I present these reflections in sketch form because I am approaching this matter more from the standpoint of Catholic intuition rather than formal theological learning (of which I possess fairly little). The intuitive problem I see in this transition of models is the disruption of the continuity of doctrine and its practical consequences that it brings in its wake. [That notion, in essence applied to so many other issues in the contemporary Church, is fundamentally why I have been a Catholic traditionalist for nearly 20 years and counting.] There is something fundamentally wrong with the idea that, if we take the example the article’s authors provide, prior to Vatican II the marriage between “Romeo Hatfield” and “Juliet McCoy” would be held as valid and conscientiously binding upon the spouses, whereas subsequently it would not, owing exclusively to the difference in the definition of “marriage” applied before and after the Council, with absolutely no difference in the scenario’s circumstances!

What makes a marriage valid, aside from (perfectly changeable) formal prescriptions of Canon Law, is ultimately based on the unchangeable and strictly objective principles of traditional theology rooted in the absolute truths of Divine Revelation. In terms of the internal dispositions of the parties, these either make a marriage valid or not, and no passage of time or legitimate theological development can, solely of itself, make what would have been recognized as valid yesterday suddenly “invalid” today!

To point out a parallel example: before the Council, the “meal” element of the Mass and the Sacrament of the Eucharist was quite severely downplayed (and rightfully so: for Trent had clarified for all time that this was a matter, above all else, of propitiatory sacrifice), whereas it has since been so played-up that now two entire generations of Catholic youth have grown up believing that the Mass is primarily a memorial meal (alongside absolutely no knowledge of either the term or the concept of a “propitiatory sacrifice”). Does this “new understanding” of the Mass therefore make Masses offered according to the traditional Roman Rite “invalid” because they are so grossly “deficient” in this “previously under-appreciated” dimension of the Mass?

Note one more parallel: in the cases of both Matrimony and the Mass, the traditional understanding of the primary purpose of each has been obscured, if not practically obliterated, by the new emphasis given to aspects that were hitherto understood to be secondary at best….

Moreover, the historical context of this change-of-paradigm for the Sacrament of Matrimony gives some further clues disturbing to the Catholic intuition. It emerged at a time when, because of the modern world’s accelerating war against Christ and His Kingship, Christian marriage had come to be viewed as inhumanely burdensome and unbearable, a time when the hardness of heart among the people raised such a clamor for easy divorce that it came to be granted, and the practical consequence of this new paradigm was to recognize a whole host of new circumstances under which divorce and remarriage could be “justified” in supposedly Catholic terms. With such a construction of Matrimony as now prevails, it likewise is easier for couples resorting to “pink pills” and the like to “justify” themselves in theological terms than it would have been in the traditional model! In short, this is yet one more way in which a “new insight” had made it easier for the Catholic to keep in step with the spirit and ethos of an evermore de-Christianizing modern world….

* * *

Undergirding these thoughts is an idea deserving of a post of its own but I’ll state it here, one which recently found its first halfway-clear verbal exposition in El Camino Real’s comments-box: Obedience is the servant of Faith, not vice versa — so common sense dictates and even Scripture implies [cf. II Cor. X.8; Gal. I.8-9]. In our times, mere legalism, or even mere theologizing, is not enough to properly come to terms with this unparalleled crisis of authority in the history of the Church. One’s understandings of both law and theology must be viewed in context of the instincts one possesses as a consequence of sound Catholic doctrine and practice. There is, in other words, a fundamental place for common sense in these assessments. This was the genius insight of the late Archbishop Lefebvre: so I understood in 1985 when I first came to support his work (and be confirmed by him in April of the next year), and so I still understand now (even with the very real concerns I have for the future of the Society of St. Pius X which he founded).

And that is why I can, without hesitation, question an alteration in theological understanding promoted by a General Council and forty years of subsequent affirmation even by Popes themselves. Not even “an angel from heaven” can make what was true yesterday “untrue” today, or vice versa. But, let me pose the question: could there be some way in which the “covenantal” model of Matrimony can be understood in such wise as to affirm without exception the doctrinal truths, rooted in Scripture and Tradition, asserted in the “contractual” model? This must be done in order to sustain the logical continuity of doctrine that is an essential element of the indefectibility of the Church — otherwise, this new model will need to be scrapped.

Those of us who don’t quite accept the “John Paul the Great” mythos, and instead fear that he will indeed have much to account for in his long pontificate before the Divine Majesty, have thus all the more reason to pray for him — and the Church — in these, his last days.

But let me leave the spiritual expositions of these things to the clerics and, instead, by means of illustrating the continuation of St. Simeon’s prophecy in our own time, blow the dust off of one of those old topics I alluded to in yesterday’s comeback post. On the last of the feast-days associated with Christmas, let us go back in time to last Dec. 19th, when the pseudo-Catholic feminoid columnist-author Anna Quindlen proffered her “meditations” on “The Spirit of the Season” for the issue of Newsweek published just after Christmas Day. You will understand after reading it, why I’ve shoved this one into the “No King but Caesar files” also….

She begins by urging her Christian readers to “let us make this solemn vow: we will not insist, in the name of piety, on rubbing the faces of those who don’t believe in Christ’s divinity in the anniversary of his birth.” The concerns of those witnessing the organized effort to banish all reference to Christmas from the American public sphere are just the contemptible sentiments of small minds, worthy only of Scrooge’s legendary “bah, humbug.” Yet, she doesn’t mind telling us the “real reason” why the anti-Christmas campaign exists:

It has little to do with separation of church and state or liberal politics and everything to do with the way the blunt cudgel of Christianity has been heedlessly used, the tyranny of the majority. After years of Jewish parents’ sitting through school concerts listening to the words “It is the night of our dear savior’s birth,” maybe oversensitivity was inevitable, since any other kind of sensitivity had been in short supply. From the trials of witches in Salem to the talking-head evangelists of the present day, we have a rich tradition of faith-based bullying in this country.

She doesn’t bother to demonstrate, aside from one rhetorical phrase, how this so-called “rich tradition” manifested itself in American history, particularly given the fact that this is the country that pioneered the disassociation of religion and government! We’re supposed to accept the idea that people who instinctively felt that their public institutions should reflect their personal convictions (even if in some however-convoluted way) were thereby imposing a “tyranny of the majority.” I don’t suppose, however, that Ms. Quindlen worries so much about majority tyranny when it is used to impose anti-Christian laws like the one in Colorado referenced here yesterday….

See, that’s just it. Whose side is this woman on? Who is her king? Keep reading.

Christmas is being observed exactly where it ought to be, at homes, in our hearts, among friends and families. The modern movement to exhibit it in town squares and mall food courts is precisely what has led to the secularization of one of our most solemn holy days.

“Modern movement”??? In whatever culture Christmas is celebrated (and in American culture, that’s been only since circa 1850), it has always been a supremely public observance: there’s nothing “new” about that! More importantly, though, here we have the direct statement of her thesis: Christmas belongs in the closet, kept out of public view, lest it contaminate the social atmosphere by casting an oppressive pall on those who refuse to accept our Lord, Jesus Christ, as their Savior and their King, as if it were just another form of pornography.

The only way she can accept Christmas in the public square is if it were divested of what she calls “smug superiority disguised as faith,” both on the part of the people celebrating it and in the way they celebrate it — never mind the fact that the much-derided “triumphalism” is central and essential to the true meaning behind our Savior’s nativity, as the traditional Roman liturgy illustrates time and again and again! (Take Psalm II, which is the first of nine Psalms recited at Christmas Matins, and God’s promise to His Anointed that He shall have dominion over the raging Gentiles and the people who have devised “vain things” — a la Anna Quindlen and her ilk, for example….) And what is the whole “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” business, pray tell? What the opponents of Christianity are all too willing to believe is just a bunch of insecure men using religious dogma to “lord it” over everyone else, is actually, to some degree or another, some sincere recognition that men must reflect in all their actions, public as well as private, their professed recognition of Christ as sovereign Lord and King of the universe!

This woman says she’s a Catholic, and yet reserves her compassion only for the enemies of our Lord; for those who recognize (in however any small kind of way) the kingship of Christ, she only vomits her contemptible “bah, humbug.” So she who can’t tolerate the “triumphalism” of orthodox Christianity nevertheless doesn’t mind foisting upon us some moralizing of her own:

So if people are really worried about keeping Christ in Christmas, they might personally exhibit tolerance and charity, kindness and generosity…. And if saying “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas” offers someone who is not of your faith more comfort and joy—well, ’tis the season for both.

Let’s keep in mind that people like Ms. Quindlen have their own definitions for terms like “tolerance and charity, kindness and generosity,” and it is blatantly one-sided in its application: Christians are expected to kowtow to their enemies without expecting any like consideration in return, nor are the anti-Christians expected to show any of these qualities to Christians.

Judas may have sold out our Lord for 30 pieces of silver, but at least he didn’t go around bad-mouthing Him or His disciples on top of that….

Some bishops in Colorado, including the noteworthy Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, affirmed in writing their defense of Catholic hospitals that would be forced to provide “emergency contraception” under a bill that cleared the state House, is expected to clear the state Senate, and will end up on the desk of Gov. Bill Owens, who professes to be Catholic but refuses to disclose his position on the bill.

For this effort, they were repaid with the red-faced diatribe by a Demogogue feminoid, Fran Coleman:

“I absolutely resent the Catholic Church preaching to me because I represent people of all faiths. I question their ability to continue to be in a tax-exempt status. We don’t need to be preached or read to.”

You see, folks, this bitch claims to be Catholic herself — moreover, she’s one of those damned “Eucharistic ministers” to boot. But she’s also “reluctantly” pro-abortion because, as she said last April, “If I try to overturn Roe v. Wade, I’ll be driving abortion back into the underground.”

No, she’d rather drive conscientious Catholic medicine into the underground, because she has no king but Caesar.

And don’t give me the line that she was a rape victim, either. Every time she touches a sacred Host, she perpetrates a crime far worse than rape….

So I’m rummaging through the meager Web site of John Vennari’s Catholic Family News, to which I’ve never had a subscription.* One of the few articles it does replicate online is “Karl Rahner’s Girlfriend,” referring to the infamous Jesuit considered the foremost of the Modernist periti of Vatican II and the late German feminoid writer (and aren’t all contemporary German women writers feminoids???) Luise Rinser and the, um, unusual relationship they shared during the Council and for the rest of Rahner’s life (he died in 1984). Well, Vennari reports that she protested that this relationship did not include direct sexual acts….

Oh, but this is where the intercontextual reading comes into play. Googling her name, I fished up an academic paper out of the Spring 2003 issue of the Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association’s journal. Albrecht Classen, professor of German studies at the University of Arizona, published there his reading of another work of Rinser’s, the 1991 pseudo-historical novel Abaelards Liebe [Abelard's Love], narrated from the standpoint of Astrolabe, the bastard son of the legendary medieval lovers Abelard and Heloise. Those who persevere through the academic styling conventions will learn something here, but I’ll go ahead and highlight a couple of things:

1) Prof. Classen points out that Rinser pursues a “modern feminist agenda” through the figure of Astrolabe in this work; indeed Rinser’s feminism is mentioned several times by Claussen in context of some point being made about the novel’s text. Here’s one indirect example of this mentality in action, in the words of the Professor:

Abelard’s struggle against the Synod of Soisson is recounted in considerable detail, because the narrator — obviously reflecting Rinser’s own thoughts — increasingly reveals his profound sympathy and pity for this great teacher who was far ahead of his time and was condemned to humiliating acts of submission under the orthodox doctrines of the church. He himself would have, in Abelard’s position, protested, would have rallied friends and students, would have appealed to the pope, but nothing of this sort took place, and Astrolabe observed in great disappointment that his idol consigned, and then abandoned his theological struggle…. Abelard and his thoughts, apart from his passionate love for Heloise, assume the fundamental function of fighting for intellectual freedom, of struggling against dictatorship, and of resisting the inquisition: »Bücher kann man verbrennen, nicht aber den Geist. Der lebt, geliebt oder gefürchtet, von der Kirche verketzert oder kanonisiert.« ["Books can be burned, but not the spirit. It lives, loved or feared, denounced or canonized by the church."]

2) I have to wonder if the following sentiments of Rinser’s Astrolabe weren’t lifted straight out of Act II of Richard Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde:

[Astrolabe's criticism of his mother Heloise] also extends to the Church that practically made it impossible for the two lovers to join in marriage without Abelard losing his public reputation as a teacher. The whole notion of celibacy appears as a perversity in light of human conditions that always involve sexuality as well: »Was für eine Kirche. Oder: Was für ein Gott? Was für einen Sinn hat denn dieses Nein zum Leben, das uns doch gegeben ist zu unsrer Lust und Freude?« ["What kind of church is that? Or, what kind of God is that? What sense is there in saying no to life, which after all is given to us for our joy and pleasure?"] Astrolabe’s struggle, and by the same token Rinser’s struggle, with the phenomenon of this famous couple, is directed against the clerical denial of the human body with all its senses, desires, needs, and feelings. His protest against a God who is pleased with the renunciation of “life, of love, of lust, of children” is actually not directed against God, but against the Church that has instituted these values.**

A “perversity in light of human conditions that always involve sexuality as well”? Quid?? Do we not refer to “conditions” that invariably involve the varied wounds of Original Sin here? Oh, yes, the quintessential Modernist denial of this critical dogma, without which not only is it impossible to make any sense of not only the human condition but of the created universe itself: “For creation was made subject to vanity — not by its own will but by reason of him who made it subject — in hope, because creation itself also will be delivered from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the sons of God. For we know that all creation groans and travails in pain until now.” [Romans VIII.20ff] Not to mention the fact that the dogma of Original Sin is critical to making any real sense of the theology of our Redemption!

I don’t suppose you need to be a rocket scientist to figure out who here really had the problem with “the Church that has instituted these values” of clerical celibacy — never minding the fact that these have their genesis in certain words of St. Paul and even our Lord Himself, Who spoke of “eunuchs” for the kingdom of God! [Cf. Matt. XIX.12; several verses of I Corinthians VII.] But St. Paul warned us through his protegé St. Timothy long ago: “For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their own lusts. And they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables.” [II Timothy IV.3f]

Now that Fr. Rahner and Frau Rinser have both gone to their eternal reward, I can only ask: how do their ears feel now???

* It always seemed to me that not only are half of its articles replicated elsewhere, at least in substance, but that the masthead is a misnomer, as most of which it treats of are standard Catholic traditionalist polemical issues, not exactly the first thing I’d expect from something dubbed “family news.”

** Let’s not forget that Wagner wrote his Tristan libretto under the heavy influence of his own mysteriously irregular friendship with the already-married Mathilde Wesendonck.

This, in fact, is disgustingly consistent with the Bush White House’s real (and always manifest) attitude towards those who take the principles of Christian religion (even in heretical form) seriously enough to insist on them being implemented in the sociopolitical realm: utter disdain. This makes all the more galling the hypocrisy of whatever Karl Rove and company strategically devised in order to increase the vote turnout from that particular segment of the population (millions of them had stayed home in 2000) — and yet, such strategizing wasn’t on such the grand scale as the leftist media wants us to think. Millions of them turned out last month for the same pure and simple reason that I and my friends did: because we realized that the only other man with a chance to win, a sacrilegious, fake Catholic and shameless panderer to anti-Christian causes, was far, far worse. We could see this for ourselves without any help from Karl Rove’s staff. (We do, on the other hand, owe much to the Swift Boat Vets and the bloggers who unraveled Dan Rather’s forged documents — both of whom, if you’ll recall, were curiously disowned by the Bush campaign!)

The fact is (as Kathleen Parker, among other commentators, has pointed out) that Bush is so uncommitted to the “cultural conservative” agenda that in just about everything he does that even touches on that sphere, he dances and tiptoes around its borders. Such religion as he embraces is entirely of a personal nature, as was most recently evident in the way he fielded questions on the topic in the October debates. The snub of Signor Buttiglione, while therefore perfectly pathetic, is just one more brick in the wall, just one more part of a pattern that was established from the first days of Bush’s campaign in 1999.

It proves again what a Hobson’s choice we had last month: between a man who is no friend to Christian culture, and a man who is a committed and credentialed enemy of the same.

[P.S. And it's articles like this that make me want to think twice about shutting the Annals down!]