April 2001 Print

Fr. Christopher Brandler

"In the dress is a pocket. In the pocket is a card-case. In the card-case is a note. And here is the very note." He [Inspector Lestrade] slapped it down upon the table in front of him [Sherlock Holmes]. "Listen to this: 'You will see me when all is ready. Come at once. F.H.M.' Now my theory all along has been that Lady St. Simon was decoyed away by Flora Millar....Here, signed with her initials, is the very note which was no doubt quietly slipped into her hand at the door and which lured her within their reach."

"Very good, Lestrade," said Holmes, laughing. "You really are very fine indeed. Let me see it." He took up the paper in a listless way, but his attention instantly became riveted, and he gave a little cry of satisfaction. "This is indeed important," said he....

Lestrade rose in his triumph and bent his head to look. "Why," he shrieked, "you're looking at the wrong side!"

"On the contrary, this is the right side."

"The right side? You're mad! Here is the note written in pencil over here."

"And over here is what appears to be the fragment of a hotel bill, which interests me deeply."

"There's nothing in it..." said Lestrade....

"Very likely not. It is most important, all the same. As to the note, it is important also, or at least the initials are, so I congratulate you again." (From The Adventure of the Noble Bachelor.)

 

Early this year, while rummaging among papers on my office desk, I unearthed a newspaper clipping, an advertisement, which was cut off at the edges. The remaining parts read: "Now showing...Subway...Unique experience: shopping, movies, dining..." Vaguely conscious that I was reading the wrong side, I quickly flipped it over and found a letter to the editor, entitled "The Catholic Flock." Here is the letter:

Perhaps the comment that "American Catholicism in many parishes has gradually drifted to a humanistic social justice organization" reflects what Jesus really had in mind for his followers.

In the New Testament Jesus is reported as saying quite a bit about loving one's neighbor as oneself, about feeding the hungry, about justice, kindness, forgiveness, etc., and he supported his words with what he did. Nowhere is Jesus reported to say (not that these issues are unimportant for my fellow Catholic Christians), "Blessed are those who follow all the dictates from Rome; those who attend Mass on all Sundays and holydays of obligation; those who do not practice artificial birth control; those who do not engage in homosexual activity, etc." He invited everyone to eat at his table, not only those faithful followers who were in the state of sanctifying grace.

There obviously is enough beauty, goodness, and validity in the Catholic Church to attract new members. At the same time, there is an unwillingness in its present leadership to hear, see, acknowledge, and come to terms with what it takes to tend to that flock properly and lovingly.

Upon reading the letter, I immediately recalled the above-mentioned incident from Sherlock Holmes, and wondered if I was looking at the right side. So I turned the paper over again. Then a thought occurred to me: This advertisement (with photo of skyscraper, skyline, subway headlights flashing) could have come from any newspaper. It repeats a conventional technique, claiming to be new and extraordinary, while saying nothing new or extraordinary. I turned again to the heading "The Catholic Flock," and thought along the same lines: This letter could have come from any Novus Ordo parish of the United States. The arguments all sound familiar; hence they are neither new nor extraordinary. I concluded with Sherlock Holmes: both sides are important. In this case, however, the writer of "The Catholic Flock" (whom we will call CF) has some knowledge of the Catholic Faith as it was preached before Vatican II, but favors the novel ideas which have become acceptable in the Church since Vatican II. Therefore, CF gives us a chance to retrace the history of the post-Vatican II church line by line.

First, CF admits that the Church has "gradually drifted to a humanistic social justice organization." This admission naturally raises a question: What was the nature of the Church before this "drifting" began? The question is momentarily suspended by CF, who suggests that the Vatican II church corresponds with "what Jesus really had in mind for his followers." Our initial reaction to this view is quite simply: If it took 2,000 years for the Church to decide what Jesus really had in mind, then that doesn't say much for Jesus Himself or for the respectability of the Church He founded, now does it? But let's try to do justice to the important question raised by CF's comments.

What was the nature of the Church before the changes began? The Church understood herself as possessing the mission to lead all souls to eternal salvation through her teaching, morality, and worship. The Church was often caricatured as "too concerned with marginal questions of doctrine and personal piety, and indifferent to the world's social problems, such as poverty and starvation." This caricature flies in the face of thousands of priests, members of religious orders, and lay Catholics all over the world, who founded a myriad of schools, orphanages, homes for the aged, hospitals, relief agencies, etc. But the secularization of society and institutions pushed these efforts out into the cold. Bishop Sheen said:

Curious, indeed, it is that the very ones who a decade ago [Sheen was writing in 1946] did their utmost to exile the Church from exerting her influence in education and the social life are today the very ones who denounce the Church for not doing more to save the world from which it is exiled. The world drives the Church out of the house and then complains that the Church has not kept the house in order. (Characters of the Passion, p. 34.)

Jesus said: "Seek first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you" (Mt. 6:34). In other words, first make your peace with God. Believe the truths of the faith. Act on them by practicing the commandments. Worship God as He desires to be worshiped (Mass and Sacraments). There is no true social justice unless we begin by striving for individual justice (avoiding sin, remaining in "the state of sanctifying grace"—CF uses the expression). The Church's service to people's material needs is nothing in comparison to her spiritual nurturing and direction given to countless souls, the beauty and consolation of her worship, the inspiration of her teaching and morality. Without this spiritual dimension, people would find no meaning in their lives. They would never be content, no matter how much food they had in their stomachs, or how comfortable their "standard of living" might be.

Archbishop Lefebvre (missionary in Africa for decades) warned against the man-centered spirit which reduces the Church to a "humanistic social justice organization." This novel missionary orientation can be expressed as follows:

No, do not preach Jesus Christ right away to these poor natives who above all are dying of hunger! First give them something to eat, then tools, next teach them to work, instruct them in the alphabet, in hygiene...and contraception, why not? But do not speak to them of God: their stomachs are empty!

The Archbishop's answer is simple, yet profound, as always:

It is precisely because they are poor and deprived of the goods of the earth that they are extraordinarily open to the Kingdom of Heaven, to "seek first the kingdom of heaven," [open] to the Good Lord, who loves them and has suffered for them, so that they can take part, by their miseries, in His redeeming sufferings. If on the contrary you pretend to place yourself onto their level, you will only wind up making them cry out about injustice and inflaming hatred in them. But if you bring God to them, you lift them up, you raise them, you genuinely enrich them. (They Have Uncrowned Him, p. 113.)

Thus it is clear that "what Jesus really had in mind" for His priests was to care primarily for the spiritual needs of the faithful, which they continue today by preaching the 2,000-year-old Tradition, hearing confessions, preparing them to receive the Sacraments worthily, especially First Communion and Marriage. In this way, they are truly "tending to their flocks properly and lovingly" (to use CF's words).

CF continues: "Jesus is reported as saying..." A curious way of putting it, or maybe not so curious! Contemporary biblical "studies" have paved the way for the accepted view that most Gospel texts are words attributed to Jesus, which were in reality mere elaborations upon religious experiences of the Christian community. A major benefit of this modern research is obvious on the surface: we can decide what Jesus really said, and what He never could have said. But let us not be unfair to CF. Since CF has enough sensibility for issues pertaining to his fellow Christian Catholics, let us assume that he considers the Gospels as an accurate report of what Jesus really said (even if CF is not always clear on what Jesus meant).

Jesus did say: "Thou art Peter" (Mt. 16:18). He did not institute the Papacy in order to invent new doctrines, or to pander to the shifting sands of popular opinion = anything that "flesh and blood have revealed...." Jesus went further: "Upon this rock I will build my Church." Although He didn't say "Rome" explicitly, the center of authority has always been Rome, since we know historically that Peter was martyred there, and that a whole line of his successors shed their blood there.

Jesus did say: "Pray without ceasing" (Lk. 18:1). How can we do this without attendance at Sunday Mass? And as for holy days of obligation, aren't we happy to have national holidays? Why doesn't the Catholic Church have the right to do what any country allows for?

Jesus did say: "He that shall receive a little child in my name, receiveth me" (Mt. 18:5). How can anyone say that he welcomes the children that God sends, and yet frustrates the very purpose of marriage intercourse? The related issues of abortion and divorce also come up. Are we to modify Church teaching or morality just because people want an easier life? What would you say of football referees who waived half the penalties because the players were protesting?

Jesus did say: Male and female he created them (Mt. 18:4). Evidently, Jesus wasn't the first one to say this (see Gen. 1:27). He merely recalled the nature of the relationship which was the Father's will "from the beginning." God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Bruce.

All of Our Lord's teachings were faithfully preserved, confirmed, and reinforced by the teaching of the Apostles, notably St. Paul, along with the entire New Testament. A few quotes will prove helpful.

St. Paul said: "I resisted him [Peter] to the face" (Gal. 2:11). He did this in an exceptional instance when Peter was compromising with the Judaizers. Therefore the New Testament teaches us that we are not obliged to follow blindly all dictates from Rome. Jesus founded the Catholic Church, not an Orwellian dictatorship. Catholics should follow the Pope, unless he departs blatantly from the teaching of his predecessors, e.g., when he calls interreligious prayer-meetings.

St. Paul said: "You announce the death of the Lord until He comes" (I Cor. 11:26). The celebration of the "death of the Lord" meant the sacrifice of the Mass, which would be celebrated with greater frequency after the persecutions were over. We embody and prolong the Church's praise of her heavenly Bridegroom.

St. Paul said: "Let the marriage bed be undefiled" (Heb. 13:4). One way of defiling the marriage bed is to make the partners seek the pleasure while shirking the responsibility. Actually, the first instance of artificial birth control in the Bible is the sin of Onan, who "wasted his seed on the ground...and therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing" (Gen. 38:9-10). So the New Testament is not new on that point.

St. Paul said: "Neither...the effeminate, nor liers with mankind [men lying down with men] shall possess the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:10). If men are tempted to homosexuality, the temptation is not the sin, but the consent is. If we are supposed to be "pastoral" and tell homosexuals that they cannot be expected to overcome temptations which are too much for them, and that therefore their behavior is normal, would CF care to extend this reasoning to those tempted with alcoholism, drug abuse, wife-beating, or child-molesting?

After this brief summary of New Testament teaching on the points raised by CF, let us comment on CF's further statement, that Jesus "invited everyone to eat at his table, not only those faithful followers who were in the state of sanctifying grace."

Jesus did invite everyone to eat at His table, but ONLY on certain conditions. (That's normal. You wouldn't invite someone to your table who didn't wash his hands after going to the bathroom, or who shouted abusively at the distinguished guests.)

Jesus said: "My flesh is meat indeed" (Jn. 6:56). Hence the Eucharist is not just "a beautiful symbol." Jesus insisted that His words be taken literally. Many found His teaching too hard and "walked with Him no more" (Jn. 6:67). Therefore the Eucharist is to be treated with the utmost respect.

St. Paul taught explicitly that only those followers "in the state of sanctifying grace" are worthy to receive Communion. Examine the quote: "Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" (I Cor. 11:27). The term "unworthily" is tantamount to "in the state of mortal sin."

Though we correct CF's inaccuracy, we commend him for using this traditional term "in the state of sanctifying grace." He puts himself several notches above most of today's catechisms. How many Catholics remember the Baltimore First Communion Catechism question: "What happens to those who die in mortal sin? Those who die in mortal sin are punished in the everlasting fires of hell." If priests remind the faithful of the seriousness of their lives, and of the occasions of sin to be avoided, then they are to their flock "properly and lovingly" (to use CF's expression again).

A final note on CF's reference to the beauty and truth of the Catholic Church, and to a certain "unwillingness" on the part of Church authorities to treat that beauty and truth with the reverence that it deserves. CF's statement could be applied to Pope John Paul II's "apologies" from March of last year. Let us then have CF, taken at his very best, address the Pope on his manner of making apologies:

Since "there obviously is enough beauty, goodness, and validity in the Catholic Church to attract new members," then Holy Father, what on earth did you have to apologize for?

Since, after all these apologies, "there is an unwillingness" on your part, Holy Father, "to hear, see, acknowledge, and come to terms with what it takes to tend to that flock properly and lovingly," then are you finally convinced that your "apologies" created more problems than they solved?

Since it is your duty to "tend to that flock properly," then you, Holy Father, should continue to teach that flock to observe ALL (Mt. 28:19) that Jesus Christ has commanded you for 2,000 years.

Since it is your duty to "tend to that flock lovingly," then you, Holy Father, must hear that question asked by the Master: "Simon, do you love me?" Which if you do, you will follow His injunction: "Feed my lambs...Feed my sheep" (Jn. 21:15-17).

Jesus prayed over His Apostles to His heavenly Father: "Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth" (Jn. 17:17). If, Holy Father, you preach the truth pure, whole, and untouched, then you will not be popular. But, as you like to say: "Fear not" (Mk. 6:50). St. Augustine warned about those who can't take the truth:

Why does truth call forth hatred? Why is Your servant treated as an enemy by those to whom he preaches the truth, if happiness is loved, which is simply joy in truth? Simply because truth is loved in such a way that those who love some other thing want it to be the truth, and precisely because they do not wish to be deceived, are unwilling to be convinced that they are deceived. Thus they hate the truth for the sake of that other thing which they love because they take it for the truth. They love truth when it enlightens them; they hate truth when it accuses them. Because they do not wish to be deceived and do wish to deceive, they love truth when it reveals itself, and hate it when it reveals them. (Confessions, X, 23.)

---

Rev. Fr. Christopher Brandler is a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X. He was ordained in Ridgefield, CT, in 1985. For nine years he taught philosophy and apologetics in the Society's seminaries in Ecône, Switzerland, and Zaitzkofen, Germany. Since 1996 he has been stationed in the United States, and currently preaches retreats at St. Aloysius Gonzaga Camp and Retreat Center, Los Gatos, California.