Pope Benedict XV, Traditionalist Divisions, and Neo-Catholics

22. The success of every society of men, for whatever purpose it is formed, is bound up with the harmony of the members in the interests of the common cause. Hence We must devote Our earnest endeavors to appease dissension and strife, of whatever character, amongst Catholics, and to prevent new dissensions arising, so that there may be unity of ideas and of action amongst all. The enemies of God and of the Church are perfectly well aware that any internal quarrel amongst Catholics is a real victory for them. Hence it is their usual practice when they see Catholics strongly united, to endeavor by cleverly sowing the seeds of discord, to break up that union. And would that the result had not frequently justified their hopes, to the great detriment of the interests of religion! Hence, therefore, whenever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says.

23. As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline—in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See—there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline.

24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavor to be in reality what he calls himself.

---

Source: Pope Benedict XV, "Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum ('Appealing for Peace')," Papal Encyclical, promulgated November 1, 1914, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben15/b15adbea.htm.

---

If only Catholics realized the truth of this Holy Father's words and lived them, perhaps so much good would be done in the conversion of souls to the full embracing of the Faith and the recognition of the importance of Sacred Tradition. My own gradual embracing of Tradition in its greater totality and integrity was gradual precisely because of my perception that I wasn't so much being evangelized as so uncomfortably pinned, like the speaker in T.S. Eliot's poem The Lovesong of J. Alfred Prufrock:

And I have known the eyes already, known them all—
The eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase,
And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin,
When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,
Then how should I begin
To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?
And how should I presume? (ln. 55–61)

In other words, I had no sense that self-identified traditionalists were interacting with me out of any actual consideration for my salvation and sanctification, but instead I became a competitor in a most bizarre ideological game. It is growing parlance among (Internet) traditionalists to label quasi-traditionalists as "Neo-Catholics" or "Neo-Conservatives" (cf. Peter Miller, "A Brief Defense of Traditionalism," Seattle Catholic, December 21, 2001, http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20011221_A_Brief_Defense_of_Traditionalism.html; Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP, "Conservative vs. Traditional Catholicism," Latin Mass (Spring 2001), http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SP_Ripperger.html; Hilary White, "Revenge of the Neo-Cats," The Remnant Newspaper, November 23, 2011, http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2011-115-white-hilary-neo-cats.htm). In fact, it actually turns out that Neo-Conservative Catholics (Neo-Catholics) are actually liberal Catholics who essentially go through a subconscious intellectual battle to reconcile their dual adherence to traditionalism and modernism (especially Hegelianism, according to Fr. Ripperger). I will note off the bat that some of these treatments, such as Fr. Ripperger's, are quite considerate and thoughtful; a problematic enters in because of the easy association with a general sociological trend that as a whole seems uncharitable.

Why is this an issue for me? Because I've been hurt by their use, and I've been hurt by the division I see these identities cause, and I've seen others hurt by them as well. I've seen how they tend to foster a multitude of sins and environments of sin—occasions of calumny, mockery, indifference, group-thinking, close-mindedness, and pride. I am responding from a place of pain and a desire to make sense of my experiences, perceptions, and what this phenomenon itself reveals in its "observable" aspect, the tendencies and "taxonomic features."

As I said above, as far as sociological function goes, the term may be useful, but as is the tendency with all labels, their use can easily become obviously uncharitable and detrimental to the one promoting its use. Aside from a very brief perusal of online discussions that incorporate these labels, a glance at White's article makes the point clearly enough. Underneath her humorous pretense, the tone and overall effect transmitted by her description of the Neo-Catholic is strikingly condescending, showing no consideration for the wellbeing of the very people she describes, her own brothers and sisters in Christ. This lack of consideration is evinced through certain flippant phrases and hyperbolic descriptions that give the impression that one ought to look at a "Neo-Cat" like he were a clown or a zoo animal (I've bolded lines that particularly stand out in illustrating this tone):

• Neo-Catholics themselves frequently become angry when it is pointed out that it is an observable fact that there are certain taxonomic features that create an identifiable classification to which a distinguishing term, "neo-Catholic" can usefully be applied. They become doubly angry when they realize that it can usefully be applied to them. (Hours of fun can be had at the after-Mass tea ticking these characteristics off one's fingers.) [...]
• Common characteristics of neo-Catholics (often also called neo-conservative Catholics) are a fanatical devotion to a small selection of popes, often incorrectly termed "ultramontanism." This is manifested mainly in their belief that John Paul II was the greatest pope of modern times (who probably walked on water but was too modest to do it in front of anyone) and should be canonized immediately. [...]
• They will then proceed to bore everyone in the room into a coma by reciting their lists of places where [a reverent celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass] is done. [...]
• (Get them started on the Catholic Confessional State as a political concept and watch their heads explode. In fact, start a conversation on the Social Reign of Christ the King at the tea and cookies after a Traditional Mass. It flushes them out; they start screeching like vampires splashed with holy water, to the amusement of all.) [...]
• They are very big on ecumenism, and love to screech at the Trads for our opposition to the Assisi fiascoes [....]
• They will sometimes be opposed to drinking, smoking and card-playing, one of the little ways in which their underlying protestantism peeks out. This can make it easy to quickly distinguish the Neos and the Trads at a party. The former will be standing around in a little clutch cradling a warm, three-hour-old beer, earnestly discussing the pope's latest encyclical or some political thing. The latter will be off in the corner with the recently assimilated Anglicans, balancing martini glasses on their noses while reciting Greek poetry. [...]
• Despite the objections of the Neo-Cats themselves, the phenomenon has become so recognizable that it has its very own whole Wikipedia page [since removed] which, as we know, is the sine qua non of objective affirmation. It ain't really real unless it's on Wiki.

Perhaps people get upset when they are identified with "certain taxonomic features" because the impression they receive from the ones labeling them that seems to possess no benevolent intent or constructive purpose. White never describes how the term is actually useful. We may admit it is sociologically useful under certain circumstances, but if mere factual features are being described, why should this lead to anger on the part of the one described? (Further, why should there be hyperbole and jeering even if under the pretense of humor?) Anger is a response to hurt. Hurt is a response to a perceived evil. Perhaps when another person misconstrues your views, you feel hurt by the caricature. Perhaps when another person forms a caricature of you or your beliefs and gives no sign of friendship, mutual concern, support, consideration, this action is then hurtful. I don't think this requires any stretch of empathy at all to realize how and why a person might become angry.

The hyperbole doesn't need to be addressed. It forms the caricature, and as hyperbole, it cannot claim any sort of accuracy, much less the apparently scientific-esque status of "observable fact" or "certain taxonomic features," which are just fancy ways to legitimize a value assignment on someone, based not on certain faith but matters of legitimately varying opinion, which based on my experience is usually an exercise of intellectual pride. Recall what Bl. John Henry Newman said in Sermon 10 of his Discourses to Mixed Congregations (1849), "Faith and Private Judgment":

Men were told to submit their reason to a living authority. Moreover, whatever an Apostle said, his converts were bound to believe; when they entered the Church, they entered it in order to learn. The Church was their teacher; they did not come to argue, to examine, to pick and choose, but to accept whatever was put before them. No one doubts, no one can doubt this, of those primitive times. A Christian was bound to take without doubting all that the Apostles declared to be revealed; if the Apostles spoke, he had to yield an internal assent of his mind; it would not be enough to keep silence, it would not be enough not to oppose: it was not allowable to credit in a measure; it was not allowable to doubt. No; if a convert had his own private thoughts of what was said, and only kept them to himself, if he made some secret opposition to the teaching, if he waited for further proof before he believed it, this would be a proof that he did not think the Apostles were sent from God to reveal His will; it would be a proof that he did not in any true sense believe at all. Immediate, implicit submission of the mind was, in the lifetime of the Apostles, the only, the necessary token of faith; then there was no room whatever for what is now called private judgment. No one could say: "I will choose my religion for myself, I will believe this, I will not believe that; I will pledge myself to nothing; I will believe just as long as I please, and no longer; what I believe today I will reject tomorrow, if I choose. I will believe what the Apostles have as yet said, but I will not believe what they shall say in time to come." No; either the Apostles were from God, or they were not; if they were, everything that they preached was to be believed by their hearers; if they were not, there was nothing for their hearers to believe. To believe a little, to believe more or less, was impossible; it contradicted the very notion of believing: if one part was to be believed, every part was to be believed; it was an absurdity to believe one thing and not another; for the word of the Apostles, which made the one true, made the other true too; they were nothing in themselves, they were all things, they were an infallible authority, as coming from God. The world had either to become Christian, or to let it alone; there was no room for private tastes and fancies, no room for private judgment. (Source: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse10.html)

Likening Neo-Catholics to "vampires" screeching "to the amusement of all" as well as spending "hours of fun [...] ticking these [taxonomic] characteristics off" further reveals the condescending tone as well as total indifference to their wellbeing. How are such exercises themselves spiritual or charitable in any way? How do they contribute to holiness, to the preparation of souls for the coming of Christ and His Reign? Do they not encourage and harden division? Isn't division one of Satan's most powerful weapons against followers of Christ? A house divided cannot stand...

St. John Chrysostom warns us about being careless with our words and comments on Christ's admonition not to call each other "fool" (Homily 16 on Matthew; http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/npnf1-10-22.htm):

Knowest thou not that most punishments and most sins have their beginning from words? Yea, for by words are blasphemies, and denials are by words, and revilings, and reproaches, and perjuries, and bearing false witness. Regard not then its being a mere word, but whether it have not much danger, this do thou inquire. Art thou ignorant that in the season of enmity, when wrath is inflamed, and the soul kindled, even the least thing appears great, and what is not very reproachful is counted intolerable? [...] 

For there is nothing, nothing in the world more intolerable than insolence; it is what hath very great power to sting a man's soul. But when the word too which is spoken is in itself more wounding than the insolence, the blaze becomes twice as great. Think it not then a light thing to call another "fool." For when of that which separates us from the brutes, and by which especially we are human beings, namely, the mind and the understanding,-when of this thou hast robbed thy brother, thou hast deprived him of all his nobleness. 

Let us not then regard the words merely, but realizing the things themselves, and his feeling, let us consider how great a wound is made by this word, and unto how much evil it proceeds. For this cause Paul likewise cast out of the kingdom not only "the adulterous" and "the effeminate," but "the revilers" also. And with great reason: for the insolent man mars all the beauty of charity, and casts upon his neighbor unnumbered ills, and works up lasting enmities, and tears asunder the members of Christ, and is daily driving away that peace which God so desires: giving much vantage ground unto the devil by his injurious ways, and making him the stronger. Therefore Christ Himself, cutting out the sinews of the devil's power, brought in this law. 

For indeed He makes much account of love: this being above all things the mother of every good, and the badge of His disciples, and the bond which holds together our whole condition. With reason therefore doth He remove with great earnestness the roots and the sources of that hatred which utterly spoils it. 

Think not therefore that these sayings are in any wise hyperbolical, but consider the good done by them, and admire the mildness of these laws. For there is nothing for which God takes so much pains, as this; that we should be united and knit together one with another. Therefore both in His own person, and by His disciples, as well those in the Old, as in the New Testament, He makes so much account of this commandment; and is a severe avenger and punisher of those who despise the duty. For in truth nothing so effectually gives entrance and root to all wickedness, as the taking away of love.

Finally, the description about the party is problematic precisely because of its hyperbole. The latter situation of the "real Trads" and converted Anglicans clearly describes people who are drunk or at least have gone beyond reasonable modesty and decorum. Drunkenness (nor modesty and decorum for that matter) isn't a post-Protestant, post-Victorian sin against political correctness or comfortable, liberal sentiments. Smoking, drinking, and card-playing should not be treated as though for the majority of participants there were no danger in these activities; no, for the majority of those who drink, smoke, or play cards and other forms of competition, I suggest that these activities provide numerous occasions of sin if not deep-rooted addiction and societal structures of sin enforced by capitalist economies. These activities are not intrinsically sinful—I think very few Catholics of any sense would actually argue this point, but on the other hand to present these activities without proper caution seems arrogant, blind, and a sure way to fall into Satan's traps to ensnare us in sin. In other words, the whole situation is another caricature that confuses the suggestion that these activities are probably dangerous for many, above all considering the average lack of self-reflection and discernment of spirits and motives, with the notion that they are intrinsically sinful.

As for what Pope Benedict XV said, I think here is the authoritative say on the (il-)legitimacy of calling oneself a "Traditionalist"; it is useful sociologically (and hence, perhaps, apologetically), useful as the distinction between a Coca-Cola drinker and a Pepsi drinker among soda drinkers (because, after all, there are traditionalists, and then there are traditionalists, not to mention traditionalists). But what good will that label do to keep one out of Hell and to attain holiness and enter Heaven? St. Paul replies: 

If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:1–2, DR trans.)

We may here now understand one possible extension of "tongues of men," namely, our ability to construct our own identities and to project them. What good do I do myself or others if I call myself faithful and I am not faithful, charitable and am not charitable? Adherence to Tradition is adherence to Christ; adherence to Christ is not just intellectual belief but the Cross:

Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it. For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? (Mt. 16:24–26; cf. Lk. 9:23–26)

Someone must be sent to preach. What do they preach? Christ Crucified, "Unto the Jews indeed a stumbling block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:13). And the end of the Cross is our sanctification, and the end of our sanctification is the glory of God. The only thing we must ask ourselves is not, "Am I a Traditionalist or a Neo-Catholic?" but "Am I doing all I can to know the will of God and to do it?" Only the one who hears Christ's words and does them will have built his house on solid rock and be saved.

Charlotte Catholic HS and Human Evil

The story was never really about the nun. She was collateral damage for those who wanted the scalp of Father Kauth and even more want to stem encroaching orthodoxy from this otherwise Catholic-light enclave. The larger story is about how the dissenting Church is dying in Charlotte, North Carolina and this is perhaps its dying gasps. [...] 

The angry parents yelled and screamed and demanded for what was supposed to be an hour and a half but stretched into two and a half hours. Their cries were like cries of pain from deep within their souls. They were smart not to challenge Church teaching. Very few are willing to come right out and say they disagree with Church teaching, to announce they contracept, or believe in a woman’s right to abort, or that men who have sex with men can marry each other. [...] 

So, at the meeting they did not yell and scream about Church teaching but about process, and yell and scream they did. “Why weren’t we told?” “Why didn’t you stop her?” After each emotional outburst, a crowd of parents, at least one gay couple included, would stand and cheer and it all came out like the stomping of little feet among those who have not gotten their way. 

Any parent who rose to defend the Priest and the school, were shouted down. Parents who tried to defend the priest and the school are now frightened, frightened physically and frightened for their children. That is why none of them wanted to go on the record.
As the meeting progressed, Father Kauth tried to answer their questions but the questions became all the same and the angry mob was not listening. Someone told me it reminded them of why Christ did not answer some of his questioners; the questioners simply were not interested in listening, only venting and getting a pound of flesh. Sympathetic parents said they had never seen such a display of anger and hatred directed at a priest.

Source: Austin Ruse, "What Really Happened at Charlotte Catholic HS," Crisis Magazine, April 25, 2014, accessed April 25, 2014, http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/what-really-happened-at-charlotte-catholic-hs.

Ruse's article covers the recent episode of the Dominican sister's talk at Charlotte Catholic HS and its bitter unfolding very well. I want to focus on one thing that he examines, namely, the hatred behind sin.

Sin is hatred of God, even the seemingly innocuous ones because there are no innocuous sins. A sin is not only an offense against the eternal law of God, but because we are made in His image and likeness, it is an offense against human nature itself, against personhood, against this concrete person committing this sin. It's shooting yourself in the head. Sin destroys us like water puts out fire. It is the antithesis of the person, whose spiritual dynamic is oriented towards love, towards self-diffusion. Goodness follows from being, and the good tends to diffuse of itself. Love is this dynamic of self-giving. Being is, as the late Thomistic philosopher Fr. Norris Clarke, S.J., as well as some of his fellow Thomists (notably Dr. David L. Schindler) showed, subsistent, oriented towards the other, and receptive of the other. It is esse-in, esse-ad, and esse-ab. Substance and relation are primordial dimensions of being. Being always exists in relation to being. Personhood is the full flowering of being itself because it deliberates and focuses this dynamic of relationality through reason (the understanding of being) and will (the activation of understanding). Hence one cause of sin is ignorance (the will acts faultily when the reason understands incorrectly).

But ignorance isn't the only cause of sin. What makes us higher than the animals is precisely our personhood, of which the rational mind is essential. But we are animals too, and hence we have passions (as opposed to the angels who are spiritual persons). The will in its activity finds itself either aided or impeded by the pulling and pushing of the passions. The will ignores right reason when the passions pull towards what is wrong, what is destructive. Hence one can commit sin out of weakness.

But ignorance and weakness still are not the only causes of sin. We can sin out of malice, i.e. hatred. This occurs when the will acts deliberately with the passions against right reason. Hence the person isn't just pulled out of his control but savors the descent into evil, follows it, seconds it, and acts upon it. The logic of hatred is the complete antithesis of love, of being, of relationality. It says, "I wish to destroy you," no matter how slightly. All of those sayings you hear about the actual opposite of love being apathy are true only insofar as love is considered as a passion. As an act of the will, the true opposite of love is hatred, the "Non serviam" of Satan as opposed to the "Serviam" of St. Michael. (There are also those who say that the opposite of love is "use," i.e. using the other person as an object rather than treating them on the level of their personhood, but the reduction of a person to an object is an act of hatred, so really "use" is one manifestation of hatred.)

Being fascinates by its polymorphic manifestations, its multifaceted efflorescences. When the reason comes to try to understand being, it finds being can be understood in many ways, categorized in many ways, abstracted in many ways. We can consider this concrete being in itself, or we can consider it as one instance of its kind or among different kinds (the act of abstraction that gives us mathematics and quantitative reasoning), or we can consider it in its foundational dynamics. We find that being can become, subsist, and fade. Hence matter, form, and privation. All three are essential for an explanation of the foundational dynamics of all manifestations of being. There are binaries and ternaries and n-naries.

But we can misunderstand what we experience. After all, many are unreflective, and many who are reflective are poor thinkers.

We are born into original sin. But what does that mean? It means that our will, our reason, our passions are all out of alignment. It means that the inner dynamic of our being is stifled and easily misdirected. It means that our internal elements can work against themselves and against others. But does this disorder explain how people can hate so viciously? Not entirely.

The disorder is necessary on a fundamental level for there to be hatred, but it does not explain how the hatred forms in the first place. So, matter, form, and privation are necessary to explain how beings exist and come and go, but these three principles are not enough for us to understand the things themselves as things. Hence we have the natural sciences to examine each kind and order of physical being. In the same way, we can "metaphysically" understand what conditions would be necessary for a person to hate, but we must now look psychologically at why in fact people hate.

Remember: sin is an offense against love, against being, against relationality. It is against the core of what and whom we are. But although there is an intrinsic capacity for a human person who lives in hatred, in sin, to come to recognize this dismal state (at least to some extent), in fact, hatred itself will only further deform the inner dynamic of our being until we can reach such a state that we are blind to our blindness. How else could Christ have been crucified? Hence, although there is always the potential for redemption from blindness, and there is also the potential for us to recognize to some extent that blindness, in fact, such redemption cannot occur until we receive an external light, a higher light, a purer light, the light full of grace and truth.

Are we born with a "stock" of hate already brewing in our souls, ready to burst out at the slightest offense? It's hard to imagine that this is the case. We should rather break hatred down into its component parts. The Catechism notes that the desire for revenge is synonymous with anger (n. 2302), which is consonant with the theological tradition. Anger can also be understood as the passion that resists the presence of evil (n. 1765), but in context anger as a sin flows right into hatred (n. 2303), which is directly against charity. Hatred is a form of anger, which is a form of desire and a reaction to evil. But what does it presuppose?

A reaction to evil that arouses anger presupposes that a person is vulnerable to evil (it also presupposes physicality by which we have passions in the first place). Some people, however, can be angry without feeling angry; that is, they can experience a strong movement of the will against an "evil" object even if they don't feel the resistance in its emotional form. Vulnerability means the possibility of pain, of hurt; its core points to the very possibility of non-being, the obliteration of what and whom we are. Thus where hatred works actively against being, vulnerability shows us the possibility of hatred's goal in the first place. Of course, we could still hate what we could not actually destroy—many hate God. But God does not hate back because it is impossible for Him to hate—His fullness of being cannot be diminished nor attacked. But finite being can be attacked, and therefore we are vulnerable.

We experience pain in our vulnerability, but here we notice that we don't have to react with anger or hatred. We could react with sadness. Or if we are like the Saints, we could react with spiritual joy. Hence the emotional response is conditioned by a previous belief in how we interpret the experience—either as favorable (+), unfavorable (–), or neutral/indifferent (Ø). The Saints respond to their experiences with a favorable light, seeing in them the hand of God and the possibility of a deeper union of love with Him. It should be noted that many who apparently act indifferently or believe themselves to act indifferently are in fact interpreting the event unfavorably and have learned to harden their hearts against the spontaneous pain that they feel from their experiences. This is a form of blindness contrary to self-reflexivity and honesty.

If a person believes he is prepared for a difficult task, he looks forward to it. If he believes he is unprepared, he dreads it. The emotion follows belief, even if that belief is unconscious. Hence most people don't first think, upon experiencing something, "What do I believe, and how does that belief interpret this event? Ok. Therefore, I feel ____." No, it happens all at once. A person afraid to fly immediately reacts with fear at turbulence.

Therefore, although original sin may set up the conditions in which we may be inclined to react unfavorably to difficult or potentially painful experiences, it is not enough because original sin does not instill any unconscious beliefs by which we interpret our experiences. These beliefs arise as our minds try to sort through our experience in childhood and as we give language to them and structure them in an apparently-coherent whole. How does a person come to view the world with cynicism or optimism? Through a series of experiences that become articulated in either way (even if the person doesn't do so in any self-reflective manner). Original sin helps incline us to form beliefs that would react contrary to reason—hence either naively optimistic about something that we should not consider favorable (such as considering something disordered or sinful to be perfectly OK) or unfavorable about something that we should embrace (such as Church teaching). Original sin sets up the condition in which our reason can err and hence by which our reason can form improper beliefs, both conscious and unconscious, by which we interpret the world around us.

But the beliefs themselves must arise from experience. And what do most people experience? They experience lives that do not prepare them properly to respond healthily to pain and vulnerability, that is, to respond with virtue. Most people are not virtuous, and most people have very inaccurate beliefs about reality. They are selfish, shortsighted, arrogant, impulsive, and spiteful.

In the aftermath of World War II, we all have intellectually acknowledged that we too could be Nazis because the Germans were, after all, ordinary people, and we too could support the same atrocities. Most people, however, don't realize that what this means is that we can act in such a blind way that we could commit the most horrendous evils. This conclusion was also pointed out by Stanley Milgram's experiment in the '60s in which subjects were instructed to give electrical shocks to other people out of obedience to an authority figure even if such an action went against their personal consciences. Most people, it turned out, were willing to do so, even administering what would have been (if the shocks were real) lethal levels of electricity. Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment showed another form of how quickly humans can devolve into inflicting evil on others.

The fact is, most people are cold, and their masks of pleasantness are quite shallow, covering massive layers and depths of pain and anger. And who knows what will set them off? Most people follow the crowd (this tendency is practically hardwired into us as animals) and will easily be swept away with a mob mentality. We desire what others desire simply because we see them desire things even if those things are not in any way helpful for us, except perhaps as a way to fit in.

But where do the beliefs behind the hatred come from? They must ultimately come from the formative years of each person, i.e., their childhood. It is in the formative years that a person experiences the world as it works on a microscale within either a family or the lack of one. During these formative years, the person learns to speak and to reason. With the growth of technology, it's easier to become exposed to the world at large. Hence there are children as young as 10 who are already quite hardened to the evil of the world, some of whom even embrace its game of manipulation for their own benefit.

The child learns from the parent (and then immediate peers) how to react to experiences. That's the gist of it. But these reactions are hardly ever guided under the context of instilling virtue. They are immediate, unreflected, and often dishonest contexts that form immediate, unreflected, and dishonest beliefs. These experiences and the feelings and beliefs they evoke in children are hardly ever examined by someone competent to help guide the child through his experiences. Most people are never given the language of honest communication but are manipulated from the beginning, many times treated as an unwanted object by their own parents and peers. Most people are never guided to form self-reflexivity. Most people are never guided to have patience and to plan things out. And hence most people go through their entire lives living in a sphere of superficiality, spontaneity, and dishonesty. They're nice when others are nice (but even then, sometimes not); mean when others are mean.

Disobedience to Church teaching has nothing to do with the Church per se but what the Church unconsciously represents to each person: an authority figure. Most of us disobey authority in multiple ways each day, usually unconsciously. Just pay attention when you're driving, for example, and you will see. Authority is for most people arbitrary, as arbitrary as an abusive, alcoholic parent or one with a short temper or in an unhappy marriage, etc. "Normality" is a cover for who knows what. The press often asks, "How could something so bad happen in a family that seems so normal?" Well, abusive families know best how to cover their abuse up, how each person has a role to play.

Appeals to reason are meaningless because we are dealing with something pre-rational, namely, the unconscious, which has its own logic and works like a language, but we can't reason our way out of how we unconsciously and fundamentally view things. Because most people are unreflective, although they may consciously come to understand something intellectually, they may never see how that belief ought to impact other beliefs or how they live. They never see its consequences and corollaries. That belief exists compartmentalized, stifled, placed on a shelf along with everything else, simply one more object among objects. They never understand its implications or its presuppositions and how if we accept or reject this belief, everything may change.

Or if they see it, they refuse to act on it because it is too much work, too much pain, too much change. In fact, we are so used to evil that we prefer evil to good. Evil is normal and hence comfortable. To be good is unknown, fearful, and dangerous. God is good, but what does that mean to the "normal" person? The normal person doesn't want good; he wants what is evil because evil looks good. We can say that actually a person who is lost in sin actually in their heart of hearts desires God and the good, and while that is all nice and good, it doesn't amount to anything because even those who crucified Christ were the same way. Yes, every human is built and designed to desire the good. What does it amount to in the concrete? In the concrete, most people actually don't want the good. They shun the good. They crucify the good. If they didn't, then the Gospels would never have the power that they do. There never would have been a crucifixion if pointing out that everyone actually deep down has a desire for the good meant anything.

No, what means anything is what we decide to do in spite of how we feel or are habituated to interpret experiences and act. Virtue isn't a strong wish but desire and action working together towards the reasoned good.

This is where people very easily fool themselves about moral evil. It's one thing to admit intellectually that "it's very bad, disgusting, etc." It's another thing to embrace this fact and to realize its full extent and application. Most people act unreasonably and pursue evil, believing themselves to pursue good. Most people are manipulative. Most people are vicious and like the beasts. And given the freedom, most people would have their own way.

The angry parents above in Ruse's article, as Ruse insightfully noted, acted like children because at heart they are still children, seeing as they did when growing up, reacting as they did. They spend most of their times hiding these infantile tendencies behind socialization, but it's all the same at the end of the day. All of their questions are demands, demands not for answers, but for the love they never received from their parents and peers. It is the love that alone can guide us to properly face our vulnerability and cope with it during this life. It is the love that we need to not only survive but to thrive as humans. It is the love that God offers to us, but because we never experienced it here below, we reject and fear God.

Father Kauth perhaps had to be at this meeting because he was under obedience to do so, but any person who can see what's really going on would have nothing to do with it. After all, people will not change if you give them a forum to act like children. Their sins are how they act out on hiding their vulnerability. Reveal their sins, reveal their vulnerability, reveal their lack of love. It's all connected. The diocese perhaps under some pretext of social convention or politeness went forward with this meeting, but honestly, they're quite stupid for doing so because you can't "nice" people into salvation. Treating people nicely amounts to nothing. Treating people with charity sometimes means letting them behave and feel as they want. Treating people with charity sometimes means treating people in a way that will come across as "mean" or harsh according to social convention. Sometimes treating people with charity even means, after warning them about the danger and evil of their ways, letting them send themselves to hell (or at least a psychological hell) if that's what they really want.

Sacred Scripture on Good and Bad Language

"But now you must put them all away: anger, fury, malice, slander, and obscene language out of your mouths" (Colossians 3:8).

“No foul language should come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for needed edification, that it may impart grace to those who hear” (Ephesians 4:29).

“Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones, no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving” (Ephesians 5:4).

Sacred Scripture on Idle Words and Argumentativeness

“Avoid the profane chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge; by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith” (1 Tim. 6:20b-21).

“Remind them of this, and warn them before God that they are to avoid wrangling over words, which does no good but only ruins those who are listening. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth. Avoid profane chatter, for it will lead people into more and more impiety, and their talk will spread like gangrene. [...] Have nothing to do with stupid and senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, patient, correcting opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, and that they may escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will” (2 Tim. 2:14-17, 23-26).

Our Lord says, “How can you speak good things, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person brings good things out of a good treasure, and the evil person brings evil things out of an evil treasure. I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Mt. 12:34b-37).