When you were a kid, and went to the pool, did you play the “how low can you go” game? Using keys or any object that would sink to the bottom, you stood at one end of the pool and threw it as far as you could into the deep end, then swam down after it. The game was really about nerve. Most pools are only about 10 feet at the diving end, and the lifeguard was always watching, so our daredevil diving was harmless.
But I get the impression that no matter how far down any bishop goes in the current synodal version of the game, there’s going to be someone ready to follow him a few feet lower. And the lifeguard on duty doesn’t seem to care one way or another. This rivalry among the Synod’s ultra-progressives (“heretics,” in Catholic) to see how outrageous they can get, right in front of the pope, seems to be bringing us to new depths that perhaps most ordinary Mass-going novusordoist Catholics had previously never guessed existed among the episcopate.
(From last week's print edition of The Remnant. Submitted on the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel)
I’ve decided to stay in Norcia for the Synod.
A few days ago, someone on the Remnant's website asked me whether I left LifeSite on my own, or “was pushed”. I answered simply, “I left. It was time.” I have been thinking of how, or even whether to respond more fully. I didn’t really mean to be cryptic. I suppose people wanted to know if some drama had occurred. But in fact the reasons were personal and I’ve debated whether to share some of it. It took me a while to figure out whether I really understood myself why I left so abruptly, immediately following the Rome March for Life.
"The absurdity of the Synod organisers, including the pope, simply writing final documents for a Synod weeks in advance of the bishops even arriving in Rome, seems to be the final message. They no longer feel any need to hide their intentions..."
The “good bishops” are not going to help us at the Synod. This is something we have to get used to right now, the weekend before the show starts. Every day I see in commboxes around the internet hopeful exclamations like, “Oh, but Archbishop Whosits is going to stand up to them.” Or, “Cardinal Youknowwho,” or “that guy from Africa” won’t stand for that stuff again. Well folks, I hate to tell you, but they stood for it just fine last year.
There have been no demands that the pope guarantee a transparent proceeding, no open objections to the scandalous contents of the working documents, and, most significantly, no demand for the removal of the ringleaders of the affair, the Synod General Secretary, Cardinal Baldisseri, Cardinal Kasper, Archbishop Bruno Forte, the author of the outrageous mid-term relatio… et al. All the same characters of last year’s vaudeville act are back, and no word of objection has come from our “good bishops.”
When I was a teenager, my parents moved us to the Canadian arctic and spent a few winters raising and training sled dogs. This activity taught me one cardinal rule with training a dog: consistency. You will do no more than confuse a dog when you discipline him for unwanted behaviour one day and let it slide the next. My stepfather used to say that there is no such thing as a vicious breed or a naturally vicious dog. A dog is made vicious by mistreatment.
Anyone who wants to understand what we are likely facing next needs to read this book as soon as possible.
I hope I am not too late to recommend Edward Pentin’s detailed and balanced book, “The Rigging of a Vatican Synod: An Investigation of Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family,” because anyone who wants to understand what we are likely facing next needs to read it as soon as possible.
I am writing this on the 14th of September. This leaves us just under three weeks before the opening of the second half of the Synod on the Family, that is looking more and more like a deliberate weapon, or as Pentin himself has suggested, a Trojan Horse – designed and wielded to finally put an end to the Catholic Church’s opposition to the new social paradigm of total sexual license.
The real Catholic religion that has barely subsisted while being systematically suppressed throughout the world for the last 50 years, would not have survived another long “conservative” pontificate. As painful as it is, Francis is really just what we need.
People who know me well know that this whole rabid Traditionalist Catholic polemicist thing is mostly kept confined to my professional life. In real day-to-day life, I’m really an amateur naturalist. No kidding. Check it out on my blog where I write long posts about octopi and whelks.
One of my favourite things is going stomping about the Umbrian countryside in my wellies with a collecting basket to see what sort of things I can bring home to cook or make into booze. This year my elderflower champagne was so good, I’m already collecting more bottles and a bigger bucket for ten gallons next spring. And when the rose hips are ripened, I’m going to see how they do as liqueur.
One of the things I love is wild mushrooms, but, Russian Roulette being forbidden by the Church, I strictly confine my collecting to varieties I can be absolutely sure of. Mushrooms and fungi are among the most interesting objects of the natural world, and fungi are as important as bees to the natural world’s ability to make things grow and feed the rest of us.
Oh, look! You can take a whole course on Laudato si! And it’s being provided by none other than celebrity population controller Jeffrey Sachs, the Pope’s biggest fan. It’s from Sachs’ NGO, the Sustainable Development Solutions Network:
In this vital year for sustainable development, Pope Francis – spiritual leader to the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics – issued an encyclical called Laudato Si’: On Care of our Common Home. Although rooted in the long and deep tradition of Catholic social teaching, this encyclical is addressed not only to Catholics, but to all people of the world. In blunt terms, it draws attention to the nature of the grave ecological crisis that humanity has created, and it issues a moral clarion call for urgent action to protect the earth and its inhabitants from ruin.
The papal nagging, the scolding and often incomprehensible admonishing would not be nearly so offensive if it had any serious, weighty moral or doctrinal content. What is going on here?
Is the world finally tiring of the Francis Show? It seems the shine is coming off the Franciscan penny, at least in the US, where “approval ratings” are a thing. The aftermath of his encyclical, Laudato si, has seen quite a bit of shouting and confusion in the US where the “settled science” on climate change is considerably less settled than it tends to be in Europe. Last month, even the mainstream American press noted a significant drop in Pope Francis’ popularity and there are rumblings even from behind the bastions – increasingly resembling barricades – of the pope’s biggest fan base in the American Catholic blogging world.
My friend was somewhat taken aback by my insistence on this point and asked what was so important. I responded, “Are you really asking me what is so important about symbols?” But this was a younger person who had never heard this distinction made and had no personal memory of how this particular artifact of the Revolution was installed. But in the 1970s, feminists considered it so important that changing this usage was a major front of their early campaigns.
That’s right! What about the rights of our leafy friends?
The other day I wrote on the website 1Peter5 a short piece about why the notion of “animal rights” is meaningless. Animals do not have rights because they have no duties. They have no need of duties because they do not have free will or rational souls; neither intellect with which to understand duties nor the will to fulfill them. While the American dentist may have had a duty not to do what he did, Cecil the Lion did not have the right to be protected from arbitrary killing, certainly not in the way that an unborn human child has that right.
This morning, I saw a piece in the Guardian about the next trendy absurdity of the “rights” movement: plant rights.
Plants are intelligent. Plants deserve rights. Plants are like the Internet – or more accurately the Internet is like plants. To most of us these statements may sound, at best, insupportable or, at worst, crazy. But a new book, Brilliant Green: the Surprising History and Science of Plant Intelligence, by plant neurobiologist (yes, plant neurobiologist), Stefano Mancuso and journalist, Alessandra Viola, makes a compelling and fascinating case not only for plant sentience and smarts, but also plant rights.
[Facepalm] OK no. Just no.
I know we’ve been banging on about this at the Remnant and other places and we might be getting a little sick of it, but bear with me as I take one more tilt at the modern fake “rights” industry windmill.
Just for a moment, I’m going to put aside my usual ironic approach and just tell it plainly: neither animals nor plants have “rights,” properly understood. Rights come from one source: duties. Duties come first and we have only the “right” to those conditions and objects that we need to fulfill our duties. As rational beings, we are obliged to use the faculties of our free will and intellect to understand and fulfill those duties. The things we need to get that accomplished are the only things we have “rights” to.
The ultimate duty we humans have is the obligation to worship God in the manner He has decreed. There is a reason the first three out of Ten Commandments are about the primacy of the worship of God. This is why it is proper to speak of a right to a place and environment where we can worship God in the Church according to the ancient rites we were given from the time of the Apostles. We have the duty to worship God according to His will, not according to the will of the latest trendy liturgical fad.
It’s only when we get to the fourth Commandment that we start hearing about our duties to each other. Believe it or not, our duty to the environment, including to the proper care of the plants and animals, is based not on any duty to them as plants and animals, but on our duty to each other. We all need a clean and well-functioning environment in order to fulfill all our other duties. Moreover, our duty to look after the natural world was given to us directly from the mouth of God to our first parents. We are responsible for creation, at least the planetary part of creation, because it is literally our God-given job. This task predates even the Fall. According to Scripture, it even predates the creation of Eve: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.”
Because rights are based exclusively on duties, the existence of rights must presuppose the existence of a free will ordered by a rational intellect. Neither plants nor animals have these, which means they cannot freely fulfill any duties. The upside for the plants and animals is that by the simple fact of their existence, they give glory to God. They fulfill their ontological purpose just by, so to speak, running their inborn programmes. They get to fulfill their particular purpose of existence, their “vocation” so to speak, simply by being what they are and doing what they were designed to do. This is just part of the gorgeous and amazing orderliness of the universe that we can discover by studying math or physics or biology or music or art.
I believe that this natural, unwilled giving of glory to God is what attracts these godless secularist discoverers of new “rights.” I don’t think this is entirely ideological blindness. The natural world is indeed glorious and its glory is a reflection of the Divine Glory, love of which is natural to us: “Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.”
I’ve known quite a few environmentalists and there is certainly among them a genuine love of the natural world, one which I share passionately, from the intricate workings of the ecosystems of the mountains where I live to the staggeringly complex systems of cellular micro-mechanics.
The fact that animals and – because now apparently we need to say this – plants have no rights, should not deter us in the least in our exercise of our duty to protect them and cultivate and protect their environment, however. We humans do have rational souls, which means we have both intellect and free will, and therefore we have duties. A big part of that duty is the proper care of those parts of creation that have been given into our care. We have an obligation not to abuse that which is given to us in trust, which does not belong to us but to God. We are, moreover, part of the creation which belongs to Him alone, which means that the materialist’s notion of man as the enemy of creation is equally nonsensical.
The difficulty with this whole weird craze for “animal rights” (and now the reductio ad absurdam of “plant rights”) is that having detached the notion of rights from their origins in duty, we have rendered “rights” completely arbitrary; subject not to the eternal will of God, but to the ephemeral and ever-changing will of humans. We "discover" new "rights" every time someone has a fancy to do something or want something. This has now gone so far as to enable us to "discover" new "rights" according to our most childish sentimentalist imaginations. "Plant rights" in a sane society would be thought of seriously only by imaginative six-year-old girls and quickly corrected by responsible parents.
But we’re all six-year-old girls now. Thus we have a growing culture, especially in the UK, of the "right not to be offended," which really means in practice the "right" not to be confronted, corrected or opposed about any idea or impulse that crosses our wee minds.
We have a new “rights culture” that simply boils down to “I have a right to whatever I happen to want.” But of course, because we humans, when we have unhooked our will from the mind of God, tend to want things that harm others or ourselves, (and at the very least tend to want things in ways that create conflicts between individuals and groups,) this notion of “wants = rights” will always end up devolving down to using some form of force to get what one individual or group wants over the wantsrights (and often the genuine rights) of other individuals or groups. The powerful, either physically or politically, are the ones whose “rights” now take precedent in every conflict; he who has the most thugs wins.
This process has been amply illustrated by the various and multiplying procedures of the Sexual Revolution, where, for example, we want “free sex,” and generally a life of uninterrupted personal indulgence, and get it by extracting and killing the troublesome and unwanted “products of conception.” The fact that we all learned in elementary school where babies come from is brushed aside as irrelevant. The new rights come down to a power match between the right to life and the “right” to have unlimited carefree sexual congress. The baby is weak; the mother is powerful and has the law, the government and the abortion industry to back her up. She and the law and the government and the abortion industry can simply wave a hand, call the baby a “foetus” for a little emotional cover, and get it out of the way.
There is going to be no end to this process of “discovering new rights,” either magically buried between the lines of the US constitution and visible only to the eyes of special interest lobbyists, or, in other countries and international bodies, simply out of the whole cloth of the imaginations and desires of individuals. This will continue until there is an acknowledgement that there is at least such a thing as an objective moral order, as there is an objective physical order.
The recognition in the secular civil realm of the existence of an objective moral law is what in the Catholic Church we call “the Social Reign of Christ the King.” Let us pray for its swift return… before someone “discovers” a new “right” not to have any Catholics around.