The piece by James Green hits home for me. As a once-upon-a-time avid user of psychedelics, and now Trad Catholic, I can state unequivocally that the two are diametrically opposed. What's more, I do see how (though not from experience) psychedelics COULD interact with other religions and enhance (false or even demonic) experiences. This new zeal for psychedelics as possibly useful in treating PTSD, etc. is muy dangerous. Those interested in the subject should check out Benjamin Breen's "Tripping On Utopia." Don't bother with Michael Pollan's all-in on psychedelics.
Please forgive my asking this question in a somewhat irrelevant "thread", but I wasn't sure how else to contact you. I pay for very few Substacks. Yours is among them. I delight in these weekly roundups and am always forwarding them to my soon-to-be-wife, a fellow convert to the Catholic faith (we get married on 13 September in the Old Rite!). Lately, she and I have been grappling with how best to catechise whatever children the Lord may bless us with.
I have racked my brains about the best catechism -- the "desert island" catechism, as it were. I was wondering if you had any comments or recommendations? The Catechism of the Council of Trent seems to be the most reliable; indeed it was the one I was catechised with. But I have heard traditionalist Catholics defend the CCC, notwithstanding its ambiguities. How did/do you approach catechesis?
Thanks for your question, Oscar, and congratulations on your upcoming nuptials (and in the old rite, no less!).
The new catechism has strengths and weaknesses, and a lot of omissions, but above all it is not a good pedagogical text, especially for young people. It's more of a study text for older Catholics, I would say. It was actually meant most of all as a "master key" for the preparation of adapted catechisms, although in the vacuum of catechesis of recent decades many simply took it up as-is and used it.
The Catechism of Trent is much clearer on most of the basics of the Faith, but again, may not always be suitable for children.
The Catechism of St. Pius X, and the Baltimore Catechism, are much better in that regard, as they were designed for use with children.
Thank you for your advice, Dr. Kwasniewski. I do in fact have a copy of Pius X's catechism, so that's good to know. I also recently acquired Bishop Schneider's "Credo", which is very good. God bless.
Francis was pushing synodality towards a simple democracy where even laity would be voting on synodal documents which would then have the force of ordinary magisterium. My understanding is that Leo has quietly returned to the language of synods OF BISHOPS where they alone will vote.
I will admit that Leo's appointments have been disappointing so far. Some of that I chalk up to having bad options or trusting subordinates too much, but if, after a year or so, there is not significant improvement on the personnel side, I will probably begin to lose my desire to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Okay--thank you. I presume by "anti-Leo brigade" you're referring to Chris Jackson, The Catholic Esquire, Steve Kokx, Anthony Stine et al. Part of their recent increase in popularity stems from the seemingly choreographed turn-around of what they refer to as Trad Inc. commentators who were skeptical of Leo and then, all at the same time and in almost the same words did an about face. That plandemic-reminiscent and genuinely bizarre (as in synchronized swim) move alone cast a lot of doubt on their objectivity and reliability as analysts of the current state and direction of the Church. That lead a lot of us to seek other sources and to start to take other voices including (at least) the more reasonable sedevacantists (W.M. Review) more seriously.
I think this is an example of cognitive bias, to be honest.
Most of us had little idea who Prevost was.
My initial information came from John Henry Westen, who told me Prevost was bad news, based on the little he knew.
That's why, I assume, most of us had an initial "Ewww" reaction when he came out on the loggia.
But as we scrambled to find out more, as we watched him and listened to him, our minds changed from knee-jerk horror (as was understandable after 12 years of spiritual abuse) to acceptance, cautious optimism, and a patient hope to see if he would go in a different and at least somewhat better direction.
To me, this is not a conspiracy, or a sign of grifting, or cowardice, or who knows what, but a realistic assessment. What I find quite unreal is the constant negativity of people who claim to find in everything Leo does and says the indications of a modernist.
I agree that sometimes they seem to be picking nits that aren't even there. However, I resonate completely with their frustration: error has no rights, and that applies to the whole of Vatican II (despite the possibility of reading parts of it as sort of orthodox). When it comes to erroneous doctrine or the lavender mafia, throw the bums out!
I should have added that Cardinal Burke's general positivity about Leo has persuaded me that he's neither a Francis 2.0 nor a Cupich lookalike.
Certainly, I agree with you; I would simply say every pope we've had since Pius XII has been problematic, so we're running on a really, really long bad streak here.
"Pitre, however great a scholar of Scripture he undoubtedly is, has no business lecturing the rest of us about liturgy."
I think I've read one book by Pitre, and I found it on the whole to be a tissue of bland "JPII generation" nostrums, not really scholarly or insightful or interesting or compelling, and sometimes rather misleading if not downright nonsensical.
However, Peter, your "no business"-business here strikes me as arrogant and unwarranted. Just correct his errors as necessary. No need to get defensive and belligerent about him daring to encroach on 'your' turf.
I've been reading some of your books and for the most part I think they are excellent and I wd highly recommend them, but in Illusions of Reform I find that you do rhetorically overindulge your justified indignation with CHW's trash defense of the NOM and attack on the TLM. IMO CHW's series of articles really is garbage, and you actually over-dignify their position by waxing overly indignant or overly defensive. FWIW I prefer, and wd recommend, Janet Smith's or Fr Hunwicke's tone to yours in certain parts of that book. (Needless to say, I hope, I remain a grateful admirer of your prodigious and outstanding work.)
You are not the first to express a preference for acerbic wit or even-keeled sobriety over an indignant tone, but I'm not sure how easy it would be for me to change my tune at my age. I can assure you that I nearly always comb through my work and root out the most extreme language, though doubtless some falls through the cracks.
With Pitre, I have to say that his relentless defense of the Novus Ordo is infuriating because he has been corrected multiple times but it's "water off a duck's back." And given the millions who venerate him as "the next Scott Hahn" so to speak, the intellectual dishonesty is staggering.
I suppose the same is true for CHW: these are respected scholars (well, Healy not so much) and should know better.
I suppose we can hope and pray that he will become "the next Scott Hahn," and eventually discover the intellectual and spiritual fatuousness of ignoring, denigrating, undermining the sacred traditions of Holy Mother Church, as Hahn over the years has tended to do.
Yes! I see that to be clear I really shd have written: as Hahn has tended to discover, or as Hahn has become progressively more aware.
I was thinking about this while working today. It wonder if a future pope might do well to formally anathematize as heresy any claim or implication to the effect that V2 was "the Council" -- i.e., which superseded and relativized all other councils, by finally opening the windows of the Church to let in the Holy Spirit (and all that blasphemous self-serving garbage); and the principal fomenter of this heresy wd have to be recognized as being JP2 and his numerous loyal acolytes like Brant Pitre and Christopher West. And I wonder if we will need to formally recognize as another complementary heresy the idea that V2 and its "spirit" can and shd be understood in accordance with a "hermeneutic of continuity" -- the principal fomenter in this case being Ratzinger -- this kind of a priori historical-interpretive shoe-horning being inimical to a true and just appreciation of the uneven and unpredictable course of the actual development of true Catholic doctrine.
"Christianity has been long enough in the world to justify us in dealing with it as a fact in the world's history." (JH Newman) Likewise, V2 and its legacy has been long enough in the world to justify us in dealing with it as a fact in the Church's history. And any interpretation of that fact according to a 'hermeneutic of continuity' will inevitably do violence to the historical truth of the matter and to sound principles of hermeneutics. 'Hermeneutic of continuity' (much like 'hermeneutic of rupture' or 'the spirit of V2') can only rightly be understood as an ideological strain within that history, not as a legitimate a priori interpretive key to rightly understanding that history.
(An aside: Fr Peter Miller's essay in Illusions of Reform is priceless!)
The piece by James Green hits home for me. As a once-upon-a-time avid user of psychedelics, and now Trad Catholic, I can state unequivocally that the two are diametrically opposed. What's more, I do see how (though not from experience) psychedelics COULD interact with other religions and enhance (false or even demonic) experiences. This new zeal for psychedelics as possibly useful in treating PTSD, etc. is muy dangerous. Those interested in the subject should check out Benjamin Breen's "Tripping On Utopia." Don't bother with Michael Pollan's all-in on psychedelics.
“impromptu blather” 😂 That’s why I love reading you: down to earth and funny erudition!
Dearest Dr. Kwasniewski,
Please forgive my asking this question in a somewhat irrelevant "thread", but I wasn't sure how else to contact you. I pay for very few Substacks. Yours is among them. I delight in these weekly roundups and am always forwarding them to my soon-to-be-wife, a fellow convert to the Catholic faith (we get married on 13 September in the Old Rite!). Lately, she and I have been grappling with how best to catechise whatever children the Lord may bless us with.
I have racked my brains about the best catechism -- the "desert island" catechism, as it were. I was wondering if you had any comments or recommendations? The Catechism of the Council of Trent seems to be the most reliable; indeed it was the one I was catechised with. But I have heard traditionalist Catholics defend the CCC, notwithstanding its ambiguities. How did/do you approach catechesis?
Any advice hugely appreciated. Yours in Christ,
Oscar,
England.
Thanks for your question, Oscar, and congratulations on your upcoming nuptials (and in the old rite, no less!).
The new catechism has strengths and weaknesses, and a lot of omissions, but above all it is not a good pedagogical text, especially for young people. It's more of a study text for older Catholics, I would say. It was actually meant most of all as a "master key" for the preparation of adapted catechisms, although in the vacuum of catechesis of recent decades many simply took it up as-is and used it.
The Catechism of Trent is much clearer on most of the basics of the Faith, but again, may not always be suitable for children.
The Catechism of St. Pius X, and the Baltimore Catechism, are much better in that regard, as they were designed for use with children.
Thank you for your advice, Dr. Kwasniewski. I do in fact have a copy of Pius X's catechism, so that's good to know. I also recently acquired Bishop Schneider's "Credo", which is very good. God bless.
Thank you for your balanced and nuanced reading of Pope Leo. Just two points on which I'd like to hear you weigh in:
- Could you spell out the bizarre elements you are referring to: "synodality, from which already the most bizarre elements have vanished like smoke."
- How does what you say about Leo square with his mostly appalling appointments? I have usually found that personnel does in fact equate to policy.
Francis was pushing synodality towards a simple democracy where even laity would be voting on synodal documents which would then have the force of ordinary magisterium. My understanding is that Leo has quietly returned to the language of synods OF BISHOPS where they alone will vote.
I will admit that Leo's appointments have been disappointing so far. Some of that I chalk up to having bad options or trusting subordinates too much, but if, after a year or so, there is not significant improvement on the personnel side, I will probably begin to lose my desire to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Okay--thank you. I presume by "anti-Leo brigade" you're referring to Chris Jackson, The Catholic Esquire, Steve Kokx, Anthony Stine et al. Part of their recent increase in popularity stems from the seemingly choreographed turn-around of what they refer to as Trad Inc. commentators who were skeptical of Leo and then, all at the same time and in almost the same words did an about face. That plandemic-reminiscent and genuinely bizarre (as in synchronized swim) move alone cast a lot of doubt on their objectivity and reliability as analysts of the current state and direction of the Church. That lead a lot of us to seek other sources and to start to take other voices including (at least) the more reasonable sedevacantists (W.M. Review) more seriously.
I think this is an example of cognitive bias, to be honest.
Most of us had little idea who Prevost was.
My initial information came from John Henry Westen, who told me Prevost was bad news, based on the little he knew.
That's why, I assume, most of us had an initial "Ewww" reaction when he came out on the loggia.
But as we scrambled to find out more, as we watched him and listened to him, our minds changed from knee-jerk horror (as was understandable after 12 years of spiritual abuse) to acceptance, cautious optimism, and a patient hope to see if he would go in a different and at least somewhat better direction.
To me, this is not a conspiracy, or a sign of grifting, or cowardice, or who knows what, but a realistic assessment. What I find quite unreal is the constant negativity of people who claim to find in everything Leo does and says the indications of a modernist.
I agree that sometimes they seem to be picking nits that aren't even there. However, I resonate completely with their frustration: error has no rights, and that applies to the whole of Vatican II (despite the possibility of reading parts of it as sort of orthodox). When it comes to erroneous doctrine or the lavender mafia, throw the bums out!
I should have added that Cardinal Burke's general positivity about Leo has persuaded me that he's neither a Francis 2.0 nor a Cupich lookalike.
Certainly, I agree with you; I would simply say every pope we've had since Pius XII has been problematic, so we're running on a really, really long bad streak here.
"Pitre, however great a scholar of Scripture he undoubtedly is, has no business lecturing the rest of us about liturgy."
I think I've read one book by Pitre, and I found it on the whole to be a tissue of bland "JPII generation" nostrums, not really scholarly or insightful or interesting or compelling, and sometimes rather misleading if not downright nonsensical.
However, Peter, your "no business"-business here strikes me as arrogant and unwarranted. Just correct his errors as necessary. No need to get defensive and belligerent about him daring to encroach on 'your' turf.
I've been reading some of your books and for the most part I think they are excellent and I wd highly recommend them, but in Illusions of Reform I find that you do rhetorically overindulge your justified indignation with CHW's trash defense of the NOM and attack on the TLM. IMO CHW's series of articles really is garbage, and you actually over-dignify their position by waxing overly indignant or overly defensive. FWIW I prefer, and wd recommend, Janet Smith's or Fr Hunwicke's tone to yours in certain parts of that book. (Needless to say, I hope, I remain a grateful admirer of your prodigious and outstanding work.)
David,
You are not the first to express a preference for acerbic wit or even-keeled sobriety over an indignant tone, but I'm not sure how easy it would be for me to change my tune at my age. I can assure you that I nearly always comb through my work and root out the most extreme language, though doubtless some falls through the cracks.
With Pitre, I have to say that his relentless defense of the Novus Ordo is infuriating because he has been corrected multiple times but it's "water off a duck's back." And given the millions who venerate him as "the next Scott Hahn" so to speak, the intellectual dishonesty is staggering.
I suppose the same is true for CHW: these are respected scholars (well, Healy not so much) and should know better.
God bless,
Peter
I suppose we can hope and pray that he will become "the next Scott Hahn," and eventually discover the intellectual and spiritual fatuousness of ignoring, denigrating, undermining the sacred traditions of Holy Mother Church, as Hahn over the years has tended to do.
I assume you mean that Hahn has become more of a traditionalist? Because that indeed is the truth!
Yes! I see that to be clear I really shd have written: as Hahn has tended to discover, or as Hahn has become progressively more aware.
I was thinking about this while working today. It wonder if a future pope might do well to formally anathematize as heresy any claim or implication to the effect that V2 was "the Council" -- i.e., which superseded and relativized all other councils, by finally opening the windows of the Church to let in the Holy Spirit (and all that blasphemous self-serving garbage); and the principal fomenter of this heresy wd have to be recognized as being JP2 and his numerous loyal acolytes like Brant Pitre and Christopher West. And I wonder if we will need to formally recognize as another complementary heresy the idea that V2 and its "spirit" can and shd be understood in accordance with a "hermeneutic of continuity" -- the principal fomenter in this case being Ratzinger -- this kind of a priori historical-interpretive shoe-horning being inimical to a true and just appreciation of the uneven and unpredictable course of the actual development of true Catholic doctrine.
"Christianity has been long enough in the world to justify us in dealing with it as a fact in the world's history." (JH Newman) Likewise, V2 and its legacy has been long enough in the world to justify us in dealing with it as a fact in the Church's history. And any interpretation of that fact according to a 'hermeneutic of continuity' will inevitably do violence to the historical truth of the matter and to sound principles of hermeneutics. 'Hermeneutic of continuity' (much like 'hermeneutic of rupture' or 'the spirit of V2') can only rightly be understood as an ideological strain within that history, not as a legitimate a priori interpretive key to rightly understanding that history.
(An aside: Fr Peter Miller's essay in Illusions of Reform is priceless!)
Excellent round up as usual! Thank you again. Lots to absorb.
"Remember: I read voraciously so that you don’t have to!"
Yep! That's why I subscribe! :-)