Faith and Society.

"It would be a strange fatality if the great revolution by which Western man has subdued nature to his purposes should end in the loss of his own spiritual freedom, but this might well happen if an increasing technical control of the state over life and thought of its members should coincide with a qualitative decline in the standards of our culture. An ideology in the modern sense of the word is very different from a faith, although it is intended to fulfil the same sociological functions. It is the work of man, an instrument by which the conscious political will attempts to mould the social tradition to its purpose. But faith looks beyond the world of man and his works; it introduces man to a higher and more universal range of reality than the finite and temporal world to which the state and economic order belong. And thereby it introduces into human life an element of spiritual freedom which may have a creative and transforming influence on man's social culture and historical destiny as well as on his inner personal experience."
                                                                                      Christopher Dawson 1949.

Incensing the Altar at the Offertory

Dirigatur, Domine, oratio mea, sicut incensum in conspectu tuo: elevatio manuum mearum sacrificium vespertinum .
Pone, Domine, custodiam ori meo, et ostium circumstantiae labiis meis.
Ut non declinet cor meum in verbo malitiae, ad excusandas excusationes in peccatis.

Let my prayer, O Lord, be directed as incense in Thy sight: the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice.
Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth, and a door round about my lips.
Incline not my heart to evil words: to make excuses in sin.

What type of car would you be...?

Posting a lot recently about journey and crossroads etc so it got me thinking, what kind of cars would be on these thoroughfares?
Liberals, well I think there would be two types; the more etheral, cosmic at one with mother godess clique would have hybrids or if lucky electrical cars. You can just see it, sitting smugly behind their wheel holding all the traffic back as they hum contentedly down the road. The second type of liberal car would be a turbo charged sports car, screeching away trying somehow to attain the speed of light. But both these cars would have the same in common, they are unaware of any road users or indeed any rules of the road. " Rules are too square man!" "Red lights what a drag, I need to be free man!" " Hey I know what's best on this road man so move over baby." Of course its the rest of us poor insured rabble that have to pay for these arrogant idiots. "Hey man...  Shut up!! hippy"
Neo-cons, well lets see. Of course they would have to consult the Vatican first to see what the Holy Father's preference is, and then they would drive carefully. Every day that they drove would be a beautiful spring  morning, and life would be joyous and spirit-filled, open to every emotion and secure in the knowledge that the sat nav would speed them in the right direction. In fact they would listen and follow implicitly the directions, turn right in 200 metres, turn left now, stop at junction, continue for 2 kms over bridge. Afterwards, puzzled as they sit in their car which is slowly filling with water, they will conclude that they didn't listen carefully enough as obviously the sat nav was vatican approved and therefore perfect. ( most neo-cons use the notion of papal infallibility in the same manner that a 4 year old uses paint, liberally and without discrimination; in fact empirical data suggests that a neo-con wouldn't know the true definition of infallibility if it came up and punched them on the nose.)
As for traditionalits, well any old car will do as long as it gets you to where you are going, stopping frequently to consult the map and don't forget to display the learner plates!!!

A view from the Square.

Sunday was a strange day, in that two wings of the church diametrically opposed to each other agreed on the same thing. Namely the liberals and the traditionalists agreed that they had huge reservations about the beatification of John Paul II. This was a day for the neo-cons, those Catholics really celebrated.
  The liberals were predictable in their bleating about Vatican II being stymied by the "dictatorial" pontiff ( this is a bit rich as we shall see), they were on firmer ground in their misgivings about the handling of the abuse crisis and in particular the halting of the investigation of the antics of Maciel and the undue influence of the Legion in Rome.
  Traditionalists, well they had a long list of grievances.
But what is the problem? Well lets look at the positives.
Was JPII fearless in his struggle with communism? Yes he was.
The manner of his death and his example of witness to suffering was inspring.
Did he give an example of personal holiness and prayer? Yes he did.
Was he strong on moral issues around the sanctity of life? Yes he was.

 But with true Christian charity it must be pointed out that there was much to mourn:
The appointment of bishops unsuited to leading their flock, the supervision (or lack thereof) of these bishops to ensure that their flocks were not led astray.
Papal liturgies around the globe that were akin to rock/ pagan spectacles.
The Assisi meeting and frequent pronouncements that undermined for the faithful the belief that the One True Church was the sole means for salvation.
The Theology of the Body, JPII's own system of teaching on human sexuality and relationships, this continues to be the flavour of the month spawning conferences and seminars around the world, a rich meal ticket but shot through with humanism. At variance with the traditional teaching of the Church as regards the ends of  marriage.
His belief in the human institutions such as the UN as the means to bring about social justice etc.
 These are just a few of the concerns that could be expressed, JPII was truly a child of Vatican II, intimately involved in the council, one of the main movers and shakers behind Gaudium et Spes (a document whose ethos cannot be squared with traditional Catholic teaching  on man's place in creation and his reliance on God) a favourite of Paul VI.
  This goes some way to explain the haste of the process for beatification. Vatican II needs a saint. The neocons demand it. JohnXXIII is blessed, Paul VI's cause limps along. Now there is the strongest card to play. A consumate public figure, even the media grudgingly admired him. For the neocons he represented the best of their brand of charismatic Catholicism, namely visible, emotive and spiritual. Faith and Reason are the cornerstones of the Church, yet reason seems to have been jettisoned. This well fits in with the "cult of personality" that has become the trademark of this wing of the Church. "What? The Holy Father says that we must wear leather hats? Right I have my gun, now where did I put that cow...?"
 Even the mechanics of the process are up for questioning, the recent changes to the criteria favour speedy and less stringent  examinations of the cause. This was explained away with the notion that the judges must have enough evidence gathered to proceed with the cause, but who judges the judges and the background motivation and pressures that lead to their judgement?
John Paul the Great? No.  Blessed John Paul? ...