Liturgical Revolution Series

I have just finished reading the Liturgical Revolution series by Michael Davies. It took me about 8 months of sporadic reading to get through them and I must say, this is a set of books which I will utilize as reference material for years to come for its in depth look into the changes in the Church from the protestant revolution to the post conciliar era in which we reside.

This serious is no small amount of reading. It weighs in at about 1500 pages of highly researched information Davies has compiled. The series is broken down into three themes; the English Reformation, titled Cranmer's Godly Order(CGO), the history of corruption and infiltration of the liberals during the council in Pope John's Council(PJC), and a detailed analysis and history of how the liberal attempted to turn the Roman Rite into a Protestant Communion Service in Pope Paul's New Mass(PPNM).

I couldn't put CGO down, because it read very much like a history novel and covered the details of the battles, politics, trials and tribulations of all parties involved. His enumeration of the changes to the English liturgy were revealing and served as a precursor to the changes in the Novus Ordo Missae which parallel the Communion Service of Cranmer in way that must be more than ironic.

In PJC, Davies commands extensive knowledge of the happenings of the council from first hand sources; all of his works are heavily footnoted and accurately referenced. He spotlights the underhanded deceit of the Rhine Group in gaining power and manipulating the pope and the council in ways no one thought possible. This too was an enthralling volume which pulls you into council with surprising details.

I lost my momentum when I started PPNM. Not that it didnt start well, but it may have been due to my intimidation of the size of the text; it is over 700 pages. Once I got going however, I could not wait for reading time to find out more concerning the liturgy. And that is what volume was for me mostly: an instruction on the old and new mass. Davies brakes down all of the changes and parallels them to not only to the Cranmer's Communion Service, but also to many other forms and rites of the Mass. I learned more about the Roman Rite then I expected. I think the most interesting truths gained from this book was that most of the scandalous novelties in the Novus Ordo Missae, were added after the council and were not in the original texts. Communion in the Hand, Communion under both Species and Versus Populum are few of the specific novelties referred to.

If you are interested in more complete understanding of who, what, when, where, and how the Church has changed so much and in such a short period, then I highly recommend the Liturgical Revolution Series By Michael Davies. I would also like to mention this is not a super trad/sedevacantist type work. He never mentions anything of that flavor, but simply presents his life long research with professionalism and responsibility. I hope to blog on a number of the major points heretofore especially on the three novelties mentioned previously.

Are Creation and Evolution Compatible

The debate of over creationism and evolution has been going on for a long time and there is tons of arguments supporting either cause.There is an interesting point that I heard from Dr. Peter Kreeft in a lecture recently that put the whole debate into perspective. His point is that the original arguments do not negate either position.

One side says that God created everything, the other that we have evolved by natural selection. Putting it in perspective Kreeft says that the argument is like saying, "I have written this blog." and the other side says "this blog was typed on a computer." Neither statements are wrong one statement is general the other is more specific to the method. Likewise, the statements of creation and evolution would seem not to contradict each other; however, each has significant consequences.

Creation

The following data come from multiple works of Dr. Kreeft, both his Modern Scholar lectures "Faith and Reason" and Thomas Aquinas, as well as "Handbook of Christian Apologetics".
I think its good to begin with the statement ex nihilo; nihil fit (out of nothing; nothing comes). We know that it is impossible for something to come from nothing; yet, here we are, existing and asking questions like these. Everything has a cause and if we regress far enough we come to the first cause and creator whom we call God. Since God is not matter, the law ex nihil; nihil fit  does not bind God, because he transcends nature. Something that is finite cannot create from nothing; therefore, God is infinitely powerful and can create infinite change from non-being to being.

You say "well, who created God"? The simple answer is nobody. God is infinite -from everlasting; he is the adequate cause of nature.  Again God is pure actuality, i.e. He is not in potentiality —He is complete perfection. To say who made god is a contradictory statement, because it is like saying who changed the unchangeable.

The consequences of creation effect what we know of God and that is: his omnipotence (he must be all powerful to create from nothing; omniscience; omni-benevolence (He created us simply for our sake, since we are not necessary for Him). Likewise, we know that nature being created by God is intelligible, good (Christians should not believe that the physical world is evil; this is Manechaeism and Gnosticism which are heresies.), and real (Christians also believe in the reality of existence; we do not exist in someones conscious or unconscious mind).

Lastly, the final conclusion of Creationism is that if the universe is created by God, then we are subject to Him. Do your children have authority over you (parents have authority over their children in the hierarchical order and government of God)?  Does the play or story a poet writes lord it over the author — this sounds like nonsense, but for all those who deny Gods reign —the atheist, agnostic, and disobedient, their dissidence is very apparent.

Evolution

I will start by saying that the verdict on evolution is not conclusive. There are some in and outside of the Church who will elevate evolution to a substantial theory, rather than a mere hypothesis. Regardless of this fact, if evolution were true, the creationist may use the argument that since God is omnipotent, evolution could be the modus operndi for creating specific species including Humans —he is all powerful after all and thus it is possible.

The bottom line if evolution is true aside from God, we should have a completely materialistic philosophy toward life —God and religion become meaningless. Some argue that belief in evolution completely takes God out of the picture —Kreeft does not think so. If however, God chose to use evolution as his process for developing the human species, then at what point did the ape acquire a spirit and intellect? That important question is whether we have an eternal soul; scripture tells us we do, as well as all the other phenomena surrounding the saints and near death experiences. Furthermore, souls do not evolve because they are not formed of mater. "[Y]ou cannot get a wholly different thing —thought, consciousness, reason, self-awareness—from mere bits of matter. Awareness of the material universe is not one more part of that universe. "(Kreeft)

The three meanings of "evolution" commonly are: the fossil record, natural selection and absence of intelligent design. There prior two senses of evolution may not contradict the Bible, but the last does. We know there is absolutely zero empirical evidence for transitional forms in the fossil record, nor the inheritance of characteristics outside of specific species. With this in mind the stated adopted notion of evolution requires just as much faith if not more to believe rather than creationism.

The absence of intelligent design does contradict the bible however, and I will be honest it would take a blind dumb and def man to not see order and hierarchy saturating our world. A macro-cosmic example of order in the universe, is the recent discovery that all of the galaxies in the universe are evenly spaced verified by deep space images by the Hubble telescope. The micro example one could look at and which is become popular are the arguments found in genetics, which reveals the evidence not merely of individual features of biological complexity but rather of a fundamental constituent of the universe: information. I cant comment in any detail on it now, simply because these topics become highly scientific and I want to keep this short. Genetics has come a long way since the 1950's and I hope to write more on it in the future. The stamp of intelligence is best put by Farrel in My Way of Life:

The Stamp of intelligence is printed deep in the very being of the universe of unintelligent things; for the theme of that cosmic poem is a them of law and order shining forth from creatures totally incapable of themselves of disposing things to any end, let alone to cosmic ends. Whether we look at the harmony of the universe and see order written in the capital letters of unvarying procedure and of microscopic details in the leaf of a tree, the ear of an animal, or the eye of a man, there is that same clear evidence of a gigantic, an infinite intelligence. We have been given a share in that intelligence that we might read the poem that only infinite intelligence and meaning of it is reserved to the mind that wrote it.

To wrap this up, here is the gist:
Q. Can a Catholic believe in evolution?
A. Although there is no evidence for evolution, it is possible for God to have used it to form species This view does not contradict Gods initial Creation of the universe, provided you do not believe there is no intelligent design and order in the universe. However, the question still remains at what point does the soul come into the picture, seeing that it is not matter and cannot evolve.

I have not sufficiently put forth all the arguments opposing evolution and its implications; I hope to remedy this soon, while providing  the teaching of the magestierium in conjunction with those arguments.

Ought We to Legislate Morality or Evil?

I once saw a picket sign that said, "You cannot legislate morality". Which brought up the basic question of whether good behavior can be legislated? Put that way, it may seem like a dumb question because good human actions are fundamental to living in a community. Order breaks down quickly as soon as murder and pillaging starts. The order breaks down both passively and unperceived when sexual morality is neglected.

"Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless." Martin Luther King Jr. Here Dr. King makes a distinction between morality and behavior. Behavior can be moral, but a moral is the quality of a behavior in relation to the standard of it being good for the the individual and the community. The word itself denotes objectivity —a standard by which we act. Consequently, when we refer to morality, what we generally mean is "good behavior." Likewise when we refer to behavior this term is not neutral, but may be judged good or bad.

The first point made in this quotation is the fact and common sense acknowledgment that morality, i.e. right thinking —then doing, is not something that can be forced upon anyone. Although, we may say someone ought to think rightly concerning behavior provided its goodness or truth have been established by reason and consensus. Moreover, right doing proceeds from right thinking and right thinking from the love of truth. 

The oxford dictionary defines law as, "The system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties." I have read a few of the definitions of law while researching this topic and they all have common terms: An authority who defines it, the action or behavior itself and its composition, and the formal declaration. Other definitions include additional points, but the prior are collective terms.

Thomas Aquinas' definition is my favorite, because it is more descriptive and includes Aristotle's four causes, which are a great aid to understanding by its manifold description. His definition is thus, "a certain ordinance of reason for the common good made by him who has charge of the community, and promulgated." Lets break this down (I'll be honest, I had trouble categorizing the material and formal causes, but this is what I came up with.).

Material Cause -an ordinance of reason

Formal Cause -Promulgated

Efficient Cause -by him who has charge of the community (the authority)

Final Cause -for the common good (the desirable end)

The material and final causes of Law I think are the most beneficial points by which we understand what Law really is. Often law is disassociated from the aforementioned causes and is valued on how pleasing or accepted the outcome will be. That question should be further down the list of criteria. In human law, one of the first question asked should be, "is it good for man's nature?" Then is it good for the community?

Many people see laws that encroach on personal morality -namely sexual behavior, as religious laws and impositions of opinion, with no basis in what is good or what is true. They cannot make the connection that certain actions are bad for you and the community, e.g. sodomy. There is a mental block in place preventing them from understanding that if you perform this action, it is highly likely to harm you and others proximal, aside from the apparent immorality of it.

The fact of the matter is that the statement "you cant legislate morality", is a contradictory statement, because a law is an imposition —a forcing of good behavior —a publicly promulgated rule for you and everyone to do that which is moral. The original argument is nonsense; a good example of this, is the new "law" that permits homosexuals to get "married". Since the act of sodomy and the scandalous public display of same-sex couples is amoral, it follows that what was recently legislated is an unjust law —an act of violence according Aquinas. 

People chiefly quarrel  over the laws concerning bedroom behavior. I think the reason for this, is the common objection that the effects of a disordered sexuality do not seem to translate to anyone other than the affected parties. This is a misconception that is commonly made. It is not hard to follow the aftermath of a disordered sexual relationship upon the couple and others involved; what it does to the children and those in their social network is also apparent. Ultimately and most important, the outcomes effect children and fecundity. There are many sexual disorders with varying negative effects that are too many to get into here.

Laws concerning sexual behavior —although they overlap into religious laws, do not necessarily obtain their validity from religion. Their legitimacy is also derived from the natural order, we know this by common sense and empirical data. Sex is an exclusive right and ought to only be afforded to those in a marriage, whose aim is procreation and unity. Anytime sex is had outside of this setting and these intentions, it is disordered and detrimental to the common good. Sex' primary purpose is children. It is proven that children who are born out of wedlock or separated from mother or father, do not fare as well physically, mentally, and socially compared to those in a normal home. And those who do not choose to have children and those who limit productivity for erroneous reasons do no good for themselves or the state (excluding the impotent and other valid scenarios for which abstinence can be practiced). A state is built and funded by families; no families, no citizens; no citizens, no taxes, etc.

Sex outside of the commitment of marriage is dangerous, because as we well know, the children potentially produced from this frivolity are not guaranteed the necessary means for a healthy upbringing. With contraception so accessible —so accepted by society, the purpose of sex has changed in the public eye. Procreating a child is the last thought of a couple when they engage in intercourse; their end is orgasm. The tertiary benefit of sex has become the primary and if pleasure is the primary purpose, then what need is there for marriage. If I can get what I want without any consequences, why should I be exclusive? If this logic is proliferated, any means by which one can achieve this type of pleasure is permissible; I will let your imagination conceive what possibilities can be carried out.

I didn't intend to develop the consequences of unjust laws to this extent, but I believe it necessary to show the consequences of laws that are based on feeling rather than rationality. I'm sure there are many more examples of unjust laws, that pertain to property or people generally speaking; Sex and marriage laws, however, are more proximal considering the conspicuous immorality of our culture. 

Question: Can you legislate morality?

Answer: Yes, because a law by definition is an ordinance of reason for the common good. If you could not legislate morality, then you would be legislating an act of violence.

Is Beauty Objective

I am no expert on fine art, nor would I consider myself a connoisseur of it per se. However, like most people I feel that I am capable of recognizing beauty when I see it and appreciating it as such. Now this in not the case for all peoples and cultures and it is highly dependent upon the object in question and culture in which the person apprehends it. So, I present here two ideas: The first is that beauty has objectivity and the second is that it is subject to the tastes of the individual. I hope to clear up this contradiction cogently hence.

At some point in my reading, the idea that beauty is objective was presented to me, but I was incapable of confirming this idea in conversation to an acquaintance at work. He naturally was impressed with the aphorism, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and being formed in our neo-modernistic society, steeped in relativism, wasn't able to cede to the idea I presented to him; granted, my arguments were muddled. Being one who is not contented with irrationality, I decided to fortify my claim by more research, this is the pithy result.

Pleasurable Beauty
Beauty is enjoyable and human beings desire to experience things that are good in this way. We are drawn to objects whether they be enjoyable food, drink, etc. Aquinas distinguishes this by saying, "beauty is that which pleases us upon being seen". Now "upon being seen" is not simply restricted to vision alone. Point in fact we can receive pleasure from music as well as poetry.

Kant applies a specific attribute upon beauty in that it evokes a disinterested pleasure. This pleasure falls out of our normal everyday concerns, it lies outside of our practical needs and participation, and we are satisfied simply by experiencing the beauty it contains.

It is important too to distinguish between something that is handsome or good-looking with that of the beautiful. The beautiful is superlative to the prior terms, yet often are interchanged with them in common speech. No, when I refer to beauty, I refer to that which pleases us to highest of degrees.

When we discus beauty as something we apprehend or know by Kant's disinterested pleasure, we are putting this knowing of beauty in a different plane as that of intellectual or even common sense knowing. All objects can be measured in relation to goodness and truth. Goodness, insofar as it aligns itself to ordered desire; truth, insofar as it aligns to knowledge. Beauty it is said, alights between both of these categories. Thus making it unique in regard to objectivity and subjectivity

This correlation between goodness and truth reveals the two aspects of beauty that most people do not realize exist. I have found that most people speak primarily of the subjectivity of beauty, as the case mentioned earlier. But since beauty is a mode of knowing an object, it falls under an objective truth. Likewise, it is something desired, wanted and loved, thus falling under goodness. Thus far, beauty has been demonstrated primarily in relation to the pleasure that is evoked from the individual; this is a relative experience of their taste.

Appreciable Beauty
We have spoken of objects in relation to ourselves, whether they be good or no. These are relative experiences based upon our level of taste. I say level of taste to distinguish a gradation of the quality of taste attained. This brings up a question: can taste be improved?

When we call something beautiful, we name it so because it contains something that other objects do not have. It contains properties that other objects lack and can be considered enjoyable by anyone who experiences them. These properties when contemplated can be admired by meditation and knowledge base.

Aristotle and Aquinas both spoke of these properties describing them as, "containing order in its arrangement of parts, having definite magnitude. It must have unity, proportion, and clarity, its excellence being perspicuous when beheld". This is true for both nature and objects made. Nature can be well formed by God and the Pieta is well made by Michelangelo. On the other hand, deformities are experienced from time to time and when specimens are found with deformities, they generally are undesirable and discarded. A sober example of this disposal are all the aborted babies with suspected down syndrome; the real beauty of their human dignity no being realized.

Who determines whether an object has the qualities that are considered admirable and is that judgement something to be placed in the category of truth? The judgement in question first must be made by someone who is experienced and trained in determining whether a specific object has excellence. From this we also must grant that an expert's taste is superior  than that of a layman's, therefore having the superior taste enables one to better perceive the intrinsic beauty of an object.

Since these judgments are expressions of superior taste, they do contain objectivity truth. Therefore, de gustibus non est disputandum (there is no arguments concerning taste) ,is irrelevant to the experts. Furthermore, the degree of admiriablity is objective and not contingent upon the feelings of the judge. 

The degrees of admirability correlates to the fact of an object occupying a place in a gradation of excellence or perfection that a judge is superior at determining than others. You may go even further and assert that the further the object is on that scale, the more pleasing it becomes to the beholder. This idea is vulnerable however, in that it does not follow that a person will enjoy an object more due to its ranking of excellence, seeing that an individuals taste is underdeveloped. 

This does not mean to say that people with nascent taste are not pleased by an object lacking admirable beauty. This is because beauty contains both objective and subjective natures; a fact which is not realized at first thought.

If someone believes something to be true and it is not true, then he is in error. An example of this is the common core movement in public schools, in which a student who cannot prove an equation, receives the good mark by his efforts shown in spite of it being false. If someone believes something to be good despite the fact that it is harmful to him and contrary to his needs,  it follows that this thing is in reality not good but evil (I know the term evil connotes morality or being in a state contrary to good, but I like to use it for many things whether they be deeds, beliefs, or man made creations because it is helpful in realizing its effects) and his ability to judge goodness is deficient. If a persons judgement is sound, then we may agree to the truth of his claims. Additionally, if someones desires are right, then we ought to agree to the goodness of those desires. 

This agreement fails in regard to beauty because when someone experiences disinterested pleasure from an inferior object, it remains enjoyable regardless of anyone else opinion or fact of its poor quality and may not be detrimental to him. On the other hand, it may be said that these people ought to learn to learn what is admirable because it is reasonable to appreciate excellence and perfection. 

The real challenge lies in determining the universal qualities of admirable beauty. It is said by learned men that admirable beauty consist of unity, clarity, and coherence; size, magnitude,  order and proportion. These terms need development, but this post is already too long.

Beauty in practice
You may be curious as to what all this means in regard to our workaday life. The chances of having a conversation concerning beauty as objective or subjective are rare, unless of course you are exposed to art more frequently than the average person. To me I think this is a good lesson concerning how we see our whole life.

The most important visual and experiential work of our lives is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Do you appreciate it the way it demands? Those who attend the extraordinary form can without doubt agree that it evokes pleasure regardless of whether you are master of ceremonies or a layman with no experience whatsoever. The symbols, colors, smells, and sounds of it stimulate us in deep in mystifying ways; this is fitting provided how long it has been in formation. Furthermore, if we cultivated our taste, how much more appreciable could this be for us if we could comprehend all the symbols, colors, and gestures in a deeper way. Our taste ought to be elevated concerning this as well as all the sacraments. This can apply to many aspects of life since it is not only restricted to those objects that are viewed, but to many other experiences we encounter. Make your life beautiful or rather "be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Is beauty objective?

Yes and no. 

It is objective in that beauty can be admirable for its intrinsic qualities of order, clarity, unity, coherence, etc., being determined by one who is experienced and whose taste has been developed in the kind of object they are experts in. 

Beauty is also subjective due to the effect of disinterested pleasure it evokes in the person appreciating it regardless of the gradation of his taste or the quality of the object

For a much more detailed explanation of this topic, read Six Great Ideas by Mortimer J. Adler.

Mediatrix of All Graces

It is not uncommon to hear disdaining remarks regarding the Marian doctrine from protestants. This verifies the importance of being ready to defend the truth of the faith at a moments notice. To me, this is an overwhelming task, especially in a culture that is secularized to the point that it accepts same sex "marriage" as a legal right among other atrocities our culture has allowed.  I was having a discussion recently with a friend of mine on the very issue of beefing up your knowledge-base of defensive rebuttals against LGBT and marriage issues. We both felt the weight of the realization that you almost have to be an expert on many topics to present valid arguments.

I have realized however, that most people are not interested in respectful debate. Rather, they are more likely to get emotionally charged and blast you for not being tolerant and call you a bigot for not being accepting of someone's blatant sinful lifestyle. 

This brings up the point of needing to at least have some sort of quick response to a charge made against your belief. It is good to know many details on any given topic; whether it be an apologetic on Marian doctrines or defense of natural marriage. But it goes without saying that if you have nothing to say on any hot button topic and cannot give a cogent argument to give credence to your claim, then you simply are going to get annihilated in a conversation at the water cooler at work. 

With that said I will be posting blogs that will provide cursory responses to various issues as well as Catholic teachings to add to your truth armory. I don't intend to go into an in depth exposition and analysis of topics, but I do hope to provide solid info from sources that are tested and approved by the magisterium. That is it wont be anything new, which what us traditional Catholics prefer. Boring old never changing truth as presented by the Bible and tradition. 

My goal is to keep these post real, with few embellishments on my end. Especially, since it has been brought to my attention from a holy priest, that bloggers are to be very careful what they write, since they will be judged more strictly on the things they present. Therefore, accurate teaching is my aim and if anyone sees error, please make it known to me -I promise to receive it humbly.

The first article I will try my hand at packaging for you is the belief in the Mediatrix of all Graces.
Lets dig into it.

Scripture
The dogma of Mary as the Mediatrix of All Graces, takes its origin from the prophecy concerning Mary in Ecclesiasticus 24. It reads: “I am the mother of fair love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope. In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue. ” (Sirach 24:24–25) You can note the reference that "in me is all grace". This is the first declaration of her title.

Next, we look at the New Testament where Simeon prophesies Mary's future passion with her Son.
“And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts thoughts may be revealed” (Luke 2:35).

Tradition
There are other concepts that need to be developed before we can condense this into a short explanation. The first concepts from this later verse and the other events we read in scripture, specifically the passion with mary present, indicate her role and participation with Christ in the action of our redemption.

We also must continually remember that without Mary's work of developing Christ in her womb, nourishing Him and rearing Him, there would be no spotless victim to sacrifice.
Essentially her actions in the participation of our redemption can be juxtaposed to that of the actions of Christ in all the major events of his Ministry. Her mediation has its origin, execution and consummation in the incarnation, the life and ministry of Christ, and after His death. "Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."(CCC p969) In some particular way Mary is there in the backdrop supporting her Son whichever way is appropriate. 

Therefore, resulting in this complete participation, she is the Mediatrix of all Graces. It was Gods will and Mary's embracing of that will that made it all possible. She did not merely accept His will, but embraced it with joy and enthusiasm. "Magnificat anima mea Dominum, et exaltavit spiritus meus in Deo salutari meo". What a wonderful example for us in our sufferings, that we too should embrace God's will for us, that we can have a more abundant harvest of graces. 

"In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."(CCC, p968)

Jesus is the new Adam and Mary the new Eve who acquired our salvation, just as the original Adam and Eve were the instruments of our removal of sanctifying grace and ultimately our restriction from Heaven (Baltimore Catechism). 

Saints
St. Bernard says “Mary most holy is His appointed steward and the generous bestower of the treasures of His mercy.” St. Louis de Montforts monumental work True Devotion to Mary is what St. John Paull II calls our guide for remaining in the limits of sound Marian doctorine, which Lumen Gentium encourages. 

Megesterium
Steven Lovison provides many quotes from Popes who have acclaimed Mary's title and role. Some of them include:
Pius VII called her “Dispensatrix of all graces.”
Pius IX tells us “God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation.”
St. Pius X, in his encyclical Ad Diem Illium which he wrote after study of the writings of St Louis de Montfort taught Mary is the “Dispensatrix of all the gifts which Jesus gained for us by His death.

Benedict XV says “together with Christ she has redeemed the human race . . . for this reason every kind of grace that we receive from the treasury of the Redemption is ministered as it were through the hands of the same sorrowful Virgin.”

"Pope Paul VI used the specific term “Mediatrix of All Graces” at least nine times and taught the doctrine indirectly in many other ways."

These are the antecedence to the title Mediatrix of all Graces. Now this dogma can be researched in great depth; which other have done, but this is the meat and potatoes of it. Could God have gained our redemption some other way? Absolutely. This was His will however, to have Mary as a key player in this act.

So if you are posed with the question:
How is Mary the Mediatrix of all Graces?

You may respond:
By her Holiness, Fiat (that is her embracing of Gods will), raising of our Lord, her participation in our redemption by her support, and suffering with Jesus, she is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

For a more detailed explanation, see the following links:
Taylor Marshal

EWTN

http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/co-redemptrix-fifth-marian-dogma/mary-mediatrix-of-all-graces-part-ii/

www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=10176 

My goal was to be concise; however, since this doctrine is so controversial and loaded with context, I felt it needed some embelishment. 

Antigone a Model For Our Times

For those who have read some Sophocles, Antigone is a play in which a very important lesson is to be learned regarding the extent citizens are to obey civil law. I would highly recommend reading all of the plays of Sophocles because of their beauty; however, you can simply read Antigone to glean an important truth I present here, but it would be like reading only one chapter of a book. On top of that, these are great books of the western world, whose merit cant be extolled enough. 

The play culminates in act of civil disobedience by Antigone -the daughter of Oedipus Rex, in opposition to King Creon. He took over the kingdom after the exile of Oedipus, which was due to the incest he unknowingly participated in with his mother -this is the origin of the Oedipus complex. After Oedipus' exile, one of his sons perished after trying to besiege Thebes, thus inuring the penalty of not being permitted a proper burial. This edict was put forth by Creon, who vowed to put to death anyone who disobeyed him. Antigone being the victims sister, believed it a moral duty to bury her brother and was successful in doing so under the cover of night. This was quickly discovered by the King who questioned Antigone. Her response to Creon reveals the impotence of his law in comparison to Divine law. 

If a law is promulgated and that law is contradictory to a higher law, i.e. Divine  Law or Natural Law, then that law is no law at all (Aquinas). 

Similarly, we have just witnessed a new law passed by the supreme court which permits homosexuals to be married. The state has ruled that something that is immoral (homosexuality), is now moral. This is in direct opposition to both the higher laws we just spoke of. Therefore, this law is in reality no law at all; it is an error of judgement. 

Consequently, we are not obliged to follow this law. Bishop Jarrel just recently made comments on this same idea, "This ruling is irreconcilable with the nature and definition of marriage as established by Divine Law" and he encouraged people to be disobedient to it. This is a bishop who is courageously speaking out. God bless him and his diocese. 

There is a fun ending to the play Antigone , in which justice is served, but I wont spoil it for you. We however should not be cowards by accepting this new Law. We must opose it in both our speech and action. There are also numerous examples of saints in the early Church who opposed the state for unjust laws; Thomas More comes to mind. We cant do this unless we are prayed and fasted up. Not to mention we must be solid in our understanding of the truth and be ready to defend it. 

There are many reasons why this law is erroneous, but in light of the story of Antigone, we learn that it is simply no law at all, because it is not just. 

Question:

Why is the new so called gay "marriage" law wrong? 

Answer:

Because any law that is irreconcilable to a higher authority, namely natural and divine law -this law contradicts both, is in reality no law at all and we are not obliged to obey it. 

Questions on Joining the Military

Ought one join the military?

The most common answers you may hear when questioning a young person as to the motives of joining the military, range from patriotism to benefits. However, considering the current state of the world and the character of our country, one could validly question the morality of serving, based on the good that could come out of it, both individually and collectively. 

The biggest selling points recruiters advertise to people is funding for education, travel opportunities and medical benefits. Of course these are monetary improvements which do not focus on any specific moral motivation, they are simply ways in which someone can get a long better in life, which I am not opposed to. What I am leery of is the military environment and whether we are involved in a just mission. 

I want to make it clear to anyone reading this, that I was in the military and do not regret my time served. I was able to pay for school, start a family and experience many good things, which I may not have received otherwise. My motivation for joining the military were, Ill be honest not well thought out. I was sporadically attending college, was single, was moderately enticed by the travel and college benefits. Bottom line I was had no direction, didn't have the motivation for any specific goal, and thought it would be good for me to serve. I may be discrediting myself, but retrospectively, it may not have been a bad decision, but who knows. 

Virtues

The first question I have, is whether the military environment is good? Based solely on experience, this is a big maybe. There are a number of virtues one can develop in the military with the right disposition. Obedience is the first one that comes to mind. The fact is, if you do not do what you are told you will be disciplined, sometimes very severely. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), outlines all the legal mumbo jumbo which one has to follow. In my experience  many people didnt do what they were supposed to and were demoted, put in the brig, made to perform demeaning tasks etc; its just not wise to shirk the rules and believe me, many did. 

The second virtue I can comment on is Humility. If you are an enlisted, which I was, you are placed at the bottom of a large hierarchy of ranks. Those at the upper end demanded great respect; some of which earned it and others did not. This was hard for me, seeing that I had some college, and was older, and had more life experience then my peers.

But the hardest part was the monumental gap between officers and enlisted. It was just stupid the difference of pay, food, drink, and living quarters that the lowest ranking officer was entitled to compared to experience veterans. This was a hard pill to swallow seeing that another two years in college and I could have been in a similar state. I know that may sound petty, but you just had to be there. In reality some officers work very hard and worked hard to be there. However, the quality of leaders produced was not very distinguishable from any other in my opinion. 

The last virtues I will comment on are self sufficiency, which entails many smaller goods for everyday living. Most kids who sign up are fresh out of the nest with no experience in life; the military teaches you how to do many things that can help someone maintain themselves in the world. I know that I am leaving out many other good things the military can instill, but for brevity, I will leave it at this. 

Vices

Regardless of all the good effects the military can have on someone you cannot the negate the seriously depraved environment a young man or woman is placed in. If you are not concerned for maintaining your purity, then  the military is perfect for you. There is absolutely no check whatsoever on the young folks concerning pornography, hooking up both on and off the duty station, and vulgarity of speech and conduct in the working environment. If any good willed Catholic parent has a child who has inclinations in joining the military, you must understand, that even the purest and virtuous son or daughter will be bombarded by filth. In light of that onslaught even the most temperate individuals may cave. I am not just talking about porn, I am also referring to the peer pressure to visit strip clubs and engage in prostitution. It takes supernatural grace to come out of that environment unscathed. I praise God that I was able to withstand it and stay somewhat chaste in the midst of all I was exposed to. 

Promiscuity is also very rampant. The divorce rate is extremely high in the military and you regularly hear the scuttlebutt of everyone's escapades. Female soldiers are a constant distraction for the males and a high percentage of them get pregnant very soon after arriving at their first duty station. I repeat, females are a huge distraction and are very much outnumbered adding to the temptation of sexually frustrated and hormonal young males. Many incidents of rape do occur. 

The purity issue alone is reason enough for a young person to avoid the military. Not all people are effected the same by the temptation presented there, but I would say most are in at least a small way and no one should put themselves in the near occasion to sin.

There are always exceptions to the rule and one could get involved in base church services and find a group of guys who are concerned for holy things. If this is available, then I would cling for dear life to those individuals and spend as much time as possible with them; as they say "iron sharpens iron". 

A Just Mission

The second major concern for whether someone should or should not join the military is determining whether one might be forced to contribute to a war or mission, the motives of which are unjust. This is hard determine even retrospectively; people come up with tons of conspiracies regarding causes of war. Regardless of whether it is difficult to know if a war is just or not, you must ask the question, is this a just war? Gratefully, the Church has teaching on this very issue. 

The teaching of Just War Doctrine has its origin in St. Augustine of Hippo and has also been taught by other Doctors such as St. Thomas Aquinas and formally adopted by the Magisterium. It is important to note that before a nation is to conduct war, it must have exhausted all other efforts preliminarily. "[O]nce all peace efforts have failed" [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 79, 4] it is permissible to consider war.

Once it is established that force is necessary to maintain peace and justice, there are three criteria which first have to be met. These criteria are similar for any action to determine its morality. The first is the act good in itself? The use of force to maintain justice is morally licit. The second question, is the intention good? The act must not be to inflict evil for its own sake. It must have the good as its end, i.e. maintaining peace and justice. Thirdly, it must be appropriate in the circumstances. You have to consider the means and execution of for preserving justice. The Catechism states:

"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3. there must be serious prospects of success;

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition" [CCC 2309].

The president or whoever is in charge must give thoughtful consideration to these questions. Lastly, a nation which uses forces to stay some evil or injustice, must consider the underlying cause of the disorder and how it came to be. The Catechism says, "Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war" [CCC 2317].

To give an example of a large scale military campaign which was condemned by the Church , was the U.S. led war in Iraq. There are varying opinions on the topic, but the Vatican was clear in its condemnation of the American invasion of Iraq. Pope St. J. P. II said in an Address to the Diplomatic Corps at the Vatican on January 13, 2003 “War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations” and reiterated that “war cannot be decided upon . . . except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions.” ThePope made it clear that he thought more negotiations could have taken place before entering Iraq, "There is still time to negotiate; there is still room for peace, it is never too late to come to an understanding and to continue discussions.”

Pope Benedict XVI commented as well giving clear indications for his predecessors judgment, "reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist,” in part because, "proportion between the possible positive consequences and the sure negative effect of the conflict was not guaranteed. On the contrary, it seems clear that the negative consequences will be greater than anything positive that might be obtained." What the popes are saying is that coming to the aid of a people who are being terrorized by their government is a good thing, but not when the amount of destruction and death cannot be recovered from. All the while not shirking the duty of rebuilding the country afterward.

It goes without saying that Saddam was a tyrant, guilty of many grievous acts; however, the means by which he was deposed were deemed excessive by the Popes. Post bellum, the pope organized for multi national aid for the rebuilding of Iraq.

With Just War Doctrine briefly laid out above, if someone decides that he wants to join the military, they also must be prudent and aware of what he may be forced to contribute to. If the person is already serving and is put in a position in which he is ordered to perform an unjust act (firing on innocent civilians), he is morally obligated to refuse. The consequences of this may not be pleasant, but acting against ones informed conscience is sinful.

I remember a fellow stationed with me who protested before his company left for deployment. He refused to participate and made a very public show of it. He informed the media and I believe was put in the brig. At the time I thought he was a coward, but he may have been justified considering it was during the campaign "Enduring Freedom".

The Church respects those who patriotically serve their country, "[i]f they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace. [Cf. Gaudium et spes 79, 5]" On the other hand as we established in the previous blog post on serving a country that is evil, you have to decide what your motivating factor is for joining. If you serve to preserve the common good of your nation and actual world peace, while getting the benefits for a college education and travel, then that is good. If you are joining simply for the thrills of war, or some other facile understanding of a country you have been deluded to believe is superior to all others (Americanism), then think again.

Too often kids out of high school, sign up for the military for the wrong reason, while not even considering the questions of preserving their sanctity and potential participation in an unjust war. As a parents, we can help guide our children in making such a huge decision. I am not against joining the military, except during certain circumstances. I heartily believe that I am a better person from my experience and time served. I would never take it back, mostly due to the fact that i would not have met my wife and now have 7 children. There are however other options to acquire college money, travel, etc., and you are no lesser of a man for not serving -you may be considered wiser.