I wonder if someone of you can help me to see whether there might be a connection between something I read about at Off the Record and these words of St. Gregory the Great. This exemplar pontificum said:

Sunt enim nonnulli qui dum plus terrenam substantiam quam oves diligunt, merito nomen pastoris perdunt: non enim pastor, sed mercenarius vocatur qui non pro amore intimo oves dominicas, sed ad temporales mercedes pascit. Mercenarius quippe est qui pastoris locum tenet, sed lucrum animarum non quaerit, terrenis commodis inhiat, honore praelationis gaudet.

For there are not a few who, while they love worldy fortune more than the sheep, rightly lose the name of “pastor”: for he is not called a pastor but an employee who shepherds the Lord’s sheep, not on account of a deep love, but to gain temporal reward. Indeed the employee holds the place of a pastor, but he does not seek the profit of souls, but longs for worldy conveniences and delights in the honor of preferrment.

From the Off the Record blog:

The journalists go on to report that most priests [in England and Wales], including the heterodox, gave Pope Benedict a high rating on his first year (scoring him 8.9 on a 1-to-10 scale) and quote a respondent who, unconvincingly, chalks it up to careerism:

“We are such creeps,” said one clergyman before giving the Pope a nine. “We’re all thinking of our careers.”

Sorry, pal, if you think an anonymous poll on the pope counts more toward promotion than a publicly permissive stance on condoms, you’ve got it backwards. The two most successful clerical careers in Britain are those of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and Dominican Timothy Radcliffe.

And St. Augustine adds this interesting note:

Nec enim mercenarius diceretur, nisi acciperet a conducente mercedem. Filii aeternam hereditatem patris patienter expectant, mercenarius temporalem mercedem conducentis festinanter exoptat; et tamen per linguas utrorumque divina Christi gloria diffamatur. Inde ergo laedit unde mala facit, non unde bona dicit: botrum carpe, spinam cave: quia botrus aliquando de radice vitis exortus, pendet in spinis: multi quippe in Ecclesia commoda terrena sectantes, Christum praedicant, et per eos vox Christi auditur; et sequuntur oves, non mercenarium, sed vocem pastoris per mercenarium.

For he ought not be called a “hireling” unless he has accepted a wage from the employer. The sons of the Father patiently await an eternal inheritance, the hireling desires a temporal wage from the employer and speedily; nevertheless, the divine glory of Christ is spread abroad through the tongues of both. Accordingly, the hireling wounds when he does evil, not when he speaks good: pluck the fruit, avoid the thorn; sometimes when the fruit grows from the root of the vine, it hangs among thorns: many in the Church, to be sure, while pursuing worldly goods, preach Christ, and through them the voice of Christ is heard; and the sheep follow, not the hireling, but the voice of the shepherd through the hireling.

go to main page

I have been waiting all week to write about St. Peter the Martyr (St. Peter of Verona). This week has brought before our attention the lives to two martyrs of what we might well consider to be modern times. Both St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen and St. Peter of Verona were murdered while working to halt the spread of the heresy and to call the erring back to the one Sheepfold of Christ.

The title of this post comes from an antiphon in the Dominican Breviary: “De fumo lumen oritur, et rosae flos de sentibus: doctor et martyr nascitur Petrus de infidelibus.” This antiphon reminds us that St. Peter was born into a family of heretics, a point which I will discuss later in this post. Indeed, what I have done here is to copy material which I posted back on November 5th last year when I came across a wonderful story about St. Peter, the time when he was held guilty of having ladies in his private room.

But before we come to that material, I thought that I would excerpt for you a passage from Dom Gueranger’s commentary on today’s feast. No matter how Rome spins it or the bishops’ conferences lament it, we cannot forget that so-called “religious liberty” in the State is a novel idea, and one condemned repeatedly by the Apostolic See before the Second Vatican Council. I’m sure that we all know the relevant encyclicals. But here, Dom Gueranger explains the point in the context of St. Peter’s death:

Continue reading

I don’t know if our good readers frequent The Remnant and Christ or Chaos (I’m not particularly attached to either of them myself) so I thought I’d relate the recent developments there. In the last few days, Drolesky has apparently been sick to his stomach over the early heresies of Josef Ratzinger, and Society Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais speaks harsher words than near any ever heard from a Society Bishop in the past. A little bit overwrought, but still interesting stuff.

By the way, His Lordship’s insistence that Communion is not a Catholic concept seems not a little strange. Perhaps its just one of those strange Frenchisms (and Fatimisms…), like saying the Dogma of the Faith.

I am right now listening to Boswell’s Life of Johnson, and I tonight came across the following delightful quotation. I imagine that our readers will enjoy it as well.

I told him I had been that morning at a meeting of the people called Quakers, where I had heard a woman preach. Johnson: “Sir, a woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.”

Boys and girls, before I begin, let’s not start another one of these endless debates (although I do love talking about Exsurge Domine… ).

I recently discovered a very neat little website/apostolate on the far side of the world: the Australian Catholic Truth Society. They mainly reproduce and distribute old Catholic pamphlets for a small fee.

Now, I understand that with the brand new Compendium out, the People of God have no need for pamphlets – but remember these date from those dark and frightful ages before we had the One, Holy, and Apostolic Catholic Catechism. I imagine that when John Paul the Fair-er calls Vatican III, that glorious work will be placed alongside the New Vulgate and a gussied-up Summa (or, perhaps Chardin’s The Divine Milieu?). And before the Council Fathers begin to draft the Canons on Capital Punishment, just after their vigorous discussion of the importance of media in the 22nd century, a voice from the back will intone the code prefix that announces a Neo-Catholic has arrived – that gatling gun rattle of C-C-C – and proceed to read those gathered the 2266 and 2267.

I remember reading a while back an article about reactions to the election of Pope Benedict, where one liberal quoted spoke of how Ratzinger was the one so dear as to to force those controversial modifications into the Catechism. I’m so glad there was rejoicing in some corners of the neo-modernist Western Patriarchate…

Anyways, it is always fascinating to read these old pamphlets, for a number of reasons. I love how they give concrete examples that strike the modern mind by surprise, and give us a glimpse into the culture and mores which seem lost forever – examples often neglected in loftier documents – like when various Cures speak of the infamy of mixed public bathing, or dancing, or tell you to burn your King James, post-haste. But aside from these tidbits, which both salve curiosity historical, and encourage the disordered traditionalist mind to new heights of scrupulosity, such pamphlets often express theological insights which are seldom heard anymore, and which rely on very interesting references.

With regards to capital punishment, I’m willing to fight long and hard for its use, but at the end of the day I don’t really care that much whether we have it or not. What really gets me is that no one except Amerio is talking about retribution anymore. Except – guess who – Pius XII in this wonderful pamphlet on Capital Punishment. Read it all, I encourage you. Or just some of the words of that Holy Pontiff, who apparently ruled more than all creatures ‘neath the heavenly firmament,

“this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself. There is nothing more necessary for the national and international community than respect for the majesty of the law and the salutary thought that the law is sacred and protected, so that whoever breaks it is liable to punishment and will be punished”

“Most modern theories of penal law explain punishment and justify it in the last resort as a protective measure, that is, a defence of the community against crimes being attempted : and at the same time an effort to lead the culprit back to the observance of the law. In these theories punishment may indeed include sanctions in the form of a reduction of certain advantages guaranteed by the law, in order to teach the culprit to live honestly : but they fail to consider expiation of the crime committed, which itself is a sanction on the violation of the law, as the most important function of punishment”

Oh happy days…
go to main page

John Allen is reporting that:

A forthcoming Vatican document is set to state that use of condoms by a married couple, where one partner is infected with HIV/AIDS and the other is not, can be acceptable to prevent the transmission of the disease.

This is, I think, a disaster in the making.

Continue reading

Recently I received an email from Mr. Francisco Romero, a onetime classmate of mine in a Latin course at Marquette University. He was at the time a Ph.D. Cand. in philosophy, and since then has worked for Tom Droleskey’s “Christ the King” online college. Here is Romero’s new (to us, anyway) blog: “Ite ad Thomam.” I think that you will find much to enjoy.

Mihi verba infera perdoctaque non sunt; eorum autem scriptor, in umbris volens habitare et sine nomine latere, me tamen poposcit ea in lucem educere. Quam flagitationem his inferis verbis nostro blogo repositis peregi et confeci.

As a contribution to the Society for a Good Time’s continual effort to reach out to all Catholics at Cornell, I attended a Spirit Retreat organized by Catholic students, held last weekend at an Assembly of God Church here in Ithaca. Our interest in the event was piqued largely by the fact that it was going to be lead by a priest from Franciscan University in Steubenville, an institution about which we have heard much. In particular, we had heard that the students in Steubenville believe in the “charismatic gifts,” the most famous of these being the gift of speaking in tongues. We were curious, and this seemed like a good chance to get a glimpse of what really goes on with this crowd. I volunteered to investigate.

The retreat started Friday night, included an overnight stay at the church, and continued through the following evening. I only attended the first evening’s session. I should tell the eager reader right away that I did not see anything that I recognized as the manifestation of charismatic gifts. There was a promise that people would be given an opportunity on Saturday night to “pray to be baptized in the Holy Spirit” or alternatively to have their spiritual gifts unlocked, and that the entire team of Steubenvillers would join in praying at that time. I didn’t get a chance to see that, so I can’t report on what exactly it involved. But I think I saw enough to get a bit of an idea of what sort of a retreat it was.

Continue reading

Sometimes the biographies of saints at the Catholic Encyclopedia leave more than a little to be desired. I recall that the biograph of St. Teresa of Avila is that way. But more often, in my experience, they can be wonderful, even thrilling. The biography of St. Alphonsus Liguori at the Encyclopedia is not only that but a meditation on holiness and life, almost independent of the saint himself. And I have the Catholic Encyclopedia to thank for the esteem I have for this man, St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen.

Iacobus has taught me to enjoy the word “sassy”, and it is just the word we want when it comes to St. Fidelis, the first martyr for the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, and the man whose feast we celebrate today. Sassy, because of the way in which he died.

Father Cuthbert in the Catholic Encyclopedia concludes his report thus:

At Sevis [St. Fidelis] entered the church and began to preach, but was interrupted by a sudden tumult both within and without the church. Several Austrian soldiers who were guarding the doors of the church were killed and Fidelis himself was struck. A Calvinist present offered to lead him to a place of security. Fidelis thanked the man but said his life was in the hands of God.

Outside the church he was surrounded by a crowd led by the preachers who offered to save his life if he would apostatize.

Fidelis replied: “I came to extirpate heresy, not to embrace it.”

whereupon he was struck down. He was the first martyr of the Congregation of Propaganda. His body was afterwards taken to Feldkirch and buried in the church of his order, except his head and left arm, which were placed in the cathedral at Coire. He was beatified in 1729, and canonized in 1745.

The man had some panache. May he intercede on behalf of the Church that she may not forget her mission to convert all nations to the one, true Faith.

Deiparae Virginis et Rosarii cultor eximius, a Deo postulavit, ut pro catholica fide martyr occumberet . . . . [et] cum nulli labori parcens plures haereticos ad Christi fidem convertisset, malorum invidiam subiit.

Look! we wish to be popular today, the Church, I mean, wishes to be popular; popular with the Jews, with the protestants, with the schismatics (I’m speaking of the Easterns), with every part of this world. I posted the other day about my frustration when the Pope won’t call it like it is – but look at the consequence of preaching the Faith, martyrdom. The spirit of the martyrs must return if we are again to preach the Faith. Will there not be martyrs in Europe in the coming years? As one country after another on the Continent succumbs to the Mohammedan horde, the Catholics will be increasingly envied, as it were, invidiam subibunt, to mirror the words of the biography.

Europe long ago became mission territory; St. Fidelis would know how to get us started on the road back.

go to main page

So I couldn’t help noticing that in today’s Introit for Low (Quasimodo) Sunday we find a rather strange passage:

Quasi modo geniti infantes, alleluia: rationabile, sine dolo lac concupiscite…

It is from 1 Pet 2:2, in the Vulgate:

sicut modo geniti infantes rationale sine dolo lac concupiscite…

rendered in the Douay:

As newborn babes, desire the rational milk without guile…

Now that seems like a pretty strange thing to say–what the heck is “rational milk”?

Well some quick online sniffing turns up that the full verse in Greek (what Greek text I know not, see link below) is something like:

hos artigennetos brephos epipotheo adolos gala logikos hina auxano en autos

rendered in the KJV as:

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word…

Since I don’t have the Greek, I’m depending entirely on this. Nonetheless, it seems like we can determine that St. Jerome was rendering the “gala logikos” (milk of the word) with “rational milk.” Further, and I’m really not sure about this, but it also seems that the adjectival construction in the Greek (sincere milk) is turned into an adverbial construction in the Latin (desire rational milk without guile). In the Greek, the milk itself is sincere/without guile, while in the Latin the guilelessness seems to concern the way the milk is desired. Or is that an artifact of the translation of “sine dolo” into English (because ’sine’ takes the ablative)?

So what gives; why did he do that? It seems at the very least to obscure the Christological theme in “milk of the Word”? Anybody got any ideas? Did I get the languages right?

(The picture’s a joke; clearly someone who needs some rational milk)

go to main page