:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::

:: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 ::

On Liturgical Nonsense, Recent Restore Rants, Church Music, Etc:
(Musings of the Webmaster of Lidless Eye Inquisition)

There was a recent rant by Kevin Tierney over at his group weblog. And after reading it, I have to say he spoke well on the subject in question. And as this provides the opportunity to highlight one aspect of how I have long approached these kinds of issues; ergo the contents of the post you are currently reading will strive to do that.

The primary reason for the rant was liturgical and Kevin summarized it in the following words:

There is probably one thing above all else that really peeves me about these movements. The speaking in tongues and prophecy, provided it's controlled, I can live with. The overemphasis on emotion at times, I can live with. What really gets under my skin is the attitude of so many towards the liturgy, and the rock concert atmosphere we see. I remember a story of a priest visiting the Franciscan University of Steubenville. During one of his masses, right at the either the great Amen or the consecration (I can't remember which) the Charismatics in attendance broke out into what is known as "holy laughter." For those who haven't seen this experience, it's rather interesting. People break out uncontrollably in loud laughter, and this laughter is supposed to be an effect of the Holy Spirit's working within the soul. Quite frankly I find it absurd and disrespectful to say the least...

Why do I find this so offensive? The Mass is not a rock concert. The Mass is not feel good hour. You are not at Mass to feel good. That's one of the big problems with the tailoring of the liturgy today to people's sensibilities. It tries to make them happy, feel good, be all emotional, all that jazz. The Mass is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is a sacrifice for our sins. If you don't feel all happy go lucky, that's the point. Reflecting on the fact our sins caused Christ to be crucified is not supposed to be a warming experience.

Setting aside for the time being, whether mass is or is not supposed to be a celebration, the crux of Kevin's argument is that the mass is not intended to make people feel good. I can concur with this to some extent certainly. The nature of liturgical celebration in my opinion should encompass the entire spectrum of human emotions; however this need not take place all in the same celebration. Sometimes the liturgical mood is supposed to be more somber in nature...for example during Lent. Sometimes it is supposed to be more festive...for example during the Easter season. There are a variety of ways to achieve these intentions as well as a variety of musical textures which can help accentuate it. Those familiar with my other weblog are aware that I am a part of the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of Marty Haugen and David Haas. While I rarely have to listen to their stuff; nonetheless I joined the movement to show solidarity with those who have to suffer week after week with that kind of syrupy stuff.

One can only imagine that it has on the spiritual health the same kind of effect that a diet heavy in refined sugar has on the health of the body. It would not be so bad if taken in moderation but alas...about the only thing its promoters want seen in less-than-moderation (to put it mildly) is stylings such as chanting or polyphonic music. It is to be hoped that Pope Benedict XVI will see a music revival in his pontificate because so much of the liturgical arguments are over the music in my humble opinion. But let us divulge what in my opinion is at the crux of this whole situtation: the communal nature of liturgical celebrations.

The liturgy is first and foremost supposed to be communal in its fostering of actual participation. There therefore needs to be a structure to it which facilitates first and foremost a communal worship environment. I cannot see how this so-called "holy laugh" Kevin talks about (which some of the so-called "charismatics" do) does that. I remind you all of a key passage from the Rule of St. Augustine which is the governing Constitution of my beloved Dominicans:

"[C]harity, as it is written, is not self-seeking (1 Cor 13:5) meaning that it places the common good before its own, not its own before the common good. So whenever you show greater concern for the common good than for your own, you may know that you are growing in charity. Thus, let the abiding virtue of charity prevail in all things that minister to the fleeting necessities of life."

I have used that text before to chide certain people who call themselves "traditionalists"{1} but it works equally for those who call themselves "charismatics." My primary problem with any offshoot movement is not the issue of their orthodoxy{2}, their particular devotions, their particular movement's quirks, and the like. It instead is their apparent placing of greater concern for their own personal preferences over and above the common good.

One should be willing to sacrifice their personal preferences (whatever they happen to be) in service of the common good. And with many charismatics{3}, they are not willing to do this but instead expect the common good to be conformed to them. That is my biggest problem with the charismatic movement in some of its tendencies. According to St. Augustine whenever you show greater concern for the common good than for your own, you may know that you are growing in charity; therefore, we can logically deduce from this what is happening to those who show less concern for the common good than for their own personal whims. And with those involved with the profoundly individual "holy laugh" schtick during mass (whatever the mood of the mass happens to be) the end result is not likely to be one who is growing in charity. But enough on that subject for now.

Notes:

{1} See my essay response to David Palm on novelty and tradition for one such example.

{2} It is par for the course for this to be mixed as with any offshoot...with some subdivisions within the offshoot having greater probabilities towards orthodoxy (and orthopraxy) than others.

{3} Much as many who affiliate with various offshoot movements -including the one most frequently covered here at LEI.

:: Shawn 7:22 PM [+] | ::

************************************

A Minor Weblog Adjustment:

Readers of this weblog are aware that there is a link in the side margin which contains a list of various pseudo-"traditionalist" sites to assist readers in discernment of good sites from bad ones.{1} Well, it was brought to the attention of this writer today of the existence of a similar link which led to pseudo-"progressivist" authors.

This writer checked the names and did not see anyone on there that seemed misplaced...though admittedly he did not know all the names involved. Nonetheless, if there is a stray okay name or two on that list, it will still serve as a good reference point for those writers who pollute the publishing world with material that is a waste of time to read except to confute. If for some reason you want to do that fine but be warned in advance that it is very easy to see errors where they may not necessarily exist...even in the work of those who are generally to be viewed with suspicion.

And while discussing pseudo-"progressivists" is not the purpose of this weblog; nonetheless, it seems appropriate to add that thread also so that those who are disabused of one extreme do not take recourse in another extreme. Here is the thread that has been added in perpetuity:

A Syllabus of Various (Mostly Pseudo-"Progressivist") Dissenting Authors

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Note:

{1} For those who do not know this, it is the following link from the side margin:

F. John Loughnan's "Classification of Some Integrist (Lidless Eye) Websites"

:: Shawn 6:15 PM [+] | ::

************************************

For those who think that even the Society of St. Pius V is not anachronistic enough:

The Society of St. Pius I

Apparently someone decided to utilize some of the stuff from my treatise in a totally unauthorized fashion...they do not know that my citations from the Catholic Encyclopedia are solely mine and no one else's to use...but that is not what really grates me my friends. No, they are not anachronistic enough as I see it. So rather than join this fledgling group, I will be holding out for The Society of St. Judas Maccabees, Aramaic liturgy, and the restoration of Hannukkah to the "true Traditional" liturgical calendar ;-)

:: Shawn 12:15 PM [+] | ::

************************************

On the Revised Missal Ordination Rites and Other Tidbits:
(Aka "Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, the Doctor is In" Dept.)

Dear Shawn

Hello XXXX:

I am reading your treatise against traditionalism hosted on matt316 site. I am now as far as vatican 2's authority part 1.

One of the things I really liked about the third edition was dividing that url into two parts. It took a little distangling but I was able to confute arguments and lay the foundations in the part you just read to set forth in the second part of the two part thread a thesis for the project's overarching theory.{1} I think that layout makes the material (the bulk of which was written years ago) easier to absorb by the reader.

I am friends with a hardline FSSP Priest, who condemns the SSPX as a matter of course but some of the things that he says I find hard to verify or to find anybody who agrees with them except on SSPX websites or other "Traditionalist" ones.

There are some FSSPers who are essentially SSPXers with a different post office box. They have changed locations but not their mentalities which are functionally schismatic oftentimes. Nonetheless, as a rule the statements from FSSPers are reliable.

He has said that it is grievously sinful to say the new rite, even in Latin. This does affect me because I cannot see the way out of that.

It is impossible dogmatically as well as logically for it to be a sin to say the revised liturgy because (i) the pope has the power to bind and loose and (ii) Pope Paul VI by virtue of his apostolic authority prescribed the revised liturgy as a law in the universal church and abrogated or obrogated{2} the legal prescriptions of Quo Primum. For that reason, your FSSP priest friend would be wise to wise up on these things because to claim that it is a sin to celebrate the revised liturgy is to make unavoidable shipwreck of the faith.

Now, it is true that to celebrate the revised liturgy in a manner that directly undermines its dogmatic foundation{3} would be a sin on the part of the presiding priest but that is their problem not yours or mine. And (perhaps) the FSSP priest you refer to was claiming that many celebrations of the revised liturgy would for that reason be sinful. If that is so then he is correct but with a caveat: the sin would be on the part of the presiding priest and not on the part of those at the liturgy. The liturgy itself as prescribed in the liturgical books (and utilizing the lawful adaptations allowed) cannot be sinful. And if that FSSP priest you refer to knew his pre-Vatican II dogmatic theology adequately enough, he would know that.

Over the last two years I have read and heard a lot of trash. So I need a wee bit of help to get rid of the baggage accumulated. It does cause me spiritual hassle.

Understood. I will settle this for you at the moment beyond a reasonable doubt by quoting a writing I coauthored about five years ago. One of my coauthors of that work (Dr. Art Sippo) addressed this issue of the liturgy and the range of magisterial infallibility in the following way (all underlining is mine):

The Magisterium is infallible in all matters that deal with the central mysteries of the faith both directly and indirectly. This includes the canonization of saints, the promulgation of doctrine and the celebration of the sacraments. Again our Integrist friends are quite Protestant in their attitude towards the Magisterium.

I will now quote from the Manual of Dogmatic Theology by A. Tanquerey, Volume 1 (Desclee, 1959).

On page 144 starts the section "THE OBJECT OF THE DOCTRINAL MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH."

250 Thesis : The direct object of infallibility of the Church includes all the religious truths and each individual truth which are formally contained in the sources of revelation; the indirect object embraces all those things which are required in order that the deposit of faith may be preserved entire. The first part of this thesis is de fide; the second part is certain.

Page 145 251 b. ...When infallible power is exercised in respect to truths connected with revelation, truths of this kind are the object of ecclesiastical faith only.

256 e. The Church is infallible in regard to moral precepts since general laws for the universal Church cannot be in opposition to the natural or positive divine law...Therefore, it can enjoin nothing which has not been approved by God.

On page 176 starts the Discussion of "The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church." A subsection "Practice of the Church Associated with Dogma" on Page 177 contains the following:

291 Among the customs and practices which have been closely joined to dogma we mention especially the public rites used in the solemn celebration of the sacrifice, or in the administration of the sacraments; also the formulas of prayers and various feasts or offices instituted by the Church; or sacred practices which have been associated with doctrine.

For a practice of the Church to become a criterion of faith there are two requirements:

a. that the practice be necessarily connected with the dogmatic truth; for in imposing a practice or custom, the Church by that very fact orders that dogmas connected with this practice must be adhered to;

b. that a custom of this kind be universal or approved at least tacitly by infallible authority; for only the universal Church enjoys infallibility. Therefore a custom or practice of one particular Church produces only a probable argument for revealed truth. The Roman Liturgy, approved in a special manner by the Supreme pontiffs, cannot contain errors in dogma. Historical mistakes can creep in, and, as a matter of fact, they have slipped into the legends in the Breviary, because the special lessons of the Second Nocturns were written at a time when apocryphal works were being spread abroad. Nevertheless these lessons should not be despised because many points contained in them are true and are suitable for fostering piety and goodness.[Dr. Art Sippo: Quoted from Detection and Overthrow of the 'Traditionalist Catholics' Falsely So-Called, Part 4 (c. 2000)]

In case you are unfamiliar with the above work, it was a standard seminary text in the century prior to the Second Vatican Council. And it sets forth two theses which were in no doubt whatsoever prior to the Second Vatican Council; one of which was de fide and the other believed by most theologians to be "certain." The Second Vatican Council settled this issue definitively in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium in section 25 when it declared that this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends. So for the faithful Catholic, this issue is settled and is a matter of ecclesiastical faith.{4} But before we get ahead of ourselves here, let us look at the theses as set forth by Dr. Adolph Tanquerey in his manuals of dogmatic theology which (again) predate the Second Vatican Council.

The "certain" thesis set forth by Dr. Tanquerey was that infallibility had an indirect component as well as the direct one (the latter was de fide).{5} And indirect elements which involve infallibility include (to use Tanquerey's words) all those things which are required in order that the deposit of faith may be preserved entire among them are customs and practices which have been closely joined to dogma including the public rites used in the solemn celebration of the sacrifice, or in the administration of the sacraments. However, these are not de fide because they are not directly infallible but instead are secondarily so. Therefore, the theological note is not one of "de fide" (of faith) but instead "fides ecclesaistic" which is what Tanquerey means by of ecclesiastical faith. There is also the matter of general laws of the Church.

Tanquerey noted that [t]he Church is infallible in regard to moral precepts since general laws for the universal Church cannot be in opposition to the natural or positive divine law...Therefore, it can enjoin nothing which has not been approved by God. For that reason, the popes (who have the power of binding and loosing) cannot -either through an Ecumenical Council they approve of or in their own laws- enjoin something that is not already approved of by God. Thus, Pope Pius V in the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum of 1570 (which imposed the Roman liturgy in its form of that time on the universal church as a papal law) and Pope Paul VI in the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum abrogating or obrogating the previous apostolic constitution of Pius V in 1969 were imposing general laws on the universal church. For that reason alone, neither liturgy could be opposed to the natural or positive divine law and there is no sin involved in their observance -provided that such observance is conducted in accordance with Church laws of course.{6} Hopefully that is of assistance in alleviating any anxieties over this that you may have from so much of the drek out there on these matters.

You said that there was a maronite rite where the word used was "for all" in the consecration. Could you fwd me some information on that, And what the Holy See said about it when they reunited. especially as regards validity and licitness.

I will see what I can find. (Time is not on my side for doing this though.) I know that the Maronites eventually adopted "for many" in their liturgies as a result of an unfortunate latinization tendency which was prevalent at certain points of history (which the popes never approved of I might add -particularly from Leo XIII onward). "Pro multis" was a translation of a Greek phrase hoi pollen which is more accurately translated as "for the masses" or "for the multitude." The translation of "for all" is therefore the more accurate translation but they are both orthodox expressions provided that they are properly understood.

The Second Vatican Council made it clear that the traditions were to be returned to their ancient simplicity and any latinizations removed.{7} This may well mean removal of "for many" and replacement of it with "for all" at some point if the former *was* a Romanizing element.

I believe very much in the indefectability of the church. That helps a lot.

Yes it does.

Is infallibility involved with the Bishops approving translations of the liturgy?

Possibly if the Holy See gives approval of the translations. But that is not as neat an answer as it may appear on the surface for many reasons -one of which is that words by their very nature can be imprecise. So that may be simply saying that an approved translation has an orthodox explanation to it in its properly understood sense rather than being free from any ambiguities potentially misinterpreted which is how infallibility would apply. As no liturgy can be completely free from ambiguity (despite the pretentions of not a few who call themselves "traditionalists" who seem to think otherwise), that is why even if the translations were protected by infallibility it does not rule out that the translations themselves may be less than desireable in the choice of words used.

And if Pope Paul VI approved it does not that make it completely licit?

Yes.

the only other thing that does bother me is teh questions traditionalists put over the Holy Orders in the New Rite. They say that they are anglican and so on.

This is ignorant rubbish to put it bluntly. The rites of the revised ordinals are practically verbatim if not verbatim from the earliest ordinals that we have records of. Therefore, if they were "invalid" then we have no valid priests at all and never have had any. Such a presumption is of course absurd.

The primary problem with the Anglican orders is that they are conferred with a defective intention. The intention of a community is tangibly measured in its "platform" if you will and the Apostolic Churches understand the liturgy to have a sacrificial component to it as well as understanding a difference in degree between levels of Holy Orders. The Anglicans in their 39 Articles:

---Deny transubstantiation directly (Article XXVIII)

---Deny that there is a difference in degree between bishops and priests as well as a significant function of the ministerial priesthood to offer sacrifice to God (see Article XXV and also Article XXXI)

---Deny the sacrifice of the mass (Article XXXI)

---Deny that there are any sacraments other than Baptism and the Eucharist (Article XXV)

---Deny the indefectibility of the Church based on a skewed sense of ecclesiology (Article XIX)

These are all teachings explicitly affirmed by the Catholic Church. And the first three are required to be affirmed if there is to be a right intention to properly ordain. The other problem is that the Anglicans do not affirm a distinction in degree of Order between bishops and priests in their 39 Articles. And since there is no distinction of this made in the Edwardine Ordinal or the 39 Articles, there constitutes a defect of form as well as intention since the form has to convey a right intention and there is no way to know with certainty if it does with the Anglicans.{8} And (of course) since the Anglicans (if you ask) will generally deny there is such a degree in Order, that suffices to clear up any doubts on the matter if any can exist in light of what is noted above.

By contrast (i) the earliest ordination rites of record in the Catholic Church do not make the same explicit demarcations of later formularies; however (ii) all required dogmas pertaining to the priesthood and the sacrifice of the mass were confirmed by the Cahtolic Church prior to, at, and subsequent to Vatican II. And finally (iii) as Tanquerey noted in imposing a practice or custom, the Church by that very fact orders that dogmas connected with this practice must be adhered to. This means that all dogmas defined in earlier ages remain valid even if ceremonial forms change (as they have at times throughout history). More could be noted but hopefully this suffices to point out how ignorant and absurd those who try to argue against the validity of the ordination rites in the revised liturgy really are.

I have been told that the rites used for ordination of Priests and consecration of Bishops in the apostolic times and up untill at least the 5th century were not disimilar. Is there a serious debunking anywhere of those things. I only ask to set my mind at rest.

I am sure ones could be found if we had the time to look for them. But as I do not, hopefully what is noted above (and in the footnotes below) sets your mind at ease.


Notes:

{1} The thesis was on the council and infallibility as it pertained to the former.

{2} Depending on the orthodox canonist you ask. The difference is essentially one revoking the law entirely (abrogation) and one replacing the former law with another by direct substitution (obrogation). Either way, the functional result is the same.

{3} Even with the most rubrically abused of revised liturgical celebrations, this is profoundly difficult to do: so much so that you need not even lose an ounce of sleep over it. The priest would essentially have to (i) delete whole prayers from the liturgical text (which was a problem in the old days but now is virtually impossible to get away with with everything vernacularized) or (ii) manifest some very obvious denial of essential requirements which any regular celebration -even shoddily done- would not manifest. And of course, (iii) they could also utilize defective matter for the celebration of the Eucharist. The latter though is also so statistically unlikely that you need not worry about it. (Mainly because churches get their sacramental supplies as a rule from sources where these matters are properly dealt with.) Even if the latter example were to happenen though, your intention to receive validly would likely substitute for actual reception since God will not deny His graces to those who earnestly seek them. (That is probably the most common theological position on the matter and it is the one I adhere to.)

{4} As there were no dogmas defined by the Second Vatican Council, this teaching would not be de fide. However, it fulfills the criteria set forth by the magisterium for being a matter of definitive doctrine to be held by ecclesiastical faith.

{5} The "certain" thesis was originally going to be framed in a planned second Constitution at Vatican I to follow Pastor Aeternus however, the Council was suspended before the text could be finely tuned and presented for a vote. The last draft schema which was prepared discussed the indirect infallibility of the magisterium as follows:

We teach, therefore, that the object of infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of faith and as far as the office of guarding it demands. And so we teach that the prerogative of infallibility, with which Christ's Church is endowed embraces not only the whole revealed word of God, but also everything that, although in itself not revealed, is necessary for safeguarding the revealed word, for certainly and definitively proposing and explaining it for belief, and for legitimately asserting and defending it against the errors of men and the contrary oppositions of so-called knowledge." [Schema on the Second Constitution from Vatican I: From The Church Teaches - Documents of the Church in English Translation by Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College pgs 86-87; 93 (c. 1955) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum post contra Adam Kolasinski (circa August 10, 2003)]

The above teaching was therefore considered potentially magisterial at Vatican I and at Vatican II it was unquestionably made magisterial in a definitive manner. I say "potentially magisterial" because it was in a schema that was going to be discussed and the possibility of parts of the schema being changed (if the discussion ever got to the floor for discussion) was still there. Nonetheless, the Council Fathers of Vatican II quite clearly considered this matter certain and included the principle in a dogmatic constitution thus removing any doubt on the matter. And if there was any reason to doubt this understanding (which I do not believe there was for those not out to twist the texts from their proper context), the CDF reaffirmed this understanding in a 1973 Declaration titled Mysterium Ecclesiae. (Where they restated almost verbatin the unpromulgated schema from Vatican I to re-emphasize that what the latter said was how what Vatican II said was to be properly understood.)

{6} [It dawned on me after writing the above bit that it could be misinterpreted as saying that any attendence of a liturgy without regard for Church laws and prescriptions would be okay. Hence, I made a little revision in the text to clarify that this is not how my words were to be understood -ISM 5/16/05 5:00pm]

{7} This would mean the removal of the filioque from the credo in eastern church liturgies for example. Some ignorant westerners actually believe (or once believed) that the easterners removed the filioque from their credo rather than the westerners putting it into theirs.

{8} As there is no way we can ascertain this from either the Ordinal or the 39 Articles and cannot leave this a matter of subjective feeling where a matter as serious as what is and is not a valid sacrament. This is why the Church wisely refused from the very beginning to recognize the Anglican orders as valid and why Leo XIII ruled as he did in Apostolicae Curae. In light of what I explained above about indirect components to magisterial infallibility, hopefully the character of that pronouncement by Leo XIII is evident viz. the lack of validity to Anglican orders.

:: Shawn 12:00 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Points to Ponder:
(On The Vatican vs. "Americanism" --Part VI: Murray the Minority)

This is a continuation of the musings located HERE. To start from the beginning of this thread, please go HERE.

One readily admits that the United States is not a fit bearer of Christian culture in the world. No country or concert of countries is that. But then one must always ask: Compared to what? The European Union? Russia? Latin America? Africa? Or to stretch the point to absurdity, China? Strategic and tactical aspects of the war on terror aside, the argument can be made that American influence is generally on the side of the Church on the big questions: human freedom, democracy, the dignity of the human being at all points on life's continuum, the indispensable centrality of family and marriage, the economic development of poor nations, and the practice of subsidiarity in civil society. A change in U.S. administrations would likely have a negative impact on all these, but they would nonetheless remain vibrant components of the continuing American experiment.

In contrast to Leo XIII's judgment in 1899, John Courtney Murray published in 1960 We Hold These Truths. He made, and those who claim his legacy make, the argument that not only is Catholic faith and life compatible with the American experiment but Catholicism may be essential to preserving the experiment, even as it counters those elements of "Americanism" that are corrosive of the Church's vision.

Murray's was a minority position then and, if Allen and others are right, it may become more of a minority position in the future. John Paul warmly embraced crucial aspects of the Murray argument, but on the not-so-distant horizon is another pope who will likely be shaped by, in Allen's phrase, "how the Vatican really thinks." More than in 1899 and more than in 1960, the world is being reconfigured by divergent attitudes toward America and its global hegemony, which, for better and worse, is likely to continue for a long time. It will be a very great pity if the Vatican becomes the spiritual cheerleader for those Europeans who view America with a measure of respect and even admiration mixed with a much larger measure of envy, resentment, and pitiable pretensions to moral and intellectual superiority.

In the background of that European attitude, and not very far in the background, hovers the fear of huge and restive Muslim populations in countries such as France and Germany. In a global conflict with an enemy motivated by Islamic fanaticism, these Europeans, and perhaps some in the Vatican as well, do not want to be perceived as being on the Christian side. To be sure, the Vatican has a singular responsibility to cultivate dialogue with Islam, but that dialogue will be neither credible nor fruitful if the Vatican is not clearly on the Christian side. That does not mean that in every instance the Vatican should be on the American side. A great deal of delicate diplomacy and careful thought is required. But this much is certain: in the new configuration of world power and influence, the United States is, on balance and considering the alternatives, on the Christian side.

We should all understand why President Bush refuses to speak about a clash of civilizations or to describe our circumstance as one of religio-cultural warfare. But we should all know that that is what, in fact, it is. Or, as the report of the 9/11 Commission prefers, it is an ideological conflict inescapably tied to religion. It would be an exquisite irony of history if, when war is declared on the Christian West by those inspired by a possibly perverse but undeniably Islamic ideology, the Vatican refused to take sides; thus, willy-nilly, taking the other side. The Curia's cosmopolitanism, sophistication, devotion to dialogue, and long-term perspective shaped by centuries of diplomacy can all be assets. They can also induce a blindness to the fact that an enemy has declared war and sides must be taken. The Europeans who run the Vatican are right in believing that the Vatican must not be a chaplain to American hegemony; a critical distance is required. When that distance becomes disdain, however, the credibility of the Church's political guidance and the defense of our common civilization are gravely weakened.

As I say, John Allen may well be right in his description of a Vatican reverting to Leo XIII's animus toward "Americanism." I am not persuaded that he is right, but it is one of the important arguments we are invited to engage by his valuable book, All the Pope's Men: The Inside Story of How the Vatican Really Thinks. [Richard J. Neuhaus]

:: Shawn 4:16 PM [+] | ::

************************************