Gabriel S. Sanchez - Opus Publicum

November 1, 2016 Catholic Social Thought, Eastern Orthodox Church, Politics

All Saints Day

Whenever I start to wonder why the Catholic Church in America is so bloodless, confused, and indifferent toward the deposit of faith, I quickly peruse the websites of Patheos, First Things, and the National Catholic Reporter to find my answers. This year’s “Reformation Day,” coupled with a certain notorious papal visit to Sweden, has really brought out the worst in some people, and by the “worst” I mean the worst sort of equivocating in the name of “dialogue” and “unity.” In times past, I thought one of the central problems with post-Vatican II American Catholicism is its inordinate desire to be accepted as “good liberals” in a secular democracy. It now seems to me that part of being accepted as such meant being accepted by the Protestant elites who, for all practical purposes, ran (and to some extent still run) America’s socio-political machinery. Things started to change a bit in the late 1970s when Catholics and Evangelicals became jointly concerned about abortion (and some other moral matters). Now, however, Catholics are desperate to divorce themselves from that “fever-swamp Christianity” of days gone by while looking to the collapsing mainline Protestant confessions for inspiration. Sometimes Catholics will call this “dialogue”; in truth it’s merely capitulation.

The Eastern Orthodox handle themselves a bit better, at least as far as rejecting limp-wristed ecumenism masked by vacuous terms like “encounter” and “witness” is concerned. Those with eyes to see know of course that American Orthodoxy, more than American Catholicism, struggles with “Protestant captivity,” largely due to the influx of converts into Orthodoxy’s fold during the 1990s and early 00s. While some of these converts have packed their bags and left, numerous influential Orthodox clerics (and a few laymen) continue to push for an Orthodoxy that amounts to little more than “Byzantine Rite Calvinism.” Heck, even well-meaning cradle Orthodox are often duped into believing that old-fashioned Protestant polemics against Rome, when dressed up with some Greek jargon, represents an authentic articulation of “true Orthodoxy” over-and-against “Papist errors.” This leads to all sorts of nonsense, such as fanciful distinctions between what the Orthodox have (allegedly) “always believed” and what Catholics now (allegedly) “do.” (Yes, I have been told straight up that among the (alleged) differences between Orthodox and Catholics, one can list Mary worship, statue worship, saint worship, and Communion worship.)

Perhaps it’s cliché to say that things will get worse before they get better, but let’s not forget that clichés are clichés for a reason. Regardless of what happens next Tuesday, there can be little doubt that the country will be even more politically torn apart than it already is. Christians (of whatever stripe) will have to select sides, and there will be plenty of finger pointing to go around. Those Catholics (and Protestants and Orthodox) who insist that we must vote for Donald Trump or else are going to remain at odds with those Catholics who follow the Church’s actual teachings when it comes to voting. That is to say, those Catholics who refuse to materially cooperate with evil are apt to be marginalized by both Left-wing Catholics (who, of course, have no problem materially cooperating with evil) and Right-wing Catholics, at least for a time. Remember: If Hillary Clinton prevails over Trump, it’s everyone’s fault for not violating their consciences or embracing “the lesser of two evils”; the fact that American conservative politics has degraded to the point where a buffoonish billionaire can hijack the Republican Party has nothing to do with it (or so they say).

Some harbor the hope that when the dust finally settles, a new, more diversified, politics might emerge and that Christians (specifically Catholics) will finally be able to have an unadulterated say in the direction of the Republican Party or, more likely, a new party that splinters from it. I am not so sure. If Trump-style “conservatism” is the new flavor of the decade (just as Tea-Party conservatism was briefly before), then it is likely that many conservative-to-traditional Catholics will choose remain faithful to that brand. Why? Because many are fearful of what is coming and the idea of a “strong man” savior will always be appealing, especially when the new political enemy is a woman. Also, the idea of Trump supporters openly embracing an orthodox form of Catholic politics is hard to fathom when such an embrace would mean that at the core everything they professed about the necessity of voting for someone like Trump is simply wrong. Sure, perhaps some of these well-meaning souls can be converted to the truth, but with so many traditionalist outlets doubling-down on the Donald, it is reasonable to fear that a significant contingent of their followers will never return to the light.

October 28, 2016 Ephemera

Ephemera XI

Peter E. Gordon has a review up at The New York Review of Books of a(nother) new book on Søren Kierkegaard, this one by a staunch non-Christian. Based on Gordon’s summary, the book sounds ghastly; his remarks, however, merit some attention. Kierkegaard is a vexing figure in the history of theology/philosophy. The kids love him, but by the time they settled into their mid-to-late 20s, the gloomy Dane’s writings start to lose their savor. Kierkegaard the seeming non-conformist is “cool”; the real man behind the writings is decidedly less so, what with his melancholy religiosity fueled by fideism, individualism, and maybe a wee bit more Hegelianism than Kierkegaard himself would admit. His call for others to live as “authentic Christians” (a height he may or may not have achieved during his relatively short stay on earth) has a certain attractiveness to it, at least until people have to get jobs, juggle marriages, deal with kids, etc. Gordon, naturally, tries to find contradictions in Kierkegaard, such as his support for the old Danish regime over and against 19th C. liberalizing reforms. How can such a staunch individualist like Kierkegaard not buy into the promises of liberalism? Gordon doesn’t really bother with what Kieregaard had to say on the subject (it’s really not all that much anyways). He just shakes his head in disappointment, unable to reconcile how someone who saw Christianity to be the narrowest path in life couldn’t be bothered to embrace the wide and easy road to comfort, entertainment, and indifference — the unholy trinity of the liberal imagination.

Rorate Caeli may have blocked me on Twitter for not agreeing with their pro-Trump heterodoxy, but I still check-in on their blog. Their latest post, an op-ed, discusses the perennial importance of Latin in the Roman Rite. While I find the piece a tad it ahistorical and maybe a little too enamored with the exoticness of Latin, I remain generally favorable toward the idea of Latin being retained as the Romans’ primary liturgical tongue. Today, in the age of hand missals, it is not terribly difficult for a layman unschooled in Latin to follow the Tridentine Mass. Moreover, basic ecclesial Latin is far easier to pick up than other extant liturgical languages such as Byzantine Greek and Church Slavonic. In fact, some time ago, I posted a defense of Church Slavonic which, for better or worse, was met with some mixed reactions. My point then — which some missed — is not that Slavonic should hold primacy of place in the Slavo-Byzantine Rite, but that it should not be abandoned wholesale. There is much to be said about retaining a basic sense of liturgical continuity through the ages and for local churches not to abandon their patrimony fully even as they seek appropriate ways to spread the Gospel.

Yesterday’s post, “Heaven Forbid,” along with “All Earthly Cares,” were not intended to signal a new direction for Opus Publicum, though I can understand how some may have interpreted them that way. If anything, they represent a “summation” of certain views which I have developed over the course of this particular blogging endeavor, though I doubt either post constitutes my “last word” on the fraught matter of religion and politics. What is starting to become clear to me is how tempting it is to turn Catholicism, particularly traditional Catholicism, into a political religion that fills-in certain moral and metaphysical gaps left by liberalism. It is disturbingly easy for an authentic concern for the common good to degrade into an ideology or, worse, associate itself with an extant ideology (e.g. Marxism) to the point where advancing the ideology becomes more crucial than preparing for the return of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. On the opposite end of the spectrum is a temptation to flee, to build-up a quasi-Gnostic existence that shuns the world entirely and hope that something — anything — saves us.

As a final remark, let me say that yesterday’s post in no way, shape, or form questions the reality that the entire deposit of faith is to be found in the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. In discussing the Eastern Orthodox, my point was entirely empirical and I believe I was clear enough on the fact that contemporary Orthodoxy limps when it comes to certain moral matters. Obviously the Orthodox do not agree with the Catholic conception of primacy in the Church, a crucial fact that sadly keeps the East/West estrangement alive to this day. However, on any given Sunday, what an Orthodox priest thinks privately about the Ordinary of Rome and the extent of his jurisdiction is peripheral to what he preaches based on the infallible Word of God. A priest who believes it is his duty to share his personal theological opinions or pet social causes from the pulpit is in dereliction of his duty, or so I believe. This is not to say there aren’t Orthodox priests who go down that road; they just appear to do it far, far less on average than Latin Catholic clerics. If Latin Catholics are uncomfortable with that reality, then praise be. Do something about it; don’t just sit there and lament and make excuses.

October 27, 2016 Catholic Social Thought, Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Politics, Roman Catholic Church

Heaven Forbid

Given that every traditional argument for becoming a Catholic comes accompanied with an asterisk, I have suspended all efforts to kick-up any dirt over somebody choosing to join the Eastern Orthodox Church. What I mean is, it is difficult to expect a non-Catholic to easily embrace the “surety of Catholicism” and the “importance of the Papacy” during an unprecedented period of doctrinal chaos. Though it may be fashionable to look back into history and hold that today’s crisis “isn’t as bad” as the era of Arianism or the reign of Iconoclasm, the hard fact of the matter is that those tragic periods in Church history dealt primary with one central dogmatic issue (and then a host of peripheral theological ones). This time out, everything under the sun seems to be on the discussion table, with Catholic prelates all over the world sowing error on everything ranging from “same-sex marriage” to the historicity of the Resurrection. Maybe this could all be accounted for and endured if the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Francis, took affirmative steps to combat these problems, but he hasn’t—and nobody expects him to. Indeed, a mass of evidence has already accumulated that he knowingly contributes to the present crisis under a grossly distorted concept of “mercy.” Catholics of good will everywhere should, of course, give thanks to God that the Church still has good shepherds in her midst, but only after recognizing that those shepherds are few and far between. The hard reality today is that most Catholics are still lost in the wilderness.

As I have opined before, the Orthodox Church, by and large, has more doctrinally sound bishops, priests, and laity than contemporary Catholicism does. (I should note here that it appears that all of the Eastern Catholic churches, by and large, have more doctrinally sound bishops, priests, and laity than contemporary Latin Catholicism does.) What I have meant—and still mean—by this is that on any given Sunday, one is less likely to hear raw nonsense, if not objective heresy, preached from the pulpit in an Orthodox temple compared to a Catholic parish. Although I have witnessed many an Orthodox priest struggle to mutter an intelligible homily, what often makes it out of their mouths are simple, everyday reminders of what the Gospel message means coupled with a bit of history (depending on the liturgical day). Maybe it’s not “profound,” and certainly at times the Orthodox fall prey to clouding up basic points with useless mystical jargon and ahistorical declarations, but all of that is much easier to swallow than a cleric who begins his sermon with, “Today’s reading concerns what the author of the Gospel we attribute to John placed on the lips of Jesus . . .”

This is not to say that Orthodoxy—particularly American Orthodoxy—is not without its troubles. Just the other week, the Greek Orthodox Church presented pro-abortion, pro-homosexualist New York Governor Andrew Cuomo with the “[Patriarch] Athenagoras Human Rights Award.” Why? Because he helped the Greeks get the permits necessary to rebuild St. Nicholas Church, which was destroyed on 9/11. As most should know by now, the Greek Orthodox in America, much like their estranged Catholic brethren, have a long history of cozying up to Democratic politicians. Maybe this was all fine and well during the days when “Democrat” meant “New Deal” and “New Deal” meant social safety nets and industrial restraints intended to help laborers and the under-privileged, but those days are long behind us. No less than many average American Catholics, the Greek Orthodox seem content with the “privately opposed/publicly accepting” dichotomy on most pressing moral issues and cannot be bothered to take a stand against the rising tide of secularism in America.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are those Orthodox who seem to align politically with certain traditionalist Catholics in believing Donald Trump and the alt-right will save them. Most of these poor souls are infected with “Russophilia” and believe, contrary to all available evidence, that “Holy Russia 2.0” is upon us. (If anybody needs a sobering account of why “Holy Russia 1.0” was not all that and a bag of chips, please see about purchasing a copy of the late Metropolitan Evlogy’s two-volume memoirs from St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.) For them, Kirill of Moscow is Pope, Vladimir Putin is Tsar, and the only crucial political issue of the day is, “How can we appease Russia?” Now, granted, many of these Orthodox have their instincts in the right place. There is, after all, no benefit in following Hillary Clinton’s plan of picking a war with Russia so that jihadists can control Syria, nor can any Christian be blamed for being leery of the Democratic Party after what it has done to help raze Middle Eastern Christianity over the past eight years. Still, it is unsettling how easily a noticeable segment of American Orthodoxy can have its political orientation steered by romanticism.

All of this is to say that while the choice to choose Orthodoxy over Catholicism makes sense on a certain level, particularly as far as “basic orthodoxy” is concerned, those wishing to acquire a “total package” of “pure Christianity” with an unbreakable moral compass may wish to take a few steps back. As confused as Catholic thinking is today on a great many issues, no one can seriously contend that the Catholic Church has not spoken—and spoken forcefully—on matters such as abortion, contraception, homosexuality, just war, just wages, and so on and so forth. While Orthodoxy has exhibited moral clarity in the past, its confederate-style makeup coupled with (uncanonical?) jurisdictional overlap has created something of a free-for-all when it comes to moral choices. For instance, if a couple doesn’t care for what Fr. Barsanuphius has to say about the pill and rubbers, Fr. Panteleimon down the street can put their consciences at ease.

At the political level (the lowest level?), American Orthodoxy is weak—so weak as to be almost nonexistent. And that’s fine. Those faithful bands of Catholics truly dedicated to what the Church teaches regarding the common good are also weak numerically and materially. The vast majority of Christians living today, regardless of confessional adherence, have made their peace with liberalism; they have no use for a Gospel that still speaks literally of living in the world and not being of it. Orthodoxy, for all of its apparent “other-worldliness,” is just as susceptible to secularism as Catholicism. What is still unclear is that if Orthodoxy, in its modern American iteration, has the capacity to step outside of these times, to find that horizon beyond liberalism, and then push forth with the Great Commission in hand. Or, in the end, will its seemingly most faithful adherents retreat from the moment of decision to dwell in figurative caves where they might cry out to the sky to be saved from the absolute corruption into which they have been thrown? And will the Catholics join them? Heaven forbid.

October 26, 2016 Uncategorized

15 Ways to be a More Effective Pro-Life Advocate

The latest from The Josias. All is not theory.

October 24, 2016 Catholic Social Thought, Politics

All Earthly Cares

I am equal parts astonished and horrified that at this depressingly low point in American political history there are still faithful Catholics—even young faithful Catholics—who keep clinging to the promise of liberalism, as if one more First Things article paying homage to the public square or another Ethika Politika piece on civic engagement or a Crisis entry that mentions Tocqueville and Kirk two-dozen times in the span of half-a-dozen paragraphs will reverse our fortunes and make America that great bastion of religious liberty and civic virtue which it allegedly was during some distant point in history now lost in the fog. Granted, there does exist a contingent of Catholics who believe that we have entered a post-liberal age where liberalism has collapsed in on itself, but how quickly do they fall into unimaginative rhetoric concerning multiculturalism, tolerance, freedom of speech, and other sacred cows of the liberal order. Even ostensibly Left-wing Catholics, posturing Marxist (or whatever), can’t extricate themselves from liberal strands of thought concerning equality, pluralism, and the promise of a life without demands but plenty of room for entertainment.

Not that things are much better on the conservative-to-traditional side of the divide. Out of a mixture of fear and cowardice, many Catholics of the conventional Right are fleeing to their strong man, Donald Trump, to save them from every socio-political hobgoblin under the sun. “A failure to vote for Trump is a vote for evil!” Now, some might not use the T-word, but everyone knows what is meant with Catholics—clerical and lay alike—call on the faithful to “use all reasonable means” at the polls to stop Hillary Clinton’s ascendency. Following this “logic,” it appears that voting for a third-party candidate amounts to a sin of omission.

If there is an authentically Catholic and airtight case for voting for The Donald, I haven’t come across it. Sure, Trump and the alt-right camp(s) that claim to support him speak a big game when it comes to globalism, immigration, international trade, and a plethora of domestic social ills, but it is doubtful that a Trump presidency will deliver what many Catholics have been fighting for over the decades, namely a repeal of so-called abortion rights. The most optimal time in recent history to curtail abortion came during the first term of the Bush II Presidency and the Republican Party failed to act. Now it is more than a decade later and abortion, just like same-sex “marriage” and over curtails to religious freedom, have been accepted as a normative part of American political life, even among a growing number of conservatives.

I make mention of all of this not to throw in the towel or set the stage to propose some “Option” which will save those who can afford to flee to out-of-the-way communities of likeminded folks dedicated to preserving their imported craft beers and immaculately bound books. For Catholics truly committed to the Faith in full, here is no other “option” than following the perennial teachings of the Church, stretching all the way back to the Apostolic period. Yes, Tertullian’s Apology reminds us that we have a duty to pray for our temporal rulers just as the anonymous Epistle to Diognetus recalls that Christians “live in their own countries as though they were only passing through.”

Some may be inclined to read this and other passages in the letter in a hyper-eschatological fashion, leading to the forsaking of politics for an endless gaze toward the Second Coming. Indeed, there is a powerful argument available that the Roman Church’s decision to shift the forthcoming Feast of Christ the King from the Sunday prior to the Feast of All Saints to the final Sunday of the liturgical year (on the eve of Advent) has, intentionally or not, helped pull Catholic consciousness away from the temporal sphere altogether. And yet it cannot be denied that, at least in the United States, there remains a continuing Catholic quest to make peace with the present age, to become part of the liberal order in toto, and forego the always uncertain quest for Heaven in favor of some decaying pleasures and breathing room during the time that remains.

October 23, 2016 Ephemera

Ephemera X

Call me crazy, but I had no idea that linking excerpts on Facebook from a talk Archimandrite Gabriel Bunge gave recently in Ukraine would elicit so much critical feedback. Bunge, for those unaware, is a former Catholic Benedictine monk-turned-Russian Orthodox who has penned several books on Evagrius Ponticus. A former student of one Joseph Ratzinger, this line seems to be raising some hackles: “My teacher and professor who later became Pope Benedict XVI understood many things but did nothing.” If spoken by a traditional Catholic, I imagine it would generate more than a few likes; uttered from the mouth of a “schismatic,” however, it immediately draws Catholic ire. For the record, I think Bunge (and extreme traditionalists) are wrong: Summorum Pontificum was not “nothing”; the symbolic value of lifting the (illicit) excommunications of the Society of St. Pius X bishops was not “nothing”; and many of the strong words Benedict XVI had concerning Islam, secularization in Europe, and the loss of direction in the Catholic Church were not “nothing.” Although I believe Papa Ratzinger fell way short of correcting many major problems in the Church and likely even contributed to some of them consciously, his pontificate — like most pontificates — deserves to be approached with nuance and charity. As for Bunge’s other remarks regarding Catholicism, it’s hard not to see them as much more than an expression of Byzantine chauvinism mixed with a serious lack of understanding of how “Protestantized” parts of Orthodoxy have become. Yes, the Catholic Church has many serious issues facing it; so does the Orthodox Church. The sooner both camps realize this and tend to those issues the better off we’ll all be.

I know this is a little offbeat for me to write about, but for those of you who, like me, have fallen out of shape and/or are dealing with nagging injuries from past athletic activity (two bum knees and right shoulder issues for yours truly), let me recommend that you seriously consider trying DDP Yoga. DDP stands for “Diamond Dallas Page,” a former professional wrestler who made it big in World Championship Wrestling in the late 1990s and early 00s. DDP designed the program to aide in his own recovery and it has helped numerous other wrestlers (past and present) rehabilitate themselves while — according to the testimonials — transforming numerous lives. Personally, I don’t know anything about that. What I do know is that my slow immersion into DDP’s low-impact, high energy workouts has resulted in noticeable improvement in my shoulder mobility, considerably less knee pain, and an overall sense of just feeling better. Granted, I haven’t been as committed to the program as I should be (that’s now changed) and I definitely had some changes to make in my diet (ugh kale), but this is the first program I have come across that literally anybody can do, regardless of where they are physically. Every workout — even the most basic — comes with numerous examples of modifications people can make based on their fitness level and the beginner workouts are very accessible. If, like me, you prefer to use a mobile device for streaming, there is also DDP Yoga Now, which has all of the current workouts; past workouts from earlier iterations of the DDP Yoga program; and new live workouts added at regular intervals. The site/app also allows you to track your workouts, receive great advice from others who have tried the program, and pick up other helpful hints. If you are worried about this form of “yoga” meaning “Eastern spiritualism” or some other fluffy nonsense, don’t. It is 100% practical; geared to be fun; and — dare I say? — inspirational.

Not to make this post too plug heavy, but this one won’t cost you a dime — and it will improve your mind and Catholic outlook. The Uncommon Good, from Iowa Catholic Radio, is hosted by Bo Bonner and Dr. Bud Marr. The show is dedicated to discussing the common good, Catholic social teaching, and the social reign of Christ the King. It airs every Wednesday at 9am and 9pm CST and can be streamed from the link above. If you are interested in listening to past shows, they are readily available from iTunes here. If all goes according to plan, I will be appearing on the show in the near future. When that happens, I will certainly post about it here.

October 21, 2016 Church, Eastern Catholicism, Theology

Hunwicke on the New Coptic Martyrs

Last year, I wrote several posts on those 21 brave Coptic souls who gave their lives for Christ in Libya at the hands of the so-called “Islamic State.” You can find the first one here, and the follow-ups here and here. Not everyone agreed with what I wrote at the time. Certain traditional Catholics, armed with their fortress ecclesiology, could not contemplate a heavenly reward for any individual who died outside of visible communion with the See of St. Peter.

Now comes Fr. John Hunwicke with a renewed take on the matter. The blog entry is short, and so I will quote it in full below. If you have any questions or concerns about the content of the piece, I would suggest you take it up with him in his web-log’s combox.

In the fine CDF documents Communionis notio and Dominus Iesus, the Church’s Magisterium clarified the position of those Christian bodies which possess true ministry and Sacraments. This does clarification most certainly not imply, as some people have foolishly argued, that “the Orthodox Church” is a “sister Church” of “the Catholic Church”. Nor does it mean that “the Moskow Patriarchate” is “a sister Church” of the “Latin Church”.

By “particular Church”, what is meant is a Church constituted organically with a Bishop, his presbyterate, his diaconate, and all the holy People of God. That is a true Church by divine right, and, incidentally, this is why from time to time it becomes necessary to remind everybody that Catholic ecclesiology has no place for “national Churches”; and views with justified suspicion any movements towards giving Episcopal Conferences anything other than minmal and practical functions. As Cardinal Mueller once wisely said, we must never think of the Chairpersons of Episcopal Conferences as any sort of vice-popes. Nor, as he made clear, must Conferences and their bureaucracies come between the Diocesan Bishop and the Bishop of Rome, each of whom (unlike the Conferences) is iure divino.

What this definition of “Particular Church” means is, for example, that the Diocese of S Petersburg, and the diocese of Brentwood, are true sister Churches; it being understood that the Diocese of S Petersburg is a true particular Church but “wounded” by its separation from the See of S Peter; and the Diocese of Brentwood is wounded by the schism which hinders the Catholic Chuch from realising and manifesting the complete fulfillment of her universality in history.

This, I think, is why we need have no hesitation in recognising those Coptic peasants who, murmuring the Name of their Redeemer, had their throats cut on that Mediterranean beach as “our” martyrs.

October 17, 2016 Catholic Social Thought, Politics

The Tradinistas Drop the Ball

Kevin Gallagher, a Yale graduate who likes to posture Marxist and anti-liberal on social media despite working as a manager for the asset and investment consulting firm Casey Quirk and Associates, has penned a piece for the Tradinistas which ostensibly claims to point out the “incoherence of The Josias.” In truth, it is nothing more than an uncharitable hit job on one of The Josias’s founders and First Things editor, Elliot Milco. Milco, as you will recall, recently took a hard (and humorous) look at the so-called “Tradinista Manifesto,” a document so riddled with vagaries and inconsistencies that it’s hard to imagine anyone defending it under their own name. This is perhaps why Gallagher opted to pen his smear piece under the pseudonym Coëmgenus (the same one he used when he wrote for The Josias). Still, if someone is going to dive-bomb another with public character attacks while saddling them with views they do not hold, you would think the attacker would have the integrity to do so under their own name.

There’s no need to defend The Josias from Gallagher’s words since he himself admits “[t]hose responsible for the recent publication of the Tradinista Manifesto have long looked with respect at The Josias and the works published there.” Moreover, just before taking his first swipe at Milco, Gallagher states that The Josias folks (who are mainly integralists) and Tradinista kids “should be allies.” Strange then that instead of demonstrating how the integralist and Tradinista projects cohere or laying the groundwork for forming an alliance, he quickly blasts Milco’s intelligence and integrity by stating that “it is no surprise that employment under a Trumpist masthead [i.e. First Things] has left him with a defective understanding of political argument.” I wonder: Would Gallagher, a man who is consciously part of the capitalist machinery he claims to oppose, say something similar about himself? But I digress.

The truth of the matter is that anyone who regularly reads Milco’s work knows full well that he openly dissents from First Things’s old neoconservative orthodoxy and that the decision of its lead editor, R.R. Reno, to endorse Donald Trump’s presidential bid has as much impact on Milco’s thought as it does on that of another First Things contributor, David Bentley Hart. So why bring it up at all except to suggest that Milco is somehow associated with the “Trumpism” that First Things as a publishing institution is allegedly associated with based on the personal politics of its head overseer. That’s not a promising start—and then it gets worse from there.

Over the course of numerous rambling paragraphs readers are treated to the claim that Milco endorses “vulgar Thatherism” and can’t understand the Tradinista Manifesto’s true meaning because he apparently hasn’t read the right books. Sure. What Gallagher so glibly ignores is that when it comes to the manifesto itself, the bulk of Milco’s criticisms are aimed at the document’s internal incoherence and not whether or not it properly uses Leftist jargon. Whatever value the Marxist critique of capitalism has for Catholics (and that has yet to be demonstrated by the Tradinistas), that matter is secondary (or even tertiary) to what Holy Mother Church has taught about politics, society, and economic ordering. Gallagher maintains that Milco (and others) suffer from the illusion that “Leftist politics” have received “an apodictic Apostolic anesthetization” without once acknowledging the numerous instances where people have pointed directly to those very condemnations. It is no great shock that the Tradinistas, in claiming to offer up a defense of “Catholic socialism” [sic], are quite selective in their proof-texting, ignoring as they do papal decrees such as St. Pius X’s Notre Charge Apostolique and Fin Dalla Prima Nostra. This allows Gallagher and his fellow Tradinistas to freely dwell in what the philosopher Eric Voegelin (following Austrian novelist Robert Musil) calls a “Second Reality” or pathological play land free from the burdens of reality. In this instance, ideology trumps magisterial proclamations.

The apotheosis of Gallagher’s senseless attack on Milco’s character is to accuse of him being monstrous for critiquing Fr. James Martin’s response to the recent gay-club massacre in Orlando instead of “providing the slightest comfort to the gay community.” (What comfort, I wonder, did Gallagher or the other Tradinistas provide?) Not only does Gallagher miss the point of Milco’s critique, but it’s dizzying that a man who has had no problem calling me a “wetback” should feign harboring so much concern for minorities of any stripe.

In the end, Gallagher’s overwrought, tendentious piece buckles under the weight of its own idiocy. As noted, not only does it fail to adhere to its title by saying nothing about any incoherency of The Josias, it self-consciously mischaracterizes its true target—Elliot Milco—in an effort to distract from his takedown of the Tradinista Manifesto. If this is the quality of “work” we can expect out of the Tradinistas going forward, then let us rejoice that the possibility of them ever winning thoughtful followers is nil and that the real work of articulating an authentically Catholic response to the errors of liberalism—political, social, economic, and religious—can continue without distraction.

October 17, 2016 Uncategorized

Integralism in Three Sentences

Pater Edmund Waldstein with a pithy definition of integralism for The Josias.

October 16, 2016 Ephemera

Ephemera IX

Last Wednesday, much to my shock and chagrin, a rather unremarkable meme tweeted by yours truly concerning the farce that is “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” was picked up by none other than right-wing darling Ann Coulter. In less than 24 hours, my tweet had been re-tweeted nearly 1,000 times. Then the zaniness set in. As much as I appreciate new Twitter followers and web-log readers, I should stress in no uncertain terms that I do not identify with the alt-right, nor do I support Donald Trump’s bid for the presidency. As I tried to make clear on Twitter, I am an integralist — nothing more, nothing less. That doesn’t mean there aren’t certain positions that I hold that are alt-right-ish. For instance, I support thorough background checks for immigrants and refugees arriving from the Middle East and believe that Middle-Eastern Christians should be prioritized; I am skeptical of free-trade accords and surrendering of economic sovereignty; and I harbor a very low opinion of international institutions and law (at least as conventionally understood). However, as I have repeatedly made clear on Opus Publicum, I reject the ethnic and racialist elements of the alt-right and I stand by the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church that I am under no obligation to vote in the upcoming election. Admittedly, that does place me at odds with many conservatives, including some conservative and traditional Catholics who feel that it is their duty to stop Hillary Clinton’s White House run at all costs. So be it, so be it.

On my way to church this morning I heard a brief, but positive, story on Michigan Radio (National Public Radio affiliate) about the Institute of Christ the King’s (ICKSP) arrival today in Detroit at the St. Joseph Oratory. The report probably wasn’t as clear as it ought to have been, though I appreciate the story stressing the ICKSP’s work in restoring old churches while bringing the traditional Mass to the faithful. As some readers may recall, I paid many a visit to the Institute’s Shrine in Chicago when I lived there. Tragically, last October, the Shrine was engulfed by flames and the restoration work already put into the historic structure was lost. By the Grace of God, the ICKSP received the green-light to press ahead with bringing the Shrine back to life. While it will take years before the church building is fully restored, you can help in the Institute’s good work by donating to their efforts here. I can say without reservation that my experiences with the Institute’s clergy was uniformly positive. Moreover, their willingness to reintroduce certain aspects of the pre-1962 liturgy is to be applauded.

Speaking of liturgy, there is an Antiochian Orthodox mission not terribly far from my abode — St. Willibrord — which does a rather remarkable job combining Antiochian liturgical norms with a Russian musical aesthetic. This strikes me as wise. To most Western years, Byzantine and Arab chant can be a little off-putting, and if it’s not done well, it’s absolutely wretched. Additionally, there are far more online and published resources for Russian liturgical music available in English than for any other Eastern chant system around. Years ago I suggested that, in time, a common liturgical aesthetic would eventually took root in the United States, though that was back during my “optimistic days” when I thought American Orthodoxy was less than a decade away from ecclesiastical unity. This is not to say that I think American Orthodoxy needs to flock to one chant system alone. There are many beautiful Byzantine (or Byzantine-inspired) settings that should be retained, not to mention a number of other lesser-appreciated systems, such as Carpatho-Rusyn chant, that many Orthodox rarely get to hear. Maybe the hope I had was that one day a man could walk into an Orthodox parish and know before it starts how many litanies he will pray. Is that too much to ask?

Since I am already “out East,” I’ll close this out there. I am starting to make my way again through the two-volume memoirs of Metropolitan Evlogy, My Life’s Journey. I want to see if, on a second reading, my initial judgment holds up, namely that these memories are indispensable reading for all Orthodox Christians (particularly would-be converts). For those unaware, Evlogy lived and served the Russian Orthodox Church during the waning years of “Holy Russia” and was instrumental for leading the Orthodox diaspora in Western Europe after the Soviet Revolution. It seems there was no ecclesiastical event (or upheaval) from that period that Evlogy was not front-and-center for. Even non-Orthodox, particularly Greek Catholics, may be interested in Evlogy’s interaction with Greek and Latin Catholics during that period. Needless to say, while Evlogy recounts the efforts of many holy priests and monastics to keep the flame of Orthodoxy alive, his first-hand account of “Holy Russia” is less-than-edifying at times. A clerical caste system, political interference, mixed levels of education, disaffected youth (particularly the sons of clergy), and a most of other social and political problems conspired to consign Orthodoxy to being little more than a cultural artifact in late-Imperial Russia. Just like today, the 19th/early 20th Century was no “golden age” for Russian Orthodoxy, and the sooner more Orthodox understand this, the healthier their communion will be.