacts here.

Archbishop Charles Chaput, OFM Cap., author and archbishop of Philadelphia, reacts here and here.

And George Weigel, author, papal biographer, and Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, talks evangelical Catholicism here.

Pope Francis, Liberation Theology, and Confidently Saying The Wrong Thing

Yeeps.  Just...yeeps.

God bless the author of this piece.  She's certainly got confidence.  There're just a few things I'd like to comment on.

Jesuits: The Jesuits, or the Society of Jesus, are an order of (male) priests condoned by the Vatican that tend to take a missionary and scholarly approach to Catholicism.

"Condoned?"  As in, "barely acceptable yet tolerated?"  Howza about something like "The Jesuits are one of many religious orders within Catholicism"?

Founded by St. Ignatius in 1534, they're now best known as the administrators of several universities (Georgetown is probably the most famous one in the United States).

Okay, so they may be best known as the administrators of several universities, but they are certainly far more than that.  To start with, they have a much bigger educational footprint in the US alone than that rather lukewarm description indicates.

The Jesuits take vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience to both St. Ignatius and the pope.

And here's where my mouth dropped.  Cause, you know, they really, really don't swear obedience to St. Ignatius.  Their lawful superiors?  Oh, yeah.  The pope?  Look up "fourth vow of the Jesuits."  But while Ignatius has a huge role as founder in the constitution (and constitutions) of their order, he's not someone to whom they swear obedience (however good an idea that may be).

The Daily Beast has a pretty good explainer up on the Jesuits, which you can peruse for more details.

Actually, how about you go to a Catholic source for information on a Catholic religious order?  Or even more radically, how about going to that order itself?

But there's one important moment to flag in the context of Pope Francis's election.
The order ruffled the feathers of Pope John Paul II for their involvement in liberation theology in Latin America (we're getting to that). Partially because of their involvement in the liberally-associated movement, Jesuits have a reputation for being more progressive than the Catholic church's other clergy.

Want to know what John Paul II (and, for that matter, Pope Benedict XVI when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger) actually thought about liberation theology?  See here and here.  Want to know why Pope John Paul II, a Polish pope at a time when state communism was attempting to subjugate the Polish Catholic Church and render silent its opposition to the totalitarian oppression of Soviet Communism, might have had huge problems with liberation theology?  See here and here.

Liberation Theology: First off, the "liberation theology" we're talking about when we refer to South American Catholicism is distinct from the American "black liberation theology." They trace their roots back to two different commonly-cited foundational texts: James H. Cone's A Black Theology of Liberation, and Gustavo Gutiérrez's A Theology of Liberation, both written in the early '70s. The two theologies definitely share some significant similarities, namely a reading of scripture that puts the emphasis of the Christian concern with sin on social problems, rather than individual ones. In other words, Christians adhering to a liberation theology should orient themselves toward action against oppression. More symbolically, liberation theology argues that God identifies with the oppressed, and that Christianity should take upon itself the lens of the poor. Both theologies are also often derided as "Marxist" by conservatives (remember Rev. Wright?)

Heh.  Here's the thing: liberation theology actually is Marxist.  Don't believe me?  Check out the citations in Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, one of the most popular and widely used books applying the concepts of the theology of liberation to education.  Look at the citations in Gutiérrez's book.  And the key problem with liberation theology isn't the concern for the poor.  It's the notion that worldly poverty matters more than spiritual poverty, that political power matters more than deification, that the secular is more important than the sacred.

The Church is, has been, and always will be an institution directed by her founder to an ongoing and perennial concern for the poor.  We are commanded explicitly to tend to the needs of the least of these or else go to hell.  But we are also told to seek first the kingdom of God, and everything else shall be added unto it.  That is, put Christ first, put holiness first, and all else will fall into place around the true, transcendent center.

Liberation theology, on the other hand, would say to hell with the Church if it didn't first physically fight oppression (which seems to inherently involve seeking the destruction of all hierarchy, which would, of course, inevitably pit the liberation theologians against the very God they claim they're trying to serve.)

On the surface, this theology would seem to fit with Pope Francis. Here's the New Yorker, summing up his approach to poverty as a Catholic:

"He has made some sharp remarks about the vanity, self-infatuation, careerism, and pursuit of promotions in the Roman Curia. As Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he apparently preferred to be called Father Jorge, and was known for his preoccupation with the city’s poorest, reportedly washing and kissing the feet of patients suffering from AIDS."

But Francis has opposed liberation theology in Argentina. According to the National Catholic Reporter, this seems to have to do more with keeping Jesuits from becoming politically active or working directly in community groups—which would be a departure from the more traditional role of the order—than it does with rejecting an interpretation of Catholicism that places an emphasis on the poor.

I don't think there's any interpretation of Catholicism accepted within the Church that doesn't place a healthy emphasis on the poor.  No pope has ever rejected care for the poor.  Ever.

So while the emphasis on poverty could very well become a part of Francis's reign (and looks bound to), we know very little of what, if any, reforms he'd want to implement to make the church more effective at alleviating suffering from poverty. Despite his "firsts," there's little evidence so far that the new Pope has radical change in mind for the church.

Radical change?  Yes he does--holiness, with all the impossible transformations that will bring.

The Catholic Church Is Alive

A thing which many people don't notice. Excerpts:

Last week, quietly and with essentially no media coverage, Frère Pierre-Marie Delfieux, who founded the Community of Jerusalem, a remarkably vibrant renewal movement centered in the Church of Saint Gervais and Saint Protais in Paris – with rapidly growing affiliates across Europe and Canada – died and was buried. His farewell Mass at Paris’s Notre Dame Cathedral drew an overflow crowd, with lots of young people of high school and college age. And hundreds of priests and a dozen bishops, all of whom took part in a very beautiful and moving liturgy – one of the attractive hallmarks of the Community.

I only heard of this because a friend in Paris, who introduced me to San Gervais some years ago, rightly thought I’d want to know. Amidst all the flurry about the pope’s resignation and speculations about his successor, maybe it was only to be expected that the press wouldn’t have enough stamina left over to report on a different kind of Catholic story, a highly positive one at that, and in Europe – secular France, no less. Besides, it complicates the already established story line of a Church in total crisis.

It’s emblematic of where we are at present that something that is going beautifully right, as many things are in the Catholic Church, gets no attention while many people, including many Catholics, are obsessed with the things that have been going wrong. Scandal sells papers, and always will, of course. Still, there’s much else happening out there that needs to be reckoned with if you really want a full picture of Catholicism at this special moment in Church history.

It’s kind of the Catholic version of the sequester: despite all the apocalyptic hand-wringing about crises and institutional dysfunction, life largely goes on – and even flourishes, with many wonderful surprises. And anyway, as Ezra Pound once said, “an institution that survived the picturesqueness of the Borgias has a certain native resiliency.”

It’s a good to keep such things in mind as the papal conclave approaches.

The Story of Sexuality

In a fallen world, in one video.

And the path out of it.

Laborem Exercens, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, Centesimus Annus: The Social Doctrine of Blessed Pope John Paul II

From the invaluable Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Excerpts:

...Ninety years after Rerum Novarum, Pope John Paul II devoted the Encyclical Laborem Exercens [187] to work, the fundamental good of the human person, the primary element of economic activity and the key to the entire social question. Laborem Exercens outlines a spirituality and ethic of work in the context of a profound theological and philosophical reflection. Work must not be understood only in the objective and material sense, but one must keep in mind its subjective dimension, insofar as it is always an expression of the person. Besides being a decisive paradigm for social life, work has all the dignity of being a context in which the person's natural and supernatural vocation must find fulfilment.

With the Encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis[188], Pope John Paul II commemorates the twentieth anniversary of Populorum Progressio and deals once more with the theme of development along two fundamental lines: “on one hand, the dramatic situation of the modern world, under the aspect of the failed development of the Third World, and on the other, the meaning of, conditions and requirements for a development worthy of man”[189]. The Encyclical presents differences between progress and development, and insists that “true development cannot be limited to the multiplication of goods and service — to what one possesses — but must contribute to the fullness of the ‘being' of man. In this way the moral nature of real development is meant to be shown clearly”[190]. Pope John Paul II, alluding to the motto of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, “opus iustitiae pax” (peace is the fruit of justice), comments: “Today, one could say, with the same exactness and the same power of biblical inspiration (cf. Is 32:17; Jas 3:18), opus solidaritatis pax (peace is the fruit of solidarity)”[191].

On the hundredth anniversary of Rerum Novarum, Pope John Paul II promulgates his third social encyclical, Centesimus Annus[192], whence emerges the doctrinal continuity of a hundred years of the Church's social Magisterium. Taking up anew one of the fundamental principles of the Christian view of social and political organization, which had been the central theme of the previous Encyclical, the Pope writes: “What we nowadays call the principle of solidarity ... is frequently stated by Pope Leo XIII, who uses the term ‘friendship' ... Pope Pius XI refers to it with the equally meaningful term ‘social charity'. Pope Paul VI, expanding the concept to cover the many modern aspects of the social question, speaks of a ‘civilization of love”'[193]. Pope John Paul II demonstrates how the Church's social teaching moves along the axis of reciprocity between God and man: recognizing God in every person and every person in God is the condition of authentic human development. The articulate and in-depth analysis of the “new things”, and particularly of the great breakthrough of 1989 with the collapse of the Soviet system, shows appreciation for democracy and the free economy, in the context of an indispensable solidarity.

Other tallies of the social encyclicals include Evangelium Vitae on this list.

What It Means to be a Christian

is a great book. The heart of the Christian response to Jesus's gift:

Becoming a Christian is not at all something given to us so that we, each individual for himself, can pocket it and keep our distance from those others who are going off empty-handed.  No: in a certain sense, one does not become a Christian for oneself at all; rather, one does so for the sake of the whole, for others, for everyone.  The movement of becoming a Christian, which begins at baptism and which we have to pursue through the rest of our lives, means being ready to engage in a particular service that God requires from us in history.  We cannot of course always think through in detail why this service has to be done by me, now, in this way.  That would contradict the mystery of history, which is woven together from the inscrutability of man's freedom and God's freedom.  It should be enough for us to know in faith that we, by becoming Christians, are making ourselves available for a service in the whole.  Thus, becoming a Christian does not mean grabbing something for oneself alone; on the contrary, it means moving out of that selfishness which only knows about itself and only refers to itself and passing into the new form of existence of someone who lives for others.--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), What It Means to Be a Christian, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), pg. 54-55

A Defense of Michael O'Brien

"It's probably not a great work of literature.  But he poured his heart into it.  It's about the search for beauty and for love in a fallen world."
"A well-examined theme in literature."
"The favorite of serious writers."
"One might even say, the favorite theme of the human heart."
"I suppose that's true."--Michael O'Brien, Father Elijah, pg. 347.

I was reading around Mark Shea's blog and stumbled across a spate of Michael O'Brien bashing in the comments on this post.

I have to put in a word of defense for O’Brien here. While I agree that his formal style can be off-putting and his writing is not the best, I would argue that he does far, far more good than harm. There are depths to his books which the Left Behind series never begins to dream exist, let alone expose. He manages sympathetic portrayals of people who have fallen very far and very hard–for all that he tends to be rather black and white about things (see the whole Harry Potter brouhaha), in his novels, at least, you have some very sympathetic portrayals of gay characters (Smokrev; Pawel Tarnowski), of atheists and agnostics (Ann Delaney), of even architects of the reign of evil (Maurice L’Oraison). The characters are given reasons for the wrong they do that transcend the simplistic style of LaHaye and Jenkins by far, and actually ground and round out the characters in a manner far beyond the sort of awfulness I hear people accuse him of perpetrating.

O’Brien writes icons, both with paint and with his pen. The books are the product of fairly substantial prayer, I think, and reflection, as well as study. Are they great literature? No. Are they good books? I think so. Are they capable of saving souls and turning lives around? Yes, and I’ve seen them do it. Do they answer a substantial need in our time? Yes. For all that they may be obvious to the experienced practicing Catholic, they came as a great light to me when I was in college and trying to figure out what the heck had happened to the Jesuit universities. He does a great exposure of the illnesses of modernity, answering some of the deepest questions asked by contemporary man, and does it well. He gives answers many people will never have heard before in a readable context. Don’t discount what a great contribution that is. Until we have better Catholic fiction writers working in the world today, O’Brien fills a major void, and I think his work has the potential to endure because it’s so thoroughly grounded in eternal things, telling archetypal stories.

I agree that he intends to be a culture warrior–I think, given some of his life experiences, it’s more understandable than in many others.  His adamantly militant stance on some issues make him tone-deaf occasionally (the whole Harry Potter affair), but he also conveys a great deal of the richness of the faith in his books.

I don’t know nearly enough about icons and so forth to judge his art, but I think his method is the same–praying, writing, with a greater concern for fidelity to the truth and the light given than perhaps for the highest standards of literature and art. He’s contributing a great deal more to the Church and the world than he’s being given credit for in many of these comments. Is he as good a writer as Walter Miller, John Wright, Michael Flynn, or the others listed here? Probably not. But I think his work will last because his books reflect the reality of the struggle within the Church right now.

He has accurately and sympathetically held up a mirror to certain great problems in the modern age. He has listened to the teachings of John Paul II, among many others, and translated them into readable, workmanlike stories (even if he’s not a great writer). Christ calls us to do good work–I think O’Brien has done good work.

Not all Christian literature needs to be at the level of the Divine Comedy, the work of Sigrid Undset, Harry Potter, or The Lord of the Rings. There has always been and always will be the kitschy and the clumsy. All of it is part of the rich texture of a living culture. We need great art, yes. But of course, there has been and will continue to be merely good art, merely decent art, serviceable art, and bad art. And I think there’s a place for most of that.

I would argue that O'Brien, overall, crafts good art, with moments and intersections of his Children of the Last Days cycle touching the level great art.  He manages to make his work transparent to God, permitting the reader to see the world through the eyes of Christ and Christ's Church at key points.  His formalism doesn't always sit well with me--I think there are times when he's writing too deeply in the tradition of the Russian novelists, inheriting too great a touch of the stylized from Eastern European sensibilities.  But again--I think he does good, necessary, valuable work.

He made as if to go back down the mountain, but stopped and looked back at the statue.  A pathetic, lifeless madonna, devoid of artistic sense, and yet a symbol through which the Mother had come.  It was her way, of course, for she had been a small poor maiden of Nazareth.  Images of her were crowned in cathedrals throughout the world, icons painted by saints and statues carved by geniuses.  She was loved and glorified through these mighty works, and through them she drew souls to glorify her Son, the One to whom she always and everywhere pointed.  And yet she did not spurn the lowliest images, for they too were sign lifted up in the darkness of history, without false glory or human pride of accomplishment, words made from the clay of the earth and painted with pigments wrung from the earth by gnarled hands that toiled in the earth and hoped for paradise.--Michael O'Brien, Father Elijah, pg. 483

If you'd like to explore O'Brien's work, I'd recommend starting with Father Elijah: An Apocalypse. If you'd like a meditation on doubt, spiritual darkness, and a life without faith, pick up Strangers and Sojourners (Children of the Last Days) (v. 1). If you want to watch the life of a saint unfold before you, pick up A Cry of Stone.

"Is Life Fully Human Wthout Christianity?"

So I posted this to Facebook:

h/t Father Robert Barron and the Catholicism Project.
 Read the Pope's Wednesday address here.

and immediately got this question from a friend:

Is life fully human without Christianity?

to which I responded:

Ah--thereby hangs a massive, massive theological discussion. Bleah--permit me a few really nuanced, seemingly non-answer answers.

The Catholic Church, Secularization, and Survival

Let's reuse what worked, shall we?  Excerpts:

...The cardinal noted that religious freedom was guaranteed in the Soviet constitution too, while the reality was very different and highly constrained. Some Russian Orthodox Church leaders had KGB rank and perquisites.

The most prominent Catholic opponent to this Cold War reality was, of course, Cardinal Wojtyla of Poland, later Pope John Paul II. He provided a four-point plan for the Church in those circumstances:

Yes, You Can Fool the Children of the (Sexual) Revolution

Mary Eberstadt offers hope.  Excerpts:

...In the end, consolation also comes from this fact: The intellectual divide over the Cold War and the divide today over the sexual revolution another feature in common. In both cases, many on both sides suspected that history had already decided the matter. This was true even of some of the leading anticommunist intellectuals of the day. Jean François Revel opened his 1984 book, chillingly entitled How Democracies Perish, with the equally chilling sentence: “Democracy may, after all, turn out to have been a historical accident, a brief parenthesis that is closing before our eyes.” Similarly, Whittaker Chambers famously opens his magisterial autobiography, Witness, with a letter to his children warning darkly of a world “sick unto death,” and he told his wife when he chose to defect from communism, “You know, we are leaving the winning world for the losing world.” Chambers was wrong about that, of course—even as he was singularly and fearlessly right about so much else.

The Nature of the Priesthood

Vatican II explains the priesthood in Presbyterorum Ordinis.  Here's an Antiochan Orthodox explanation of how the priest as an icon of Christ must be male, a point reiterated (and apparently defined as to be definitively held by all the faithful) by Pope John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

Natural Family Planning: Effective and Cheap

As with all forms of family planning, effective if used properly.  From ScienceDaily:

Researchers have found that a method of natural family planning that uses two indicators to identify the fertile phase in a woman's menstrual cycle is as effective as the contraceptive pill for avoiding unplanned pregnancies if used correctly, according to a report published online in Europe's leading reproductive medicine journal Human Reproduction today (21 February)...

Study abstract can be found here.

Contraceptives: Why Not?

From the secular side of things, we have a fair range of data indicating at least some significant increase in the risk of certain kinds of cancer arising from chemical contraceptives. The data varies somewhat from source to source, but it's there coming from rather reputable places. Here's CancerHelp UK on the cancer risk from contraceptives. Here's WebMD on the subject. Here's the National Cancer Institute on the subject. Note: some of these also speak of a reduced cancer risk from some forms of birth control pills.

For Ash Wednesday, the Jubilee Repentance

In 2000, Bl. Pope John Paul II and members of the Curia held a public ceremony of repentance for the sins of members of the Mystical Body of Christ.  It's worth remembering that today on Ash Wednesday.

Vatican II's Teaching Authority

What authority hath Vatican II?  One answer.  Excerpts:

It is impossible ('for a Catholic') to take a position for Vatican II but against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has been clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly the two previous Councils. And that also applies to the so-called 'progressivism', at least in its extreme forms. It is likewise impossible to decide in favour of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two Councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so called 'traditionalism', also in its extreme forms. Every partisan choice destroys the whole which can exist only as an indivisible unity.

Over against both tendencies, before all else, it must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points." (The Ratzinger Report,1985)...

Together, the Pope and the bishops in assembly constitute the highest teaching authority of the Church, so you can probably deduce for yourself that wilfully to reject such authority would separate you from the Church in a very serious manner. At the conclusion of each document of Vatican II, there is a statement by Pope Paul VI emphasizing the collegial unity of the Pope and the bishops in approving the documents:

"Each and every one of the things set forth in this (here the type of document is named) has won the consent of the fathers. We too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable Fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in Synod be published to God’s glory…I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church."

At the close of the Council, the following words read on behalf of Pope Paul VI convey the expected response from the faithful:

"We decide moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful (our italics), for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… we have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect..." (December 8, 1965)

The argument is sometimes put forward that no infallible pronouncements were made during Vatican II, and certainly the words of Pope Paul VI seem to support this:

"There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." (Paul VI, General Audience of January 12, 1966)

Even if we accept that the Council made no infallible pronouncements, however, it is still a serious act of disobedience, a sin in fact, to ignore or reject the Church's non-infallible teachings. When Pope Paul VI stated "that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful," he is reminding us that all the teachings and admonitions of the Church are worthy of reverence. The Catechism speaks of the assent required of all Catholics:

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner" (our italics),they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" (our italics) which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it (Catechism:892).

Again, it is important to focus on exactly what the Council wrote and actually intended, rather than to focus on certain interpretations of Council documents that you believe are unacceptable or damaging to the faith. No one is asking you to shut down your critical faculties, however, and you should feel free to express your views in a respectful manner as the need arises. Nevertheless, give the Council what theologians call assensus religiosus; that is, the religious assent of mind and will, trusting that Holy Mother Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, possesses "the fullness of the means of salvation." (The Second Vatican Council: Decree on Ecumenism)...