Wednesday, July 30, 2014

'Intrumentum Laboris' Battle Lines Drawn: The Natural Law Is Under Fire

"The office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord's flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body; for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking "men speaking perverse things" (Acts xx. 30), "vain talkers and seducers" (Tit. i. 10), "erring and driving into error" (2 Tim. iii. 13). Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ's kingdom itself. Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office."

Concerning the modernists...

"They recognize that the three chief difficulties for them are scholastic philosophy, the authority of the fathers and tradition, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war."

(Pascendi Dominici Gregis) Pope Pius X given at St. Peter's, Rome, on the 8th day of September, 1907

So we find ourselves one hundred and seven years later, and St. Pius X appears to have been a prophet since we have reaped the whirlwind he said we would if his directions were not followed. We have been silent! If you have read the Catholic news sites you should have seen that a new document has made its way to the Vatican website. It is called, 'Instrumentum Laboris'. This new document contains the results of the world's synod of bishops as to the state of the Catholic Church and the challenges it faces in the modern world. It also gives us some of their proposed "remedies". The document specifically addresses the issue of marriage, the family and evangelization in the modern world. Although there are many troubling statements in the document, there is a very serious proposal concerning the Natural Law that we should be very concerned with. There is huge battle coming down the line within the Church which if lost, can have very dire consequences. It can change the way we teach and understand the Natural Law.

Although the modernists have made inroads over the past 50 years or so in distorting Church doctrine, dogma and liturgical practices, it has not had much luck in making headway against the Natural Law. It has been ignored yes, but the real assault has yet to be made. The very fact the Church not only proclaims God's voice concerning Divine Revelation, it also proclaims God's voice concerning creation and the Natural Law as well. This is emphatically stated for example in even modern Church documents such as 'Persona Humana' which states, “Furthermore, Christ instituted His Church as "the pillar and bulwark of truth. With the Holy Spirit's assistance, she ceaselessly preserves and transmits without error the truths of the moral order, and she authentically interprets not only the revealed positive law but "also . . . those principles of the moral order which have their origin in human nature itself"[7] and which concern man's full development and sanctification. Now in fact the Church throughout her history has always considered a certain number of precepts of the natural law as having an absolute and immutable value, and in their transgression she has seen a contradiction of the teaching and spirit of the Gospel.”

Faithful Catholics understand that the Natural Law cannot be changed, updated, modified or evolved. There is no philosophical framework that can be substituted for the scholastic method when it comes to explaining and teaching it. We should remember that Pope Pius IX condemned the following idea in his syllabus of errors, "The method and principles which have served the doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." For that reason also Latin has been traditionally used to teach and define concepts concerning the Natural Law along with the Thomistic paradigm. St Pius X tells us, "In the first place, with regard to studies, We will and ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences. It goes without saying that if anything is met with among the scholastic doctors which may be regarded as an excess of subtlety, or which is altogether destitute of probability, We have no desire whatever to propose it for the imitation of present generations (Leo XIII. Enc. Aeterni Patris). And let it be clearly understood above all things that the scholastic philosophy We prescribe is that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us..." Pope Pius X clealry understood what was at stake here.

With this in mind, there is only one way to understand the following terms in regard to the Natural Law: Act, potentiality, form, substance, matter, formal cause, final cause, teleology etc. The Natural Law has been defined and explained by these Aristotelian terms for centuries and they cannot be improved upon by other philosophical concepts or language. Even before St. Pius X's time, the Aristotelian Thomistic model has been the target for modern philosophers and theologians. For a general understanding of what has gone on over the centuries regarding philosophy and the war to destroy Aristotelian concepts, you really should read Dr. Edward Feser's book titled, 'The Last Superstition.' If you do not know what is in his book, you are seriously at a handicap when it comes to understanding the war on truth, reality, and the Natural Law. I know I keep promoting this book, but it is really that good. Buy it and study it.

All of this being said, this new document gives us a preview of where this council in October is heading in regards to the marriage questions that have been making headlines since Pope Francis took office. With the problematic statements of men such as Cardinal Kasper and others being floated about, many in the Church are now testing the waters to see if indeed the Natural Law can finally be hijacked by the modernists. Thankfully there has been some open objection to these ideas, Cardinal Mueller who is the head of the CDF and Cardinal Burke who is also in Rome, are two that come to mind. Aside from a few voices, the rest of the church crowd is running down the wrong road, including most Catholics who call themselves "orthodox." In fact, these are the ones you have to worried about. The open modernist heretics are easy to spot. Now however you have many well meaning catechists, theologians and popular apologists who are slowly leading many people into the mine field of modernism. That is a subject for another time. Let us not be distracted further from the immediate issue at hand.

The part of the new document that I want to point everyone's attention to is the part which concerns the Natural Law. Paragraphs 21-30 point out supposed problems with the Natural Law in the modern world, and it gives a few proposals on how to solve them. For one, the bishops apparently see problems with how the people of the world understand the Natural Law. For example, in paragraph 21 the document says, "In a vast majority of responses and observations, the concept of natural law today turns out to be, in different cultural contexts, highly problematic, if not completely incomprehensible." Really, you don't say? Maybe it is because none of the bishops have taught it in 50 years, maybe thats why! No, it is the modern culture's problem, not theirs. Its not that they completely dismissed over 100 years of papal statements telling them to teach Saint Thomas! It would not be "incomprehensible if they actually explained it. The document continues, "Many bishops' conferences, in many different places, say that, although the spousal aspect of the relationship between man and woman might be generally accepted as an experiential reality, this idea is not interpreted according to a universally given law. Very few responses and observations demonstrated an adequate, popular understanding of the natural law." Again, who's fault is that?

The documents continues on now giving us the sob story over new scientific discoveries, which as we know does nothing, absolutely nothing to detract or negate the Natural Law. "Today, in not only the West but increasingly every part of the world, scientific research poses a serious challenge to the concept of nature. Evolution, biology and neuroscience, when confronted with the traditional idea of the natural law, conclude that it is not “scientific." If anyone thinks this is problematic, then they do not understand the Natural Law. Science if anything has proven that the Natural Law concept is the only rational explanation of how the human mind comes into conformity with reality. It is then applicable to everyone at all times and all places and will never displaced by scientific discoveries. The natural sciences themselves can never have dominion over the Natural Law since the Natural Law is above that of the natural sciences.

Paragraph 25 through 29 point out some legitimate problems in the Church concerning the Natural Law. That there are problems concerning people's understanding, or being aware of the concept of the Natural Law is not surprising. That is what happens again when you do not teach something and subvert it for 5 or more decades. But the bishops synod's proposal to remedy these problems are what are extremely alarming and should concern us. Instead of trying to correct the problem by returning the Thomistic "traditional" model that every Pope up until John XIII called for, they instead now look to employ the same methods that got us all in this situation in the first place. Lets modernize everything! Change the language, reread everything and redefine it! Great idea!

Paragraph 30 proposes, "The language traditionally used in explaining the term “natural law” should be improved so that the values of the Gospel can be communicated to people today in a more intelligible manner." The word improved here should be substituted for change! How are they going to improve anything when they have no clue as to what the Natural Law is in the first place? They do not want to improve anything. What language are they even referring to? They going to try and get rid of the scholastic terms and framework that are needed to explain the Natural Law in the only intelligible manner possible. You cannot "improve" upon the "traditional" "language."

Why not use the same modern watered down language and ideas that were used to distort the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the rest of the Sacraments? It will do wonders to understanding marriage and the Natural Law! If you are asking yourself that question, you have got it right! In the document they explicitly tell us what they want to do! "...this proposal insists on using language which is accessible to all, such as the language of symbols utilized during the liturgy. The recommendation was also made to engage young people directly in these matters." This is certainly a recipe for disaster! You cannot use symbols as substitutes for complex concepts. Why don't we just all go back to using hieroglyphs instead of written text? Anytime these moderns get their hands on anything, they destroy it. I can promise you the same will happen once they overhaul the language concerning the Natural Law. They are going to change the entire framework, not simply improve the language. Notice how they specified that the language is the one "traditionally" used, that they want to do away with! This includes Latin and the entire scholastic system. This simply cannot be done, and the faithful should be crying out as loud as possible that it not be done!

The final proposal is also an incredibly horrifying one, "...respondents propose bringing the issue to public discussion and developing the idea of biblical inspiration and the “order in creation,” which could permit a re-reading of the concept of the natural law in a more meaningful manner in today’s world..." Do we not see how they have reread the Bible over the past 50 years or more? They have already destroyed any meaningful understanding of the Scriptures for most people, and now they are going to use more of the same methods to "reread" the Natural Law? These proposals should be taken notice of. Of course I will have people come by the blog and say the document does not hold any real weight, which is of course true. But just because it has no "official" weight not mean that it is not forecasting what is coming down the pipe that can result in tangible horrific results.

Can we allow such proposals to overhaul the Natural Law go unchallenged? Who could permit such suggestions to be taken seriously? In the past no one would have thought many of the things that have happened in the Church could have happened, and yet the faithful sat back and let it happen. Well, these proposals are on the Vatican website for all to see. Some may say I am making too much of this, but I do not think so. This is a very serious matter. Am I the only one who thinks it is a bad idea to start making changes to the "traditional" language and "improving" it to appeal to the "modern world"? Pass this post around and let us make sure that we make it clear to the Vatican that the faithful will not accept an overhaul of the Natural Law we will not accept a new language, a new "rereading" of Scripture and we will not accept anything less than the Thomistic language and principles that explain the Natural Law so clearly and beautifully! Let us head the words of St Pius X in 'Doctoris Angelici'.

"The chief doctrines of St. Thomas' philosophy cannot be regarded as mere opinions—which anyone might discuss pro and con, but rather as a foundation on which all science of both natural and divine things rests. If they are taken away, or perverted in any way, then this necessarily follows: that the students of sacred studies will not perceive even the meaning of those words whereby the divinely revealed dogmas are uttered by the teaching of the Church."

Don't kid yourself, the storm is coming!

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Do We Need a “Reformed” Papacy? The Story of Pope St. Agapetus

Do We Need a “Reformed” Papacy? The Story of Pope St. Agapetus

Since the election of Pope John XXIII the papacy has certainly taken on a different character than his predecessors had. Beginning with the Second Vatican Council we see a laxity in how the Church is governed. The effectiveness of how the faith is taught and how effective the errors of the world are addressed is at a clear low point in the modern era of the Church. We hear today of rumors that Pope Francis wants to “reform” the papacy and appeal more to the Orthodox for example, for sake of unity. So we may be well to consider today the necessity of papal reform.

So we ask the question, is the papacy in need of reform? I would immediately answer in the affirmative, but I must qualify what type of reform I would like to see. My reform would not have anything to do with minimizing the role of the Holy Father when it comes to jurisdiction or being the unifying chair of the Church as Vatican I infallibly defined. Nor would it be handing over the majority of Church affairs to local bishops conferences and synods as Pope Francis has reportedly alluded to. Some would indeed like to see the role of the pope minimized to appeal to heretics and schismatics outside of the Church. What is really needed however is a stronger presence of the papacy in the Church with a harkening back prior papal pontificates before John XXIII. 

Though modernist scholars would like you to believe that the papacy had no real influence in the early Church and that the Eastern Church supposedly led an autonomous existence uninfluenced by Rome, there is nothing further from the truth.  Most people think the papacy held no power in the Church until Pope Leo III's crowning of Charlemagne in 800. They also claim the real papal power and authority only developed with pontificate of Pope Gregory VII. Modern historians claim that the East did not call upon the pope for matters of jurisdictional controversy. It is with this mentality that many people in the Church today think that we can simply roll back the clock on the papacy, ignore the defined dogmas of Vatican I and the Orthodox would just run back to us with open arms. But for those who have actually studied the history of the papacy, this nothing but a pipe dream.

I will use one particular example of the role of the papacy back in the golden age of Constantinople where the East supposedly reigned unhindered by the papacy. We will get in our imaginary time machines and go back to the year 535 where the great and powerful Justinian and Theodora ruled the Roman Empire from Constantinople. Justinian would indeed be the last great unifying emperor of the Roman Empire making every effort to clean up the mess in the West by reconquering large parts of the Italian peninsula from foreign invaders. We also see the workings a wonderful Pope, which most Catholics probably have never heard of, Pope St. Agapetus I. His pontificate only lasted from May 4th 535 to April 17th 536, and certainly this time period is only a blip on the papal radar screen. But his pontificate gives us a snapshot of the pope’s role and method of solving problems in the Church at the time, especially in relation to the East. 

When emperor Justinian learned of the election of Pope Agapetus, he immediately sent a written profession of faith to the Pope. This is an interesting fact, being that most of the Orthodox today would say the pope only held a primacy of honor and not any real authority in the Church. Yet not only did Justinian send a profession of faith to the newly elected pope, he also sent a request dealing with the Arian heretics in the East seeking to be reinstated in the Church. Justinian did not know how to deal with the influx of ecclesiastical Arian heretics who wanted to return to the Church in the hierarchy. Justinian wanted to allow certain reconciled heretics to return to their offices in the Church in the East, so he petitioned the pope to solve this issue.

Emperor Justinian as depicted in San Vitale, Ravenna.

The pope sent a letter to Justinian accepting his profession of faith while preferring to send legates to address the other question, since canon law at the time generally forbid heretics to enter into orders.  There was also a general council being held in Carthage dealing with this same question, and the pope was also asked to address the council. The council asked the pontiff if it were allowed to confer orders on those who had been baptized by Arians. Pope Agapetus responded and denied the reinstatement of the Arian bishops. He also said that converts were not to be admitted to Holy Orders lest they corrupt the entire priesthood. This is how serious previous popes took the Catholic faith. Pope Agapetus, unlike the lax attitude of the popes of our day, he left nothing to chance when it came to the teaching of the faith. Unlike our time where ignorant Protestant converts can come into the Church and immediately start teaching the Catholic faith without any litmus test, past popes would have had none of this. 

This particular controversy however is not the end of this great pope dealing with the East. In his short reign he would pack his bags and borrow money to travel east to meet Justinian in a dispute concerning the stamping out of the Gothic domination in Italy. The East's most glorious general, Belisarius had taken the imperial fleet and anchored it off the coast of Sicily with intention of taking parts of the Italian peninsula back from the Goths. This however meant certain death for those in power at the time. So they petitioned the pope and Constantinople for a sum of money and to be allowed a peaceful exit. Pope Agapetus, a very humble and poor servant of God wanted to travel to settle the dispute, but had no means of wealth to make such a journey. He had to borrow money in order to make the trip east, even putting some of the treasures of St. Peter's up for collateral. Such was his desire to solve these issues. 

St Agapetus arrived in the gem of the East, Constantinople on Feb 2nd of 536. Upon arrival he found there was further trouble, being that a Eutychian bishop named Anthimus had been allowed to serve as bishop of Trezbizond. Pope Agapetus would have nothing to do with him despite the empress Theodora’s and Justian's insistence to the contrary. Anthimus was given an opportunity to sign the confession of faith, which he denied, and the Pope himself deposed him. St Agapetus withstood Justinian to his face, and Justinian once again gave St Agapetus his confession of faith. At the same time the Church in Alexandria petitioned the pope to further stem the Eutychian heresy. As a result, St. Agapetus planned to call a council to solve the problem. In the meantime he tried to negotiate with Justinian as to how Belasrius should deal with the problem in Italy. Just before the council could be held to deal with the Alexandrian controversy, Pope Agapetus died unexpectedly on April 17th 536. 

With so much on his plate there was great anguish among the faithful in Constantinople. Contrary to what modern Orthodox clergy would have us think, the faithful in Constantinople were not upset at the presence of St. Agapetus, in fact it was quite the contrary. An eyewitness in Constantinople says that “It was a festive day for him… but a season of deep mourning for us. Never were such obsequies celebrated for pope or emperor. Not all the public squares, nor the porticoes, nor the housetops could contain the vast crowds that thronged around the funeral car. Constantinople now saw all her subjects within her city walls.” His body was transported back to Rome where they were laid in the basilica of St. Peter’s.

Where is Pope Francis leading us? 

This little history lesson gives an important perspective on what the reform of the papacy should mean for us today. The laxity in which the modern popes operate by today is certainly in need of reform. The pope is indeed the supreme pontiff of the Church both East and West, and he should prudently act as such. As we can see with St Agapetus, there was no laxity in his resolve that the faith be taught without error and that no compromise should be given to those outside the Church concerning doctrine, dogma, faith and morals. What we are seeing now in the operations of the papacy is in my opinion a failure to teach the Catholic faith clearly and with a firm confidence as to its authenticity. When was the last time you heard a pope demand a bishop to sign a declaration of faith or be deposed? If we roll the clock up to the more recent pontificate of Pope St. Pius X we indeed see much of the same character of a Pope St. Agapetus. All clergy under Pius X were required to sign the Oath Against Modernism. This of course was done away with after Vatican II, much to the detriment of the faith.

So we find ourselves in need of a reform yes, but a reform of different sorts than is being called for by many in the Church today. We cannot continue in the lackadaisical approach, which John XIII began with his pontificate. Unity is not won by compromise of the Catholic faith. The Orthodox must come back to the same disposition they had back in the time of Pope St. Agapetus, sign a Catholic confession of faith, and only then will unity be restored.

Source: A General History of the Catholic Church Vol II- M. Labbe J. E. Darras

Thoughts On Truth, Life, Right Reason and the Existence of God

Thoughts On Truth, Life, Right Reason and the Existence of God

Every human being who is in his right mind desires to know truth. They have an attraction to knowing and understanding the world around them. This is an innate human characteristic that is part of each and every one of us. What separates us from one another are those who choose to accept the truths they find themselves surrounded by and those who choose to create their own subjective, deluded “realities.”

Reality is recognition of the world and our being in conjunction with it as objectively perceived through the senses. Our intellect separates us from the rest of the animals that coexist with us. What our intellect allows us to do is reflect on our lives and our thoughts so that we can objectively understand our actions and our purpose of existence. Objective reality as understood in the traditional model of Aristotle and further developed by highly virtuous men such as Thomas Aquinas leads man to the most deepest understanding of himself in the context of society, and society’s natural end. This of course directly leads us to a relationship with man’s objective end, God Almighty.

Modern society would have you believe that there are no absolutes, an absurdity that leaves a deluge of moral decay in its wake. The sliding scale of “morality” that is objectively no morality at all, pervades the mind of the average person today and is a most pernicious error that has eroded the fabric of society. It leads to the idea that there are no universal laws of nature, and that there really is no purpose or directed end to anything. For example, marriage today is no longer viewed as a unifying act, which weaves a necessary thread required to produce a healthy society. Instead marriage is now nothing more than a legal contract between two persons for mere legal benefits gained through a secular government. This idea arrives from the absurdity of such philosophical charlatans as Thomas Hobbes who whole-heartedly rejected the idea of universals and teleology in general and replaced them with subjective social contracts.

Thomas Hobbes, madcap philosopher who denied universals. 
 Purpose is something built into everything we experience throughout our lives. Ultimately all of our actions follow a desired purpose or end. We eat so that our bodies may be nourished, and the pleasure of eating is ordered towards that end, that of survival. Yes, we may indeed eat when we are not hungry, but that does prove that eating is a subjective habit. Eating when we are not hungry explains more of a disordered appetite. Hence that we sometimes eat when we are stressed or merely to enjoy the taste of a particular food may not be intrinsically disordered to the point of immorality, it indicates a propensity towards self indulgence, which is objectively less virtuous in character than one disposed to eating only when hungry or to nourish the body. Of course there is nothing wrong with the added benefits of enjoying the flavor of the food or the company of family of friends at a meal. But it cannot be denied that the objective end of eating is so that one can maintain his or her health and life.

Order and nature is readily apparent in our lives and we work within the framework of an assumption that there is order and purpose to the things we do. We go to work so that we can trade our time and talents for a roof over our heads and food on our tables. We learn so that we can be of more value to those around us whether it be friends, family or the general society around us. When those in society begin to tear down order and purpose, their actions ultimately lead to chaos and disorder, which is where we largely find ourselves today.

Society has not improved, as the progressives would have us think. Yes we have technologically improved to the point of having a higher and more comfortable standard of living, but that in and of itself is no indication of a general improvement of society. We can live in a big house with 4 televisions, an iPad and 3 computers, and still be the most corrupt people on the planet. As objective teleological thought has been traded for subjective materialistic thought, society has become divided and torn asunder. Children are no longer valued and abortion on demand has become the law of the land. The child in the womb today has no right to life. This is largely based on a materialistic view of the moderns who equate human beings to all other animals, denying the potentiality of human beings. By denying matter, form and the objective universals of nature, their sliding moral code foolishly brings them to the conclusion that an infant has no more value than any other animal. Hence as Peter Singer and other madcap philosophers have come to justify, parents should be able to kill their children up until the age of 2, at which time they perceive them as then having more “value” than that of an ape or monkey. One has to wonder if Peter Singer would call the police if he saw his next door neighbor out in his backyard butchering his or her infant with a kitchen knife. Perhaps he would bring over the garbage bag to help him dispose of the poor child.

Rational men however see through this charade. The mental gymnastics needed to subvert the objective nature of man are not rational at all. Act and potentiality is done away with and replaced with mere subjective personal rights answerable to no one but themselves. Ironically this leads the subjective skeptic to a world of materialism, which justifies actions based on mere social contracts of what is acceptable in the time and place they find themselves in. For the materialist everything is in a state of flux and evolution. While the slavery trade from Africa was perfectly acceptable many years ago for many people in the US, the US evolved rather than abandoning an objectively immoral enterprise. This same mentality is now used to justify abortion on demand. While abortion was not accepted by our forefathers, evolution of morality has now advanced to the point where we now understand abortion to be a "right." This of course is sheer nonsense. 

Yes it is a person, and that innocent person has a right to life!

As we know in the US most states had outlawed abortion in most forms because it was generally accepted as being against human nature to kill one’s offspring. This should be readily apparent to a thinking man, but as we know, most men are not thinking men. Yes, thinking men are indeed a rare breed. Objectively it is immoral to take an innocent human beings life no matter where it happens to be physically located. Modern liberal maniacs claim that this choice of whether the kid lives or dies is entirely up to the mother, protected by “privacy” laws. For them this is evolution or progress charted on their sliding scale of “morality.” For thinking men it is not a just law that allows women to kill their offspring as a convenience for enjoying sexual pleasure. This also leads us back to another objective immoral act which cannot be covered in detail here which is the sexual act outside of the idea of man and women in marriage. 

As we search throughout our lives to find truth, we will ultimately, if we are committed, come to find Truth itself, which is God Almighty. This is where true logic and right reason ultimately lead us. This fact also brings us to the understanding that a good society is not one where religion is completely divorced from government, for government is nothing other than a slice of the human population which makes up society in general. Since all men should be right thinking and properly ordered towards reason and hence towards God, religion cannot legitimately be separated from the state. Father James Gillis in the 1940s on Catholic radio emphatically told his listeners it was a “psychological blunder” to separate religion from the state. Yet we find ourselves living this “psychological blunder” today. Chaos reigns in society today and these enlightened “unbelievers” find themselves on all sorts of medications to help them cope with their delusional subjective ideological concepts. In short, confusion reigns when objective reality is denied and God is ultimately abandoned for the whims of men. Human nature is ultimately denied when objectivity and universals are denied. It is akin to trying to separate the earth from the atmosphere.

Antidepressant use is skyrocketing in our "progressive" age. 

One way the skeptics try and justify denying these things is that they appeal to injustices of the past and foolishly blame them on religion. The fact that many immoral people lived in an age where Christianity was largely accepted does not prove that Christianity is in itself to be done away with anymore than sleep should be avoided because many people die in bed. However one can objectively prove that more advancement of society came to fruition when true Christianity was once widely accepted and lived out in society. Like sleep nourishes the body and without it we would die, scholastic Christianity inspired universities and advancements in science and law leading to a finer order of society. The Catholic society which prevailed in the middle ages which was for the most part in accord with the natural law has not been improved on in past secular ages, and in fact what progressives view as progress has been a regress back to the stone age of morality. We should not avoid Christianity any more than we should avoid a good nights sleep, and while we would die if it were not for sleep, we will also ultimately die if we avoid living according to right reason and the laws of God.

Many people die in their sleep, therefore I will not sleep!

The reason many people have chosen to deny reality is that it ultimately leaves them with the idea of being accountable to God and their fellow man for their actions. They understand that deep down many of their actions are not righteous or virtuous, so they medicate themselves into a dull, dark closed mind in which they can try and live without the turmoil that torments them day and night. As we live through this age of godless skepticism, those who have the fortitude to continue their search for truth and live by it will find themselves swimming upstream, or as one dear friend of mine says, “We are aliens in a foreign land. We are trying to get into a stadium door with thousands going in the other direction.” For those of us who will not capitulate to the modern errors of madcap men who seek to banish God and objective truth from society, we can turn to only to one place of refuge. We turn to God almighty and the one true Church He has given us, the Catholic Church. This also means we must turn to the time tested philosophical thinking of Aristotelian Thomism, which also leads us to seeing God. It also properly orients us to understanding reality and properly ordering our actions which are ordered towards a proper end. 

Read this book!

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Crusade Magazine- Divorce and Romanticism

There are some great articles in this month's Crusade magazine.

"Romanticism by its very essence and its very definition is made of illusions, of whims, of uncontrolled passions, and hypothetical affections for people who only exist in dream worlds."