Conversion of Francis (or - Out to Lunch?)

And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
  - Luke 22:31,32 [KJV]

Writing such a blog post has been particularly difficult for this revert to Catholicism.

After many years as a nominal Catholic / practicing Evangelical, I gradually began to realize that Truth must be singular. The false dogma of Sola Scriptura is ever subject to individual interpretation and can therefore never lead to anything like verifiable Truth. Real authority, established by God, must trump personal and subjective interpretation of the Bible. Thus I returned to Catholicism and to the divinely established authority of the Church's Magisterium. It is no accident that 'Catholic' simply means 'Universal'.

It must be acknowledged that the 70s and 80s saw a steady deterioration into what can be called soft heresy. You know what I mean: Discounting or soft-pedaling the seriousness of such things as abortion, contraception and homosexuality. Studiously avoiding certain teachings out of fear of disturbing anyone. Denying or downplaying the hard reality of God's righteousness and the fact of eternal judgment. In lieu of teaching, sanctifying and governing their sheep, pastors increasingly limiting their 'ministry' to consoling, nurturing and affirming. Instead of warning people against the imminent dangers of hell, comforting them on their way thither.

The sad fact that many Catholic 'faithful' and clergy were believing and practicing such soft heresies was troubling, but did not detract seriously from my faith in the aformentioned Church authority. Always needful is a clear distinction between Church teaching and the beliefs and practices of individual 'Catholics', including clergy. The solid teachings remain a sure anchor, and the Magisterium - i.e, the bishops collectively in union with the Pope - could be counted upon to faithfully safeguard and transmit those teachings. I took no small comfort in the fact that while other denominations were altering their doctrines to conform with worldly values and norms, the true Church would never follow suit.

Yet here we are in 2015, and I must declare honestly that what I thought could never happen is in fact happening, has been happening for some time. I first began having some misgivings over 5 years ago, and have seen practically nothing since then to relieve my doubts. To the point where, starting about two years ago, some kind of threshold seems to have been crossed. When the reigning pontiff says he cannot judge homosexual clergy, he is in fact publicly confessing that he is not their pastor. When a majority of bishops, led by the bishop of Rome, meet to discuss the possibility of changing Church teaching on marriage, something is seriously, seriously, seriously amiss.

The gut-wrenching question I find myself asking is: Are these realities reversible? May the devout Catholic pray in good faith for the conversion of Francis, per Jesus' words to Simon Peter? Or has it gone way beyond that? Have the vast majority of the episcopacy left their posts? Have they abdicated their authority as pastors? Are they collectively Out To Lunch, leaving shepherdless the dwindling minority of faithful Catholics? Are those faithful few left as orphans in spiritual exile?

God, Husband and Father

In the previous post, I offered my radical (root cause) analysis of the current moral crisis in the world. Now for an even more radical analysis, of a deeper root cause, a systemic ill at foundational levels...

Until recent times, the patriarchal structure of families and of society was not seriously questioned. And for good reason: from a Scriptural point of view, the most basic human authority is that established by God before the Fall of Man - the authority of Man over the rest of God's creation, and the real authority which God bestowed upon Adam over Eve, and, by extension, of all husbands over their wives. This domestic line of authority is, from a divine point of view, the source of all other human authority, the beginning of all human organization and governance.

    As an important aside, it must be pointed out that patriarchal authority does not automatically infer actual superiority. Jehovah's Witnesses (not the brightest bulbs in the pack) make the intellectual blunder of deciding that, since Jesus obeys the Father he must be inferior to the Father and therefore not divine. Feminists make the identical error in proclaiming that Patriarchy degrades women by making wives obey their husbands.
    Notice that in all four biblical passages¹ where wives are enjoined to be subject to their husbands, they are told to obey their own husbands. Which is to say, they have no business obeying other men. This debunks the feminist myth, does it not? For the feminist complaint to be credible, Patriarchy would have to demand that all women obey all men because of their innate inferiority to them.
    As it is, true Patriarchy is about a divinely established order, and has nothing to do with an organic superiority. In this context, the word 'superior' may denote an order of authority, but it does not necessarily mean a higher level of worth or goodness. Consider: The Catholic Faith teaches that in the Holy Family there was one sinner, one sinless human, and one sinless divine-human. Yet the sinful Joseph had patriarchal authority over Mary and the child Jesus, both of whom were really superior to him.

---

1.  Eph.5:22, Col.3:18, Tit.2:5, I Pet.3:1

Moreover, this patriarchal pattern is reflected in - nay, is the essence of - true monotheism, the relationship between Man and the Almighty. God as Father and God as divine Lover are two parts of one ancient theme. The pages of Scripture, both old and new testaments, are full of references to a nuptial relationship between God and his people. That most grevious sin of idolatry is always portrayed as the sin of adultery, analogous to the traitorous deceit of an espoused bride leaving her true husband and embracing false lovers.

As St. Augustine pointed out, the human soul is always feminine before God. But notice that for
Augustine's insight to make any sense, we must assume a patriarchal structure to our own human society. We must first understand that it is right and necessary for every young lady to save her virginity for one man, and then devote herself to that one man. And the man must then be willing to shoulder his responsibility as leader and provider and father. Only when we accept this as our norm can we see our proper posture before God our Father. There is a necessary link between the patriarchal roots of civilization and the patriarchal essence of true religion.

Interestingly, it starts with the Woman, and it starts with raw biology. The beginning of the patriarchal order is when the woman binds herself to one man and one man only. She in effect decides to belong to that one man, most likely to the man to whom she gives her virginity. If the man finds her devotion credible, he can for the first time know what the woman always knows via her biological role: he can know his own children. He can be a father in the true sense, and can shoulder the responsibility for both his devoted wife and for their children. From a biological point of view, the woman's devotion and submission is what enables the man to abandon the haphazard biological strategy of spreading his seed as widely and generously as possible, and to adopt instead the better approach, of caring for his own children and for their mother. It is the woman's feminine devotion that makes patriarchy - fatherhood - possible, and which is therefore the beginning and foundation of civilization as we know it.

Likewise, the soul that would be saved must abandon all false lovers and give herself wholly to her God. Like the devoted virgin giving herself to one man only, the Church and each of her members must be devoted wholly to God our Father and divine Lover. This means we must categorically reject the surrounding culture and its values. We can no longer pretend to be friends of this current culture nor of those holding worldly power (Jas.4:4). Having devoted ourselves to God alone, we must reject the adulterous advances of all others, especially the usurpations of feminists and egalitarians.

Consider how our present world scorns fatherhood. The feminist / egalitarian / homosexual campaign to redefine marriage and the family amounts to a rejection of the patriarchal institutions of marriage and family. Portraying abortion as solely a woman's 'right' deliberately ignores the rights of the baby and also denies the holistic patriarchal structure of the family and the responsibility of the father. The breadwinner status in the home is supplanted by government entitlements which foster dependency upon the bureaucracy and render genuine fatherhood practically superfluous. The net effect of the world's agenda is to foster a post-civilized savagery in which both men and women flit from mate to mate like bees flitting from flower to flower. Can someone tell me how a child of God can be on friendly terms with such? No, the Christian politician - or even the Christian who is a friend of politics - is a contradiction of terms, an oxymoronic impossibility. The Christian who cavorts with worldly powers is more prostitute than bride. Every soul that would be devoted to God must heed St. Peter's Pentecost call to "save yourselves from this wicked generation." (Acts 2:40)

Unless we reject the soft tyranny of feminism and return as a people to the disciplined virtues of patriarchy, we will lose all vestiges of fatherhood. Which is to say, we will be lost and uncivilized, no better than wild animals. And unless we return as a Church to a wholehearted devotion to God and a rejection of our surrounding culture, we will lose our connection to God our Father, and will be damned.

From table to chair

This post, long overdue, follows up on two previous posts. Here's the synopsis:

Our Superior, WI diocesan paper, The Catholic Herald, was regularly publishing a number of softly heretical items, the most inane being Fr. Richard McBrien's weekly column. In April 2007, we wrote a letter of complaint on this which was published, but when several liberal readers responded with complaints about our complaint, we were not allowed to reply further. (This is quite puzzling, since the opposition's mantra was that of allowing a free exchange of diverse ideas.) The May 2007 blog post entitled "Roundtable" was an attempt to provide a forum in which folks on both sides of this issue could debate openly. The debate question: Should Catholic publications embrace diversity of thought, or teach Catholic truth clearly?

Well, a few loyal Catholics joined the discussion, but no one on the staff of the Herald, nor anyone in sympathy with the McBrien agenda bothered to come and defend their viewpoints, so it was a fairly one-sided table, and the "debate" soon petered out. (Ref. "Folding table".)

Speaking of Peter: that summer, a new bishop, Peter Christenson, was consecrated and appointed to the Superior diocese. This past summer, after one year of getting to know the diocese, this successor to the Apostles acted, and the McBrien column was quietly dropped, thanks be to God.

You Catholics already know that the bishop's cathedra is not a chair of repose, but of Apostolic authority, traceable to the authority of Jesus himself. This is an essential Catholic strength. As a Catholic son, I must say that tables may be OK, round or otherwise, but a solid chair is so much better.

Milksop Christianity

I would like to commend those few Catholic parishes in which yesterday's 2nd reading was proclaimed in its long form (Col. 3:12-21) rather than in its short form (Col. 3:12-17). The short option omits the part about wives being subject to their husbands. Rather than appear (gasp!) old-fashioned, or (double gasp!) patriarchal, or risk (triple gasp!) offending someone, most parishes simply skip the risky portion. A few priests may feebly attempt a clever it-isn't-what-it-looks-like dismantling of the text. Most just ignore it, and hope nobody notices.

Trouble is, Christianity is, and has always been, a patriarchal religion, as is Judaism. Indeed, marriage itself is a patriarchal institution, and civilization, founded upon marriage, is founded upon patriarchal principles.

A few prophetic voices have begun to descry and decry the effeminate, wan softness of our degenerate culture, a culture that is embarrassed by patriarchal authority. I would say 'Amen' to these prophetic cries, and point to Jesus as a manly man who likewise expects counter-cultural strength in his followers.

It's high time for Christians to realize that the cultural rejection of patriarchy is ultimately a rejection of the family, of traditional moral values, and of Christianity itself. And it's high time to stop our milksop acquiescence towards this prevailing attitude, and unflinchingly proclaim the timeless truth.

Crisis of authority

A summary of the past 6 posts would go something like this: The shallow selfishness of consumerism and the myth of overpopulation has led to an irrational fear of human propagation, and to a widespread acceptance of artificial contraception. The acceptance of contraception has in turn led to an ideological divorce between sex and procreation. This divorce then leads inevitably to the acceptance and even approval of abortion, fornication, adultery, pornography, and homosexual practice. It's quite logical: If sex is primarily about the father-mother-child thing, the family thing, then traditional mores make lots of sense. But if it's just intimate pleasure between two partners, these various aberrations are no big deal.

There seems to be one more piece to this puzzle, another fundamental cause for the widespread acceptance of contraception and of all that follows. That piece would be a crisis of authority and of obedience to authority. In fact, if our culture manages to survive into the future, I believe future historians will name the crisis of authority as one of the defining elements of our time.

I was a teenager in 1968 when post-Vatican II changes were sweeping through the Catholic Church. Those were the heady days of great social upheaval; of hippies, free love, and the questioning of authority. Some priests of my acquaintance - hip and relevant and groovy - were confident, and assured us lay folks, that the Church would soon get with it and relax most or all of her sexual hangups. When Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, and it wasn't what we were expecting, and did not seem relevant (true prophecies are rarely recognized at first), the cold reception it received was to be expected, given the milieu. Yet this was unprecedented, and has proven to be tragic.

Many priests and a few bishops openly repudiated both the new encyclical and the Church's long-standing condemnation of contraception. Other priests and bishops were simply silent, neither openly rejecting nor openly applauding the Pope's teaching. Only a few were vocal in their support. I have no credentials as an historian to say this was absolutely unprecedented, but can report that, even as a progressive-minded young man, I was surprised at this change of posture. For a reigning Pontiff to be thus ignored and even rebuffed was something I had never heard of.

This crisis extends beyond the Catholic Church. Lines of authority within the family are now typically pooh-poohed as well. Patriarchy is summarily dismissed as outmoded and irrelevant, and the father's authority in the home is questioned along with the bishop's and Pope's in the Church. I suppose this revolution took many decades, but the late 1960's have seemed to be the watershed moment.

But notice where authority is still esteemed - in the military, and in our places of business. Occasional exceptions aside, the chain of command in these settings is still clearly defined and adhered to. The corporate equivalent of a Fr. Richard McBrien would be quickly shown to the door. Perhaps the difference is: We need our businesses and our military to succeed; failure is unacceptable. But the health and success of the Church, or the family? (yawn) Who cares?

In 20-20 hindsight, it should now be obvious that Pope Paul VI was right. The dissidents were wrong then, and are wrong still. Even more fundamentally, rebellion against legitimate authority is both immature and arrogant. Rebellion against divinely ordained authority within the Church and the family is sinful, and is tantamount to rebellion against God. The 60's mentality - question traditional morality, question the status quo, question authority - seemed cool and relevant at the time, but has turned out to be merely stupid and selfish and short-sighted. Question one more thing, all you old hippies - question the questions!

Epistemology - Part 2

OK, back to the epistemology theme (see my first epistemology post below )...

Virtually every system of knowledge begins on an a priori basis, that is, with one or more unproven or self-evident principles. For instance, the entire system of mathematics begins with the concept of quantity. Given two piles of rocks, it is observed that there is a difference between the two piles - namely, that one pile is bigger, one smaller. To account for the concept of quantity, of more-ness and less-ness, man starts counting things and measuring things, and before you know it, he's calculating the distance to the moon.

As another example, scientific thought rests upon the unproven assumption that the stuff of our universe behaves in a predictable and reliable manner, that there are physical laws at work. Man sees things fall, comes to recognize and formulate the law of gravity, and before you know it, he's explaining how the moon orbits Earth. The assumption isn't as obvious here; it must be taken almost on faith that the universe behaves according to certain laws. There's no particular reason that this should be so; the universe could just as well behave in a haphazard and capricious manner. As Albert Einstein once remarked, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible".

Well, then, are the principles of science worthless because they are based upon an unprovable assumption? Of course not. Having begun with an act of faith in the reliability of physical laws, we eventually come to have tremendous evidence to bolster this faith. The accumulated wealth of knowledge serves us very well, and does a wonderful job of explaining how things work. The pieces fit together, it all makes sense, there is internal consistency, and it seems to conform remarkably to reality as we experience it. We may therefore with good reason assume that the original assumption was valid.

Now consider the various systems of theological thought, also based upon unprovable assumptions. Oh, there are proofs for the existence of God, but these rest upon the a priori assumption that there is such a thing as provable truth. The nihilist rejects this assumption, and so he sees no proof. Of course, the nihilist is likewise starting from an a priori position which defies proof. There seems to be no other way; you have to start with an assumption of some kind, and forget (for now) about proving it.

So i begin with some assumptions, then see where that takes me, what system of thought can be built upon the assumptions; that will be my proof. I might start with the atheistic assumption that there is no god, and build a system of thought upon that assumption. In such a case, i find myself forced into a purely materialistic and nihilisitic system, one that does not explain or even consider such spiritual concepts as justice, love, or good vs. evil.

If i try the theistic assumption, that God exists and cares for us, i can at least begin to build a system that explains something of the meaning of life, that also incorporates the idea of good and evil, and the moral dimension of human life. Because this results in a better system of thought, i think that the starting assumption must be more sound.

At this point i would like to know more details about this God, and more about how we ought to live. This calls for a creedal system, in which the details are fleshed out. Of the major creedal religions, Christianity stands out for a couple of reasons. First, because it confirms and completes another major creedal system, that of Judaism. Secondly, it makes the fantastic claim that God has been here in person. This claim must either be debunked or be recognized as the most complete revelation possible. More on that shortly.

Likewise, within Christianity, one particular system stands out, that of Catholicism. Firstly, it possesses the most credible historic claim to being the one church going back to the Apostles, founded by Jesus Himself. Secondly, because it has the most trustworthy epistemology, the most solid authority.

The epistemology of Bible-based Christianity is pretty solid, and fairly trustworthy in its adherence to the authority of the Bible, but there are some problems here. For one thing, the existence of several thousand denominations, all claiming to be Bible-based, is evidence that this approach is prone to errors. Like the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:31), how can the believer know which interpretation of Scripture is the correct one, unless there is some reliable authority to guide him? Secondly, the Bible itself doesn't teach the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, that Scripture alone is all you need. Indeed, it points to the Church as the 'pillar and bulwark of truth' (1 Tim 3:15 RSV). And even if Scripture did proclaim Scripture as the only source of revelation, that would be circular reasoning, wouldn't it? No, the one fundamental doctrine that the Fundamentalists left out is that Christ built His Church upon the Apostles, and that He gave His authority to them, which remains a clear mark of His Church today.

Note that this authority does not preclude the obvious sinfulness of many priests, bishops and popes throughout history. Authority does not depend upon sanctity. (Indeed, the fact that the Church survived all her corrupt popes and bishops, and never lost the Gospel, can be seen as evidence of divine protection.)

So, i start with these assumptions: God exists, and reveals Himself to us in the person of Jesus who gives authority to men, thus establishing the Church. This produces a system of thought that answers an amazingly wide berth of life's questions, and answers them in an internally consistent way that makes sense of life, and corresponds extremely well to the realities around me. The Catholic system addresses not only specifically religious questions, but also issues of economics, politics and other things touching the demands of faith and morals. If anyone can come up with a more complete system of thought, i would truly love to hear about it. For now, this seems to be by far the best game in town, and explains why i am Catholic.

To return now to the startling assumption that forms the basis for all Christian faith - that Jesus is, in fact, God in the flesh - what to say about that? The veracity of this claim would seem to be tied to the Resurrection. If that man who was crucified really did rise victorious from the grave, then he must be taken seriously indeed, and not merely as a good teacher. Power over death would certainly seem to indicate a superhuman nature. If Jesus didn't really rise, then he was just a man, the whole thing is fool's work, and i would have to reject the Christian way, probably reverting to a creedless theism. I would be left to explain why the early disciples were all so willing to suffer death by martyrdom for a hoax, and i would still have to admit that the Christian system of thought blows the theistic system out of the water. But it needs to be said that, without the Resurrection, the Christian Faith makes no sense at all.

It comes down, then, to this: I have very strong intellectual reasons for embracing the Catholic Faith; other systems of thought simply pale by comparison. But in the final analysis, it still has to be a step of faith. I believe Jesus really rose from the dead, and so i am Catholic.