Note from the present underground -
which today is articulated orthodox Catholicism
by James V. Schall, S.J.
AUGUST 16, 2016
The last lines of Dostoyevsky’s
Notes from Underground are these:
We shall not know. . .what to cling to, what to love, what to hate. We are oppressed at being men – men with a real individual body and blood. We think it a disgrace and contrive to be some sort of impossible generalized man. We are stillborn, and for generations past have been begotten not by living fathers. . . .Soon we shall contrive to be born from an idea.
These words were written in St. Petersburg in 1864, the last full year of the American Civil War.
In his 1848
Communist Manifesto, Marx told us to “rise up.” We had nothing to lose but our chains. This call, however, showed considerably less insight into the future than Dostoyevsky’s. He told us that we would lose our fathers, and with their loss, our very being. Nietzsche, near the end of the 19th Century, proclaimed that God was already dead in our souls. We just had not noticed.
But the notion that we “shall contrive to be born from an idea” is a more haunting consideration. Without Fatherhood in God to ground the reality that is, we “free” ourselves to become anything but what we ought to be.
The real sociological record of our time is a step-by-step, logical declination from the good that is already present in the cosmos and in man. We remain free to know this good, but only if we will.
Chesterton, early in the 20th Century, told us that
the most horrible of human ideas was that men could be born of men, not women. Men cannot beget of men – or women of women, no matter how much they “want” to. Positive “laws” establishing “marriage” in such cases contradict reality. They place all involved at odds with the order of being.
Dostoyevsky saw it clearly. We want a “generalized man,” not the particular one born of woman having been begotten by an identifiable father, with a real body and real blood.
Our anonymous sperm and ova banks, our abortion factories, our random begetting, cloning, our divorces, all testify to the truth of Dostoyevsky’s warning. We stand to be born of a laboratory or political “idea,” not from real fathers and mothers.
We read the passage from John that tells us that the Word was made “flesh” – body and blood – to dwell amongst us.
The Word did not appear as an “idea”; nor have any of us in our beginnings. Several famous passages in the Old Testament speak of God knowing us before we were in our mother’s womb.
In this sense, we were indeed in our ultimate origins “an idea” in God’s creative mind. But the what-it-is-to-be-a-man is not ours to formulate or to bring forth. God’s mind is not filled with abstract “ideas,” but images of His own being.
What is the “underground” today? What is it that cannot be admitted, what is driven systematically from our public lives? The “underground” today is that explication of being and living that is specifically rejected by the politicized culture.
The curious thing about the official deviation from the good is that it does not tolerate opposition. It cannot. Like Islam, it affirms that any view of reality that is not fully controlled by the public order is illegitimate. Elimination of freedom of religion and expression through charges of “hate” language and other devices is no accident. It is the compliment that error always pays to truth.
What we must recognize is that articulated, orthodox Catholicism is today the real underground. It is what the culture recognizes that it must systematically eliminate.
But this rejection follows a clear and logical path. It presupposes the Gnostic idea that laws and customs of the people are but free constructs, with no basis in reality.
Our laws, however, really comprise step-by-step, logical deviations from the good that is in being, especially in human being. This good is found already present in reality.
The truth of human being is not created by man but discovered as already in him. He is not asked to become something else, but to become himself. He must choose to be what he is. He is free to be what he is created to be. He is also free to reject what he is. Such is his doom or glory.
The “modern project,” as Leo Strauss called it, proposes that
man becomes an object of his own science. He reconfigures himself in every way. But in the end, when he completes the declination from his own good, he will finally be in a position to see, if he will, that he was better made than he thought.
We can only whisper these truths in the present underground.
The order of evil mocks the order of good. It does not change its truth.
It is noteworthy that Fr. Schall uses the word evil in this essay as Roberto De Mattei did in his article two days ago about the seeming 'absence' of the pope in a world where evil in many forms is probably more manifest today, or at least as pervasive as it was, than in the heyday of Nazism and then, of Communism in its turn.
This pope is obviously very much 'present' and continually heard from when it comes to his major secular concerns (climate change, poverty, hunger, war), but if not absent, then at the very least, willfully oblivious to present realities that he chooses not to acknowledge as fact, such as Islamist extremism manifesting itself as worldwide terrorism, or the very real concerns of orthodox Catholics whom the church of Bergoglio, acting in the guise of the one true Church of Christ, has driven underground, to use Fr. Schall's term.
Yet this Catholic underground is not so resourceless today as it might otherwise have been before the Internet became worldwide reality, because for now, at least - despite the increasingly shameless 'controls' sought to be imposed by the Internet powers on sites and users who do not measure up to their politically correct standards - we do have the Internet which is far more convenient than having to resort to Soviet-style samizdat to spread the word.
I suppose even if the Internet powers manage to muzzle non-PC users on the social media sites, one does not really need a social media site to make one's views known and propagated on the web. Hey, if ISIS and all their unholy allies can manage to use the web as they wish, without recourse to social media, we should all be able to.
A few days earlier, Fr. Schall posted his commentary on the pope's most recent 'nightmare at 30,000 feet' news conference. In Benedict XVI's pontificate, Fr. Schall had the most sustained, regular, insightful and always-fruitful analyses-commentaries bar none on the Pope's major texts, documents and homilies
In this pontificate, he has no comparable material to work with, but he has nonetheless been 'compelled', one might say, to react to the seemingly inexhaustible Bergoglian logorrhea which inevitably devolves into many statements without sane rhyme or reason, except whatever it may have in JMB's unique mind.
Some thoughts on the Pope's
remarks returning from Krakow
by James Schall, SJ
August 13, 2016
“It’s like a fruit salad, there’s a little bit of everything; there are violent people in these religions. One thing is true; I believe that in almost all religions there always a small fundamentalist group.”
— Pope Francis, Interview
Return from Krakow, July 31, 2016
(L’Osservatore Romano, English, August 5, 2016)
I.
My print copy of the Holy Father’s comments on his return from World Youth Day in Poland arrived on August 8, the Feast of St. Dominic.
On the front page of this issue is a headline that reads “A Jesuit among the Friars”. It recounts that on August 4, Pope Francis met with the General Chapter of the Dominican Fathers, then in the afternoon flew to Assisi to meet with Franciscans. The print that goes with the account is from Benozzo Gozzoli (1452), a famous painting of the meeting of St. Francis and St. Dominic.
No Jesuit was present yet at this initial meeting between the two friars. It was not only because Jesuits are not friars. It is just that they had not yet been dreamed up by St. Ignatius at the time.
It is always a delight [for Jesuits] to be with Dominicans and Franciscans. At their too infrequent meetings, all three go home thanking God for his particular vocation. This is what the “common good” is about.
The return flight interview from Poland followed the usual pattern that popes have now accustomed us to in such occasions. The Pope invites questions and reflects leisurely on the experience of the visit.
The Pope, on this return trip, first thanked Fr. Fedrico Lombardi for his long service as Press Secretary. This would be his last official trip. The Pope also thanked a certain Mauro who was likewise retiring. He had worked for 37 years as handler of the baggage on these trips—no doubt a major logistics problem. The Pope even promised then a cake later on.
The first question the Pope was asked came from a Polish reporter. It was one of those “How did you like the Poles?” questions. Francis liked them just fine. He recalled that his father worked with some Polish people in Argentina. “They were good people.”
The next question, also from a Pole, wanted to know how the Pope prepared for a visit with young people. “I enjoy talking with young people.” They do sometimes say “ridiculous things” but so do old folks like himself and those not so old.
“We need to listen to them, to speak with them, because we learn from them and they need to learn from us.” Evidently, history is made this way. Whether an older generation has anything in particular to pass down that the young do not already know — the old issue of wisdom - was a question not broached. Francis does not seem to be bothered by the concern of Plato about teachers and fathers who have nothing to teach their sons so they end up imitating them.
An Italian reporter wanted to know what the Pope thought of ominous events in Turkey. “We would like to ask you: why have you not intervened yourself, why haven’t you spoken about this? Are you afraid that there would be repressions on the Christian minorities in Turkey?”
Pope Francis handled this delicate question gingerly. The Pope said that he did speak frankly of Turkey on occasion. He was not sure what was going on in Turkey at present. He was studying the matter. “It is true that we always want to avoid harm to the Catholic communities…but not at the price of truth. Prudence is an issue.
“When I have had something to say about Turkey, I have said it.” In Armenia, the Pope did talk of the Turkish slaughter of over a million Armenians around the end of the Great War [
which was a century ago].
II.
An American journalist asked about accusations against Cardinal Pell in Australia. Francis replied that these reports have been “confusing”. The “Who am I to judge?” theme comes out this way: “We cannot judge until the justice system passes judgement.”
Francis did not want to pass judgement on the Cardinal Pell case “prematurely”. Doubt exists. The law “favors the accused”. We have to wait for the justice system to do its job and not pass judgement in the media, because this is not helpful.” Francis does not like “justice by gossip”.
Francis’s final comment on the topic is this:
“See what the justice system decides. Once it has spoken, then I will speak.” It is a relief to know that the Holy Father will make some judgements. In this interview, at least, there is no indication one way or another about whether the Pope thinks good Cardinal Pell is innocent or not. This is itself, I presume, a judgement of prudence.
Evidently, we will find out what the Pope really thinks only after the court decision in Australia. If the court judges him guilty, the Pope surely will have to make a judgement about whether it was right or not.
[The pope's statements about Cardinal Pell here were to me the most troubling of what he said after the nonsense about Islam and terrorism. And I am surprised few commentators made much of it. Hedging himself with an excess of prudence was so different from how he promptly exculpated Mons. Ricci despite the official evidence of his flagrantly public homosexual life before he was recalled from his diplomatic posting in Latin America, and a similar Bergoglian exculpation without Vatican investigation of charges against the Chilean bishop Mons. Barros who has been accused not just of complicity but even of possible participation in the sexual crimes of his mentor Fr. Karadima.
Considering that he chose Cardinal Pell to be in his Crown Council of Cardinals and then named him to head the Vatican Secretariat for the Economy, could he not at least have said, "Cardinal Pell is an upright man, and the allegations brought against him have been investigated more than once in the past several years. I trust the new investigation will not have a different result". As it is, JMB's remarks were the equivalent of throwing Cardinal Pell under the bus and then walking away to let him fend for himself.]
A Latin American journalist asked the Pope first about his fall at a liturgical service and about Venezuela. Of the fall, he said he was lucky and landed all right and is doing fine.
[But there is that little white lie he told about falling because he was looking at the image of the Madonna, when the pictures clearly show he was facing the side of the altar when he fell.]
Venezuela, however, is a delicate question. Many think that the Pope has been too cozy with dictators like the Castro brothers, the man in Bolivia, and other similar rather shady political figures. His relation to Peron and other Argentine rulers is often discussed, even if he has a good record against some of them.
Pope Francis had received a request for an audience from Venezuelan President Maduro, but it had to be cancelled due to the President’s earache. Some talk of the Vatican mediating the situation in Venezuela was heard.
The Pope is rather reticent here: “There is presently some thought…but I am not sure, and I cannot confirm this. I am not sure whether someone in the group of mediators…or perhaps also from the governments— but I am not sure — wants representatives from the Holy See.”
III.
The final major question that received much world-wide attention was what the Pope said about Islam. In the Interview on the trip to Krakow, the Pope had made these widely cited remarks, which are not exactly out of von Clausewitz, Machiavelli, or even Aquinas “on war”:
“When I speak of war, I speak of real war, not of a war of religions.” In the Pope’s view, “war is for interests” or “for money”, the “resources of nature”, or “for the domination of peoples”. Violence and conflict cannot be framed as religious issues. “All Religions want peace, while ‘others want war.’” (L’Osservatore Romano, English, July 29, 2016).
Evidently, war can be caused by anything but religion. This unusual view seems to be an a priori position, not one based on experience. If it is a war, it cannot be caused by religion. Therefore, something else is the cause. Thus, one might conclude that the famous “Wars of Religion” (1562-98) were improperly named. The spread of Islam by the sword was not caused by religion.
While the Pope was in Krakow, the murder of Fr. Jacques Hamel at Mass took place in France. The Pope is asked by a reporter why he refuses to use the word “Islamic” but only the abstract “terrorists” when speaking of these frequent incidents of killings in Europe.
Francis explains that
he does not speak of “Islamic violence” because he reads in the newspaper in Italy that a man, a “baptized Catholic”, has killed his girlfriend. The reasoning goes like this: “If I spoke about Islamic violence, I would have to speak of Catholic violence.” In the Pope’s mind, there is equivalence between cutting the throat of a Priest at Mass and the killing of a girlfriend.
“Not all Muslims are violent, not all Catholics are violent.” It is all “like a fruit salad”. There are violent people in all religions. Of course, some fundamental difference exists between the Muslim who kills others because he is carrying out his religion’s commands and the “baptized Catholic” who kills his girlfriend in spite of what the Commandment teaches.
What then is the problem?
“I believe that, in almost all religions, there is always a small fundamentalist group.” Fundamentalisms somehow gets “to the point of killing.”
At this point, the Pope seems distracted. “One can kill with the tongue.” He cites St. James. We can “kill” not just with a “knife.” This is an analogy wherein the verb “to kill” does not mean exactly the same thing.
Evidently, we now have also equivalence between killing with a knife and killing with the tongue. I am not sure just what this does to the Fifth Commandment.
“Bless me Father for I have killed a man with my tongue,” would be a bit misleading. It is an unusual way to speak of “killing” in this context. Slander and calumny have long been considered serious sins in their own right. They are not really murders, however much damage to reputations they may do.
The Pope then returned to the spirit of the remarks that he made on the way to Krakow.
“ I believe that it is not right to identify Islam with violence. It is not right and it is not true.”
If we recall the Regensburg Address, it was precisely this accusation that the Emperor made. Islam was a source of violence as its Holy Book specifically taught.
Pope Francis recalls a long talk with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar. He told the Pope that Islam was “looking for peace, for encounter”.
Of course, in the normal understanding of a Muslim, peace arrives only after everyone else is legally and morally submissive to Allah. Before that event, everyone outside of Islam is in a state of war against it. In some African nations, the Pope tells us that Muslims and Christians get along. But on a world scale, this is unusual.
The problem is, Pope Francis tells us, the “little fundamentalist groups”. But it is not just them. It is like killing with the tongue. Young Europeans are left without ideals or jobs. As a result they turn to drugs and alcohol, and, as a result, they “enlist in these fundamentalist groups.”
Finally,
Francis does admit that ISIS (i.e., the “so-called” ISIS, a small group) “acknowledges itself to be violent.” They do slit the throats of Egyptians (whom he does not identify as as Coptic Christians) on the Libyan coast.” What about it? Not to worry. “This is a little fundamentalist group called ISIS.” This small group does seem to have a world-wide reach.
One might say, I suppose, that the Twelve Apostles, the College of Cardinals, the San Francisco 49ers, or the House of Commons can be described as a “little fundamentalist group”.
In any case, so says the pope:
“You cannot say — I believe it is false and unjust — that Islam is terrorist. Terrorism is everywhere. Think of tribal terrorism in some African countries.” The Sudan or Nigeria are not mentioned.
[Again, Bergoglio's fallacious comparisons. Tribal 'terrorism' - in the name of generational inter-tribal enmities - cannot and should not be equated with the global terrorism perpetrated by Islamist extremists going under whatever name (ISIL, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Haram, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, what-have you)against all non-Muslims as targets, never mind if in the process, some of their fellow Muslims are also killed. All in the name of establishing the religious and therefore social and political domination of Islam.]
The first [Bergoglian] principle seems to be that religion can have nothing to do with terrorism unless taken up by a few fanatics recruited because of drugs, alcohol, and lack of jobs.
The explanation of war, fundamentalism, and terrorism continues:
“Terrorism - I do not know if I should say it because it is a bit risky — increases whenever there is no other option, when the global economy is centered on the god of money and not on the human person.” So in the end, it all comes back to economics. Religion has nothing to do with it. It does not evidently get at the heart of things.
“This is already a first form of terrorism. You drive out the marvel of creation, man and woman, and you put money in their place. This is the basic act of terrorism against all humanity. We should think about it.” Whew!
With such reflections, Pope Francis does give us “something to think about.” It is, to be sure, “risky” business. At least some of the things worth thinking about are these:
- Is there no recorded history of terrorism caused by Islamic expansion since the sixth century?
(See Mike Konrad, The American Thinker, May 31, 2014).
- Is nothing said in the Qur’an suggesting that violence is approved by Allah?
- Is a crime of passion that violates a fundamental teaching of one’s religion equivalent to an act of violence in the name of one’s religion?
- Is it true that “fundamentalism”, whatever it is, is the cause of the danger?
- Are all wars solely caused by “interests”, “money”, “desire for natural resource”, and “expansion”?
- Is terrorism really caused by the world economy? Are the actual terrorists poor? Do they say they are motivated by economic motives?
It is, indeed, well to think of these things. Indeed, it is probably more “risky” not to think about them.
WHEW, indeed! Besides preaching that, because God is infinitely merciful, sin is not always sin, persons living in chronic sin may actually be in a 'state of grace', not to worry because everyone will go to heaven (even our pets) and there is no hell, we also have our beloved pope exonerating Islamists of their grave crimes against humanity!
It's stretching it, but if I were to pursue my analogy of Bergoglio and Neville Chamberlain - who famously proclaimed "Peace in our time" because Hitler had assured him (just a few months before Germany invaded Poland and began the Second World War) that Germany had no military intentions at all (even if in his case, JMB's interlocutor was 'merely' the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar) - then JMB would have ended up justifying the Holocaust somehow with an economic motivation (because the European Jews were money-hungry and gave everyone a reason to hate them).
I've not been reading the Bergoglidolatrous media and commentators at all, but has any of them dared commend and exalt JMB for all the inanities that Fr. Schall has underscored? (without, of course, calling them inanities outright).
Does JMB realize how much he has diminished and continues to diminish the papacy by exposing himself so willingly - and it seems, proudly - on all these occasions of relentless logorrhea? In a single month alone, he manages to incur more legitimate criticisms of his unbridled statements than those made against all the modern popes before him since the mid-19th century. Surely, that's not a record he wants, but he has it!
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 17/08/2016 06:51]