Remembering WFB
Next time you reflect on the universality of human heartache, reflect also on the life of William F. Buckley Jr. Here was a man who had everything one could desire: money, friendship, fame, wit, talent, distinction, a beautiful and devoted wife, an extraordinary son. Everything he touched turned to gold. Was he happy? Yes, absolutely, he was. As far as I could tell, he did not understand disappointment, much less experience it. Even after he lost his wife, his health, and his will to remain on Earth, he faced death as he had lived life, namely, without regret.
Some may dismiss Buckley’s serenity as a pose, just another aspect of a carefully crafted persona. I personally doubt that a man’s authentic self can be separated from the character he presents to world. Nevertheless, there is some truth in what they say. The world Buckley created was not the real world; it was instead something magical. He had, of course, the sailboats, the limousines, the sojourns in Gstaad, the Lenox Hill maisonette, the view of the Long Island sound, the famous friends, the television program, the celebrated books. None of these things made Buckley so perfect and convincing a gentleman. He wore his striped tie and blazer as shabbily as a Van Renssalaer. He practiced his religion as naturally as others brush their teeth. He spent money on himself and his friends without pausing long enough even to appear profligate. Where did it all come from and who managed it for him? One could never tell. As a wedding gift, Bill and Pat threw us a dinner with a half dozen of our friends; in the midst of dessert, the Yale Whiffenpoofs arrived to sing us good night. The Yale Whiffenpoofs! To us that was an entertainment fit only for kings. Buckley virtually personified sprezzatura—why, even that celebrated notion fails to capture how effortlessly he conceived le mot juste for every occasion. In gazing at photographs of Buckley, it almost becomes possible to believe that moderate Christian gentlemen such as he still helm the ship of civilization.
That magic is gone now. The service yesterday at St. Patrick’s had many fine moments, including a moving eulogy from Henry Kissinger and a splendid performance of Albonini’s Adagio. At the same time, it laid bare how much less interesting a place the world is without Buckley. The priests, leaving the high altar vacant, faced the congregation throughout the eucharist, standing in a semi-circle like aimless druids, muttering light-happiness-and-peace banalities. Would Buckley have approved? I doubt it. Probably his family had no other choice in the matter; the Roman church may or may not have the keys to heaven, but it is determined to act as if it does not. Worse, the priest who delivered the homily chose the occasion to interpret Buckley’s politics. The priest’s theory—that Buckley’s opinions derived from his belief in the need to confront evil—was both implausible and invidious. Buckley spent his whole life being famous for his politics. How wearying it must have been for him; how wearying it is now to hear partisans interpret his beliefs.
The Buckley I knew didn’t care much about politics at all. Those who revere him as a hero or despise him as an enemy have a lot more passion for his politics than he did. His mind was a paradox. On the one hand, he grasped arguments so quickly that he had interlocutors outmaneuvered before they had even finished speaking. Buckley’s one failure in decorum was that he could not hide his boredom. If you were brilliant, that was helpful. If you were buffoonish teller of anecdotes, that was helpful too. He was grateful to anybody who could keep him entertained.
At the same time, Buckley seemed never to concentrate on anything. As everybody knows, he wrote his columns in a matter in minutes, his books in a matter of weeks. He was the furthest thing from a theorist, a scholar, an ideologist or a systematizer. Bill just didn’t have the patience for that sort of thing. Richard Posner—another prolific American—aptly describes him as a bricoleur— “a person who collects information and things and then puts them together in a way that they were not originally designed to do.” Critics have faulted Buckley for not arranging his opinions into a superficially coherent whole. To say that he did not is to say no more than that Buckley was not an ideologue.
Buckley’s impatience had its cost. The summer of his fame was bright indeed, but it is also destined to fade. He leaves no single work of lasting merit. His first and still best known book, God at Man at Yale, displays none of the qualities that later made Buckley famous. A more or less careful report on the decline of Christianity and the rise of leftish economics at Yale, today it is only of historical interest. (You mean people used to argue that Yale should remain a Christian university? Wow! How interesting!) To appreciate Buckley’s genius, you had to see him speak. His written words, as marvelous as they are plentiful, are not enough.
Nor do I think that Buckley reflected much on the future of the movement he founded and to which so many remain so devoted. The net result of his divesting himself of control of National Review was to turn over ownership of the magazine to its employees. Today, Rich Lowry is the editor-owner of National Review to nearly the same extent that Buckley himself was. Lowry is by no means an untalented journalist. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that anybody would have chosen him as the man to control NR for the next fifty years. This result could have been avoided, if Buckley had cared enough to prevent it. As far as I could tell, however, he did not know enough about NR even to begin to have any influence. His ignorance of the affairs of his own magazine at times astonished me. Although Bill congratulated me on my criticisms of movement conservatism and spoke candidly of its failings, its future simply did not concern him.
Buckley now rests with his wife Pat in Sharon, Connecticut. Although he will be remembered for his politics, he will also be remembered, with greater justice, as an American original, a character as colorful as Benjamin Franklin or Mark Twain. If his life in heaven is as sweet as it was on earth, he is blessed indeed.
Comments
Excellent essay. You certainly have made a good case for being Buckley’s Boswell, though Tannenhouse appears has the early edge. Still, not convinced that the direction NR ultimately took was the result of his indifference.
And this line is a keeper;
“...the Roman church may or may not have the keys to heaven, but it is determined to act as if it does not.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“The priests, leaving the high altar vacant, faced the congregation throughout the eucharist, standing in a semi-circle like aimless druids, muttering light-happiness-and-peace banalities.” I detect from this all too true description of what was likely a Novus Ordo Mass (priests facing the people) that Austin may be an outsider to the Roman Church and thus able to see things in a way that we insiders often do not, or are too used to seeing and thus ignore them. Her Honor, also not in the Church, had a similarly insightful observation from seeing photos of the interior of our new co-cathedral here in Houston: it is so sparely decorated, she said, that it looked like the formerly Catholic churches in Holland did in the immediate aftermath of the Reformation there.
I am just starting to read now the latest number of “Modern Age”, devoted to “Conservative Reflections on Neglected Questions and Ignored Problems”, the first section of which is titled “In Defense of Beauty”. I would highly recommend this issue of that publication to this group.
One can only hope that Benedict XVI, who understands the problem, will have many productive years in Rome in order to recover the lost beauty of Roman worship. Unfortunately, by the very nature of its mission to the masses, the upcoming “apostolic voyage” to this country cannot be counted on to produce memorably beautiful public ceremonies, and so the current banality will be prolonged.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Woody, agreed. Modern Age is always great, but this issue is one of the best ever.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Jones:
I haven’t read the article, but I will look for it. One aspect of modernity is a war against beauty, as shown by the dreadful art, architecture, and music that modern leftists have created and championed.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Let me echo the sentiments and thoughts of my friend Woody Jones, as he apty put it.
Back in the late ‘sixties Buckley edited a little volume, I believe its name was A
SIGN OF CONTRADICTION, with essays that clearly pointed to the connection between the
Sacred Liturgy and civilization. More, writers like Evelyn Waugh, Hugh Williamson,
Thomas Molnar, and Dietrich von Hildebrand (very profoundly) recognized that the
destruction of the “sacred WORD” meant far more than just a change in the kind of
language used. Of course, it was all part of a large current, what was then with
expectation called an “aggiornamento"--but what was really an “apertura a la
siniestra.” The praxis since the 1960s was to seize upon the modern spirit--sometimes
termed the “spirit of Vatican II"--and move Left, adopting and adapting the nostrums
that came from the Frankfort School, Teilhard, and John Courtney Murray, and advancing
them, and while never openly denying the Truths of the Faith, certainly altering the
Truth in praxis and application. Even Paul VI lamented that the “smoke of Satan”
had entered the Church.
Certainly, early on, William F. Buckley recognized this, but like many “conservative”
Catholics, he passed on and tacitly, if not actually, accepted the practical changes
that were thrust upon him, at Mass, or in practice. And, as well, NR made the “long
march” from its convictions of the 1950s and ‘60s, when one could praise a Taftian
foreign policy, or oppose the Civil Rights bills, or defend the Old South, to now,
with Young Turk “neo-cons” at the helm, whose views Buckley would have denounced
fifty years ago as extreme leftist....
May his soul rest in peace.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr. Cathey. Those partisans of error were schooled by Manual Theologians and worshipped in the Old Rite inside ornate and beautiful Churches which witnessed to the trinitarian aspects of Christian Architecture - Verticality, Iconography, Permanence.
Yet all of that did not forestall the decline into, an apparent, deadly desueteude of Liturgical life.
Still, in America, there have long been signs of a new springtime - for those with eyes to see.
For instance, Cold Creek Monastery
http://romancatholicvocations.blogspot.com/2008/03/inside-clear-creek-monastery.html
One can lament the state of the Church (which is always in crisis) or one can send some coins to help others prepare for the next springtime Holy Mother Church will experience.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@I am not Spartacus: I actually agree with you. Most of the contemporary “First Generation”
partisans of error did indeed go to pre-Vatican seminaries and worship in ornate churches;
I would be the first to admit that there were very serious problems, theologically, in
both the USA and in Europe prior to 1960. After all, Marc Sangnier was active in the 1910s,
Emmanuel Mounier a few decades later, Maritain--in his “democratic” period--in the 1930s and
‘40s, and Teilhard flourished in the 1940s and 50s. Many of our seminaries, bishops, and
theologians were already in decay. BUT, although this is certain, I do believe, and I think
it is verifiable historically, that the moldernist applications of Vatican II and progressivism
have accelerated and given legitimacy to that process, that priot to Vatican II, was thought of
by many Catholics as an exception, not the rule.
However, I do maintain that it is much “easier” to practice the faith if the environment is
conducive. It is much easier to maintain the Faith if the parish priest is traditional, and
not preaching “liberation theology” or “ordination for women.” It is easier to be an orthodox
seminarian if the professors and fellow seminarians adhere to Tradition. And, let it be said,
Iconoclasm is a heresy...Catholics should prize beauty, ornate churches, the grandeur of a
sung Gregorian Mass, all of which are certainly externals, but can enhance, from an apologetics
view, one’s devotion, and encourage one to explore the Faith.
That is what I was saying.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Forgive the typos in my last message, in particular “Moldernist.” I have no idea what a “moldernist”
is! It should have been “modernist.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Looking spiffy, Austin.
Our mutual friend Bubba has become a member of the “Roman Church”, as you call it--as have I…
God bless.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Soyez plein d’espoir, chers catholiques. Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio is taking effect around the world--even here in France, where I am…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr. Cathey. Thanks for the generous and kind response. I think we’d agree on most things- such as your excellent historical summary.
Have a Blessed Sunday
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“ The service yesterday at St. Patrick’s had many fine moments, including a moving eulogy from Henry Kissinger “
Henry Kissinger?!?!?!
In St Patrick’s?!?!??!
Was there no party at the playboy mansion for him to attend?
It boggles the mind.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@I am not Spartacus: I reciprocate, and may you have a Blessed Sunday, as well.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thanks Christine! But can’t you tell from my “avatar” that I am a wise old man with a beard? An attendant lord, perhaps, full of high sentence but a bit obtuse?
I know all about Bubba - I saw him just a couple weeks ago in fact.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Buckley was a loser in the end, he helped lead conservatism and the nation to the disastrous state they now are in. He wasn’t interested in politics because that involves the sweaty little people below, he was only interested in the interests of his class, which explains why he got along so well with members of the liberal establishment, whose company he often preferred as long as they were among the powerful, and he was quick to dump friends and comrades who threatened his access to the Royal Liberal Court. Effete is the word that comes to mind. From rebel to courtier to courtesan.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dear Dr Cathey,
Many thanks for your kind words and comments as insightful as always. I certainly agree with you and “I am not Spartacus” on the historical account of the degeneration of liturgy and teaching in the Church. I have been stealing some time away from the demanding mistress (the Law, OK?) to dip into a couple of John Hellman’s books on the French Personalists (especially Alexandre Marc, Mounier, Dandieu, de Lubac, etc.) in the interwar years,and during Vichy, and there he (obviously a liberal Catholic) gives another, but concurrent version of the same history. It is interesting to see how they evidently thought (influenced by Berdyaev) that events both in society and the Church needed to be directed by a new elite, in a way corresponding to the “new man” one hears about so often, and reflecting the new realities of the world. Their idea was that they would form the elites according to their updated notions. Interestingly, there is even a photo of a priest sympathetic to them (and to Vichy—to be sure, the “Vichy that might have been” on the early period) celebrating (the old) Mass facing the people in some large outdoor Mass type of event.
Trying to be charitable to those who, holding the levers of power in the Church today and favoring this kind of new approach reflected in the art [sic!] and architecture of so many modern church buildings, including, one regrets to say, evidently the new co-cathedral here, I assume that they believe that modern times require the kind of radically altered approach to Catholicism that they not only offer, but enforce, and that this will be the best thing for souls, who, already altered in sentiments and thought, if not ontologically, will thus be attracted to the “new order” in the Church which corresponds to the new order in society at large. Of course, facts, such as the recent Pew poll, cannot be allowed to dissuade them.
Faced with this situation, I entirely agree with what I gather to be the core of both of your remarks, that we must do what we can to preserve Tradition, and as a faithful remnant, await a better time. Indeed, our own prayers, small sacrifices, mortifications and sufferings borne in union with those of Our Saviour, can be counted on to speed along the true renovation, a real revolution, a revolution of love, that, in the mercy of the Good Lord, will surely come.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
One last thought: my old European intellectual history teacher, the benevolent Communist H. Stuart Hughes (benevolent because he gave me a pretty good grade even though I did little of the assigned reading), once told us that you can never defeat an ideology with facts, you can only defeat it with a superior ideology. I assume that if we substitute “dogmatic theology” or “moral theology” or “pastoral theology” for “ideology” the saying still holds. Tradition is clearly superior to Modernism and Liberalism: it merely awaits the propitious moment, to come in God’s good time, for that to become apparent to all. Who knows, perhaps what will precipitate this will be another “divine surprise”. Or if we’re lucky, something not quite so drastic.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ Dr. Cathey:
I’m accustomed to finding Teilhard de Chardin on the short list of those who somehow led the Catholic church astray, but I’ve never come across the particulars. Would you enlighten me by referral to an appropriate Web site, perhaps? I’m not Roman Catholic, and what I know about Teilhard is not theological but paleological ...
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ Woody Jones:
“I am just starting to read now the latest number of “Modern Age”, devoted to “Conservative Reflections on Neglected Questions and Ignored Problems”, the first section of which is titled “In Defense of Beauty”. I would highly recommend this issue of that publication to this group.”
Hmm ... all fired up by your recommendation, I went looking online for the issue, where, apparently, it is not to be had, even for fee. Also, apparently, “Modern Age” has no Web site independent of the ISI’s, which provides access to an archive ending in 2006 but is otherwise strictly a marketing/subscription site. That this situation is true for a periodical titled “Modern Age” is unintentionally hilarious ...
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Regarding Teilhard de Chardin, the most impressive literature about his nefarious influence has
appeared in French and Spanish. If you can read either, let me recommend:
Fr. Philippe de la Trinite, OCD. POUR ET CONTRE TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, PENSEUR RELIGIEUX
(Saint-Cenere: Editions Saint-Michel, 1970), which is comprehensive but not overlong;
(In translation from the French:)Fr. Georges Frenaud, OSB. ESTUDIO CRITICO SOBRE EL PENSAMIENTO
FILOSOFICO Y RELIGIOSO DEL PADRE TEILHARD DE CHARDIN (Madrid: Editions SPEIRO)...excellent
critique;
In English, there I can refer you to two brief studies which are good overviews:
Monsignor Leo S. Schumacher. THE TRUTH ABOUT TEILHARD (New York; Twin Cities, 1968)
Msgr. Schumacher had been Dean of Philosophy of Borromeo Seminary, Cleveland. I am not
certain where this study may be obtained today...Tan Books? “Keep the Faith”?
Fr. G. H. Duggan, S.M. TEILHARDISM AND THE FAITH (Cork, Ireland: Mercier Press, 1968).
This is an excellent, more detailed critique. I’m not certain if it is still available.
My Spanish mentor, the late Professor Rafael Gambra, left behind several excellent
critical studies of Teilhard (and Maritain). The Spanish Traditionalist review, VERBO,
has published numerous critiques of Teilhard and his influence on contemporary religion.
Again, the language is Spanish, which may not help....many of those same studies
had been published originally in French (by writers such as Louis Jugnet, M.L. Guerard
des Lauriers, OP, Alexis Curvers, etc. I don’t know if translations exist for any of them.
Also, you might look up the 1962 “monitum” warning against Teilhard, issued by the Vatican
Congregation for the Holy Office [now Doctrine of the Faith].
I think there were critical studies also in the old American Ecclesistical Review (prior to 1965),
under the editorship of Msgr. Francis Connell, and certainly elsewhere.
Most of my references are dated because it was in the late 1960s and the 1970s that I
read about Teilhard and read criticism of him.
Best wishes.....
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@alessio1947:
It’s not so much that Teilhardism per se has led the Church astray, since practically no one espouses his actual views--or ever did, really. His name is mostly brought up as an example of a type: the modern, adventurous theologian who is willing--even anxious--to sacrifice orthodoxy in order to explore the “boundaries of possibility.” While attempts are made to connect his theories with actual theological controversies within the modern Church, the fact is that his main influence is in his character as an innovator and challenger of orthodoxies. In this, he is generally grouped with other liberal luminaries such as Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx, Charles Curran, etc.; i.e. as one of those who have signally contributed to the destruction of the Faith and of the Church and whose example is to be avoided.
Teilhard’s doctrine can, in a nutshell, be described as Hegel meets Darwin. He attempted to provide an evolutionary account of the world of immaterial being--of spirit. For further explication of his views, I’d recommend either the books Dr. Cathey mentioned, or just a simple Google search.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
James Newland makes an excellent point, and one that serves as a good
summary of Teilhard’s thought and his influence: Hegel meets Darwin, as a
conceptual format for recasting and refocusing Christian Tradition. In many
ways he became the symbolic progressive, open “to the world,” and certainly
“au courant” for the liberal/modernist Catholics of the 1950s and ‘60s.
Perhaps someone out there will help me, but I am thinking that the great
Dominican theologian Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange also wrote a masterful
critique of Teilhard and “Teilhardism.” Can anyone remember? I have all
of that great Dominican’s dogmatic and moral theological works; I don’t think
it shows up in them.... Perhaps it was in a review or journal?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr. Cathey, I don’t know whether this is what you’re thinking of or not, but here’s a link to a Garrigou-Lagrange critique of the “New Theology” of Maurice Blondel--a Teilhard disciple--Henri de Lubac, etc.
http://www.cfnews.org/gg-newtheo.htm
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Alessio 1947:
I share your frustration over the lack of a “Modern Age” web site and archives (of which there would be much to read: I think especially of Bill Rusher’s piece of a few years back in which he takes Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard address seriously about this time being either the end of the world or the end of this age). You can call them and order by credit card, or wait another week or two for the issue to hit select newsstands-the Barnes & Noble near my house carries it (although this number was not there today when I dropped by after Mass).
“That this situation is true for a periodical titled “Modern Age” is unintentionally hilarious ...” I think this may be a (Russell) Kirkian rebellion against the modern age. Or just mechanical issues: if they put the whole issue up on the web they will have to charge a fee for it or else lose all their subscribers with no compensation (other than maybe some ad revenue). I don’t know enough about the difficuties of this to understand what kind of commitment it takes to put the whole issue up, so speculate that this is the real hold up.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
But do check out the archive of the “Intercollegiate Review” that is up on the ISI site: there is a great piece by Alvaro D’Ors entitled “The Professor” that is really worth looking for.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Kissinger?
You know.....he put the Darth in Vader? Evil incarnate?
Didn’t anybody else think this strange?
sigh!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Follow the link below to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute site and scroll down to bottom of the page. It is in small print, but you will see the phrase “browse the Modern Age archives”, which will give you access to all but the most recent issues ( nearly 50 years worth ).
http://www.isi.org/journals/modern_age.html
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m accustomed to finding Teilhard de Chardin on the short list of those who somehow led the Catholic church astray
Alessio. Certainly, the Church has been “led astray” if by Church you are referring to a significant percentage of The Hierarchy (Bishops) whose Holy Duties - To Teach, Rule, and Sanctify - have been so diluted by political and/or imaginative and speculative theological movements that one is hard-pressed to see the hard, narrow, and firm path the Bishops promised to trod.
But, as far as the Church in her Magisterial Teaching having been led astray, I maintain that is, literally, impossible given the promises of the God-Man, Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
What Jesus promised remains. Forever. His word did not go out and return to him empty. He established his church as the Pillar and Ground of truth and he sent the Holy Spirit upon it to teach it all truth. He promised to be with his church until the end of time and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against it.
Now, of course, it has always been the case that individual (sometimes many individuals) Bishops have been heretics, even apostates, but that is the Church in her human element and the personal failings of this or that (or even legions of them failing)Bishop still can not destroy or make void the word of Jesus the Christ.
There have always been Bishops whose actions remind us of Judas. I have always thought that one reason Jesus allowed Judas to continue in his “ministry” was to serve as an example for future generations to ponder. It is a warning to all of us that we must follow the entire Church - not this or that individual Bishop.
Individual members of the Hierarchy can, and do, fall.
The Church can never fail. Jesus, the Bridegroom, will never abandon His Spouse and let her be dragged into the desert to be raped by Satan.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I don’t share the antipathy of some you for Kissinger. Compared to the neo-cons, he looks downright benign. I opposed him in the 70s because I felt his detente tended to disarm the West as the correlation of forces was shifting in the USSR’s favor. He saw the US and the USSR as two great (more or less conventional) powers, missing entirely the central role played by the One, True Doctrine—Marxism-Leninism. The USSR was not the Russian Empire with a Red veneer spread over it. It was a Red phenomenon through and through. Solzhenitsyn taught us this and Reagan understood it and built his movement around it. The Red regime was the ideology—the tyranny of the (false) word and the wooden language it employed or it was nothing. That is why when the ideology was destroyed from within (largely by Solzhenitsyn), the regime simply shriveled up and blew away. Kissinger did not grasp this. His rationalism was such that it could not acknowledge the existence of an alternative moral universe (the USSR) in which ideological pseudo-reality had wholly displaced real reality. Reagan, being from Hollywood, was able to grasp the reality (the pseudo-reality, actually), just as it took a product of Hollywood to have the wit to use a weapon that didn’t exist (SDI) to win a war that was never fought. If Reagan was the right man for managing the end game with the USSR, Kissinger’s policies of the 1970s were the correct ones for the post-Soviet world (oddly, he was behind and ahead of his times at the same time). His strategy of managing world affairs through a series of surrogate regional powers made a certain sense following the US loss in Vietnam, but made no allowance for the USSR’s ideologically determined drive for global dominance (no real way you could deal with that through surrogates like the Shah.) But such a strategy looks like the right one for now. When 9/11 happened, we would have been better advised to work with surrogates who had more at stake in the fate of Afghanistan and South Asia than we did (Russia, India, China). By the same token, Kissinger put forward the notion that the internal trajectories of the US and Soviet systems (the former a liberal society marked by ever greater bureaucratic control of the economy; the latter a bureaucratized economy in need of greater liberalization to survive) were bound to intersect, or, as he said, converge. Moreover, with the US enervated by its defeat in Vietnam and the Soviet economy failing, neither superpower was in a position to guarantee world order single-handedly—hence the imperative for the US and USSR to converge and establish a global condominium. This was a thoroughly impractical idea then, but—if understood as a harbinger of a strategic partnership between the USA and the Russian Federation—is the right thing for now: convergence of the US and the Russian Federation on the basis of anti-statist economics, strategic partnership to meet the challenge of a rising China and resurgent Islam, and support not for democratism but for the revival of Christendom in through greater Europe—from New York to Berlin to Moscow to Vladivostok, to San Francisco to New York. Yes, what’s needed is an entente cordiale between the US, Europe and Russia incorporating the spiritual and intellectual legacy of Athens, Rome and Jerusalem. Kissinger is almost alright.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ I Am Not Spartacus:
“The Church can never fail. Jesus, the Bridegroom, will never abandon His Spouse and let her be dragged into the desert to be raped by Satan.”
Amen. Except that many of us “separated brethren” see “the Church” as something way bigger than the venerable Church of Rome.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dear James Newland:
Indeed, that is the essay by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange OP I was trying to remember. Let me thank you so very much for that citation. He does not specifically mention Teilhard, but his strictures do apply generally to the modernist trends in theology that were long apparent before Vatican II. Thanks, again!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.