Of “paradigm shift” interest

Of "paradigm shift" interestMay I direct the readership’s attention today to an amusing piece at First Things?   The pseudoanonymous writer pokes fun at inconsistencies in a speech recently delivered by a certain prelate at a certain well-known English university.

As it opens, we read:

In a recent lecture on the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (not to be confused with the rather older treatise by the Doctor Consolatorius, De coitus gaudio), His Eminence Cardinal Blase Cupich explained the document as an endeavor to help families face up to the problems posed by the realities of life in the modern world. In the lecture, which would perhaps have been more timely had it been given on February 14, he analyzed this papal initiative in terms of six hermeneutical principles for the “decipherment” of the experiences of the faithful in contemporary family life, principles which together constitute a “paradigm shift” in the Church’s pastoral ministry.

Now in some ways, the cardinal’s use of the term “paradigm shift” might be thought problematic. Its primary sense, according to the online Cambridge English Dictionary, is “when the usual or accepted way of doing or thinking about something changes completely.” The Oxford English Dictionary, more laconically, regards it as a “major change in technology, outlook, etc.” The scholar who coined the phrase, Thomas Kuhn, used it to explain “scientific revolutions” such as the Copernican, the Newtonian, or the Einsteinian, and interpreted it as the rejection of one paradigm in favor of another.[1] It is not surprising, then, if some of the audience (as became apparent in the questions) balked at the suggestion that the Catholic Church had been led by the pope into some process of radical doctrinal change. Fortunately, the cardinal was swift to correct this misapprehension:

I reject the idea that a paradigm shift is a rupture and is not part of organic development. . . . The premise that “paradigm shift” means a break from the past is unfounded.

With these words, of course, he implicitly proclaimed his intellectual affiliation with that Victorian pioneer of the “linguistic turn,” the eminent Oxonian Dr. H. D’Umpty.[2] Armed with this realization, the astute reader is in a much better position to interpret the cardinal’s words, and indeed those of the pope as well. For the pope’s achievement in Amoris Laetitia (not to be confused with “Plaisir d’amour,” the well-known French song)[3] was to pursue doctrinal development only by way of “retrieving a way of thinking” which had “deep roots in tradition.”

[…]

There’s more.

Important speeches are supposed to provide food for thought and discussion.

 

Posted in Lighter fare, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill |
10 Comments

Spain: young people dancing a jota in reparation for blasphemy against the Blessed Virgin

UPDATE:

It seems that there is a conflicting report about this dance.  It is also said to be a flash mob organized for Children with Cancer Day, or similar.  HERE

I like the other version better, but if it isn’t true….

___ Originally Published on: Feb 20, 2018

I saw something at hated Facebook posted by Regina Magazine.

It seems that a Galician writer and dramatist Carlos Santiago made in public some blasphemous comments about the Blessed Virgin Mary. They were so bad that some people (alas, not all) got up and left the event. Our Lady asks us to make reparation for offenses against her. Hence, young people in Zaragoza, Spain danced a jota (the “national dance”, as it were) in front of the Cathedral and Our Lady of the Pillar, in reparation for the blasphemy.

I’m not sure if this video will work. Try refreshing if it doesn’t at first. I got it to work.

If memory serves, the Spanish and Catalans would dance the jota after Sunday Mass in the square before their churches. There is a scene in that mighty font, the great Aubrey/Maturin series. Stephen speaks of it in The Commodore. I think he also does it in another book

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged , , ,
6 Comments

Mega-Masses and too many Hosts

Mega-Masses and too many Hosts

2013 WYD

I’m on the record as being, at the very least, skeptical about big outdoor Masses where throngs of people are expected to receive Holy Communion (no matter who they are).   There are… problems that arise from these expectations.

One problem: Too many Hosts.  What to do?

One solution has been to send them to local churches for eventual distribution to the faithful.   I believe it was in Washington for a Mass with John Paul II that unconsumed sacred Hosts were sent off in, well, garbage bags.

In any event, in my messages today I received word of a situation following the Holy Father’s visit to South America.

Apparently, one religious house in Trujillo now has 100,000 consecrated Hosts from the Pope’s Mass that they are to distribute.

I seems that the actual attendance was just a little bit off from what was expected.

At one point you would think that someone, looking out at the much smaller than anticipated crowd, would have said, “Gee.  Maybe we should remove some of these ciboria?”

So.  Mega-Masses.  You decide.

 

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
19 Comments

The State v. Self-Reliance

I nearly missed an email note from a reader (because he didn’t use the contact form) which had a semi-jocular solution to mass shooting attacks on schools.

“Our solution to the school shooter crisis is Universal Mandatory Home Schooling!”

Okay. I guess if your child is being home-schooled, then she isn’t going to be in the school where the madman attacks.

Of course not every family is in a position to school their children well. “Well”, being the key.

On the other hand, this does bring a few questions to the fore.

Have we gotten to the point where we rely on the State for far too much? Where is self-reliance, personal responsibility? It can be argued that, for example, state schools free us up to do other things and provide a minimum level of education. However, it also seems to me that huge damage has been done to the entire nation through a decades long systematic bending of young minds with liberal and atheist agendas.

Just compare the exams (expectations) of grade school students in this decade with those of yesteryear. Take a look at a story about an 8th grade exam from 1912. HERE and HERE  They didn’t have fancy gizmos then. They had simple books, chalk, and a board… and expectations.

So, where’s the benefit from the big State-run schools these days? Students can learn about 57 different self-defined genders, but not much about history… of anything. And we know what happens when history is unknown or ignored.

Are there ways in which we can be more self-reliant, especially in the education of children?   I have in mind in particular religious education.  Parents are the first educators of their children.  Every other resource has to be an aid to parents, not a substitution.

I’m sure that many of you who have raised offspring have some view on this.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Semper Paratus, Si vis pacem para bellum!, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged
16 Comments

Attacks on the family

Sr. Lucia said that Satan’s great battle is against the family.

Now listen to this.  Please, people, try to think. NB especially about 4:00. Family as the “final bulwark”.

Play video

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
6 Comments

My View For Awhile: Capital Edition

After Holy Mass, I dashed to the car and zoomed to not too distant Milwaukee’s aerodrome. I’m off for a quick assault on museums of the nation’s capital and for meetings with a priest and lay people about an upcoming pilgrimage which is being organized.

I like this “Recombobulation Area” after security.

My View For Awhile: Capital Edition

You’ve gotta have a sense of humor in traveling these days.

My View For Awhile: Capital Edition

Ah the perks…

My View For Awhile: Capital Edition

Here we go again. Inevitably in the premium boarding process there are those who would trample new born puppies to get onboard before you. They invariably have headphones. Often they wind up getting stuck on the jet bridge 3 passengers in front of you. It is mildly amusing when their bag doesn’t fit in the overhead and, like guy who chosen too high a seat at the banquet must seek the “pink tag”.

UPDATE

My View For Awhile: Capital Edition

For a dear friend, about to enter a new phase.

My View For Awhile: Capital Edition

Meanwhile… just so that everyone knows….

I contacted the people at the Shrine about saying Mass.  Everything was cordial and happy and accommodating…. then I mentioned “Extraordinary Form”.

That’s when the chill and obstacles began.

I was told that to say the Extraordinary Form at the National Shrine, special permission was required from The Rector..

Special permission.  I waited for a response.  Nothing.

Let me be clear that the very nice person I spoke to by phone when trying to figure this out is in no way to blame.  She was extremely gracious.

Never mind that Summorum Pontificum is LAW for over a decade.  Never mind Pope Francis’ concessions to the SSPX.  Never mind everything else, including mere hospitality!   Apparently, the if you want the older form of Mass at the Shrine…  this is the Rector’s shrine and “those people” it seems… well…

My View For Awhile: Capital Edition

St. Peter’s Basilica? No problem.  The Rector’s Basilica?  Keep moving.

So many altars.  Nothing going on at any of them, even though they weren’t built for mere decoration.

Everything was all sweetness and welcome… then I mentioned the Extraordinary Form.

So, my visit to the National Shrine with my friends was great, but tinged with real sorrow.  I walked around in the Basilica with that cloud over my head, asking Mary to help.

It has been hard to be treated so shabbily by stingy priests for so many years.  But that’s the deck we have been dealt.

Those of us who still want what John Paul II called “legitimate aspirations” are sent to the back of the bus.

They can do whatever the hell they want, but those who have “legitimate aspirations” must make sure that they aren’t in town at sundown… or else.

We don’t need your kind ’round here.

 

Posted in On the road, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged
30 Comments

Books for boys. Suggested titles and an additional point.

Books for boys. Suggested titles and an additional point.At Crisis there is a good post about

10 Books That Every Boy Should Hazard

I warmly approve his use of “hazard”. Thank you.   He signals the spirit of this list in a word.

The writer, Sean Fitzpatrick, explains:

Thanks to the adulterators of children’s literature, the natural anticipations when approaching forgotten classics have been skewed. Everyone expects that everything will be picturesque, nice, and most importantly, safe. For reality is far too dangerous, far too harsh a thing, and children must be protected from it at all costs. Real stories for real boys, however, refuse to deliver saccharine platitudes. These books are composed of the uncanny, unforeseeable, and unimaginable. They present a reality that is often harsh, terrible, and so far from the idyllic it is free to become adventure. The books every boy should hazard are constantly on the brink of disaster, but still bear the distant but firm promise of final resolution; deftly navigating the fine line between realism and romance—requiring caution.

The books he recommended.

I. Midshipman Easy by Frederick Marryat

US HERE – UK HERE

Recommended Age: 14-16

Perhaps the mighty Aubrey/Maturin series when they are a bit older.

II. Wild Animals I Have Known by Ernest Thompson Seton

US HERE – UK HERE

Recommended Age: 10-14

III. Otto of the Silver Hand by Howard Pyle

US HERE – UK HERE

Recommended Age: 13-15

IV. The Chimes by Charles Dickens

US HERE – UK HERE

Recommended Age: 15-17

V. The White Company by Arthur Conan Doyle

US HERE – UK HERE

Recommended Age: 15-17

VI. The Thirty-Nine Steps by John Buchan

US HERE – UK HERE

Recommended Age: 14-16

VII. The Other Wise Man by Henry van Dyke

US HERE – UK HERE

Recommended Age: 12-14

VIII. The Black Arrow: A Tale of the Two Roses by Robert Louis Stevenson

US HERE – UK HERE

Recommended Age: 14-16

IX. The Prisoner of Zenda by Anthony Hope

US HERE – UK HERE

Recommended Age: 14-16

X. The Persian Expedition by Xenophon

US HERE – UK HERE

This one surprised me.  However, I can see why he included it.  As he described: It’s a manual for leadership.

Recommended Age: 15-17

So, those are the books that are recommended in the Crisis piece. You can see more about them over there.

I would add a question and a proposal.

So…. Kindle or a book?   Perhaps a combination of both.   There’s nothing like a real book. But the Kindle makes it easy to read on the fly, and the books don’t gather dust.

In addition to finding books for boys of that age, might I suggest also some effort to read aloud?

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes | Tagged
43 Comments

Wherein Fr Longenecker schools @JamesMartinSJ

Jesuit homosexualist activist James Martin doesn’t respond to critiques of his position. He can’t. Well… if he did it would have to be along the lines of, “Yes. You are right and I was wrong.” But he’s unlikely to do that given his track record.

Do go read Fr Longenecker’s correction of Martin’s latest. HERE

Straight forward. Clear. Correct.

It is sad that we have to waste our energies on making these corrections. But there are the times we live in. Some one repeats oddities, and it takes us twice as many words – at least – to clean their mess up from the carpet.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
8 Comments

Your Sunday Sermon Notes

Was there a good point made during the sermon you heard for this 1st Sunday of Lent?

Let us know.

Mine…

If the audio didn’t play immediately, refresh.  I had the wrong link for the audio file for a few minutes after posting.

Posted in Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, PODCAzT, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged ,
16 Comments

Commandments are NOT mere “ideals” from which some are excused because, “They’re tooo haaard!” Wherein Fr. Z rants.

two-roads-heaven-hellWith all the chatter these days about virtuous behavior being an “ideal” and jawing about “paradigm shifts” and so forth, I present anew something I posted exactly one year ago today.

___ Originally published 17 Feb 2017

Look. I’m the first one to admit that I am a sinner.  I sin and I go to confession with a firm purpose of amendment.  When I fall, I get back up, again with a firm purpose of amendment.  I go to confession. I keep trying.

I do not think that, just because I sin and fall, God’s commandments are only “ideals” which some other people may be able to keep, but that I – poor wretch that I am – cannot and, therefore, I’m a special case whom the Church must tell, “There there, John, you don’t really have to change your ways.  Go ahead and receive Communion anyway! (cf Gen 3:1)”

Since I am a priest, the whole sin v. state of grace thing is officially a Big Deal™ which I must monitor on a daily basis, especially after reading the news, my email and writing this blog.

It’s not like I can go to Mass (as celebrant) and not receive Communion, like a lay person. If I don’t receive, it isn’t Mass.  So, the pressure is on.

That said, let’s learn something from St. John Paul about the possibility of living in the state of grace.

This is from the 1993 encyclical Veritatis splendor, seemingly contradicted by the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris laetitia, chapter 8.  In fact, of the famous Five Dubia sent by the Four Cardinals to the Holy Father (the signer of Amoris laetitia) two Dubia concern Veritatis splendor.

Cf Veritatis splendor, 102-104 (my emphases and comments):

Grace and obedience to God’s law

102. Even in the most difficult situations man must respect the norm of morality so that he can be obedient to God’s holy commandment and consistent with his own dignity as a person. [This has to do with our dignity.] Certainly, maintaining a harmony between freedom and truth occasionally demands uncommon sacrifices, and must be won at a high price: it can even involve martyrdom. But, as universal and daily experience demonstrates, man is tempted to break that harmony: “I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate… I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want” (Rom 7:15, 19).

What is the ultimate source of this inner division of man? His history of sin begins when he no longer acknowledges the Lord as his Creator and himself wishes to be the one who determines, with complete independence, what is good and what is evil. “You will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5): this was the first temptation, and it is echoed in all the other temptations to which man is more easily inclined to yield as a result of the original Fall. [This is the danger inherent in the cant that people can go to Communion if their “consciences” allow.  Conscience… formed how?]

But temptations can be overcome, sins can be avoided, because together with the commandments the Lord gives us the possibility of keeping them: “His eyes are on those who fear him, and he knows every deed of man. He has not commanded any one to be ungodly, and he has not given any one permission to sin” (Sir 15:19-20). Keeping God’s law in particular situations can be difficult, extremely difficult, but it is never impossible. [Did you get that?] This is the constant teaching of the Church’s tradition, and was expressed by the Council of Trent: “But no one, however much justified, ought to consider himself exempt from the observance of the commandments, nor should he employ that rash statement, forbidden by the Fathers under anathema, that the commandments of God are impossible of observance by one who is justified. [I posted on that HERE.] For God does not command the impossible, but in commanding he admonishes you to do what you can and to pray for what you cannot, and he gives his aid to enable you. [SEE?] His commandments are not burdensome (cf. 1 Jn 5:3); his yoke is easy and his burden light (cf. Mt 11:30)”.

103. Man always has before him the spiritual horizon of hope, thanks to the help of divine grace and with the cooperation of human freedom.

It is in the saving Cross of Jesus, in the gift of the Holy Spirit, in the Sacraments which flow forth from the pierced side of the Redeemer (cf. Jn 19:34), that believers find the grace and the strength always to keep God’s holy law, even amid the gravest of hardships. As Saint Andrew of Crete observes, the law itself “was enlivened by grace and made to serve it in a harmonious and fruitful combination. Each element preserved its characteristics without change or confusion. In a divine manner, he turned what could be burdensome and tyrannical into what is easy to bear and a source of freedom”.

Only in the mystery of Christ’s Redemption do we discover the “concrete” possibilities of man. [NB!] “It would be a very serious error to conclude… that the Church’s teaching is essentially only an “ideal” which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man, according to a “balancing of the goods in question”. [Did you get that?] But what are the “concrete possibilities of man”? And of which man are we speaking? Of man dominated by lust or of man redeemed by Christ? This is what is at stake: the reality of Christ’s redemption. Christ has redeemed us! This means that he has given us the possibility of realizing the entire truth of our being; he has set our freedom free from the domination of concupiscence. [NB!] And if redeemed man still sins, this is not due to an imperfection of Christ’s redemptive act, but to man’s will not to avail himself of the grace which flows from that act. God’s command is of course proportioned to man’s capabilities; but to the capabilities of the man to whom the Holy Spirit has been given; of the man who, though he has fallen into sin, can always obtain pardon and enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit”.

104. In this context, appropriate allowance is made both for God’s mercy towards the sinner who converts and for the understanding of human weakness. Such understanding never means compromising and falsifying the standard of good and evil in order to adapt it to particular circumstances. It is quite human for the sinner to acknowledge his weakness and to ask mercy for his failings; what is unacceptable is the attitude of one who makes his own weakness the criterion of the truth about the good, so that he can feel self-justified, without even the need to have recourse to God and his mercy. An attitude of this sort corrupts the morality of society as a whole, since it encourages doubt about the objectivity of the moral law in general and a rejection of the absoluteness of moral prohibitions regarding specific human acts, and it ends up by confusing all judgments about values. [“Encouraging doubt” about those thing is, apparently, BAD.  As a matter of fact, it is scandalous, isn’t it?  As Killick would say, “Which it’s millstones ain’t in it!”]

[…]

Oh yes… that’s right.  I forgot.  Veritatis splendor came out in late 1993.  That’s 23, almost 24 whole years ago!  [about 25 now!] That’s really old!  Surely VS isn’t relevant today, is it?  Imagine paying attention to something that outdated!

If you were looking for the promised rant, look no farther.

Everyone, don’t be overly discouraged if you fall into sin, even something that is repetitive and truly hard to root out.

Sense the prevenient grace that God is extending to you!  Be truly sorry for your sins, resolve to sin no more, get up off your sorry backsides, go out the door and …

GO TO CONFESSION!

One of the effects of the Sacrament of Penance is a strengthening against sin.

We can do this!  We have to encourage each other and not make excuses.  We have to look at the truth straight on and not get mired in sloppy sentiment.  Truth doesn’t short-circuit compassion, but compassion doesn’t usurp truth.

Here’s a dose of truth.

One of the important things to know ahead of time about amending your life is that, when the temptations come, you have to be willing to suffer.

A firm purpose of amendment means embracing the Cross.  It means being willing to stay up there on your cross and suffering.  Saying “No!” to yourself, saying “No!” to a temptation is the hard path, but it is the path that leads to heaven.  As soon as you say “No!”, the suffering will begin, especially when it comes to more carnal matters.  The cross will be laid upon you.  Then you will carry it.  You might fall!  Then you will be nailed to it.  Then you will thirst and cry to God.  This is how we must face temptations and root out sins.  We face them with a plan and the foreknowledge of the suffering to follow.

On our own, we can’t do it.  With God, we can.  It is not impossible with God’s help.  It is impossible only if we are alone, and we are never alone.

God offers the crosses and the graces every time.   The cross, your daily cross and suffering is the road.  Suffering is bad, but it is good.  Suffering corrects us and tests us.  Suffering purifies us and strengthens us.  It’s all a question of what you love.  If you love God and want heaven enough, then with love you will stay up on that gift of a cross and you will suffer in sorrowfully joyful pain.  It will be bad.  But know also that it is, without question, suffering’s easy yoke.  It is the easy yoke because you are exactly where you ought to be in God’s plan for your rescue from sin into heaven.

Christ is already victorious.  We must live His victory in our bodies and souls.  His victory was through the Cross.  Our victory is through the Cross.   Reject the Cross and you cannot be saved.  Reject your crosses and you imperil your salvation.

The Church teaches with Christ’s authority.  The Church, faithful to Christ her spouse, wants your salvation, just as Christ wants your salvation.  Christ offers crosses to help you.  Therefore, some of the Church’s teachings will be occasions of crosses which you must bear for the sake of your salvation.

The Church isn’t trying to ruin what might otherwise be a good time in life.  She is trying to help you to Heaven, and that means saying “No!” to a lot of things, because there are a lot of things that can drag us to Hell if we are not careful.  Hell’s road is deception, to which we are lead by ease.  The road to Heaven is arduous, steep, long, fraught with challenges.  But Heaven’s road is the happier, even though it is the harder.

If someone comes along and tells you that you don’t need to stay up there on your cross… that’s from Hell.  It certainly is not from God.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, GO TO CONFESSION, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Linking Back, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , , ,
6 Comments