WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD, CHRISTIAN FRIEND... ENJOY YOUR STAY

I. When your not so humble host happens to get frustrated, there exists an assortment of methodologies he employs to ameliorate this debilitating psychological condition. One way is to walk up to a brick wall, cordially introduce myself to this wall, then proceed to bash my head against it seven or eight times. Another technique, which some persons might deem anomalous, if not odd, is to engage in a conversation with my household appliances. My blender - whom I have named Mr. Swirly - tends to bleat rather vociferously when the right buttons are pushed. More often than not, however, such conversations tend to be one-sided. Nonetheless, it is a helpful exercise. Indeed, my frustration over particular affairs of the day is alleviated, by degrees significant, whenever I partake in such cerebral assuagements. Alas, there still remain those situations so stupefying that none of these remedies will remit this frustration. One such irremediable event was the cancellation of The Love Boat. The comedic interplay between Gopher and Doc always had me in stitches, let alone Isaac's antics whilst tending bar. The cessation of that TV series was a personal tragedy and nothing can be done to placate my disappointment at that injustice. A comparable frustration, seemingly never to recede, relates to that diehard Myth of the Noble Savage. About this time last year I wrote an lengthy essay regarding this myth within a Canadian Catholic context. The reader may peruse it here.

II. This myth is reintroduced because a recently issued report[1] indicates the CCCB has uploaded a new page at its website, on Canada's Aboriginal peoples.[2] So yours truly hopped on over to the Star Chamber's virtual headquarters and commenced an assessment. The web page provides a synopsis of the Church in the New World, with commentary on missions and some saints involved therewith. There is an image of what appears to be pagan tapestry and a photograph (copyright Osservatore Romano) showing the Holy Father greeting an Indian chief, with the ubiquitous Archbishop Weisgerber grinning in the background. That Sparkles, what a guy. The web article concludes with some "Contemporary Reflections" on... ummm, frustration is now setting in so let's put on the brakes for a few moments...

III. Before diving in, at this point it should be underscored that there exists a clear-cut reason why the boys devoted a new web page to Canada's "First Nations" people - a label, one speculates, that would have displeased John A., especially if liquored up, but that's another story. It's plausible the hipsters down Ottawa way took a cue from the recent romanticization of the Mi'kmaq on the East Coast, as profiled in the now defunct Atlantic Catholic.[3] Shazam! See the pagan berserker front cover here. Reportedly, however, the page was launched to coincide with the feast day of St. Marguerite Bourgeoys, Canada's first female saint. But more likely than not, statistically speaking I mean, the web page production looks to be another dissimulation. That is, a knee-jerk reaction to the controversy, starting last November, surrounding reports of execrable living conditions suffered by the Cree at Attawapiskat in northern Ontario. The story made national headlines[4] and its propped importance will fade out when the next hot news item peaks the "national interest". Such destitute existences for Indians in Canada as a whole have been known for decades. So why this issue suddenly gained momentum probably means that certain individuals with (cough) self-congratulatory propensities are currently in need of informing everyone about their humanitarianism. Watch OWN-TV to see an example of what I mean. Speaking of decades, since the 1970s Canada's bishops have conducted numerous "fact finding" tours, performed "interventions", proposed "initiatives", composed multitudinous tracts, all whining about military activity, gas pipeline incursions, industrial activity - let's just call it "progress" - affecting Indian-designated lands.[5] These documents have awkwardly grandiose titles such as Let Justice Flow Like a Mighty River, taken from Amos 5:24. To me, the title is reminiscent of some boring, mostly unwatched film directed by Robert Redford. But that's just me.

IV. Unless you've been your getting Catholic news and info from the usual unreliable sources (hello there Pete and Glen and Pedro and Jim), the behemothic transnational corporation that goes by the name of "Social Justice" has been the bane of Catholicism since Vatican II. Basically meaning, corporal works of mercy have overtaken, effectively annulled, spiritual works of mercy. Factor in the nullification of Catholic morality as well. The exemplar of this Marxist corporatism in Canada is an organization called Development and Peace, managed by Nu-Church fossils, thoroughly cosseted by the CCCB - itself abetted (let's not forget) by Mr. Roarke and his team of trusty Tatoo's at the Salt and Light Media Foundation. Smiles, everyone. So what we are witnessing with respect to this latest cause célèbre, e.g. Attawapiskat, is feigned "care" within the framework of "social justice", emotionally driven and, as with any emotion, its duration will be ephemeral. Accordingly, like the MSM, certain individuals populating the offices at 2500 Don Reid Drive are jumping on the Bandwagon of Concern, drafted up another bogus, never-to-be-seriously-considered document (or web page in this case), saying the right words just to show the right people that it really does "care" about the circumstance of Canada's Aboriginals. An easy cause to advocate, void of risk, retaliation or criticism from the secular intelligentsia, from whom CCCB apparatchiks always hope to get an approving wink. Thusly, we read stuff like this from an editorial in the Catholic Register relating to Attawapiskat:

Archbishop James Weisgerber of Winnipeg ranks as the most important issue facing Canadian society today - forging a new relationship between the First Nations, Metis and Inuit people and the rest of Canada.[6]

The "most important issue facing Canadian society", eh? Over and above abortion? A bishop made that statement? That's just super duper. Well, at least he didn't mention his enthusiastic support for the D+P campaign against bottled water. "Forging a new relationship"? What does that mean precisely? And, hey, did you notice? CR referenced +Weisgerber in an editorial piece nearly concurrent with the date release of the new CCCB page that - Heavens to Murgatroyd! - embeds a photo of said bishop. That Sparkles, what a guy.

V. Another issue to which the CCCB machine has complained involved past government defunding of Aboriginal programs. The underlying assumption for this grievance, implicit to the Fabianist outlook, is that, by simply funnelling more and more money into a problem (i.e. "forging a new relationship" again and again), this problem will actually, eventually get solved. The CR editorial evidently takes this stance too:

Canada would benefit from a well-funded plan to attack child and maternal health on native reserves... the Harper government should attack native health care with the same gusto it brought to its overseas initiative. For aboriginal women, that means access to professional prenatal services and ongoing medical care and parenting support well after pregnancy. For children, it means building healthy environments that provide clean water, proper nutrition, warm clothes and mould-free housing that comes with heat, electricity and plumbing... First Nation, Metis and Inuit children have a right to a proper education, the key to sustaining a comfortable living standard.[7]

Now at this juncture I slap my forehead and then wonder what Captain Stubing would think. Even the somewhat oblivious mariner possessed the mental acuity to respond with these questions: For how many decades has such funding been effectuated? How many failed programs - purportedly developed to address Native health, housing, nutrition, education, utilities access, etc. - have there been over the years? Has there been any significant improvement in the overall welfare of the native population in recent times? No, obviously. Case in point: Attawapiskat. Appalling living conditions at other reserves are yet to capture the limelight and just might do so in due course.

VI. So, then, what's going on here? Yes, there is the issue of tribal chiefs, through whatever machination, apportioning a good part of government funding to satiate whatever fancy. We also got the casinos, tax exemptions on booze, cheap cigarettes and other encouragements to vice. The Indian Act of 1876 needs to be revamped. Better that it be scrapped altogether, I say. Though this won't happen in the near future, judging by what PM Harper said at the recent summit with FN chiefs: "Our government has no grand scheme to repeal or unilaterally rewrite the Indian Act. After 136 years, that tree has deep roots. Blowing up the stump would leave a big hole".[8] Mr. Steve takes the "incrementalist" approach, which seems to be a euphemism for waiting on future poll results to determine what direction to take. Nonetheless, the aforementioned are mere symptoms of an underlying disorder. At core, the "Indian problem" and the apparent inability to resolve it comes down to policies, themselves a function of values. Values, not socio-economic welfare, should and must be of foremost concern from the Catholic perspective.

VII. So, then again, what of these policies and values? Here, let me provide you with a short course on How to Discombobulate a Catholic Careerist: Policies that promote endless funding for a bottomless pit of programs, demonstrated repeatedly to be ineffective, are rooted, in a secular sense, with the fallacious notion that Western civilization (or, specifically, Canadian society with its foundational precepts and mores since 1867) is not superior to the variegated cultures of Indian tribes (nota bene: "civilization" indicates a much wider range of awareness, activity and accomplishment than does "culture"). Cartier and Champlain came, they saw, they conquered - and good golly Miss Molly this drives liberals bonkers. Therefore, every non-Aboriginal Canuck, particularly those of West European stock, must feel guilty and undergo retroactive reprimand for national accomplishments supposedly done at the expense of the country's earliest inhabitants who, yes, happened to be primitive. The former are eternally indebted to the latter in whatever manner the Antinomian Left deems pertinent, or anything else it conjures up at those committee meetings with the free croissants and mocha lattes. In a spiritual sense - meaning views of the CCCB and its allied boomer careerists entrained within Church structures, it is based on the wicked notion that Catholicism, as a religion and attendant values, is effectively equivalent to the animistic paganism of the Cree, Huron, Iroquois, Inuit, Metis or suchlike tribes. Respect, you know. This ecumaniacal relativizing, of course, is justified often by citing an ideational monster called Multiculturalism. Policies anchored on this ideology were emplaced, indeed enforced, by Trudeau and company in the early 1970s. They are still in effect as of 2012 AD... oops, I meant 2012 CE. We don't want to offend anyone by expressly mentioning the YEAR OF OUR LORD. Ooops, again. Apologies for the capitalization. Having trouble with my keyboard.

VIII. In a sense - a very strong one, Canada is no longer a nation. Rather, the country is a mosaic of juxtaposed yet disconnected cultural units (like tribes, ironically), each possessing its own value set with whatever degree of assertiveness (i.e. power). Differences between groups are exaggerated, promoted, and the strongest rise to the top of whichever power structure. Caveat: groups with any colouring of "white", "Western", "European", "colonialist" or "imperialist" are invariably penalized, if not altogether disallowed from playing this game. For Indian reserves, then, this apartness - much more so than Quebec as a "distinct society" - is not only reflected by a wretched socio-economic situation, but also in spatial remoteness. Reserves are located in the boonies, faraway from metropolitan centres, whereat opportunity is rife. Even at the sparsely populated Nunavut town of Resolute (229 people based on the 2006 census), an Inuit hamlet exists at the outskirts of this transportation hub for research scientists. There's one for Ripley's Believe It or Not. Accordingly, in the wacky world of Multiculturalism, overemphasis on cultural differences inevitably leads to extreme inter-cultural disparities intra-nationally. Legitimate complaints against those cultural attitudes and views, Aboriginal or not, antithetical to Western sensibilities must only be discussed in muted tones at the office water cooler. If spoken aloud in the public square, be prepared to be assailed with words like fascist, bigot, racist, xenophobe, intolerant and, perhaps, to receive a visit from this intrepid CBC reporter...

Mary, darling, you look rather savage in that outfit, yet still noble in your pose. Would you agree? ...you ...you feisty little muffin.

IX. On that note, we return to the newfangled CCCB web page. What really interests me is the "Contemporary Reflections" section, the title itself being a giveaway. Enter the guilt complex syndrome, Stage Left:

Today Catholics, like other Canadians, are becoming more aware of how their relationships with Indigenous peoples have often been marked by imperialism and colonialism.

That handy canard always works in the bubble-world of liberal self-contempt. Incidentally, use of the word "marked" is code for "oppressed". The assertion here, tacitly, is that European powers were largely nefarious in their explorations of the Americas, in their establishment of settlements, in bringing advanced technologies, instituting legal systems, introducing Christianity, and so forth. I've already quoted the following remarks in previous posts. Again, it's worth reiterating Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's devastatingly demythologizing observation:

There is, of course, nothing evil and nothing extraordinary about colonialism. It is the inevitable result of a historical law according to which not only nature, but also political geography, does not tolerate a vacuum. Where no effective resistance can be expected, other powers, other nations, other tribes will occupy, dominate, and administer an area. Our history could not be imagined without the forces of colonialism constantly at work.[9]

Now, obviously, such impeccable logic and factuality doesn't even cross the minds of those hardcore believers in the historical revisionism found in textbooks churned out by the academe over the last 40+ years, if not garnered from viewing History Channel documentaries (you know, that channel that broadcasts Ancient Aliens marathons). That is the meaning of "becoming more aware". So much does the CCCB believe colonialism a spectre to be exorcized, so much is it shameful of the past, so much does it want acquiescence with non-Catholic faith systems, so much does it desire to prostrate itself before the secular media, so much does it need to dilute, if not omit, the exceptional and supremely beneficial achievements of Catholicism in Canada (pre-V2), that we find this commentary:

There were always those missionaries who established relationships with Native Peoples that were marked by profound respect and mutuality as well as dedicated service. While some of their actions may be criticized today in the light of new understandings, they were first and foremost men and women of the Gospel who, within their human limitations, tried to act with love and compassion... However, it must be acknowledged that the missionary endeavour was deeply marked by the prevailing attitudes of the superiority of European culture. When this conviction was translated into social action in the 19th Century, it manifested itself in a paternalistic model of charity which at times expressed itself as protection of Native rights and freedoms and at other times took the form of coercion and control. [TH2 emphasis]

At first glance this seems a balancing act to come across as moderate in viewpoint, affirming good aspects, decrying those not so good - which is why some text is bolded, to emphasize the duplicity involved.

X. What is amazing - more so than Bill Shatner's toupee - is the nonchalant manner by which "actions" of missionaries are inferred as disgraceful based on the "light of new understandings". The reader will notice that no specific action or missionary is given as an example to bolster this claim, and "new understandings" is deliberately phrased vaguely because the wheeler-dealers on the banks of the St. Lawrence don't want to be too explicit in what they really mean by the term, i.e. Modernism. You see, missionaries "tried to act with love and compassion" and erroneously exercised a "paternalistic model of charity". Oh goodie, according to the CCCB, paternalistic charity - occurrent and successful for two millennia in exotic lands like, say, the Indian subcontinent, the African subtropics and (let me check my atlas...) the Northern Hemisphere - is substandard and, presently, outdated. This is news to me. Apparently, I've forgotten to turn on, tune in and drop out because such has been the case since the Summer of 69. Charity is now expected to be principally maternal in its implementation, or at least that's implied. It certainly sounds like feelings and feminization now rule the day. Does this mean all Indian reserves have the right to a free supply of Dove's Body Wash for Men? Anyhow, why must the apologetic disposition be incessant and the exclusive domain of Catholics? As if the relatively insignificant sins of a few are unforgiveable and, by implication, yield a rationale for downgrading Catholicism as such to the lowest plane of primal paganism.

XI. Yes, abuses occurred because of "human limitations", which methinks also applies to past Aboriginal "actions": slavery, incidents of cannibalism, inter-tribal warfare, the horrific killing of St. Jean de Brébeuf and so forth. Now that's "coercion and control" par excellence. Moreover, let's not forget those "actions" whereof the natural environment was, as the kidz say, disrespected. If your worldview is informed by the disinformation disseminated by CBC Grand Inquisitor David Suzuki, you'd think that indigenous peoples cherished nature, were "one" with it, conscientious of its value when exploiting it for whatever purpose. Thus rambles Dave:

For many hunter-gather groups, protecting the spirits of the animals they kill is a sacred responsibility. Performing proper rituals, killing no more than they need and wasting no part of their prey are all ways in which they express gratitude and acknowledge their dependence on these animals.[10]

Fascinating, that. Although, if we bypass Dave's tree-humping claptrap and dig into the historical record we discover delectable tidbits like this...

That was the tactic by which the Blackfoot hunted bison. Whole herds, numbering in the hundreds, would be rounded up, frightened, then channelled to run off cliffs for an quick and easy kill. Did somebody say extinction? Brilliant method, I say. Yet one wonders how PETA would react? Wonder what the reaction would be if Maple Leaf Foods, inspired by that WKRP in Cincinnati episode, decided that a more cost-effective way of ending the lives of chickens would be to drop them en masse over Downsview Park from a squadron of Sikorsky helicopters? Or how about "broadcast burning"? Fires were purposely lit to clear land, making animals better detectible during the hunt. These fires covered thousands of hectares and frequently grew uncontrollable, into conflagrations. Bambi doth protest - and not too much, methinks. Though don't bother mentioning these facts during the First Nations session at the next Plenary Assembly in Cornwall - you'll get banned, just like LifeSite News. Omission is my name and pretense is the game!

XII. You know, there is confabulation and then there is transcendental confabulation. Rose, on the Golden Girls, was very good at the latter, the best I've heretofore witnessed. While casually chatting, she would say utterly preposterous things with a demeanour of utmost seriousness. However, it appears Rose has finally met her match: "it must be acknowledged that the missionary endeavour was deeply marked by the prevailing attitudes of the superiority of European culture". Hmmmm... the person who wrote that line in all likelihood did it with a straight face... while typing on a 40 Gigabyte hard drive computer with SurroundSound stereo speakers and wireless router access to the internet which, if I remember correctly, contains nearly every available idea or information bit cognized by more or less every human being since, roughly, 10000 BC. Forsooth, Al Gore didn't invent the internet and, based my knowledge of the archaeological record, neither did the Mohawks or Ojibway or, for that matter, the always-hilarious Rose Nyland. From Gander to Vancouver Island, I've heard no reports of excavations discovering prototypes of a telecommunication cable with packet switching capabilities, no remnants of what might be considered to be a steam engine or the Clapper, no scrolls with mathematical-like notations or symbology prefiguring asymptotic expansions of Bessel functions, no wood or stone inscriptions outlining polities analogous to Plato's Republic. Well, enough of that. The easily refutable falsehood that European civilization isn't a superior one is dealt with in the aforelinked essay, linked again here.

XIII. Still, a minor point on the superiority question in the context of technology. Take, for instance, a rifle versus a crossbow. Both are weapons, the former wielded by Europeans, the latter by Natives. In the affair of conflict, both are used to kill another human being, be it justly in a formally declared war or, as anti-colonialists like to overstate as regards the treatment of Native peoples, unjustly in the form of whatever criminal/malicious deed. The proficiency by which the Europeans killed was considerably greater than that of Natives (i.e. with the superior technology of rifles more persons could be killed within lesser time and spatial scales, just as a Vulcan chain gun supersedes a .22 calibre rifle). The Blackfoot brandished a bow and Europeans buckshot. Yet this does not intimate that a proficient Western killer is less noble than an Aboriginal killer. To kill is to kill, and its prohibition is based on principle, not the effectiveness of the action. If someone transgresses a law, be it criminal or other, does this mean the law as such is at fault? Therefore, the freely chosen act of killing must be distinguished from weapons used to commit such an act. Technology, regardless of advancement level, is not evil. It is the manner by which it is used that is evil. That is, human behaviour not living up to a standard. One other thing: tribal denizens of the New World didn't necessarily need "European invaders" (as Dave says[11]) to trigger their demise. The archaeological record evidences that this could be done by themselves, or that societal decline was actuated by other factors, like environmental change coupled with the inability for adaptation. Example: the disappearance Mayans occurred circa 900 AD, well before the arrival of Cortés et allia, even a century prior to when the Vikings ventured along the Newfoundland coast.

XIV. Considering all of the above, what we have in the new CCCB web page on Canada's indigenous people, as with most of its related issuances since the 1970s, is an act of subservience to the god of Political Correctness. My opinion otherwise might have been less harsh had another subject therein been broached (see concluding paragraph). Cannot help but think that the exercise is one of those countless occasions when Whitey apologizes to Crowfoot for all the subjugation and, to make up for it, we're going to talk nicely about you and "celebrate" your ways and rituals, overlook your past faults, because in reality we Catholics deserve all the blame for all your travails. We won't propose our religion as a viable, real and truthful alternative, as we are quite ashamed of it and its past. Instead, we submit unto you, accept your worldview as entirely authentic, and want to learn from your spirituality. To boot, we will passionately petition for, and endorse, constant funding for your material well-being from any monetary source or agency because, well, you always were, are and will forever be a victim. You are therefore entitled. Correlatively, we find this verbosity in Let Justice Flow Like a Mighty River:

What was lost, or nearly so, was the free expression and celebration of the spirituality of the first Peoples of this land. This weakening of the spirit of the Native Peoples was the most profound loss at the heart of the more obvious losses of Native culture and land... it has also been a lost opportunity of enrichment for this country and our Church... we are profoundly in need of learning the values from the wise spirituality of the original Peoples.[12]

...and with these melodramatics the CCCB instills within itself a cozy but false sense of virtue, only affectively elevating itself above everyone else of non-Aboriginal origin. In actuality, this mush only encourages envy on the part of Aboriginals, augmenting the differences between "us and them". You have to wonder: Does the CCCB really want the First Nations to be self-sufficient and happy? If such a situation came to be, it would then be unable to nationally showcase its "concern" for the Aboriginal sector of Canada's downtrodden population. It would then have to move onto (and does so routinely) the next subject of "concern" (mainly secular in aspect) found on that endless roster of causes coming under the banner of "Social Justice" (reports are now out that the boys are preparing a new document on "climate change"). What the Star Chamber does is to romanticize the proverbial gutter - by focussing solely on corporal works of mercy and superelevating Aboriginal paganism, it effectively keeps the very people it allegedly wants to help in this gutter. When a class of people are perpetually told that they are victimized by colonialist/imperialist forces enlivened by a "falsely" proclaimed European-Christian superiority, the real message relayed to these people is that they have not the ability, the potential or even any hope of escaping from this so-called state of oppression. Entitlement is the only option. No value incentive for betterment, not even one inspirited by 2000 years of Catholic tradition, is offered except for surreal animistic-inspired platitudes and solaces issuing downward from the "Spirit of the Sky" - and therefore we come to the crux of this pathetic dilemma.

XV. Readers unfamiliar with this blog might, after reaching this point in the post, consider its host to be abrasive and mean-spirited. No objection. Though these bloggeristics don't translate into an opinion that rejects any and all aid to Canada's indigenous peoples. To the contrary. The nitty gritty of running programs or subsidizing funds for the material benefit of a people who have suffered greatly belongs in the secular sphere. The government plays a singular role. As Catholics, we have a dual role. We are in the world, but not of it. Again, the immanent/transcendent collocation which, in the context of the subject addressed herein, can also be articulated as a corporal/spiritual (works of mercy) collocation. Problem is, corporal works of mercy, transmogrified into "social justice" over the last 4+ decades, have completely overtaken spiritual works of mercy. The CCCB has facilitated this process to the n'th degree. Do you think the bishops will admonish sinners during the next Plenary at Cornwall? Do you think they will initiate an all-out campaign on teaching Aboriginals the basics, beliefs and - yes - morals - of Roman Catholicism, including the Rosary, devotions and proscriptions against animistic paganism? And all this done with the ultimate intention being to - dread the word! - convert? These questions cannot be answered because the subjects are not moot. The CCCB already has submitted to the religion of the elders, euphemistically stated as being "profoundly in need of learning the values from the wise spirituality of the original Peoples". That's a no go, boys. So, rather than this kowtowing, Catholics must lift up Canada's Aboriginal peoples, not drag them down by inculcating senses of victimization and entitlement. How is this done? Jesus Christ and Our Lady first. That's where it all starts. Everything else follows. Not vice versa. Right? But, you see, there is a cadre of apostatic criminals who would be both aghast and contemptuous of such a proposal. Unfortunately, they have within their control mechanisms in place to prevent it from ever being considered as a solution.

Frustration, frustration. So, Mr. Swirly, how ya doin today?...


NOTES / REFERENCES

1. D. Gyapong, "Bishops create webpage on the Church, aboriginals", Catholic Register, January 18, 2012.

2. The Catholic Church in Canada and Indigenous Peoples, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, January 13, 2012.

3. N. Myshak, "Membertou 400 A Chance for Renewal, Says Sister of St. Martha", Atlantic Catholic, June 12, 2010, vol. VIII, no. 19, pp. 1, 6, 10.

4. See, for example, R. Lux, "Hundreds homeless in Attawapiskat", Timmins Daily Press, November 2011; O. Ross, "For Attawapiskat residents, life is a constant struggle", Toronto Star, November 29, 2011.

5. See a timeline of these documents/letters in J. Chafe, B. Dufresne, J.-C. Éthier and J. Leddy, Let Justice Flow Like a Mighty River, Brief by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (Ottawa: Concacan Incorporated, 1995), Appendix A, pp. 38-45.

6. "Make a new start with First Nations leaders", Catholic Register, January 17, 2012.

7. Ibid.

8. Quoted in K. Kirkup, "Harper says Tories won't scrap Indian Act", Toronto Sun, January 24, 2012.

9. E. von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism, From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House Publishers, 1974), p. 340.

10. D. Suzuki, The Sacred Balance, Discovering our Place in Nature (Toronto: Douglas & McIntyre, 1997), p. 50.

11. D. Suzuki, Inventing the Future, Reflections on Science, Technology and Nature (Toronto: Stoddart Publishing Company Limited, 1989), p. 234.

12. Op. cit., p. 20.

WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD, CHRISTIAN FRIEND... ENJOY YOUR STAY

MAN IN A SPHERE, GOD NOT NEAR

Stuck between gears with the current post being worked on, which I hope to upload soon. So while attempting to textually organize and collate the stream of thoughts presently racing through my brain, figured an excavation of the TH2 archives would be warranted. That is, a reissuance of part of my 48000 word apologetics essay against the notorious Canadian heretic Tom Harpur (yes, you read that number correctly). Seems like a long time ago, now. What you find below is only 4900 words, approximately :o Sorry. Another extraction for your existential edification, from that same essay, can be found here. That one contains only 1800 words or thereabouts. Anyhow, in the extraction below, yours truly does some meta-philosophisizing with respect to the "formal" rejection of the Real Presence by a certain Augustinian monk from Germany. Again, hope to have the next post up soon. In the meantime...

I. SYMBOLIC BREACH. ...Harpur is evidently oblivious to the philosophic and thus and socio-political ramifications that arose after the rejection of Transubstantiation... he is appalled with the "massive violence and bloodshed that has taken place over what began as a simple ceremony of remembrance". His observation is correct, superficial it may be... he lacks the ability to comprehend the seriousness of what is offhandedly considered. Could it not be that "massive violence and bloodshed" occurred by the very fact of the reality of Transubstantiation? That it is indeed the Real Presence of Christ in the world, and not a symbolic one? How can Christians believe in the symbolic when it asserted that the symbolic does not breach through to some real external reality...? Does not a symbol re-present? Does it not "go through" or "go across" or "go beyond" (meaning of prefix trans) to a reality? If a symbol does not go through, interconnect and latch on to some reality, how can this reality be known in an objective sense?... If the thoughts we think, or language we speak, or the symbols we write, do not correspond to "some thing" or "some other", how could some proposition be re-presented as real? Reality must be assumed, and words written must pertain to a reality distinct from the human mind. Without reference to some externality, a word becomes an empty sign and reality a raw thing; and if that sign does not represent that reality to the mind, then the human being is effectively shut out from the world, because "the thing" is exclusively derivative only from the mind. Sign and thing are made equal to each other, bungled together, and fuse into one unit so to speak. Subjectivism, both in the metaphysical and moral senses, is the consequence.

II. When it comes to theology and Transubstantiation, however, a reality beyond the immanent is taken into account. The focus in this part of this analysis is on the aftereffects of the negation of the Transubstantiation, of how the rejection of a really transcendent divine reality echoed itself in the rejection of a physical reality as such, as some-thing distinct from the mind, as we find it in modernist philosophy, including its meta-historical implications. For if the Real Presence of God is refuted at whatever time through history, if God was only yesterday, or if He is only tomorrow, or even if He is deemed to be symbolically present (without that real cross-linkage to an external spiritual reality), then just a mere perusal of the last 500+ years of history blatantly illustrates that the refutation of the Real Presence had real, spectacular effects on the course of Western civilization and the world. The Real Presence does not relate only to a "spirit", a "feeling", "a sense of…", an intuition, a thought, or a mythological symbol disconnected from reality. It also ties in with the substantial. Not a substantial God of the past. Not a substantial God to come, but a substantial God now. If objective reality is distinct from the mind, and if this view of reality ultimately originates from the Roman Catholic belief in a transcendent God Really Present, what on Earth today - NOW - re-presents that Real Presence?

III. Now let us say that a sign does not really represent some-thing, that a sign is just a sign, in and of itself, that it belongs only to the mind, that it does not interpenetrate a thing and go through to reality, that it does not intend or point to an-other really distinct from the mind. The consequence of this philosophy is explained next by analogical narrative.

IV. MAN IN A SPHERE / GOD NOT NEAR. Now assume the following scenario: say there is a man inside a completely enclosed glass sphere, with a diameter of four or five meters. Also, within this sphere, are a number of rubber balls. Further, let us suppose that the glassy sphere floats amidst a vast ocean and that the man inside can see no land whatsoever on the horizon. Though encapsulated as such, he can see the ocean surrounding him; he can hear the oceanic waves on the outside splashing against the sphere; and he can sense the sphere bobbing up and down as the waves flux and flow. Let us also say that this man appeared out of nothing inside this sphere, that he has the capacity for language, and that he is totally astonished at what his senses are now informing his mind (astonishment at self-existence and the world is the spark of philosophy). Curious, he begins to think about what it is like on the outside of the sphere. He is interested in knowing how it really is. He wants to know what is happening "out there". He sees this watery domain on the outside yet still, in strange way, feels circumscribed. There is something that limits, something that sort of blocks his view, namely the sphere. He notices the rubber balls in the sphere and begins to throw them against the curved glass walls so as they might break through his confines. Additionally, let us say that the balls represent thoughts given material ascription (vocalization, written words), that the glass sphere denotes his mind, and the ocean outside is the material world. But what happens when this man throws the rubber balls? What occurs when he thinks and materializes his thoughts with sign or voice? The balls bounce off the glass, rebounding a number of times, until eventually settling at the bottom of the sphere. Once again this man is astonished (incidentally, TH2 assumes this guy is a bit of a moron). Why does he react in this manner? The balls which materially connote his thoughts did not rupture the glass sphere and penetrate outside of it. He sees, hears and feels the ocean outside, though not with total acuity as he is limited by the sphere. The sphere mitigates the sound of the thrashing waves into pulsating drones and the glass is translucent, i.e. not absolutely clear. But this sphere also keeps the water from rushing in from the outside. Ever so gradually, then, this man begins to think that he cannot breach the sphere (his mind) nor that the ocean without (the world) can penetrate within.

V. DISCOVERY. And now frustrated after many hours, days, years, decades and centuries of futile ball throwing, this man then notices something else. He is astonished again. He concentrates on the curved wall of the sphere, brings in his face to look closely at it. He sees that, at the interface of the glass inside and the water outside, there is border, a limit, i.e. the glass itself, that which forms a distinction between the inside and outside. But what kind of distinction is it? What is its nature? The water does not flow through into the sphere and thus he initially thinks himself closed off. However, his senses are still relaying information - he sees, hears, feels, smells and tastes. Again, he notices something else: at this line of distinction, the glass and the water exists side-by-side. They are adjacently situated, juxtaposed. There is a smooth, slick and streamlined curvature that neatly separates his inner atmosphere (the mind) and the outer hydrosphere (the world).

VI. CONCATENATION. At this point that our existential sailor is beginning to think that a sign is just a sign (locked within the mind) that cannot transverse the bridge leading to extraneous reality. The sign merely concatenates reality, like a coat of paint or a thin plastic veneer on a wall. His mind and reality do not intermix. Their relation to one another is like oil and water. The implication, then, is that this man is beginning to believe that his mind itself is the world. Unfortunately, this condition will get even worse, as we shall soon discover. In effect, this man assumes that he can only talk about reality, not as it is, but as if it is. And so long as he believes that a sign is only a sign (symbolical, mythical, and so forth), the downslide continues.

VII. So what happens?

VIII. SIGNED, SEALED BUT NOT DELIVERED. This man can only take so much frustration at presuming himself unable to break through the glass sphere that is his mind. His air is now nearly depleted. The internal atmosphere is suffocating. The pressure builds, strains and stresses augment internally. He begins to ruminate in an ever-growing state of anxiety, and this time without even throwing rubber balls. Just thinking, without the material connotation of thinking via signs or speech: "A sign is only a sign", he begins. "What I see is not real, it only seems so. I am trapped here inside my sphere for all eternity. No matter how many times I throw the rubber balls against the glass, they just bounce back. This is all routine, mundane, useless. No matter what I attempt, my will in doing does not appear to be free. I am constrained. No matter how hard I think in trying to find a solution to my condition, the paradox remains. My reason must therefore have some implicit quirk. Indeed, I must be going insane. For I cannot actually know or believe what is on the outside. There must, therefore, be something in my very nature that is wrong, something irremediably corrupt. But my senses still transmit to me an 'out there'. For when I look into that expansive ocean, in whatever direction from within my glassy domain, all is blurry. And when I glance forwards into that distant horizon, I intuit something, though it is not fully perceptible. I cannot make a real distinction between the sky above and the water below. The firmament is leaden and these dreary, stormy, unstable, ever-moving waters of the North Atlantic, pointing westward to the direction of the New World, leaves me in melancholy, even despair. Yet, despite the danger involved, this must be the way. Nothing is. Everything becomes. I no longer believe in the dictum 'esse quam videri'. All that I perceive within my glassy hell fluxes and transforms and changes and evolves. Therefore, my hope and my horizon must reside 'out there' in the future. For this is what I will, and I will powerfully! But since I cannot break through by silicon encapsulation, and since there is no objective reality, I will create my own subjective world, here within, alone, in the midst and in defiance to that absolutist hydrosphere on the outside that continually menaces me. I acknowledge my own existence and have no need of extrinsic confirmation. In my sphere, not only can I say 'I am', but I can even say more awesomely that 'I am God'. That wretched external reference has only produced in me pain and suffering. For the circular shape of my sphere must be the universal sign. It gyrates and rotates endlessly, gloriously. Nothing can stop it. Nothing can shatter it. My circular sphere is a great engine and it will guide me along my way as I stream forwards, as I thrust and scream onwards, into that grey, non-specific, unnameable, yet magnetic and mysterious unknown - that unknown formed entirely of my own cognition where there are no limits. In here, I am a Titan, I am a Revolution, the master of all and in all. I am who I am... no! I am becoming!"

IX. IMPLOSION IMMANENT. Obviously, our silicon sailor is having a bit of trouble. He seems not to be exactly the happiest of fellows, and TH2 doubts very much whether one of Fr. Greeley's cornball novels would be able to allay his imploding inwardness of spirit. Our self-segregating sailor is now going mad. His thoughts, feelings and actions are growing more despicable. The conditions inside the sphere are now deoxygenated, turning abhorrent, foul. This is because the once clear glass sphere has turned opaque, then murky brown, and then, at last, absolute black. He has defecated, vomited and urinated inside his sphere. He has expectorated and yelled at the glassy barrier in unconscious defeat and in vain self-assertion. The condition inside is now organismic, earthy, pagan. The air reeks with his hate.

X. RESCUE. But then something else happens. An occurrence intervenes from the outside, though our sailor is completely oblivious to it as his vision is totally occluded. He is blind as the glass sphere, his mind, is blackened. A mighty iceberg crashes through and completely shatters the sphere - again to our man's astonishment. He falls into the water. Pieces of glass tear and rip his skin and he begins to bleed. The blood and water mix. He feels a sharp yet still blunting sting of the saltwater. He is now cognizant of his breakthrough into the reality of the stormy hydrosphere. Strangely enough, although the saltwater on his wounds make him scream with pain, it has a cleansing aspect about it. His bodily grime washes away, his reason returns, his senses are more acute. One problem, however - and once again to the sailor's astonishment: he cannot swim! Again do the despair and defeat flood his being. He cannot save himself. He is alone again. This once unconquerable and unsinkable man, this Titan, this Revolution of a creature, begins to sink. The waves around him become larger and larger, more stormy and untamed… Yet at the moment upon final descent into the abyss, he sees, to his indescribable astonishment, a Ship on the horizon. It moves confidently, suredly, truthfully. It soars across the rough ocean as if were sliding downwards on a steep plane of ice. And the Navigator of this ship stands by a tall and directly upward pointing mast, in the one direction that the sailor did not look when in his glassy prison house. And in his direction, quickly does this Ship come...

XI. J'ACCUSE. What relevance does this narrative have with the Real Presence? What is its relation to Transubstantiation? Readers with keen eyes probably noticed the religious message conveyed. Those versed in the history of philosophy hopefully saw an analogical description of the philosophical implications of Martin Luther's revolt. Whether it is acknowledged or not, the denial of God's Real Presence - which TH2 specifically takes to be the formal rejection of Transubstantiation - has had a real and lasting impact on the history of the modern world. With this formal rejection, arising from the Protestant revolt against the Roman Catholic Church... effectively, Christianity becomes more so symbolical/subjective than material/objective in aspect, more so temporal than eternal, without interconnection, via material intermediaries (i.e. Holy Communion, Pope), to an external, transcendent reality. God therefore becomes more sign than substance. God becomes an endistanced "Totally Other", completely outside the domain of human affairs, where, in the final analysis, it is held as fact that man as a rational being cannot know anything about God.

XII. POST-REFORMATION ATMOSPHERICS. It is a fallacy to attribute the shockwave to world history, actuated by the Reformation, as caused by "political factors" or "historical forces" or "economic parameters". Prior to political frameworks or economic cycles or fashions of the day, always is there a religious or philosophical view of God and the world, undergirding that belief or disbelief in God, proclaiming His immanence and/or transcendence. There is also a view of man: his will, be it free or not; his reasoning power, be it able or useless; his inner nature, be it good or decrepit. When Luther declared that the "holy sacrament is nothing else than a divine sign" and not a Real Presence, and that Thomas Aquinas "invented transubstantiation" [1]; and when, a little later on, John Calvin organized all the precepts of the Reformers into a rigid system of belief, then, upon widespread acceptation of the Reformation's chief philosophical precepts (no freewill, irremediably corrupt human nature, the ineptitude of reason), the formally declared utter externality of God provokes an immense loneliness in man. God's grace cannot cure a vile human nature but merely conceal it like paint on a wall, and there develops a primacy of will and feeling over the intellect. The belief of a real God who works and is present in the daily lives of people gradually diminishes. The spiritual atmosphere that was borne of the Reformation resembled that of a vast and leaden emptiness, a miserable and gloomy sky without reference and solace, devoid of refuge, and only infinity lied within the range of human perception. The infinity once believed to reside in the realm of transcendence (God, Heaven) is substituted with a belief in the infinity of the immanent material world - a world confined forever within the bounds of space and time. The atmosphere thus becomes heavy, negative and brutal. God's omnipotence is overemphasized. He is presumed to be iron-like and dictatorial, like some brooding shadow weighing down upon the soul. Still, God is in a way gone, "out there", cold and distant, aloof to humanity. A God not near.

XIII. VACUUM FILLING. If God's Real Presence in the world is rejected, and if a man repeatedly told that he is entirely wretched in nature, and that he possesses no capacity whatsoever to contemplate or know about God, then he will eventually shift attention from his inward self to the exterior world. He cannot for too long withhold the inward strains of immanency. The vacuum created within will then soon be filled with another type of… indeed! - a new order of understanding and knowingness. New, unexplored and uncharted vistas open up where the outside world is grasped primarily in its materiality. Immanent time, matter and space become these new vistas. The former pagan belief of an eternal, fatalistic world again emerges into the forefront. Since there is no transcendent locus to configure and keep balance between the transcendent and the immanent, so as to maintain ontological stability, or because there is no sustaining Real Presence (transcendent) in the world (immanent) that provides an uplink beyond the world as such, dualisms become unbalanced. Because the sign is confused with the thing, the mind with the world, man's cognition of the world begins to seem peculiar, strange. Things begin to blur and fuse together. Everything is seen purely and solely in its potential, as movement in futuris. When man begins to increasingly focus on the outward material after the shift from the inward mental, and since materiality is not constant (it always changes), all is presumed to become and not to be. Actuality and the "isness" of things are thrown overboard on the Ship of Becoming which sails westwards over the cold and dreary waters of the North Atlantic to the yet undiscovered New World intuitively deemed to be in the midst of that grey horizon. Recall Aquinas on the Transubstantiation: "this conversion ought not to be signified... as becoming, but as in being".[2]

XIV. ORIGINAL SIN OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY. The philosophical ramifications are obvious. Mind and reality are confused and thus begins that excursion into danger, a metaphysical version of the Fall of Man. Said Jacques Maritain (1882-1973): "This reification of ideas, the confusion of the idea with an 'instrumental sign' and an 'object quod'... is the original sin of modern philosophy".[3] Man as a being is no longer open and directed to the theocentric. No longer is he compliant, trusting in answers given from authority above. Now he is in closure, disobedient and defiant. All is anthropocentric and internalized. Man now elevates questioning (once subordinate, humbling,) from below upwards into a virtue. Not to understand, but to overcome, to negate Being. Thus Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), the quiet Luther: "Questioning is the authentic and proper and only way of appreciating what by its supreme rank holds our existence in its power... man should be understood, within the question of being, as the site which being requires in order to disclose itself. Man is the site of openness, the there".[4] "Here I stand", goes the famously concocted enunciation attributed to Luther.

XV. LUTHER'S WAKE: DESCARTES. René Descartes (1596-1650) will, under Protestant influence, dichotomize the sensible from the intelligible and thus inaugurate the "body-mind problem". While in residency in Holland, he published his famous Discourse on Method in 1637, wherein we read: "...a substance whose whole essence or nature is simply to think, and which does not require any place, or depend on any material thing, in order to exist. Accordingly this 'I' - that is, the soul by which I am what I am - is entirely distinct from the body".[5] Hence mind and body are not separable, but separated, like two juxtaposing sheets of glass in contact with each other. No interaction existed between the two, akin to the sphere narrative outlined above. Thus disappears the traditional (Scholastic Medieval) view which deemed the mind and body as two through-going yet distinct units. For Descartes, intellection is intuition, unassociated to material existents. Descartes further dissociated morality from knowledge and raised mathematics over metaphysics.

XVI. LUTHER'S WAKE: KANT. Enter the quintessential German Protestant: Immanuel Kant. From permanent home base in Königsberg, he tears away the will from the intellect, makes religion a function of the will, and (akin to Descartes) sets Newton's physics over metaphysics. All philosophy after Kant is a footnote to his contention that reality is a subjective product of the mind - a mind that has negated and shut out God's Real Presence. Eventually, and not surprisingly, Kant declared himself to be God, as given in his posthumously published work.[6]

XVII. LUTHER'S WAKE: ROUSSEAU. From Geneva, Switzerland - and by inverse reaction to this centre of fatalistic Calvinism, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1788) proclaimed that man's nature to be absolutely good. Rather, he said, civilization is corrupt. His popularization of the "General Will", including his "Lawgiver" and his famous attack on private property[7] certainly formed the prelude to twentieth century Communist totalitarianism. By removing authority, individual success and privilege as an ordering factor in society, Rousseau opened up the floodgates to egalitarianism where everything was levelled out into a social plane that refuses acknowledgement of status, ability, innovation, intelligence, industriousness, personhood, and so on - those things which differentiate one person from an-other, that would otherwise maintain some degree of order and civility. All citizens, abstractly taken, must submit to the "General Will" and anyone who challenges this notion is considered to be against "the people". The State itself, acting as patriarch and highest authority to a citizenry now regarded as children, superintends action and thought, thereafter producing a sense of alienation as personal rights and freedom are debarred. With Rousseau we see the parturition of social engineering because a licensed and unlimited State is alone figured to instil goodness for all.[8] Rousseau's ideational corpus formed the prelude to the French Revolution. Napoleon followed soon afterward.

XVIII. LUTHER'S WAKE: MARX AND HITLER. Russian Communism and German Nazism emerge in the early twentieth century. Karl Marx (1818-1883) clearly saw the implications of Luther's revolt: "For Germany's revolutionary past is theoretical, it is the Reformation… Once it was the monk's brain in which the revolution began, now it is the philosopher's".[9] A century prior, the poet Heinrich Heine (1757-1856) penned: "Praise be to Luther!... Yes, the third man will also come, who will complete what Luther began, what Lessing continued, and what the German fatherland needs so much - the third emancipator!" [10] Heine also issued a prophecy that even today makes one shudder in its accuracy. There is that the spirit of the ancient Germans "which does not fight in order to destroy or conquer but simply for the sake of fighting. Christianity… has in some degree subdued that brutal Germanic joy of battle, but it could not destroy it; and when the cross, that restraining talisman, falls to pieces, then will break forth again the ferocity of the old combatants, the insane berserker rage whereof northern poets have said and sung. The talisman is rotten, and the day will come when it will pitifully crumble to dust. The old stone gods will then arise from the forgotten ruins and wipe from their eyes the dust of a thousand years, and at last Thor with his giant hammer will leap aloft and he will shatter the gothic cathedrals. When you hear the trampling of feet and the clashing of arms, ye neighbours children, ye French, be on your guard... Smile not at my counsel, at the counsel of a dreamer, who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans and philosophers of Nature. Smile not at the phantasy of one who anticipates in the realm of reality the same revolution that has taken place in the region of the intellect. The thought precedes the deed as the lightening the thunder. German thunder is of true character, it is not very nimble, and it rumbles along slowly. But come it will, and when you hear crashing as never before has been heard in the world's history then know at last the German thunderbolt has fallen. At this commotion the eagles will drop dead from the skies and lions in the farthest wastes of Africa will bite their tails and creep into their royal lairs. There will be played in Germany a drama compared with which the French Revolution will seem but an innocent idyll".[11]

XIX. Ecstatically greeted by a large crowd on a visit to the countryside, Hitler will say this to his architect and confidant Albert Speer: "Hitherto only one German has been hailed like this: Luther".[12]


NOTES / REFERENCES

1. Luther's Works, ed. J. Pelikan (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), vol. 54, p. 12. See also vol. 35, pp. 49-73.

2. Sum. theol., iii, q. 78, art. 2c.

3. J. Maritain, Three Reformers, Luther-Descartes-Rousseau (London: Sheed and Ward, 1936), p. 77.

4. M. Heidegger, An Introduction to Metaphysics, trans. R. Manheim (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987), pp. 83, 205. Originally published in 1953.

5. From Part 4 of "Discourse on the method of rightly conducting one's reason and seeking the truth in the sciences" in The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, trans. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff and D. Murdoch (Cambridge University Press, 1984), vol. 1, p. 127.

6. I. Kant, Opus Postumum, trans. E. Förster and M. Rosen (Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 218-235.

7. The statement comes from his Discourse on Inequality: "The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine,' … how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by … crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody". Ironically, like Descartes' Discourse on Method (1637), Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality (1754) was published out of Holland. The original title, translated into English, reads: A Discourse On A Subject Proposed By The Academy Of Dijon: What Is The Origin Of Inequality Among Men, And Is It Authorised By Natural Law?

8. See discussion in P. Johnson, Intellectuals (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1990), pp. 23-26. First published in 1988.

9. K. Marx, "Towards a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right" in Karl Marx, Selected Writings, ed. D. McLellan (Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 69.

10. H. Heine, Concerning the History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany, trans. H.H. Mustard (New York: Random House, 1973), bk. I, pp. 305-358.

11. Quoted in F.J. Sheen, Philosophies at War (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1943), pp. 31-32.

12. Quoted in A. Bullock, Hitler and Stalin, Parallel Lives (New York: Vintage Books, 1993), p. 353. The direct linkage between Luther and Hitler the "Catholic" (e.g. will to power ideology, the Holocaust) is an open secret amongst scholars. Referring to Luther's work On the Jews and Their Lies (1543), the English historian Paul Johnson said it was the "first work of modern anti-Semitism, and a giant step forward on the road to the Holocaust". This is found in his A History of the Jews (New York: Harper Collins, 2001), p. 242. First published in 1987. Compare also W.M. McGovern, From Luther to Hitler: The History of Fascist-Nazi Political Philosophy (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1941); P.F. Wiener, Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor (Cranford, NJ: American Atheist Press: 1999, originally published in 1942; and W.L. Shier, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, A History of Nazi Germany (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1960), pp. 90-97.

MAN IN A SPHERE, GOD NOT NEAR

GADZOOKS, WINNIPEG! YOU'VE JUST BEEN SHAFTED

For your optical consideration:

Remind you of anything? Here's a hint:

That is correct - the newly released design of St. Gianna Beretta Molla Roman Catholic Parish in Winnipeg, Manitoba is a reproduction of Stonehenge.

I. So I'm doing my usual heresy hunt at the Prat Messenger - because we all know that its editor is a behind-the-scenes enabler of heresy - and come across an article[1] about the architectural atrocity presented at the outset. Further investigation led me to St. Gianna's parish website and then to its architect, a certain Michael Boreskie, and his website.[2] Turns out Boreskie is a co-author of Our Place of Worship,[3] published by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, "a planning guide for use in parishes throughout Canada". This is what the Adoremus Bulletin has to say about OPW:

...no bishop appears to have been directly involved in its production. Nor is the process clear by which the book came to be adopted by the Canadian bishops... The lists of bulleted items that appear on almost every page read like notes for a Powerpoint presentation. Notes and quotations running along the margins provide a grab-bag of disconnected observations, from the sweeping... to the banal... Sometimes the notes and text contradict each other... But perhaps consistency isn't important, since in the encounter with God, according to another note, "intellectual capacity, philosophy, or conscious attitudes give way to the experience of the heart... [a] theological thinness is underscored by expressions that often seem breezily careless.[4]

The biggest giveaway of OPW is the persistent ascription of the priest as mere "presider". In effect, he is equalized, indeed engulfed and swept away, by the "primacy of the assembly". Huss and Luther would have loved this line: "the presider's chair symbolizes the office of presiding, but it should never suggest domination, for the ordained president is a member of the faith community through baptism". How delightful, in a politically correct egalitarian kind of way. Call it democratic Protestantism or Conciliarism or what have you. At core, it's another corruption spawned by Modernism. Here's another doozie: the Crucifix is a "distraction from the sacramental representation of Christ's self-offering". Really? It seems that the English spirit of "the stripping of the altars" is alive and well in post-Vatican II Canada.

II. Incidentally, Boreskie co-authoed OPW with Mary M. Schaefer, a retired professor from the Atlantic School of Theology in Halifax. The reader may be interested in one of her published papers, wherein we find "observations about some feminist rituals... offered from the perspective of a liturgical theologian".[5] Is your suspicion roused? Well, confirmation for a presentiment exists. In 2005 Schaefer participated in Second Women's Ordination Conference at Ottawa, a "workshop leader" reportedly. Said Fr. de Valk: "It is necessary to understand that these women are now no longer Catholics".[6] Accordingly, by espousing and publishing Our Place of Worship we have more evidence that the Star Chamber is populated by subversives.

III. About five years ago, when the parish design was commencing, Boreskie gave a Powerpoint presentation, wherein he characterized the design as to include "nature, peacefulness, a place for restoration, sense of God's presence, Gianna's holistic life and environmental friendliness"... Central to the design is the spiral, "drawing us into the centre, the centre of our galaxy, the centre of our being, the centre of our source".[7] But perhaps this Oprahesque narrative is unsatisfactory. As the cliché goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Thus, let us virtually venture inside this soon-to-be Stonehenge on the Flatlands by perusing two more computer-generated pictures of updated designs (released December 11, 2011). Click on images below to enlarge and, subsequently, freak out.

To the left is the Adoration Chapel, or so it is claimed. Notice the large windows on either side of the tabernacle. Very conducive to distractions. Let us not focus on the Holy Body of Christ in the tabernacle. Instead let's watch the passersby and bathe amidst the glorious influx of light as it fills our souls with luminous wellness... wait a minute. That's not a tabernacle. Is it a biometric device to permit entrance to a parallel dimension at the far side of the Milky Way galaxy? Or do you press the button in the centre and launch an intercontinental ballistic missile? What else do we have here? An array of blue disco lights in the backdrop. Wonder if they'll pulsate to the beat of Gather Us In? The image on the right is of the "Worship Space", described at the parish website as:

...designed to achieve the greatest sense of a full, conscious and active participation of the gathered assembly. Encircling the altar, the worshipping community is drawn to the heart of each Eucharistic celebration. Upon entering this sacred space, the full immersion baptismal pool welcomes all with the fundamental truth of that which has made our membership possible. The transparent floor of the pool reveals the columbarium crypt below, making the theological bridge to those who have gone before us and washed in the same sign of faith.

But what if some of "those who have gone before us" are in Hell? Why should we be reminded of them? Anyhow, that quotation sounds like a set design description for Logan's Run, which the computer-generated images above evidently corroborate. Now look closely at the depiction of this Druidic Worship Space: no kneelers, blue cafeteria chairs instead of pews. Most disturbingly, observe how the "worshipping community" almost completely encircles the altar whereas the chair of the "presider" is set distant from it. I've seen quite a number of semi-circle pew configurations in my day, but this total circumscription scheme is a real boner. It is the consummation of immanentism: primary man surrounds a secondary God in the horizontal, instead of primary God transcending a secondary man in the vertical. Audacious. Vulgar. Annibale must be howling with laughter. His dream has been fully realized. In Canada, of all places!

IV. So who are the individuals responsible for facilitating the erection of this abomination of desolation? Turns out that our old friend Sparkles, that is +James Weisgerber, Archbishop of Winnipeg, is one of the trustees. Charity Registration No. 848023941RR0001. In fact, as archbishop he is president of the trustees. Or would "presider" be a more apt word to use? As far back as seven years ago +Weisgerber was outlining his vision of the kind of churches desired in his diocese. Boreskie's vision is perfectly consistent with this vision. In 2005 His Grace was interviewed by the Winnipeg Free Press:

For Weisgerber, the new vision is a way to "develop a more cohesive plan" for the churches in his care, and a way to implement the findings of the second Vatican Council, which took place from 1962-65. "It takes about 100 years for the church to receive the teaching of a council," he says, adding that the council proposed a "revolutionary shift" away from the clergy being in charge, doing everything, and members being only followers.[8]

There ya go. Vatican II was a "revolutionary shift". Doesn't sound like "hermeneutic of continuity" to me. Oh, but, there's more:

"There is no distinction between clergy and lay people," Weisgerber says. "We are all one in Christ. Everyone is empowered, everyone has gifts to share." One area where Weisgerber hopes to see more lay people involved is by leading services. "By the way we pray together we show what we believe - that all the people are involved, not just the priest at the front," he says.[9]

Did somebody say "primacy of the assembly"? Boreskie did. The bishop further stated that, for Roman Catholics, Mass is "not what somebody else does for them". Rather, it is "everyone can participate in".[10] It's all about US. Gather US in. No wonder he's head over heels for Mr. Boreskie's New Age impulses. That Sparkles, what a guy.

V. From one perspective, this is really no shock, considering what has happened to Church architecture in the last five decades. Two generations of these Nu-Church architects have cursed us with K-Mart Community Centre remakes: circular designs; dreary, 1970s-plastique interior atmospheres adorned (if at all) with kitsch art and sculpture; overemphasis on the horizontal; obsession with the immanent. In a phrase: coddling emotionalistic man-centredness. But this Stonehenge thing is a surprise to me. Never heretofore have I come across such pagan vulgarity in the raw.

VI. In other news, good news to be specific, the Vatican is setting up a commission to address the issue of abuses in church architecture, "to put a stop to garage style churches, boldly shaped structures that risk denaturing modern places for Catholic worship". Its "task will be to collaborate with the commissions in charge of evaluating construction projects for churches of various dioceses".[11] The bad news? This commission is only newly established so, alas, it's probably too late to stop the sacrilege soon to be committed in the Archdiocese of Winnipeg. Construction of this architectural affront to St. Gianna, the first in the world dedicated to her, commences on May 1st of this year, occurring in two phases. Currently estimated total cost: 11 million smackers.

Like I said Winnipeg...

...you've just been shafted.

HaaaaaaAAAAAAPPY NEW YEAR!


NOTES / REFERENCES

1. J. Buchok, "Design for St. Gianna's church unveiled", Prairie Messenger, December 28, 2011. St. Gianna's as a "worship facility" was first proposed in 2004. See J. Struch, "Patroness of new parish represents love, family", The New Wine Press, Winter 2005, vol. 5, no. 6, p. 1.

2. Boreskie apparently has another website, still under construction, called "many values, many voices". Note the syncretistic-multiculturalist drift.

3. M. Boreskie and M.M. Schaefer, Our Place of Worship (Ottawa, ON: Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1999).

4. D.A. Murray, "Whose Place of Worship?", Adoremus Bulletin, vol. VI, nos. 6-7, September/October 2000. Another reviewer states that OPW is "not an accurate reflection of Catholic theology and the doctrine from which our liturgy is derived". See N. Burn, "Our Place of Worship: Move over, Jesus! Part I", Catholic Insight, vol. VIII, no. 4, April 2000.

5. M.M. Schaefer, "Lex orandi, lex credendi: Faith, doctrine and theology in dialogue", Studies in Religion, December 1997, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 467-479.

6. From an editorial comment appended to D. O'Connor-Hunnisett, "The 'ordination' of 'womenpriests'", Catholic Insight, October 2005, vol. 13, no. 9.

7. Quoted in B. Fawcett, "St. Gianna's church designs unveiled", The New Wine Press, Fall 2007, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1, 3.

8. J. Longhurst, "City archdiocese aiming for more lay-member involvement", Winnipeg Free Press, November 19, 2005.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. A. Tornielli, "New Vatican commission cracks down on church architecture", La Stampa, November 21, 2011.

GADZOOKS, WINNIPEG! YOU'VE JUST BEEN SHAFTED

THE LORD OF HISTORY IS BORN

THE LORD OF HISTORY IS BORN

HEY YOU CATS, WHAZZZZZUP WIT YOUCAT ?

I. One of numerous disasters coming with the wake of Vatican II was that cornball attempt to get hip with the kidz. Everything from cartoon Jesus to children gathering around the altar at Mass, from Jesus Christ Superstar performed at school plays to the kindergarten krap of felt banners, right down to the utter embarrassment of acoustic guitar singing circles: "One bread, one body..." (shudder). Now I'm certainly not going to lay entire blame on this kitsch for my abandoning the Faith as a young lad. Nevertheless, upon reflection, the only effect all this had was to make me recoil from any kind of religiosity. Catholicism and cheese don't mix. Teenagers, even younger kids, know this by natural instinct, at least based upon my observation and "life experience" (wince). If today they mock or laugh at some hokey piece of Crayola "Catholic" artwork, I'd gleefully join in on the fun. If they are averse from going to Mass because holding hands during the Our Father makes them feel awkward or stupid, I fully understand this aversion. Who can blame them? They're absolutely correct.

 

II. When considering the past, I frequently wonder that, had good catechesis been my experience, instead of being a "participant" in those dreadful classes on "World Religions", or if I'd known a traditional and - yes - tough priest to look up to and model myself after, I might not had turned out to be a self-absorbed-know-it-all teenager (as a child, TH2 was naive and impressionable to a degree more than most, a mind easily moulded). At age 15, would have I've intentionally gotten bombed by drinking a mickey of lemon gin at that field party? Still remember that evening. A cool and clear night in - probably - October. Stars clearly visible in the sky, the fire we made, Rush's Permanent Waves on the boom box, the billowing clouds of cigarette smoke, the vomiting, and that cute rocker chick who not so affectionately called me a "tool". Somebody phoned the cops and we scattered, myself hightailing it into a ravine. Never told the parents about that one. So, you younger Catholics, take it from this Gen-X punk who was subjected to the comfy chair Inquisition imposed by the Nu-Church hipsters: Stay out of trouble!

 

III. It is in the context of the aforementioned that this blogger deems the whole YOUCAT endeavour to be an exercise in futility. That is, making Catholicism "relevant" to the younger crowd. Evidently, YOUCAT is supposed to be some modishly slick sounding acronym, short for YOUth CATechism. Sounds silly to me. Just the self-centralizing acronym itself is a giveaway, i.e. Catholicism tailored for "YOU". Even the promotional video is off-putting. The syrupy music isn't working either, though this repellent reaction may be due my preference for progressive rock. And why does the book cover have to be a gaudy yellow colour? Is that supposed to add some kind of pizazz? Why not good and reliable black or dark red? YOUCAT even cites Kierkegaard. Listen, the Dane was an mesmerizing existentialist, but let's face it, he was no fan of natural theology. Let the young people ponder Sickness Unto Death on their own time, or in a philosophy course, or whatever. Stick with the essentials. It is a catechism, yes? Why all the flash?

 

IV. Unsurprisingly, earlier this year problems were discovered in YOUCAT's commentaries on contraception.[1] In response to that controversy, and other apparent problems, a protest group has arisen, with its own website, petitioning for a YOUCAT recall. Content at that website also includes a series of objections, "compiled through the cooperative efforts of more than twenty-five Catholic theologians, scholars, clergy, seminary instructors, and lay Catholics involved in various Catholic apostolates". These compilers wish to remain anonymous, "fearing to be dismissed from their posts".

 

V. At this point in the post the reader is probably thinking the remainder will be a critical analysis of YOUCAT. Nope. Let's do a 180. Here we focus on the Recall because a howler occurs in a discussion from one of its objections. There are a total of six, and the commentaries do seem more or less adequate, except for one assertion made in Objection No. 4, relating to the Creation account in Genesis 1. It reads:

Objection #4. YOUCAT Places greater weight on modern scientific speculation than on the Church Fathers’ unanimous interpretations of the first chapters of Genesis.

Then we find these critical remarks:

...a note in the margin of page 37 [of YOUCAT] defines "creationism" as "the idea that God himself by his direct action created the world all at once, as if the book of Genesis were an eyewitness account." But the authors of YOUCAT do not tell their young readers that virtually all of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church took this "naïve" view, including the greatest Doctors of the Church, men like St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Ambrose.

This is followed by a quote from St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on Genesis, 2:2), who also "expressed the common view of all of the Fathers and Doctors". The issue is not with Chrysostom's exegetical extract as such. Rather, it relates to evident ignorance or, at minimum, a misunderstanding of the recent history of Catholic exegesis on the part of the petitioners.

VI. True, "naive" is an inaccurate descriptor of exegeses done by the Church Fathers/Doctors, as it is argued. Yet the petitioners still give an impression that the Fathers/Doctors subscribed to Creationism, which they did not, since that term more properly belongs Protestantism, as in the works of James Ussher (1581-1656) or John Lightfoot (1602-1675). The accurate and correct word to use here is Concordism, meaning the reading of some scientific cosmogenesis into Genesis 1, i.e. introducing science, however indirectly, when explaining the biblical account of Creation. Why Concordism is a fallacy is clear enough: the Bible does not teach science. It is not a textbook, in a astronomical or biogeophysical sense, on how all that is came to be. Thing is, Concordism was an error persistent from the beginning, if you'll excuse the pun. Circa 1900, prominent exegetes Fr. Franz von Hummelauer and Fr. Marie-Joseph Lagrange made a shocking admission: the previous 1800 years of Catholic exegesis on Creation in Genesis 1 was not credible, unpersuasive. Why? Concordism. Fr. Stanley Jaki explained further:

Concordism kept a hold on the minds of most Catholic theologians and in fact became a quasi-official position in Catholic seminaries. Concordism, which produced an immense literature, fell merely into official disfavor with the publication November 18, 1893, of Leo XIII's Encyclical Providentissimus Deus on the interpretation of the Scriptures. The Pope emphasized that the inspired authors did not mean to teach about the workings of nature... the subsequent grappling of theologians and exegetes with this task did not improve a bit on the dismal picture that had emerged from their previous efforts.[2]

Fr. Hummelauer, a Jesuit incidentally, helped Pope Leo XIII draft that encyclical. Not only SS. Basil, Ambrose and Chrysostom, but also SS. Augustine and Aquinas[3] were derelict in that they proposed scientific parallels, however circuitous, with the Creation account.

VII. Fr. Jaki, in my opinion one the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century, tells of the proper context to which Genesis 1 must be considered:

The unusually systematic character of Genesis 1 should suggest that it contains a literary device to make very explicitly the message about the total dependence of all on God. Written as Genesis 1 was in such a way as to instruct and enlighten the uneducated, that device had to such as to be instinctively grasped by them [the Hebrews]... Contrary to preconceived notions about the irremediable primitiveness of the biblical world view, it has one major advantage over all those scientific world views.[...and it is here where the Recall people should take note] It represents an all which has a dynamic character, or an all that is not at the mercy of the fallible character of precise confines, however sophisticated. For that world view is anchored in an elemental conviction about the all which rests on God's omnipotence. Such an all is presented to man not so much as a unit to be circumnavigated easily by the mind's eye but rather as a horizon that challenges the mind to see beyond the apparent boundaries and forces him to pursue it as it keeps escaping his grasp for one reason or another. At the same time it also assures the mind that the all is never lost while one constantly loses hold of its actual confines.[4]

So it seems that a correction or clarification is in order. Beforehand, however, this writer highly advises the compilers of the YOUCAT objections to first read Fr. Jaki's Genesis 1 Through the Ages.

NOTES / REFERENCES

1. See various reports: D. Kerr, "World Youth Day catechism suggests endorsement of 'contraceptive methods'", Catholic News Agency, April 11, 2011; J.H. Westen, "Italian version of official World Youth Day Catechism errs on contraception: report", LifeSite News, April 11, 2011; M.A. Kreitzer, "Catholics demand recall of Youth Catechism", Spero News, August 15, 2011.

2. S.L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages (London: Thomas More Press, 1992), p. 238.

3. Cf. ibid., p. 242. See also Sum. theol., i, qq. 65-74, passim.

4. Ibid. pp. 63, 285. See also Fr. Jaki's analysis in his Angels, Apes and Men (Peru, IL: Sherwood Sugden & Company, 1990), pp. 199-203. Originally published in 1984.

HEY YOU CATS, WHAZZZZZUP WIT YOUCAT ?