I am off to Indiana early in the morning. I will try to get back to blogging when I can catch my breath. The encampment and then getting ready to go have kept me occupied. I will also have the video of my encampment talk back online in the morning. (Video Restored.) Meanwhile, enjoy the encampment Tug of War:
Vodpod videos no longer available.
I based the following talk, given to the boys on Saturday at the encampment, on an article St. Maximilian Kolbe wrote in November of 1924. The title of his article, at least in the Italian translation is “Our Tactics.” I don’t have a Polish copy so I cannot be sure if it is accurately translated into Italian. I only mention this, because if one takes into account the military distinction between strategy and tactics, which I explain in the talk, what St. Maximilian is speaking of seems more like strategy than tactics. A minor point. In any case, here is my translation of his article.
Update: Missing Video Video Restored
I won’t try to explain the technical difficulties, but the video was inadvertently deleted from our account on gloria.tv and is currently inaccessible from our computers. I will get it back up just as soon as I can.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
The following list provides links to all the posts that I have written either here or on Dawn Patrol about the Theology of the Body. I will update the list if I have missed any, or if, God forbid, I add others.
Update: Missed posts added to compendium (dates in red text).
Further Update: Added posts (dates in green text).
- “Hope of the World” (November 11, 2008): The first reference I made to the “new chastity movement” on this blog shortly after the national election in the context of our lack of will to elect a pro-life president in the United States.
- “Thinking Like a Man” (April, 16, 2009): Why it is necessary for men to fight the good fight of chastity, rather than hope to be delivered from temptation by a new and holy fascination with the body, as is suggested in West’s presentation.
- “John Paul the Great and Hugh Hefner the Magnificent” (May 8th, 2009): My original reaction to Chris West’s Nightline interview with a focus on the problem of prudery.
- “Christopher West’s blind spot: TOB has to be seen through Church’s historical teachings” (May 14, 2009): A response to those who say that the critique is an attack on Christopher West and a closer look at the question of “original innocence” and its relation to the effect TOB can have on our redemption.
- “Schindler’s list: Sparks fly as JP2 Institute dean raps Christopher West for errors” (May 29, 2009): An analysis of the responses of Professors Janet Smith and Michael Waldstein to the critique of West by Professor David Schindler.
- “Virgo redacta: Christopher West and the dangers of overanalogizing Mary” (June 18, 2009): An attempt to answer the defenders of Christopher West, by addressing some of the specific problems with his presentation, namely, the phallic symbolism of the paschal candle and the way that the Blessed Virgin is eroticized by his presentation. More generally, I touch upon his problematic use of analogy. (See, notation on new information contained in this post).
- “To Chris West: Enough Already. How about a Response?” (June 24, 2009): A critique of the methodology by which critics of West are dealt with by implying prudery or animus as a motivation for the disagreement, or that disagreement with West constitutes disagreement with John Paul II.
- “St. Agustine and the Theology of the Body” (June 27, 2009): Comments on and several quotations from Msgr. Cormac Burke’s defense of St. Augustine’s views on marriage. Another critique of seeing prudery where it isn’t.
- “The Theology of the Body and Courage: Fighting the Real Fight” (July 14, 2009): Why it is important for men to focus on agape rather than eros.
- “Martyrs, Mystics and Rhetoricians” (July 31, 2009): A response to Father Thomas Loya’s defense of Christopher West, with a focus on the hermeneutic of discontinuity manifested by the new “holy fascination” with the body advocated by Christopher West and his followers.
- Shame on You. Amen. (September 1, 2009): Thoughts inspired by a discussion on The Linde regarding the nature of shame and its relation to modesty, with an emphasis on the cultivation of prudence in the face of the American TOB crusade against prudery.
- Cardinal and Bishop Support Christopher West (September 8, 2009): Text of Cardinal Rigali’s and Bishop Kevin Rhoades letter of support of Christopher West and his work.
- In Defense of Purity (September 20, 2009): Introductory post to my commentary on Dietrich von Hildebrand’s work In Defense of Purity, proposed as a sure way of coming to understand the true meaning of the Theology of the Body.
- In Defense of Purity I (September 29, 2009): Commentary on the first chapter of von Hildebrand’s book, focusing on the meaning of shame, particularly in its positive aspect, and distinguished from that shame which seeks to protect the person from use, with a particular reference to its correlation in John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.
- A Response to Christopher West (October 30, 2009): My reply to the response to Christopher West, in which he finally breaks his silence regarding the controversy surrounding his presentation of the Theology of the Body.
- Theology of the Tango? (November 1, 2009): An example of the American version of Theology of the Body gone off the rails.
- Christopher West: Sexualizing Christianity (February 8, 2010): A commentary on a 2001/2002 between Dr. Mark Lowery and Christopher West, indicating that the recent objections to West are nothing new, and have gone unanswered for years.
- Sexing Up Canon Law (February 12, 2010): A response to a commenter’s objection to my previous post on the sexualization of Christianity by Christopher West. Specifically, I focus on the meaning of the canons governing the dissolution of a ratified but non-consummated marriage and what that means in terms of when sacramental grace is conferred in marriage.
- Father Peter Damian Fehlner on Ratified, Non-Consummated Marriages (February 13, 2010): The magisterial and theological tradition concerning this question from a professor of dogmatic theology.
- Theology of the Body: Of Sign and Fulfilment (March 4th, 2010): An explanation of the Churches use of theological analogy and the reason why Christopher West’s use of analogy is theologically incorrect.
- Christopher West Takes Sabbatical (April 13, 2010): The announcement from TOB Institute that Christopher West is taking time off to “reflect more deeply on fraternal and spiritual guidance he has received in order to continue developing his methodology and praxis as it relates to the promulgation of the Theology of the Body.”
- Toward a Climate of Chastity E-Book (April 20, 2010): Announcement of Dawn Eden’s publication of her master’s thesis on Christopher West’s work as an ebook. Links provided.
- Dawn Eden’s Thesis and Defense (June 15, 2010): Announcement of Dawn Eden’s re-publication of her master’s thesis on Christopher West’s work as an ebook, and the text of the defense of her thesis. Links provided.
- That for Which We Fight (July 2, 2010): A commentary on two opposing views of feminism with a special reference to Theology of the Body and a recommendation for a balanced approach.
- Alice Von Hildebrand’s New Essay on Her Husband and Christopher West (July 21, 2010): A brief announcement and acknowledgement of this blog author’s contribution to the essay.
- Good Reason Why Not to Have Someone Live-Tweet a Conference. (August 1, 2010): Some of the sensational and eyebrow-raising tweets from the TOB conference.
- Theology of the Body and the Mystical, Magical Train (August 5, 2010): An analysis of remarks and practices of Father Thomas Loya’s pastoral approach to TOB, including his use questionable images and theories concerning admiration for the naked body.
- Father Loya: Peer Reviewed: (August 1o, 2010) A guest post from Christina Strafaci concerning the legitimacy of public critique of the pastoral approach of certain TOB evangelizers.
- More TOB Discussion (August 11, 2010): A highlight from a discussion between Genevieve Kineke and Heidi Saxton.
- Where I am at Right Now with Theology of the Body (September 24, 2010): An assessment of the Theology of the Body debate impasse.
- Christopher West’s Translation of John Paul II’s Body Language (October 10, 2010): A response to Christopher West’s assessment of his critics in the light of his charism to popularize the Theology of the Body.
- The Way of Ugliness (November 6, 2010): A critique of an aspect of Christopher West’s multi-media event, “Fill These Hearts,” specifically his use of an anti-Catholic movie to illustrate his point that the Church has been filled with prudery prior to the Theology of the Body.
- Alternate States of Unreality (February 9, 2011): A reflection on Christian Occultism and its similarities with the current attempt at popularizing the Theology of the Body in the United States.
In 1940 during the Nazi occupation of Poland, St. Maximilian Kolbe was negotiating with the occupying commanders for permission to publish an edition of his magazine, The Knight of the Immaculate. The Nazis had taken control of Niepokalanow, the City of the Immaculate, located outside of Warsaw, where St. Maximilian had one of the largest printing operations in the world. The Nazis had sealed the printing presses with lead so that they could not be used.
They were well aware of the influence the saint had on the Polish populace and had endeavored to win him over to their cause. The Nazis had even offered to register him as a Volksdeutsche, because of his German sounding surname, so eager were they to have him as a collaborator and propagandist. St. Maximilian had boldly refused the offer, but kept on filling out applications for permission to publish his magazine, though in retaliation, the Nazis continued to reject them.
Finally, the saint’s perseverance paid off and by December 8, 1940 this only edition of the magazine published during the occupation reached the reading public. St. Maximilian contributed an article called: “Truth.” (As far as I know, the article has never been published in English in its entirety, so I present here a translation from the Italian–a translation of a translation, but it’s the best I can do.) You might say that it was St. Maximilian’s persistence to publish coupled with what he wrote that sealed his fate and ultimately led to his final arrest on February, 17, 1941.
St. Maximilian was canonized a martyr of charity because he gave his life for a man he did not even know. He offered his life because he had the charity blessed by the Lord Himself as that no greater than which can be conceived (Jn 15:13). It seems to me that this final act of charity was a seamless development of his true commitment to the common good, which led him, like Christ to say what needed to be said, even if it was dangerous to do so. Like Christ, St. Maximilian died for love and like Christ he was killed because he told people the truth, no matter what.
In his article, he makes several proposals which he explains and illustrates: the truth is one; the truth is powerful; religious truth is also one; truth must be acknowledge, failure to acknowledge it does not change it; only truth can make us happy.
In simple terms the saint explained Catholic metaphysics and epistemology, grounding human thought on the principle of non-contradiction, namely, on the fact that a thing cannot both exist and not exist at one and the same time, and therefore that one and the same thing cannot be both true and not true at one and the same time and under the same respect. Common sense tells most of us that this principle is self-evidently true, but unfortunately, there are many today who had common sense brainwashed out of them. For instance, Freemasonic mumbo jumbo, with its assertion of religious convictions and simultaneous pretense of being a non-confessional system, is a fundamental violation of the principle. I have even had a Freemason on this blog scoff at the principle of non-contradiction.
Those who are willing to engage in dishonest propaganda have always been among us. The pharisees used it to silence Our Lord. Freemasons have used it to silence the Church, and the Nazis used it to silence St. Maximilian and his like; however, where their are real men who stand up and oppose the lie, it is never completely successful, because such men are not silent and even when we can no longer hear their voices with our ears, their deaths are an even louder and more eloquent testimony.
The picture above is the cover of The Knight of the Immaculate for January 1922 and depicts the Immaculate Queen flanked by two swords impaling the serpents and propaganda of heresy and Masonry. This was nearly 20 years before St. Maximilian published his last article. His mind was fixed, his will was steeled, and his intention unbending. He knew that the truth was the only way to real happiness:
There is no one to be found in the world that does not search for happiness; indeed, in all of our actions happiness presents itself to us, in one form or another, as the end toward which we naturally tend. However, a happiness which is not built on the foundation of truth cannot endure, because everything else is a lie. The truth can be and is the only the unshakable foundation of happiness, for individuals and of all humanity.
But happiness comes at a cost and sometimes men have to sacrifice their personal contentment and safety so that others might live and prosper. But for them, this is in itself an honor and a cause of true joy. Something to think about.
Some time ago, I posted a poll about whether the proverb All is fair in love and war is true or not. At the time, I did not say that I was posting on the subject because it was part of my discussion in the paper I had been working on. In any case, most of you agreed with me.
That being said, I post below the introduction to the paper that I will be giving in about 20 minutes in Fatima. I will be reading an abbreviated version due to time constraints. More excerpts to follow.
All is fair in love and war.
Traced back to the 16th century work, Euphues written by the Englishman John Lyly, this proverb expresses the rejection of the standard of fair play where matters of the greatest importance are concerned. It also conveys the paradox, or coincidence of opposites, concerning love and war, viz. that while the one connotes a state of peace and the other conflict, the two are never really far apart. In fact, the very Prince of Peace came not to bring peace, but to bring the sword. In other words, the unity of love is never attained by man after the Fall without conflict. On the cross, Christ is both Warrior and Bridegroom.
But the question is whether or not “all” is really fair in love and war. It seems to me, in this respect Lyly’s proverb is more or less in accord with the present zeitgeist. At least there is no universally accepted standard by which to determine what, in the main, the common good actually is, so we bump around in the dark until we arrive at some measure of tolerance for one another—a very utilitarian standard of fair play, indeed. The very same feminists, for example, who in the 1960’s and 70’s wished to deliver themselves from the disparity of subjugation to men as sex objects and insisted on birth-control and abortion in order to accomplish this, now affirm their right to be sex objects as long as they are in control and have something to gain. Birth-control and abortion have assured that everyone gets what they want, everyone, that is, except the victims of the silent holocaust. In this way, without an objective measure of fair play, the battle of the sexes has reached a sort of precarious détente, which some of us might argue is more like the threat of “mutually assured destruction.”
Cervantes took up the proverb and put it on the lips of Don Quixote who finds himself breaking up a brawl caused by an absurd romantic trick. The maiden Quiteria has consented to marry the rich Camacho solely for his wealth and in so doing jilts her true love Basilio. At the wedding before the vows have been exchanged, Basilio shows up and throws himself upon his own rapier in front of the wedding couple. As he lay dying, Basilio refuses to confess to the priest unless Quiteria agrees to marry him. As soon as he has obtained her consent Basilio jumps to his feet and reveals his “suicide” to be a trick, and in spite of the deceit Quiteria remains firm in her intention to have him. A brawl between the parties of Camacho and Basilio ensue and Quixote intervenes, crying:
“Hold, sirs, hold! . . . we have no right to take vengeance for wrongs that love may do to us: remember love and war are the same thing, and as in war it is allowable and common to make use of wiles and stratagems to overcome the enemy, so in the contests and rivalries of love the tricks and devices employed to attain the desired end are justifiable, provided they be not to the discredit or dishonour of the loved object.
Cervantes never tires in poking fun at the literature of chivalry, which often promulgated a code of ethics for love and war that mandated contradictory behavior; Don Quixote speaks of rights but in the same breath denies rules of fair play. In fact, foolish, romantic sentimentalism by definition discredits and dishonors the loved object.
But it is not only the fictional literature of chivalry that reveals the contradiction. The 12th century work In The Art of Courtly Love by Andreas Capellanus, written at the request of the Marie de Champagne, daughter of Eleanor of Aquitaine and followed by many of the courtiers of Europe, we are given an adulterous mandate as the first rule of love: “Marriage is no real excuse for not loving.” Then, having said this, Capellanus absurdly exhorts his readers that they should “be mindful to completely avoid falsehood.” So much for the Lancelots and Guineveres of the world.
But love and war have always been pretty much the same thing, at least since the Fall. God created Man, male and female. Marriage is the first sacrament established by God. Theologians call it a sacrament of nature. In America, where the battle over same-sex marriage rages (more love and war), the proponents of sodomy assert that it is solely the State, not the Church, that creates and has the right to define and regulate marriage. In fact, marriage arises from neither the Church nor the State. Marriage exists because man is male and female; it is a sacrament of nature. Both the Church and the State take in interest in marriage because it is a fundamental good for both, but it pre-exists both the Church and the State. (Relative to the Church, of course, the solemnization of the union is also Sacrament of the New Testament established by Christ, but that does not change the fact that neither the Church nor the State has created marriage).
Again, without universal standards we bump around in the dark unable to perceive any objective definition of our fundamental institutions and settle on dogmatizing a standard of tolerance which is intolerant of everything but tolerance. Nothing has really changed since the garden of paradise. Fallen man is still a usurper. He reaches out for love, but by denying the source of love the result is war.
The temptation of the serpent is an act of consummate violence. The sin of our first parents is an arrogant and petty assault on heaven. The subsequent history of mankind is a family feud, whose body-count is virtually numberless. The primordial prophecy and promise of our redemption reveals that human history will be the recounting of a nearly endless war, in which finally victory will only come at the end of the world, when the Immaculate foot of the Woman will have stamped out the last efforts of the serpent to win over souls to his lie. The Father of Lies knows of no code of ethics in regard to either love or war. And from his point of view, love and war are the same because lust and hatred are espoused in the darkling rites of the netherworld. But, in some sense, they are the same also from God’s point of view because both courtesy and courage will be forever united by the bond of a brotherhood in arms against all that is godless.
Our first and fallen parents are types of the new man and woman, by which the rest of us are recreated—not only in the image of God, but also in the image of the new and true Adam and Eve. Christ and Our Lady are the new couple, the heads of the new family that is the Church. Their story is an adventure of the most epic proportions and it concerns entirely the working out of ultimate love and ultimate war. If we are honest we will have to admit that our salvation is all about love, but it is also all about war. There is no use in living in denial, by pretending that some fuzzy and warm concept of the universal brotherhood of man will save us, but neither will we get away with fighting our way out of the mess we are in without a code of warfare. Love and war are close allies, but all is not fair in love and war.
No, I have not been kidnapped by aliens. I have been working on the paper I am supposed to deliver in Fatima next week. I will post the introduction before I leave on Monday Morning. Meanwhile, here is a tidbit from the King of the United States, regarding his meeting with Pope Benedict;
Denis McDonough, a deputy White House national security aide, said of the pope and Obama, “They discussed a range of those issues, and I think the president was eager to listen to the Holy Father.” He said Obama was “eager to find common ground on these issues and to work aggressively to do that.”
How does the culture of death “aggressively” find common ground the culture of life except by either getting us to use their talking points, or by talking us to death, or by shutting us up?