Accepting the Pre-1955 Holy Week Requires Accepting the Novus Ordo

[Emphases mine.]

This came to mind last week when people were posting pictures of the pre-1955 Holy Week now celebrated in “approved” Latin Mass venues. For me, this seems like overcompensation. I do think the unreformed pre-Bugnini Holy Week is preferable, even the supposedly nonsensical celebration of the Paschal Vigil the morning of Holy Saturday. I still think that the concession to celebrate the unreformed Holy Week is bought at the price of acknowledging the legitimacy of the Vatican II liturgy. I knew this would happen when Summorum Pontificum was published in 2007. The Catholic Church is adopting the “Anglo-Catholic / High Church / Low Church” model of the early 20th century Anglican Communion. Instead of liturgy being an expression of communion, it is a personal preference that is rubber stamped and approved by the institution. The only thing holding it all together is bureaucracy. You can thus have a Mass that is essentially a reconstruction from the 11th century, with a rood screen and music by Hildegard von Bignen, and it’s okay as long as you also deem the bland liturgy down the street equally valid. Maybe others could live with that, but part of me cannot.

---

Source: Arturo Vasquez, "Notes on Liturgical Maximalism," Reditus blog, April 30, 2019, https://arturovasquez.wordpress.com/2019/04/30/notes-on-liturgical-maximalism/.

Warning of Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) at Notre Dame de Paris (1937)

Be vigilant! Yes, there are many who, like the apostles in Gethsemane the moment their Master was about to be arrested, seem to fall asleep in their blind unconsciousness, convinced that the threat hanging upon the world does not affect them, that they bear no responsibility and run no risk in the crisis in which the universe struggles in anguish. … How many remain deaf and inert to Christ’s warning to his own Apostles: Vigilate et orate ut non intretis in tentationem! … Be vigilant!

---

Source: Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, "ISIS and a Jesuit Priest Rejoice as Notre Dame Burns," The American TFP, April 23, 2019, https://www.tfp.org/isis-and-a-jesuit-priest-rejoice-as-notre-dame-burns/.

Leo XIII on When Christendom Existed

There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favor of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies.

---

Source: Leo XII, Encyclical Immortale Dei, Nov. 1, 1885, no. 21, http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01111885_immortale-dei.html.

Aleister Crowley on the Signs of the Age of Horus

Horus rules the present period of 2,000 years, beginning in 1904. Everywhere his government is taking root. Observe for yourselves the decay of the sense of sin, the growth of innocence and irresponsibility, the strange modifications of the reproductive instinct with a tendency to become bi-sexual or epicene, the childlike confidence in progress combined with nightmare fear of catastrophe, against which we are yet half unwilling to take precautions.

Consider the outcrop of dictatorships, only possible when moral growth is in its earliest stages, and the prevalence of infantile cults like Communism, Fascism, Pacifism, Health Crazes, Occultism in nearly all its forms, religions sentimentalized to the point of practical extinction.

Consider the popularity of the cinema, the wireless, the football pools and guessing competitions, all devices for soothing fractious infants, no seed of purpose in them.

Consider sport, the babyish enthusiasms and rages which it excites, whole nations disturbed by disputes between boys.

Consider war, the atrocities which occur daily and leave us unmoved and hardly worried.

We are children.

---

Source: Aleister Crowley, The Book of Law and the Book of Lies (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2017), 7.

The Book of Law, of which the above is an excerpt, was originally published in 1938.

Fr. Ripperger RIPS a Fellow Exorcist Priest – A Response

A response to Okie Traditionalist's post "Fr. Ripperger RIPS a Fellow Exorcist Priest": https://okietraditionalist.blogspot.com/2019/01/fr-ripperger-rips-fellow-exorcist-priest.html

Update: It seems Okie Traditionalist has blocked me from accessing his blog and also not posted my response, despite claims that the comment box would be open for thoughts about this issue. Comments were welcome except the unwelcome ones such as the one below. Seems only a further proof of what I was saying: too sensitive. This isn't an ad hominem. I address each of his points with a reasoned argument. It's a response given in good will and intended for constructive consideration.

---

I can't tell if this is a joke or serious, but will respond as if it is serious.

My opinion is you seem to be way too sensitive to Fr. R's comments. It was a joke, an obvious joke. Everyone in the recording took it as a joke—they laughed. Should they apologize too? Did it use hyperbole to make its point? Yes, but jokes often do that. Honestly, this type of reaction to a joke is what you see with stereotypical SJWs and snowflake liberal millennials. Was it a joke made in poor taste? Was it even particularly funny? Ok fine. But honestly, shameful behavior? If this is shameful behavior, then what would you call how Catholic prelates have dealt with the sex abuse scandals, going all the way to Pope Francis himself? What would you even call the behavior of actual celebrity priests like Fr. James Martin, SJ? Shouldn't we reserve words like "shameful" for behavior that is...well, actually shameful?

There's nothing unusual about Fr. R's tone here; he's speaking with the same cadence he always brings to his talks. Maybe that tone annoys you, but to each his own in that case.

Your first paragraph doesn't make much sense. You admit Harry Potter has witches, witchcraft, etc., and then say so does a lot of other children's books, thus repeating one of the objections Fr. R has already responded to—yet as if he hadn't responded to it.

There is a world of difference in the atmosphere that surrounds the use of magic between classical children's fables and literature and modern, post-New Age portrayals of magic. Even secular critics have pointed this out. It's not the result of navel-gazing, overly sheltered, tin foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorist types. Aside from Harry Potter, another clear example of this difference would be iterations of Sabrina the Teenage Witch. Now with the Netflix version, the dangerous use of magic is part and parcel of empowering women in the age of #MeToo. It is also tied explicitly to satanic practices. It's blatant propaganda and garbage with serious spiritual effects.

But where your paragraph is contradictory is that you end it by saying: "While talking about such a serious subject?" But you just dismissed the issue as non serious because of the presence of witchcraft in lots of literature. This is an obvious strawman. The issue isn't whether a witch is present; it is how the magic is portrayed that is problematic.

And this leads to the problem with your analogy: it's too weak. If witchcraft is indeed a serious issue as you somewhat suggest in your first paragraph, then it would be more correct to compare it to medical professionals discussing a very serious health issue, such as a life-threatening cancer. And if the vast majority of the medical profession, having studied the issue, concludes that the issue is serious and life-threatening in the vast majority of cases and give us a series of steps to prevent said issue and maintain good health, we the laity would be the worse off for ignoring them. If one such professional disagreed with the established majority, we would have to see if there is legitimately good reason to do so.

If magic is not a serious issue, then this is like doctors discussing the health impact of eating too many potato chips. In such a case, obviously for one doctor to accuse another doctor of "not being worth his weight in salt" would be a bit extreme and certainly unprofessional. Would that be a "rip"? Well, it depends on context, such as when and where and how the statement was made. Between two friends and colleagues, it might be a lighthearted jab, etc.

Is this really a way to disagree with a fellow exorcist? If the issue is serious, that is, may even affect salvation of souls, then YES. In fact, Fr. R could have been a lot more serious and heavy about it. Charity would demand it. In the context of the audio, and from how the audience responded, it's clear that Fr. R was not "ripping" (to make a bad pun off his name), but merely "ribbing." It was clearly a joke that charitably covered over the fact that, if this is a potential salvation issue practically for people, then Fr. R could have skipped the joke and stated the plain truth, as a serious and ethical medical professional would tell the plain truth about the seriousness of a life-threatening health issue.

As Aquinas says: The salvation of the multitude is to be preferred to the peace of any individuals whatsoever. Consequently, when certain ones, by their perverseness, hinder the salvation of the multitude, the preacher and the teacher should not fear to offend those men, in order that he may insure the salvation of the multitude (Summa Th. 3.42.2).

If Fr. R uses his "celebrity" status to promote the right view of the issue, we should praise his proper use of his reputation for promoting the truth and well-being of souls. I find it strange that you would call him a celebrity, importing very problematic secular notions into his ministry as a traditional priest. By any conscientious conservative analysis, celebrity culture and status are overwhelmingly negative and problematic. Even from a Marxist point of view, there is much to be criticized. Hence why would you attach that label to Fr. R? Or to any good priest for that matter? Rhetorically you seem to be implying an ad hominem here, that perhaps his celebrity status has gotten to his head, or that good theologians shouldn't be well known? I don't know what you're going for by calling him a celebrity, but I can't see where the charity is in that.

Fr. R says almost every exorcist he knows agrees that Harry Potter is dangerous and should be avoided. If this is a serious issue, if it is dangerous, and if the exorcists are in agreement, it seems incumbent on Fr. R to be as clear as possible on this issue. He is doing the public good by making this clear, especially for laity who need the authority and expertise of such priests. He would in fact be acting in an objectively shameful way if he HID the truth because he was embarrassed to point out that there are naysayers, even among exorcists, about the spiritual harm of magic.

Is this "shameful" behavior? Even if it's granted that Harry Potter is not a serious source of harm, at most Fr. R is clearly making a passing joke that lasts less than five seconds. And what is the name of the priest mocked? I don't know from the audio you shared, which comes from several years ago. Who is seriously going to take the time to look that priest up and them continue a smear campaign? What have been the negative consequences of Fr. R's passing joke on this priest's ministry? Anything at all?  But here you are publicly blowing up a passing joke Fr. R made several years ago? It's easy to find faults in the person in the limelight.

But regardless, what Fr. R said hardly counts as "ripping." To suggest so reminds me of the increasingly frequent clickbait titles one finds in the media and on Youtube of some person "ripping apart" some opponent, and the disappointment that half of these titles are greatly or fully exaggerated. Retract and publicly apologize? To whom? The priest in question? Then why does the apology have to be public? And how do you know that Fr. R hasn't apologized? Do you keep close tabs on his private and public life?

To repeat, if the matter is serious, it's best that we laity know about it since we are the ones raising families and determining what our children will be exposed to. If anything, it would be a shame if that one exorcist who said Harry Potter isn't dangerous led other parents and children into spiritual harm! So I say, good for Fr. R for warning us. This is serious stuff. We should firstly be disposed to listen to someone like Fr. R who has training and experience.

Finally, what seems shameful is to open up speculation in a relatively well-known blog about private matters, i.e. about Fr. R's exorcist society, especially based on one person's overly sensitive reaction to a passing joke made years ago! Isn't this a textbook example of gossip?

Thurber M. Smith, Education for Democracy (1941)

[200] [Footnote attached to the article title: A paper read at a conference on educating in democratic principles at St. Louis University, October 1940. Presidents and representatives of forty-one institutions of higher learning attended. We are pleased to print this paper with its careful and scholarly analysis of a subject which is receiving foremost attention by the country's educators. A university president stated recently, "I am convinced that the schools of this country have not earnestly and intelligently considered the nature of their responsibility in the transmission of our (American) culture in its basic social, political, and moral ingredients."]

What the future holds none of us can foretell, but one need not be a prophet to see that in all probability the next five or ten years will be among the most vitally important in the history of our nation. The things to be done, the legislation to be adopted, the leadership to be developed, our response to the problems and events that lie ahead of us in the struggle between dictatorship and democracy will inevitably modify, if not fashion, a pattern of life for us all and for our children’s children.

We, who are charged with the responsibility of education, have a duty whose importance cannot be overestimated. To us has been given the opportunity, and to us has been entrusted the sacred duty of guiding and influencing others, during the formative period of their lives. Hence, our judgments, our words, and our actions must be based not upon the emotions but upon real understanding of the issues and problems with which we as a nation are confronted.

Today we are engaged in the preliminary stages of a program of national defense. The questions confronting us transcend the interest of any party, section, or group. They affect on the one hand our political, economic, and cultural relations with other peoples of the world, and on the other hand our very doctrines and traditional views concerning the scopes and functions of our government.

It is not without profit, therefore, that in these troubled times we recall to ourselves and to those who come under our influence some of the fundamental principles which if adhered to will preserve our American way of life.

During the past few years it has become clearer that the structure of the modern world is changing. These changes are perhaps more observable in the political and economic order, but there is no doubt that they have affected, or will in time affect, the foundations of the moral and religious order as well.

[201] One of the most striking features of this changing structure is the diminishing stature of the individual human being and the increasing importance of the group. No longer is the state conceived of as the mere umpire of disputes nor a policeman to suppress open discord. The modern state, whether it be looked upon as the organ of the proletarian class as in Russia, or a racial group as in Germany, or the incarnation of national and political aspirations and ideals as in Italy, is considered to be the one social reality which absorbs the individual and replaces all other forms of social organization. It is its own absolute end and knows no law higher than its own interests. Its claims embrace the whole life of the individual whom it insists upon moulding [sic] and guiding from the cradle to the grave, in order that it may make him the obedient instrument of its will.

This, of course, is one answer to the perennial problem which has confronted human beings from the beginning of social life—the problem, namely, of coordinating the forces of liberty and authority so as to attain the highest degree of social happiness. But it is an answer which is not acceptable; the answer of tyranny. A problem is not resolved by suppressing one of its terms. However vague and ill defined our concepts of authority and liberty may be we realize at once that they are at the same time complementary and opposed: opposed in the sense that they undoubtedly restrict each other; complementary because they really support and protect each other. Unrestricted liberty is abusive license; while unlimited authority necessarily implies the negation of both liberty and authority as well as the destruction of society. Liberty and license are as far apart as liberty and tyranny; indeed license breeds tyranny. It would be no exaggeration to say that the essential question for every social group is that of combining liberty and authority properly.

In all discussions concerning the relations of the individual and the state we find, I think, that the source of differences of opinion will be found in our varying ideas of what human nature is. As Aristotle warns us of the danger of a little error at the beginning of philosophical discussions so from this source momentous consequence can grow.

There are, I think, two fundamental positions which may be taken concerning the nature of man. According to one, man is the product of a material evolutionary process, or man, nature and that entity which some thinkers are pleased to call God are identified in the same reality which is undergoing a process of emergent evolution. If this is true, then, of course, the whole Christian point of view is a delusion. The human being is not the result of creation nor may he look forward to union with God. He has no inalienable rights resulting from his divine origin and destiny, but he is completely subordinated to the state or [202] organized group which is the highest manifestation of the emergent absolute. Right and wrong and the laws commanding the one and forbidding the other are no longer based on eternal plans but merely represent the exigencies of an ephemeral situation.

The other fundamental point of view can, I think, be summed up in the memorable words of the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident—that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and pursuit of happines [sic]. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” In this passage, I think, we find, to a large extent, the gist of our philosophy of government. First of all, our attention is called to the fact that we are children of God, created by Him and endowed with certain inalienable rights; rights which are given to us as so many means of returning to Him. We are brought face to face with two basic truths, our own human dignity and our divine destiny, and in these truths lie the explanation of all rights.

We are made by God in His own image and likeness and are destined to be happy with Him for all eternity. Indeed we are given life in order that we may freely pursue and attain everlasting happiness. In other words there are at least three basic rights which man may rightly claim in virtue of a divine heritage. They are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

This is the doctrine that our Declaration of Independence sets forth. It asserts, moreover, that governments (in God’s plan at least) are not instituted for their own selfish ends, but that they are instituted by men under the influence of a natural urge which impels them to live in society in order to secure and protect their rights and to attain their safety and happiness.

In other words the objective of man’s existence, although it means personal individual effort, is not to be attained by him in isolation from his fellows. By means of mutual assistance and cooperation with his fellowmen, man can arrive at a fuller actualization of his powers and capacities than would ever be possible by his own unaided efforts. His needs cannot be met or safeguarded except in the broader frame-work of civil or political society. Hence, civil society or the state is a normal postulate of man’s nature and destiny, an institution whose very raison [203] d'etre is the procuring of those advantages which correspond to the social nature of man, and hence to the intentions and plans of the Author and Creator of that nature.

The question, however, which concerns us more directly at the present moment is that of the limits of the authority of the state or organized group, or more generally the relations between the individual human being and the group of which he is a part. Admitting the evident difficulty of fixing the limits to civil authority in many specific cases, still there are some principles that may help as guides to their solution.

In the first place it is true that the human being is an individual and as such is a part of the group, but the human being is something more than an individual—he is a person, that is, an individual of a free, rational nature and, as such, self-directing and master of his own acts. His dignity comes from the fact that he is a person, not from the fact that he is an individual.

The state, on the other hand, is not a mere collection of identical irresponsible individuals; it is an organism involving the mutual dependence and responsibility of its members. It does not exist merely as an instrument to serve man’s needs and desires. It is an order, a sacred order if you will, in which and by which human activities are conformed to the Law of God. It is, in other words, a social expression of God’s will.

The end or purpose of the state is, of course, the attainment of the temporal felicity of all its members by the cooperation of all. By temporal felicity is meant peace and prosperity or, to use the Scholastic expression, the "bonum commune,” that ensemble of conditions necessary for its members’ or subjects’ well-being and happiness. Now this common good in the temporal order is not only material but moral in its scope. While it has a distinctive character and integrity of its own arising from its temporal end, it must not be forgotten that such an end in the Christian view is not final but intermediate. It is true that the function of the state is not precisely to guide men to Eternal Life, still its function is essentially subordinate to that ultimate end and, hence, in a very true sense it does foster the beginnings of something which transcends its own nature. It may be said, therefore, quite correctly that its purpose is to aid men to arrive at the perfection of which they are capable and not merely to aid them but to direct them and direct them authoritatively.

It seems obvious that no society, whatever its character, can accomplish its task unless it possesses authority to repress abuses and direct its members to the ends for which its was instituted. There can be no society without authority; and since human nature and the Author of [204] nature demand society, they require also the authority. Without attempting a complete analysis of the functions of authority we may describe it according to the common concepts as a moral power or right residing in a person to issue commands which are to be taken as rules of conduct by the free will of other persons.

It is to be noted: (1) That authority is not an impersonal necessity; it resides in a lawgiver. (2) It is not to be confused with physical force or coercion. Coercion may become an instrument of authority (as may persuasion) but it is not to be identified with authority as such. Such an identification leads logically to the conclusion that "might makes right." (3) Authority is not a mere substitute for deficiencies on the part of those ruled by it so that if deficiences [sic] were to disappear authority would vanish. Indeed if this were so, then theoretically anarchy would be the best government.

The essential function of authority is to provide a fixed principle assuring unity of action in a social group. Even supposing a group of adults, all intelligent and of perfect good will, that is, not handicapped by deficiencies, authority would still have its place. The group is aiming at some objective which will be a common good for all. That is part of the very concept of society. Such an object obviously demands common action arising from some decision which binds all the members. Such a decision obviously may be the unanimous agreement. But there can never be any guarantee of unanimity of judgment; it is always precarious and casual. Any member can disagree with the others. Hence the unity of action required by the pursuit of the common good will be ceaselessly jeopardized unless all agree to follow one decision and only one, whether issued by a single individual or a selected part of the group. To submit to the legitimate and reasonable requirements of civil society is to obey the order of human nature in the same sense that it is obeying the law of man’s nature to put into practice the essential duties of family life and to respect the property and rights of others.

The human mind, however, seems to find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to face an antinomy without worshipping one or the other of its terms. Unfortunately there is a tendency among many to overemphasize the antinomic character of liberty and authority, while overlooking their complementary character. There seems to be a widespread acceptance of the assumption that growth of freedom and the decay of authority are synonymous terms; that we can have one only at the expense of the other but not both. That is why the world has oscillated between the extremes of apotheosizing the individual and deifying the group. It is not and cannot be true that we are doomed to fluctuate between tyranny and unbridled license.

[205] The exercise of authority is not necessarily an unreasonable invasion of personal liberty. The end of social life is not merely to preserve and extend freedom of choice. Freedom is not really an end in itself but a means to something else—happiness.

On the other hand, if all individual autonomy, all individual freedom of choice, is completely merged and lost in the autonomy of the state, then the person becomes a mere sacrifice to social utility. Nor do I see how this sacrifice can be logically avoided if one remains on the plane of pure naturalism. Without ultimate reference to God it seems to me impossible to rescue the individual from complete immersion in the group because on the naturalistic assumption that the community is the absolute, the highest good, man is necessarily and totally subjected to the community. Today unfortunately many states, even some who try to reject the label totalitarian, seem to think that man is made for the state and derives all his good from the state. This is totalitarianism however labeled, and I must confess it is a perfectly logical consequence of the assumption of a humanity without God.

The Christian interpretation of man and society is based on the fact that reality transcends the material, the temporal, the purely natural; and that the whole temporal order is subordinated to spiritual ends. This does not mean that the temporal and material is of no importance—much less evil, nor does it mean that matter and spirit, time and eternity, nature and supernature are identifiable. But it must never be forgotten that the common good in the temporal order is not the ultimate end of man’s activities. The temporal order is essentially subordinated to the extra-temporal and the goods of this life to the eternal interests of human personality. It is only when we appreciate this alternating rhythm of subordination that we perceive the true status of the individual human being. Considered as an individual or a part of the temporal order he is properly subordinate to the order as a whole. That is why it may be perfectly right and just that he should surrender his temporal goods and, if necessary, even his life for the welfare of the community. That is why the community may and perhaps should impose upon him, as a part of the whole, many restraints and sacrifices. But there is a limit beyond which the state or community cannot go. They cannot infringe upon the eternal interests of those human beings who are subordinate to them only from one aspect. States and nations are creatures of time. They have existed and passed away, but the souls of those men and women who once lived in them will exist for all eternity.

This concept of the state as an institution, complementing the individual powers of man, offering him a proper environment for the fuller development of his personality and a safeguard for the rights which [206] flow from his nature, protects him from the extremes of both state absolutism and exaggerated individualism. There are many today who, like Hobbes and his leviathan or "mortall [sic] God,” look upon the state, the civil power, as the sole source of man’s rights and duties, who make temporal welfare the exclusive object of all laws and the standard of all morality. It is this absolute subordination of the whole personality of its citizens which marks the absolute state as an inhuman despotism. Either the state is omnipotent and can do everything or it cannot. If it can, you have despotism under the dictatorial, oligarchic, or democratic form, benevolent or not as may be, but despotism for all that. If it cannot, then there is something beyond its power.

The dilemma which confronts the modern man is not merely a choice between rival economic or political systems. The question is much deeper and more complex. The choice, as Christopher Dawson says, is between the mechanized order of the absolute or totalitarian state (whether it be nominally Communist or Fascist or something else) or a return to that order which asserts the primacy of the spiritual, that is the subordination of the state and of the whole temporal order to spiritual ends; a return to that concept of humanity as a great community or republic in which all work out their final destinies under the rule of God. However fantastic a dream this may appear to the modern mind, it is a concept which was once accepted without question as a principle of the European social order and the foundation upon which our western culture has been built.

---

Source: Thurber M. Smith, S.J., "Education for Democracy," Jesuit Educational Quarterly 3, no. 4 (March 1941): 200–

Social Leadership: The Challenge to Our Schools (1940)

[193] Many have been wondering about the INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ORDER. What is its reason for existence? After a long time, we think we have found the answer. Our mission in life is to worry people. To prod, prick, good people. Not for the sheer pleasure of sticking pins in people, but to arouse them to a realization that there are social problems, that the necessary and vital emphasis today of Catholic teaching and Catholic activity is a social emphasis, that the social apostolate is not the work of a few specialists, but the task of the Church and of every member of the Church.

Time and time again we come up against the question, puzzled and well-meaning: "Why talk to people about the reconstruction of the social order if they are perfectly satisfied with the social order as it exists right now? the same question has been asked, sometimes in all simplicity, sometimes maliciously, of the mission work of the Church. Why bother pagans with Christianity if they are more or less satisfied as they are? Why hurl the Ten Commandments at them if they are happy in their ignorance of the Ten Commandments?["]

The answer to the question as applied to the reconstruction of the social order is that the people so happily satisfied with the world as it is are sitting peacefully on a volcano that is all set to erupt; and for their own greater happiness, it is necessary to disturb their present very temporary contentment. Pius XI thought there was something radically wrong with our present social order, so radically wrong that he wrote a letter to the world, calling on Catholics to do something about it and telling them in general terms just how to do it. Leo XIII, fifty years ago, actually "viewed with alarm," and warned that if something were not done immediately to remedy the situation, widespread revolution would result. Not much was done and widespread revolution did result. Pius XI "viewed with alarm” and warned that the principles and operation of the present social order tended inevitably to world war. The warnings of Pius XI were paid more respect because Communism and upheaval were already on the scene, but there has been no general response to the late Pontiff’s urgent plea, and world war is with us.

Worse is yet to come. Whether it is already too late to stave off that "worse” by a frantic universal Catholic mobilization to apply Catholic [194] social principles to the whole social structure, or whether our work is a work of preparation with the aim of rebuilding a new structure after the collapse of the present, it is hard to say. One thing is certain, that there is no time to be lost. Another equal certainty is that only Catholic social principles can work in either case. And a third certainty is that our schools should be preparing the leadership for the work.

Training leaders, of course, has always been the aim of our schools. The phrase in itself is rather vague. It is not always easy to judge either leaders, or the qualities of leadership. The number of Catholic names in Who’s Who does not necessarily prove Catholic leadership. The Catholic names in large print or in high places are not in themselves an argument that our schools have succeeded in their aim of training Catholic leaders. Even a full roster of priests and bishops is not proof of Catholic leadership unless priests and bishops, in their awareness of modern problems and the Church’s twentieth-century approach to modern problems, are actually leading people to play a Catholic part in salvaging and reconstructing the modern world.

As a test of our success, we might inquire into the Catholic influence of our graduates in politics, in the industrial world, in the labor field, in the professional world of law, medicine, engineering, advertising, writing, in the distinctly Catholic world of the parish, in the smaller world of the family. A Catholic leader is not merely a Catholic who succeeds in climbing to the top rung of his profession. A Catholic leader is a man who has made his influence as a Catholic felt in whatever be his chosen field, a man who has brought the thought of his surroundings more in harmony with the teachings of Christ. Or, to put it a little differently, a Catholic leader is a man who has brought Christ into the little world in which he moves, and brought the men and women of that world closer to Christ. Thus, a man never listed among "prominent Catholics” may be a real Catholic leader, while the "prominent Catholic” may actually be leading a retreat rather than an advance.

A statistical examination of conscience in the matter would be interesting and perhaps revealing. We might inquire into the number of our graduates who are exercising influential leadership (influential, as Catholics) in the field of education, particularly in the all-important educational fields of sociology and economics. We might inquire into the number of our graduates who are exercising a really Catholic leadership in politics, in law, in medicine, in labor, in industry, in the field, so important today, of labor law, in the field of the social sciences. Have our graduates in all these fields exerted their energies to bring a Christian viewpoint into their field? Have they fought the current that has led to collapse, the current of individualism, the current of materialism, in judging success, or have [195] they been merely men who "made good" in their chosen fields? Has the ideal of success as drilled into our students in their college courses differed fundamentally from the ideal of success accepted in non-Catholic institutions? Has their choice of life been really a vocation in which they sought an opportunity of service, service to country and service to Christ, in spreading the principles of Christ?

All that would be interesting and to a certain extent important, but more important still would be a consideration of the lines that that training for leadership must take in our schools today.

Catholicism is complete, inexhaustible in the sense that it has in itself the ability to meet every situation and every error. While Catholicism must always be a complete teaching and a complete way of life, emphasis at different periods will vary according to the needs of the time. And the needs of the present time call for a special emphasis on the social aspect of Catholicity. The great and necessary apostolate of the Church today is its social apostolate, so that our training in leadership must aim from the very first year in high school to awaken in our students an acute awareness of the very real social problems of the world, to inculcate in every student a deep sense of personal social responsibility and a thorough knowledge of the social doctrines of the Church which must be the foundation of any real Social Reconstruction.

The insistence on social Catholicity is the Church’s answer to individualism run riot, just as devotion to the Sacred Heart was the Church’s answer to Jansenism, and the poverty of St. Francis was the answer of the Church to the worldliness of that era.

The insistence is necessary because even Catholic thought has not remained unaffected by individualism, the pagan philosophy of the last century. It could not remain unaffected, for individualism came cloaked in Catholic phrases like liberty, the dignity of the individual, the rights of human beings, the equality of all men. All these are Catholic concepts, all fundamental Catholic truths when properly understood. But underneath the phrases was a sordid selfishness entirely un-Catholic, a disregard of the social nature of man, an application to all living of the theory of evolution, the necessary hostility of all men, the survival of the fittest in a struggle for existence.

Today the effects of individualism are evident in family life, in industry, in politics, in international relations. The selfishness of individualism has resulted logically in divorce and birth control and the domination of the family by the state. Industrially, individualism has meant unbridled competition, the accumulation of large fortunes, the centralization of wealth and economic power, the spread of proletarianism. Worse still, it had as a result that men are satisfied with their proletarian condition, satisfied [196] with their loss of economic independence, and an easy prey to totalitarian ambitions. Free enterprise has meant the "right” of the wealthy to make money in any way whatever, and to do with money exactly as they willed. In the philosophy of labor unions, individualism means the "right” of labor unions, where powerful enough, to carry their demands beyond the realm of justice. In politics, individualism has meant ward bosses, graft and waste in government, government by special privilege. In international affairs, it has meant tariff wars and imperialistic expansion. The survival of the fittest, the superman, the unlimited freedom of the individual is logically and ultimately the survival and domination of a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mussolini. Our own nation has not yet traveled the full road, but the signs are all present, and individualism if unchecked in the United States must and will lead logically to the only thing to which individualism can lead—the selfish domination of the man or men powerful enough, brutal enough, and conscienceless enough to survive.

It would be flattering if we could say that Catholic education is entirely without blame in the present situation. But have we too taught an ideal of success that was rather an ideal of individual success? Many of our graduates have suffered from what Pius XI called a "strange cleavage of conscience” that failed to carry the religious principles of individual life into the field of industry, politics, and the professions. Many Catholics in high places, graduates of our schools, have merited the reproach that Pope Pius directed at those who, by their neglect of the fundamental principles of social justice, gave an excuse or pretext for the spread of Socialism and Communism. Catholic politicians have at times been a scandal to the Church. Catholic industrialists have rather generally subscribed to the theory that "business is business,” and have resented the papal insistence that the moral law should have an important place in the business world. Catholic lawyers, men who live individually edifying lives, have been heard to say that you simply must put your conscience in your back pocket if you wish to succeed in the world. Catholic workingmen have subscribed to the use of force on the theory that anything that works is good.

There has been, unfortunately, some foundation for these attitudes in the individualistic note that has come even into the teaching of religion. Frequently, the high point of religious education has been the study of apologetics, the defense of the Church, rather than the Apostolic Mission of the Church and the spread of the Church, the conquest of the opposition rather than the conversion of the opposition. In many places, until very recent times, spiritual development and seclusion went hand in hand, and the ideal Catholic was the one who preserved his spiritual life in a glass case from the contamination of contact with the world. In industrial ethics much of our energy has been spent in a defense of the right of private [197] property, to a neglect of the duties and limitations of the rights of private property. Most educated Catholics today would look askance at the priest who would tell them that they had not a perfect right to do anything they wish with the money they own.

Even into prayer individualism has made inroads. To a majority of Catholics, the very Sacrifice of the Mass remains an individual sort of prayer. They attend, they listen, but there is no unity in their attendance or their listening. Whether they have not been taught, or whether individual attitudes have been a barrier to the penetration of the lesson, they miss the universality and the unity of the Offering. They say their rosaries, they read prayers out of a book, but rarely do they offer Mass as a group, with the realization that they are one with all the Catholics of the world, one with all the saints, one with the Blessed Mother, one with Christ.

Individualism in prayer has led almost inevitably to the idea that religion is something individual, something private, something apart from the ordinary contacts of everyday life.

That is the situation; and in the presence of this situation the Church has gone back to the social consciousness of early Christianity to find the answer to individualism at one extreme and false collectivism at the other. The study of the doctrine of the mystical body, the liturgical movement, more active lay participation in the Mass, a deeper understanding of the highest dignity of the individual in the brotherhood of Christ and a consequent zeal to spread Christ to others are the spiritual foundations of the Church’s new social drive. Catholics are being taught more and more that man the person develops, and sanctifies his own individuality, not in isolation but in his social relations in the family, in the vocational group, in the parish, in the community.

Once a Catholic has grasped the idea that Catholicism must permeate all his social relations, individualism for him no longer exists. Catholic principles re-enter family life, neighborhood life, industry, law, and labor; and the vocation in life of a Catholic college graduate is not to "make good" but to make Christ influential in his sphere of activity. In his very choice of a vocation he will look to the possibility of serving the interests of Christ. He will aim to know the living conditions of his own neighborhood as well as he knows what is going on in Europe. He will be at least as interested in defending religion and democracy against enemies at home as he is in defending them against enemies abroad. He will know that the enemies at home, even in the Catholic camp, are indifference, poverty, proletarianism, and the consequent loss of self-reliant independence, an individualistic concept of religion summed up in the phrase, "Religion is all right in its place, but business is business, and politics are politics.”

[198] If our colleges today are to produce the leaders the times require, social responsibility must be drilled into them from the very first year of high school. The liturgical movement, corporate worship, the mystical body, sanctifying grace, the dignity of all human beings in the brotherhood of Christ must become as familiar as the Ten Commandments. A knowledge of Christ as a living leader must be at least as important as a knowledge of the four marks of the Church. Positive theology must be given at least an equal place with apologetics. Defense of the faith must not only give the answer to attacks of enemies, but a knowledge of the methods and technique of lay apostolate. The vocation of family life, with its high ideals, its importance, its responsibility, must be presented with the same reverence with which we treat the vocation to priesthood and religious life, the same insistence on necessary preparation, generosity, sacrifice, lifelong dedication.

The study of social problems must begin in early high-school years, and may not be limited to a refutation of Communism. "The Church defends private property," should be only the beginning of a high-school graduate’s knowledge of the Church’s doctrine on property. Catholic teaching today lays new stress on the limitations and social obligations of property, a defense of property not for the few but for the many, and on the need of a greater distribution of property as a safeguard of democracy and independence. An early interest must be aroused in industrial problems and labor problems, in the long-range planning for what Pius XI calls the "redemption of the proletariat," the eventual redistribution of property with the aim that more and more people will become owners of productive property. Industrial democracy, profit-sharing, joint management, cooperatives, farm problems, housing problems, population problems, race problems must be made personal problems, problems to which all Catholics must give serious thought and study.

But, if ever our high-school students are to be taught such subjects, then our colleges and universities must turn out men thoroughly qualified in every way to speak with authority on social subjects. No matter how highly we esteem the outstanding economists, sociologists, and social planners who are leaders in the field in non-Catholic universities, their approach and their philosophy are not and cannot be ours. Our universities must face the task of preparing Catholic scholars in these fields so thoroughly competent, so well trained that they will be in a position to command the respectful hearing of all scholars and build up in our universities and colleges a curriculum of social studies the equal of, or superior to, the very best that is offered anywhere in the country.

Briefly, Catholic leadership today is social leadership. Spiritually, intellectually, practically, the emphasis in our training must be on the social [199] doctrine of the Church. We must train leaders spiritually conscious of a great social responsibility, imbued with a high ideal of the Apostolic Mission of putting Christ on a twenty-four-hour basis in every phase of modern life, thoroughly competent scholastically and practically to undertake leadership in every field—in education, law, politics, industry, labor, the priesthood.

Beginning with the family, Catholic social principles must be made operative in the parish, the community, the professional and vocational world, the state. That is the task of modern Catholic leadership. And we in our schools have made a profession of leadership.

---

Source: John P. Delaney, S.J., "Social Leadership: The Challenge to Our Schools," Jesuit Educational Quarterly 3, no. 4 (March 1941): 193–199.