Here is latest from Father Thomas Loya. It is a rather brazen, if not unusual example of what has become part of the “tradition” for many of the American propagators of that pungent and turbid concoction that is mislabeled Theology of the Body.
With defenders like Father Thomas Loya, does Christopher West need critics?
Here is some information that is real news to me, provided by Noah and Ryan, in regard to a legimate claiment to the title Militia Templi Christi Pauperum Millitum Ordo, or Knights Templar. And yes, this is very legit, a fact which I was not inclined to accept, until it was proven to me. Mind you, the members of this brotherhood in arms are very clear to disclaim any connection with the historical order, since any such claim, if and when made—as it often is by pretenders—is always false. The knights already have a well established presence in the United States.
The professed members have a fourth promise of “public testimony of faith.” Excellent!
Here is some background from Noah and I invite him to respond if anyone has any questions.
First, we do not claim to be descended from the original order. Many of the people making that claimare Freemasons.
We are a canonically legal Lay Order who live according to the Rule of the Militia Templi which is a close replica of the Primative Rule of the Templare written by St. Bernard of Clairvaux. Like the ancient Order, the Militia Templi consists of Catholic Lay Faithful binding ourselves to much of the aethetics of the monk, but living in the secular world as knights, in effect a restoration of the order.
We are recognized as a private association of lay faithful and our Constitution and Rule are approved by the Archdiocese of Siena. The Magistral See of the Militia Templi is located in Poggibonsi Italy. The Magistral See consists of a 12th Century Templar castle which is the See of the Grand Master of the Order. The Abbot Protector of the Militia is HE Abbot Philip Lawrence OSB of Christ in the Desert Monastery. Like the ancient Order, the Militia Templi is divided into Preceptories and the North American Preceptory now consists of eight Professed Knights, two Dames and approximately 25 Novices. In the North American Preceptory we have four Chaplains to include our senior Chaplain, HE Bishop Kevin Vann, Bishop of Ft. Worth Tx. The Militia Templi is in full communion with the Holy See and with the local Ordinary.
Pope John Paul II gave plenary indulgences to the order 1989 for certain special liturgical feast days and the days of our novitiate and investiture, etc. In 1991 the Militia received an indult from the Holy See to use
the liturgy in place by 1962. Accordingly, the Militia has a preference for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and prays the Divine Office per the Breviary of Blessed John XXIII.
The Militia Templi consists of both celibate and married knights as well as dames. As laity, knights take perpetual private vows of obedience to the Rule and the Superiors of our Order, chastity according to our station in life, spiritual poverty, and to defend the Holy Faith. Under the discipline of the Rule, knights and novices are bound to pray certain parts of the Divine Office, assist Holy Mass frequently, receive the sacrament of penance at least once a month and pray the Holy Rosary daily. As such, the Militia is a vocation which is the gift of God. Our hope is to achieve heaven, and holiness and sanctification on earth by a life of work, prayer and self-sacrifice. We pray and work so that we may live a life of heroic virtue and prefer nothing to the love of Christ. For me it is my weakness that makes me need to live under such a rule and which allows Christ to be our strength and Mary to be our consolation.
As Knights living in the world we offer ourselves as the victims of the secular battlefield as the priest offers himself as the victim of the Mass. It is the charism of the Order to protect what remains of Christendom against secularism with its attendant erred philosophies threatening our culture, and to work towards the restoration of Christendom. The Militia defends and supports the traditional Liturgy and the social dogmas of the Church per the Magisterium. We have a special focus on the teaching of the Holy Faith and knightly virtue to the young in an age of relativism and practical atheism.
I am a huge fan of MaryVictrix, Standing Fast, AirMaria and the FI.
Thanks, Noah.
On Ash Wednesday our lives round the bend on the road to Jerusalem only to find the hordes of Babylon blocking our way. We are marked with the cross and there can be no avoidance of the fight. This is the imagery used by the nineteenth century Anglican, Father Congreve, SSJE to describe the “advance of Lent.” I can hardly think of anything more appropriate for our meditation:
Lent awakens spiritual hope in us, just as the sight of the enemy awakes the spirit of an army. They were lagging just now, tired with the march, dispirited; but a sudden signal, one turn in the road, shows them the enemy’s lines stretching right across their way. How the men’s hearts leap up: who is [wearied] now? So Lent awakes the energy of hope by showing us our enemy, the reality of the battle of life, of our conflict with evil. We all know that our fifty or seventy years in this world were given to us for a great achievement–to conquer the world, the flesh, and the devil, to win holiness for eternity; but we easily forget this, and slip out of range. But Lent rallies us, reminds us of the seriousness of our moral life, of the reality of sin, of bad tendencies of our childhood not conquered yet, of the strength of sins of the flesh, of pride and temper, of love of the world, of cowardice in confessing Christ, of sloth and depression, of neglect of prayer and the sacraments.
Though Congreve was not Catholic, his imagery reflects one of the most important metaphors used by St. Ignatius in The Spiritual Exercises, namely, the two standards. Christ and Satan are captains of two immense armies that rally around them in the respective regions of Jerusalem and Babylon. For St. Ignatius, this a fundamental image of the spiritual life: mortal strife, that can have only one of two outcomes, heaven or hell.
The strategy of Satan is as simple as it is deadly. St. Ignatius tells us that the demons are sent forth by the Prince of Darkness to tempt us with love for the world: a “longing for riches,” “vain honor” and “vast pride.” He says that it is this love for the world by which he opens the door to every other vice.
But the assets laid to bear against Satan by the Lord are more powerful: “highest poverty,”contumely and contempt, and “humility.” As with the “beatitudes.” This is an inversion of values, the paradox of the gospel: life through death, going up by being brought down.
How is a man to in the word but not of the world? How is a man to be a soldier, a knight, and a courageous man without the arrogance and pride that are the tools of Satan? How are we to fight Satan without capitulating to his manipulative and dishonorable methods? In a word, how are we to be wise as serpent and simple as doves? (cf. Mt 10:16).
The first step consists in recognizing that the road that Our Lord took is the hardest road. He remained in the fight to the end and at the same time never sought His own glory and good, but glory of His Father and our salvation. This is the humility of which St. Ignatius speaks. Here is Father Hardon’s commentary on the two standards in which he recommends humility, calmness of spirit and the discernment of spirits as the particular means by which we fight under the standard of Christ and overcome the devil.
Our battle is first of all one that must take place within, but for it to be brought to a victory for Christ, it must be extended to the ends of the earth. It is a fight that we must never concede.
Anthony Esolen has written an excellent article, entitled, Where the Battle Was Not Fought, in which he chronicles the woes of the Church in Canada. (Not to pick on Canada, we have our own similar problems in the U.S.) Esolen notes that there is really no place for men, because no one wants to fight, and because virtually no effort has been made to attract men to the faith, let alone to the priesthood.
The spiritual apathy of men, and by which men no longer have a place in the Church—a fight conceded or never fought—leaves us in a desperate situation. For far two long our leaders have largely derelict of their duty, and we are left with the extremes of effeminacy and bravado.
The solution consists in the rigors of an examined life that is bold enough to make mistakes and get hurt, and humble enough to reassess and revise in order to get it right. This has to happen both spiritually and externally.
Recently, Dawn Eden and William Doino wrote a piece for Busted Halo, in which they called into question the adaptation of Saul Alinsky’s radicalized activist philosophy by conservatives being used against the expert liberal practitioners of that philosophy. In particular, the writers criticized activist James E. O’Keefe for his syncretistic melding of the ideas of Alinsky and that of G.K. Chesterton, and for his practical application of that thinking which included the questionable participation of a young woman who posed as a prostitute in his ACORN exposé videos. Eden and Doino, underscored the utilitarian ethics at the heart of O’Keefe’s methods, taken right out of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: “in war the end justifies almost any means.” In a subsequent interview Dawn Eden did not fail to mention that the work of Lila Rose, with whom O’Keefe has also collaborated, and who has been given favorable treatment on AirMaria, is not above critical review.
In response, Christian Hartsock, has penned, or should I say, slashed a rather purple piece of vitriol worthy of Keith Olbermann, in which he ostensibly adopts another rule from Alinsky’s playbook: “ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” A comparison between the Eden/Doino essay and that of Hartsock, is the difference between a consideration of principles in view of success and a disregard of them justified by success. We can leave everyone free to consider the question, but that the question ought to be considered, seems a difficult thing to reject. That certainty may be something that Alinsky would ridicule, but it is not something that Chesterton would make fun of. On the contrary, for Chesterton such philosophical considerations belonged to the most practical order:
But there are some people, nevertheless—and I am one of them—who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy’s numbers, but still more important to know the enemy’s philosophy.
For Chesterton, this consideration of his enemy’s philosophy was not merely a tactical necessity, but a metaphysical and moral requirement, as he infers when he considers the philosophy of George Bernard Shaw. He says that while his intellectual enemy was genuinely “brilliant” and “honest,” his philosophy was “quite solid, quite coherent, and quite wrong.” A man’s philosophy has consequences in the practical order, and so the practical thing to do is
. . . revert to the doctrinal methods of the thirteenth century, inspired by the general hope of getting something done.
Activism, or better, Catholic Action, will ultimately be fruitful only if it is an examined energy, like our own moral lives. It is the hardest road. It is not the merely the rough and tumble road of unchecked prowess, nor is it comfy road of the false courtesy of human respect. It is the hardest road of Christian chivalry. And it is the only way of really “getting something done.”
This is the road we find ourselves on this Ash Wednesday, and the hellish hosts from Babylon will not part and let us pass unmolested. The fight is on, but it begins, continues and ends first within our hearts. Yet, it is always to be fought in the midst of the world that must be conquered for Christ.
Posted supplementary to my two previous posts (1 and 2):
When are the sacramental graces of marriage received? It has recently became fashionable to state, categorically, that no such sacramental graces are received until a sacramental marriage is consummated, as though a non-consummated marriage is not fully a sacramental marriage. This is simply false. The essence of a sacramental marriage consists in the contract, both as to the celebration of the sacrament and to the permanent state following on that celebration. The first is known as marriage “in fiere” and marriage “in facto esse”. Use has nothing to do with constituting the essence of marriage. This is certainly very logical, whereas the new proposal is hardly that. The conferral of sacramental graces is a presupposition for the holy fulfillment of marriage rights and duties, including use of the marriage act or sexual intercourse. Hence, it is only logical that it be conferred before use of the marriage act. If the sacrament is celebrated worthily, viz., the spouses are in the state of grace, an increase of sanctifying grace follows immediately on the administration of the sacrament, together with the effecting of the marriage bond with the rights and duties which this entails. It is the marriage bond or “vinculum” which is the essence of the marriage state or permanent marriage contract, not the use of the marriage rights. The right to actual graces in order to carry out the duties of the married state which are many besides the use of the marital act is rooted in the vinculum which constitutes a kind of proximate disposition for their conferral at the appropriate time and circumstances. This is clearly the teaching of St. Thomas and is concurred in by St. Bonaventure. Although a few modern theologians consider the vinculum a kind of quasi sacramental character, the majority of theologians prefer to abstain from the use of this terminology. (Cf. F. Sola, SJ. Sacrae Theologiae Summa, volume 4, Madrid 1953, pp. 837-843 for magisterial and theological authorities.) The principal magisterial authorities for this teaching are Leo XIII (Arcanum divinae sapientiae) and Pius XI (Casti Conubii).
Why is the petrine privilege limited to sacramental marriages “ratum sed non consummatum”? A recent opinion claims that this restriction is related to the relative imperfection or incompletion of such a sacramental marriage. Only the consummation of a sacramental marriage makes it fully sacramental, so the theory goes. But this contradicts the long standing explicit teaching of the Magisterium for over a millennium. Any marriage, but especially a “matrimonium ratum”, if intrinsically and fully indissoluble. Intrinsically means that those united permanently by the marriage bond cannot end that bond, nor can the existence of spiritual or psychological frustrations on the part of the spouses, sometimes described as the “death” of a marriage, effect a dissolution of bond. But this has never been meant in the teaching of Christ and of the Church to exclude the possibility of dissolving or ending a marriage by legitimate authorities apart from the spouses. This authority belongs to God because he is the one who instituted marriage and defined the nature of the contract. His authority extends to all marriages, sacramental or merely natural, all of which by his disposition end with death. In one instance, that of the so-called “Pauline privilege” he has when certain conditions are fulfilled decreed the end of a natural marriage “in favor of the faith” in one of the spouses who converts to belief in Christ and is baptized, but the other refuses to live in peace with the converted spouse.
In some special cases Christ has conferred on the successors of St. Peter to dissolve non-consummated sacramental marriages in particular and relatively rare instances. The reason for this delegation is to be found, not in the incompleteness of such a marriage as marriage, but in the imperfect clarity of the sacramental sign, the same rationale underlying the Pauline privilege, the only difference being that in the case of the Pauline privilege the dissolution is effected directly by God himself (no delegation for this has been given either to civil or ecclesiastical authorities). The rationale is this: in these cases the sign value of marriage is either not clearly present (natural marriage) or only partially in the case of a non-consummated sacramental marriage. According to the teaching of Casti connubii, this sign value is twofold: that of Christ with the Church and by extension with souls (a spiritual union) and that of the Divine Word with his human nature (a physical union). The first is realized immediately on celebration of the sacrament, the second only with consummation. The vicarious power to dissolve the bond granted by Christ to the Pope in regard to non-consummated sacramental marriages is limited to those instances where “spiritual death” has occurred (e.g., solemn profession in a religious order) or where this is postulated by the spiritual need of one or the other spouse. But with consummated sacramental marriages the sign value is such that Christ reserves all questions of dissolution of the bond to himself because of the perfection of the sign. Evidently the perfection of the sign is not the equivalent of perfection of the marriage, which must be decided on other criteria, particularly when the virginal marriage of Mary and Joseph is taken into consideration. (cf. the treatise cited above, pp. 826-827; 830)
In response to my last post, “Christopher West: Sexualizing Christianity,” one of his supporters posted a lengthy comment, defending the sexy assertion that the sacramental grace proper to marriage is not confered through the wedding vows but through the act of the consummation of the marriage, so that no sacramental marriage really exists until the spouses engage for the first time in the marital embrace. He (or she) also claims that sacramental grace is also conferred every and each time the spouses engage conjugal act “in a human fashion.”
Since this is so interesting and crucial to the argument, I have chosen to reproduce the comment here and answer it below. Continue reading
I recently became aware of an exchange between Dr. Mark Lowery and Christopher West that took place in around the turn of the year 2002. Dr. Lowery’s assessment of Mr. West’s work was fair. Like many today, he commended the Theology of the Body apologist for his flair getting across to audiences around the country the reason why “the bedroom needs the Church.” And like many today, he expressed his reservations about the way in which West “sexualizes Christianity.” Lowery intimates that a kind of inversion has taken place in West’s understanding of the relationship between sexuality and Christianity:
Put another way, so clearly does he see how sexuality must be taken up into Christianity that he can give the impression that Christianity has been taken up into sexuality.
Of course, Darpa’s got to prevent the super-species from being swayed to do enemy work — so they’ll encode loyalty right into DNA, by developing genetically programmed locks to create “tamper proof” cells. Plus, the synthetic organism will be traceable, using some kind of DNA manipulation, “similar to a serial number on a handgun.” And if that doesn’t work, don’t worry. In case Darpa’s plan somehow goes horribly awry, they’re also tossing in a last-resort, genetically-coded kill switch:
Develop strategies to create a synthetic organism “self-destruct” option to be implemented upon nefarious removal of organism.
