Fortescue and the Centralized Papacy

You know, we have stuck out for our position all our lives—unity, authority, etc. Peter the Rock and so on. I have, too, and believe it, I am always preaching that sort of thing. And yet is it now getting to a reduction ad absurdum?

Centralisation grows and goes madder every century. Even at Trent they hardly foresaw this kind of thing. Does it really mean that one cannot be a member of the Church of Christ without being, as we are, absolutely at the mercy of an Italian lunatic?

. . . .

We must pull through even this beastliness somehow. After all, it is still the Church of the Fathers that we stand by and spend our lives defending. However, bad as things are, nothing else is possible. I think that when I look at Rome, I see powerful arguments against us, but when I look at the Church of England or Matthew or anyone else, I see still more powerful arguments for us. But of course, saving a total collapse, things are as bad as they can be. Give us back the Xth century Johns and Stephens, or a Borgia! They were less disastrous than this deplorable person.

– Fr. Adrian Fortescue, Letter to Herbert Thurston (Nov. 5, 1910), discussing Pope Pius X

A Brief Remark on Political Affiliation, East and West

The Pew Research Center has issued a new report, U.S. Becoming Less Religious. Go figure. Chapter 4 of the report, “Social and Political Attitudes,” contains some interesting numbers on shifts in Catholic and Orthodox political-party affiliation since 2007. The short and the long of it is that Catholics have begun stepping away from the Democratic Party to align with Republicans while the Orthodox have defected from both parties (albeit mostly from the Democrats) to become more independent or have no affiliation. Both Catholics and Orthodox have increased their support for smaller government . . . and same-sex marriage. There are other interesting factoids to glean from the report; those are the ones that jumped out to me.

Broadly speaking, Catholics and Orthodox match-up fairly well when it comes to contemporary American liberal values. In other words, both confessions are packed full of dissenters from fundamental Christian morality. Although I have repeatedly stated that, on average, American Orthodox bishops and priests are less heterodox than their Catholic counterparts, it doesn’t appear to have significantly influenced their faithful. Why that is the case is difficult to say, but a fascinating question nonetheless.

Speak of the Pope

Ethika Politika (EP) has undertaken a full-court press on behalf of Pope Francis. Yesterday, Andrew Haines, EP’s lead editor, laid into Catholics who are less-than-impressed with the recently concluded Extraordinary Synod on the Family and the direction in which Francis is taking the Church. Today, another EP editor, David Mills, chastises his coreligionists about their public (or even private) attitude toward the Pope. While Mills is right to observe that some of the negative rhetoric concerning Francis’s pontificate is extreme, he may be going too far in assuming that those who criticize the Pope strongly are only doing so in order to score sanctimony points. Many faithful Catholics are genuinely worried, if not panicked, about what Francis has allowed to transpire over the past two years because it is hindering the Church’s divine mission. Mills expresses worry about what non-Catholics might think when they hear sons and daughters of the Church speaking ill of Francis, but does he worry about what those same non-Catholics think when the Pope appears to undermine Catholic doctrine while failing to discharge his duties seriously?

Very few, if any, of my Eastern Orthodox friends and acquaintances are impressed with this Pope. Instead of seeing a man who is supposed to seriously lead 1.2 billion Christians to the Kingdom of Heaven, they find an inept chairman of the world’s largest and most dysfunctional NGO. His off-the-cuff remarks to pressmen and individual Catholics are oftentimes confusing, if not scandalous. His liturgical style is grotesque, not to mention anti-traditional, and his priorities seem to be directed at accommodating the Church to the ways of the world rather than saving souls. Although the Orthodox are not without their own faults, can anyone imagine Patriarch Kirill of Moscow—head of the world’s largest Orthodox jurisdiction—wagging his finger at those in his flock attached to traditional doctrine, liturgy, and piety? Is there a single Orthodox patriarch in the world—save Bartholomew of Constantinople—who behaves like Francis? Heaven forbid.

Mills wants Catholics to love the Pope as “their father.” The hard truth is that Francis does not project the authority, leadership, and love of a true father. He is the embarrassing loudmouthed uncle who is begrudgingly invited over on Thanksgiving. He’s family, so you love him; but you still hope your friends never see him.

Public Prayer

An acquaintance asked the other day how much of the Divine Office (Chasoslov or Horologion in the East) Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic priests are required to recite each day. My response: None…I think. Although a shell of its former self, the breviary—now commonly referred to as the Liturgy of the Hours (LOTH)—remains the cornerstone of a Latin priest’s prayer life. Failure to recite the office in full each day is a mortal sin, though it seems that some priests aren’t terribly concerned about that. For the Orthodox, the liturgical hours have always been, and remain, a true public work. Although some monastics, clergy, and pious laypersons recite some of the small hours privately as part of their individual prayer rules, the cornerstone offices, such as Matins and Vespers, are almost impossible to recite outside of a proper ecclesial setting. Attempts to make these offices “manageable” for individuals have been made, but not very successfully. Both the old Jordanville Chasoslov, along with the edition published by the Ruthenian Catholics in the 1940s, contain daily votive services that can be “plugged in” to Matins, the small hours, and Vespers each day. The fact that none of these services save one have been translated into English their irrelevancy, at least among Anglophone Orthodox and Greek Catholics.

None of this is to say that Eastern clergy have a “weak” or “lax” prayer life compared to their Latin brethren. The LOTH is not exactly a taxing rule. What the Byzantine Rite has not lost, and the Roman Rite surely needs, is the central importance of public prayer to the life of the Church. For most Catholics, that prayer is the Mass and only the Mass. If there is ever anything “more” it is typically a para-liturgical devotion such as the Rosary or a novena. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but for most of Church history reciting the Divine Office in choir was as natural as serving Mass. Today, unfortunately, that is simply not possible for most parishes to carry out all of the time, but why can’t more Latin churches strive to serve hours like Vespers and Compline at least some of the time? The easy answer is, “Because there’s no demand for it.” But the chances are there will never be a demand unless the clergy, in concert with dedicated members of the laity, create one.

Two Anniversaries on All Souls Day

According to the Gregorian Calendar as used in the Roman Rite, today, November 1, is the Feast of All Saints. It is also the 45th anniversary of the canonical erection of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and the 71st anniversary of the repose of Venerable Andrey Sheptytsky, head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) from 1901 until 1944. At the time when God called Venerable Andrey home to his heavenly reward, the Roman Rite—and the Latin Church as a whole—had not suffered the disastrous effects of the Second Vatican Council and the gross liturgical reforms which followed. Although the Slavo-Byzantine Rite as served within the UGCC had undergone some illegitimate deteriorations due to centuries of political and ecclesiastical pressure, Sheptytsky, with prudence and love, directed his church to reembrace its authentic liturgical heritage without attempting to alienate those who had grown accustomed to certain pious practices most commonly associated with Latin Catholicism. Although Sheptytsky’s vision has not yet been fully realized, there can be no doubt that the UGCC would not be where it is today liturgically without Venerable Andrey’s leadership, spiritual influence, and continuing prayers in Heaven.

Similarly, the traditional Roman Rite, long the treasure of Western Christendom, may very well have been lost altogether without the work of the SSPX and its prophetic founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Like the Byzantine Rite among the UGCC, the Roman Rite has still not been perfectly restored within the Latin Church, but clear advances have been made, and a new generation of Latin Catholics, eager to build-up what the prior generations discarded so casually, can help complete this work in the light of Catholic tradition. Lefebvre, like Sheptytsky, knew that the heart of the Church is the Eucharist, the Bread of Life, which unites us in Christ and takes away all our iniquities. Without it, what are we? Dead souls in tattered, dirty robes.

Perhaps on this day you may join me in offering prayers for the canonization of both Metropolitan Andrey and Archbishop Marcel, a holy soul whom Pope-Emeritus Benedict XVI called “a great man of the Church.” They were true shepherds of the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. May God send us more like them.

The Last Thing Anyone Will Ever Write on the Douthat Affair

By now most Catholics online—and even many non-Catholics—are aware of the dust-up over New York Times columnist Ross Douthat’s alleged “heresy hunting” piece. Left-wing Catholic academics penned an indignant letter; conservative writers ran to Douthat’s defense; and a Jesuit got upset. By this time next week the case will be closed and in a month few will remember the affair at all. The worst possible defense of Douthat’s actions is to claim he was exercising his “freedom of speech.” He’s Catholic; he has no freedom of speech. In fact, none of us do. To speak or write error is not a true exercise of freedom even if we live in a late-liberal society that is allegedly neutral toward the content of speech. I write “allegedly” because we all know by now that there is a growing list of taboo topics which can only be raised under the right circumstances and with due reverence. If a man wishes to pen a blasphemous screenplay mocking God, Christians, and traditional morality, then praise be. If another should point to the adverse outcomes of the so-called “sexual revolution” and gender politics, let him be drawn and quartered.

If Douthat wrote anything in his column that is slanderous, erroneous, or intentionally misleading, then I pray he has the humility to admit as much. In fact, I pray that a proper authority, be it his priest or bishop, would have a word with him about it. I am as confident that will happen as I am in the chance that other appropriate ecclesiastical authorities will use this matter as a launching-pad to investigate the “scholarship” of Douthat’s critics. Such an investigation need not concern whether they produce “good scholarship” or “bad scholarship.” These are professional academic theologians at American Catholic institutions of higher learning; of course their scholarship is bad. No, what the proper authorities need to do is what Douthat hasn’t actually done, namely root out heresy and publicly chastise those who fail to repent and amend their views. What a glorious day that will be.

God Bless Bishop Fellay

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, has issued a second appeal to Pope Francis to uphold Catholic doctrine and the natural law regarding marriage. Below is an excerpt; the full statement is available here. God bless Bishop Fellay. We have not been left without shepherds.

Given current errors and civil legislation against the sanctity of marriage and the purity of morals, the natural law allows no exceptions, because God in His infinite wisdom, when He gave His law, foresaw all cases and all circumstances, unlike human legislators. Therefore so-called situation ethics, whereby some propose to adapt the rules of conduct dictated by the natural law to the variable circumstances of different cultures, is inadmissible. The solution to problems of a moral order must not be decided solely by the consciences of the spouses of or their pastors, and the natural law is imposed on conscience as a rule of action.

The Good Samaritan’s care for the sinner is manifested by a kind of mercy that does not compromise with his sin, just as the physician who wants to help a sick person recover his health effectively does not compromise with his sickness but helps him to get rid of it. One cannot emancipate oneself from Gospel teaching in the name of a subjectivist pastoral approach which, while recalling it in general, would abolish in on a case-by-case basis. One cannot grant to the bishops the faculty of suspending the law of the indissolubility of marriage ad casum, without running the risk of weakening the teaching of the Gospel and of fragmenting the authority of the Church. For, in this erroneous view, what is affirmed doctrinally could be denied pastorally, and what is forbidden de jure could be authorized de facto.

In this utter confusion it is now up to the pope—in keeping with his responsibility, and within the limits set on him by Christ—to restate clearly and firmly the Catholic truth quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, and to keep this universal truth from being contradicted in practice locally.

The Road Ahead

Much to my surprise, “A Closing Comment on the Synod” became one of the highest viewed posts on Opus Publicum since I reset the blog last year, though it received far fewer comments than other posts related to, say, Catholic/Orthodox relations or liturgical reform. Perhaps people are tired of reading and talking about the recently concluded Extraordinary Synod on the Family. I know I am. Several worst-case-scenarios were proposed by observers over the past year; none of them, thankfully, came to pass. As I pointed out previously, however, that is no cause for comfort. Pope Francis, who has already revolutionized the annulment process, can still set loose more doctrinal and moral confusion within the Church with his pending Apostolic Exhortation. Liberal bishops, priests, and laity, despite their alleged defeat at the Synod, now appear emboldened to continue turning a blind eye to mortal sin in the name of “mercy.” As for the conservatives and traditionalists, the immediate future looks bleak. Those Synod participants who refused to get on board with the liberal reforms championed by the Continental prelates and backed by the Pope are now exposed. No, Francis cannot lay the hammer down on all of them, but he can continue to play musical chairs with the seats of power at the Vatican to help ensure that the orthodox hierarchy won’t get in his way in the future.

Some Thoughts on St. Nicholas Charnetsky and Our Present Situation

St. Nicholas Charnetsky, a Ukrainian Greek-Catholic bishop and martyr for the Faith, labored with Christian charity and Apostolic zeal for the reunion of Orthodox with the See of Rome from the 1920s until his imprisonment by Soviet authorities in April 1945. As a member of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (Redemptorists), Charnetsky embodied both the monastic and missionary spirit of the order’s founder, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, by ministering to the most abandoned souls while never neglecting his rigorous daily prayer rule. As a Latin order, the Redemptorists may have seemed like a strange vehicle to bring the Word of God to Byzantine Rite Catholics and Orthodox, but as recounted in Blessed Bishop Nicholas Charnetsky, C.Ss.R. and Companions: Modern Martyrs of the Ukrainian Catholic Church (Ligouri Publications 2002), the saintly bishop

observed that the spirit of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer—because of its simplicity, love of sacrifice and self-denial, and also because of its singular devotion to the suffering and eucharistic Jesus and to the Most Holy Virgin Mother of God—was very close to the spirit of the Ukrainian people, and created, as it were a link of mystical affinity.

Some Catholic and Orthodox Reading for Tuesday

Elliot Milco, my friend and author of The Paraphasic web-log, may have just produced his best (blogging) work to date. “In the Absence of a Shepherd” recounts Milco’s days as a student and, later, teacher at a prestigious Jesuit high school in Chicago. More than an autobiographical reminiscence, the post takes a hard look at the chimera of “Ignatian Catholicism” and the deplorable state of Catholic education before concluding with some pointed remarks aimed at the “chief shepherd” of the Archdiocese of Chicago, Blase Cupich. Having first-hand experience with another form of qualified Catholicism, in this case “Vincentian Catholicism,” I sympathize with Milco’s account and wonder what, if anything, can be done to overcome the worldliness of contemporary Catholic education at every stage along life’s way. Setting up alternative, orthodox, centers of Catholic learning is course necessary, but without sizable private contributions and strong institutional support from the Church, they will never amount to more than marginal enterprises benefiting only a select number of souls.

Sticking with the topic of Catholic education for a brief moment, Rod Dreher has come to the defense of New York Times columnist Russ Douthat, who is currently under attack from liberal elites at Catholic colleges and universities for the crime of “heresy hunting.” As a side note, I was shocked to see that my alma mater, DePaul University, is not represented on the list of witch hunters.

As for witches and other demonic things that go bump in the night, an Eastern Orthodox friend of mine, Geoffrey Thompson, offers a pithy critique of the tendency for some Orthodox (and, undoubtedly, other Christians as well) to overly “spiritualize” physical and psychological ailments. Thompson’s observations may not be for everybody, but anyone who has been around certain Orthodox environs more notable for their superstition than spirituality will quickly understand what he’s talking about.

Finally, over at Ethika Politika, Daniel Schwindt reminds us that “The Popes Want Justice, Not Capitalism.” The piece serves as something of a preview for Schwindt’s forthcoming critique of Michael Novak and Paul Adams’s Social Justice is Not What You Think and warns against the liberal project of “reduc[ing] social justice to an individualized virtue.”