By: Christ the King Law Center (CKLC)

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! Portions of this abstract were also taken from traditional Catholic attorney and author Christopher Ferrara's book The Church and the Libertarian: A Defense of the Catholic Church's Teaching on Man, Economy, and State.


​The Catholic Church teaches that employers must pay just wages to their workers. The Church's doctrine on the just wage and the natural rights of laborers in general is developed in the seminal encyclical of Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (1891). In this encyclical Leo explains that, because of the Fall of Adam, labor is necessary for man's very survival. Thus, labor is not merely a personal activity in which one can engage or not engage at one's pleasure, but rather the very means by which life is sustained. From this truth of Revelation, says Leo, one must conclude that while free agreements concerning the price of labor are certainly permissible, such agreements, as a matter of natural justice, must provide for the laborer's support and that of his family:

• Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice... If a workman's wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings and thus secure a modest source of income. Nature itself would urge him to this. [1]

​
The employer's duty to pay his workers a wage sufficient for the support of families-when this is possible, of course[2]-arises from the family's status as the building block of the State," a true society, and one older than the State," which "has rights and duties peculiar to itself which are quite independent of the State." [3] 

Therefore in a Catholic social order all employers would strive to pay a living wage to their employees whenever and wherever possible, secured by collective bargaining and arbitration if need be.

Private bodies-such as a modern analogue of the guilds or other forms of workers' association-would oversee such matters as labor disputes and workplace safety, disability and unemployment insurance funds, and measures designed to allow married women with children to remain in the home while their husbands work. As a last resort, local government would be asked to intervene for purposes of dispute resolution.

In terms of employee compensation, local or state law would fix a minimum wage if the competent authority, either the electorate or local legislature, is persuaded of its efficacy, and local law would encourage the creation of pension and wage funds in lieu of corporate taxes. Local or state law would also ban child labor under appropriate legal criteria. Local or state boards would intervene to arbitrate labor issues only at the request of private labor bodies or management in the event of an impasse. 

[1] Rerum Novarum, n. 45.

[2] Obviously, employees cannot justly demand "excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin..." Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno, n. 72.

[3] Rerum Novarum, n. 13.

By: Christ the King Law Center (CKLC)

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! Portions of this abstract were also taken from traditional Catholic attorney and author Christopher Ferrara's book The Church and the Libertarian: A Defense of the Catholic Church's Teaching on Man, Economy, and State.



​The natural right to ownership and use of private property would be protected by civil law in keeping with the teaching of the Church that "private ownership is in accordance with the law of nature.... [T]he practice of all ages has consecrated the principle of private ownership, as being pre-eminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquility of human existence." [1]

However, while defending private property, the Church condemns economic liberalism's fundamental claim of an "absolute" right to own and use it so long as one does not physically invade the property of others. First of all, even mere reason dictates that one may not use one's property to do evil-for example, the use of a printing press for the publication of pornography or the use of medical equipment to perform abortions. Civil authority has every right to prevent immoral uses of property that harm the common good, by confiscation if necessary. [2]

Further, as the Church has taught for 2,000 years, all the bounty of the earth, being part of divine creation, is universally destined for the common good of humanity, even if some men hold title against others to the use and ownership of property. Hence the rich have no "absolute" right to keep their goods from the poor, and the poor have a claim in justice on those goods in times of necessity. As St. Thomas Aquinas famously teaches in line with all of Tradition: "It is not theft, properly speaking to take secretly and use another's property in a case of extreme need: because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need." [3]. The classic example of this truth is the starving man who takes a loaf of bread from a rich man's pantry. The loaf belongs to the starving man, not to the rich man-a moral truth the [libertarians of the] Austrian [school of economics] views with utter incomprehension.

The Church has proclaimed infallibly through her universal and ordinary Magisterium (constant teaching) that every human being in need "has not only a claim in charity, but a strict right to as much wealth of the community as is necessary to maintain his life. Such was the doctrine of the Early Fathers of the Church, and such has been the doctrine of all her authoritative teachers down to the present hour." [4] The Church does not mean this in the socialist sense of a compulsory distribution of wealth, which in fact she opposes, but in the sense of a moral claim-again, in justice not merely in charity-on privately owned goods by those in need of sustenance for their very lives. Msgr. John A Ryan, who was a great defender of Catholic social teaching explains:

• The teaching of Basil in the East and Ambrose in the West may be taken as representing the mind of all the Fathers [of the Church]. The former tells the rich man that the superfluous bread, shoes and clothes in his possession belong to his hungry and naked neighbors, while the latter declares that the man of wealth who gives to the poor is not bestowing an alms, but paying a debt. [5]

In the encyclical Centesimus Annus, written to commemorate Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum, Pope John Paul II declared that while "Leo XIII strongly affirmed the natural character of the right to private property, using various arguments against the socialism of his time," he was "well aware that private property is not an absolute value, nor does he fail to proclaim the necessary complementary principles, such as the universal destination of the earth's goods." [6] In Centesimus John Paul forcefully reminded the faithful that the "Church teaches that the possession of material goods is not an absolute right, and that its limits are inscribed in its very nature as a human right."

The right to private property not being absolute, however, its use would continue to be regulated by local laws providing for moderate and just taxation, zoning, esthetics, pollution control, abatement of nuisance, and the like. No community, county or region should have to tolerate such abuses of private ownership as the blight of vulgar advertising signs, cookie-cutter housing developments on stripped acreage, hideous structures, porn shops, nude dancing establishments, reckless discharge of toxic waste, excessive noise, and massive multinational retail operations plunking down in the midst of small towns and destroying local businesses. 

[1] Rerum Novarum, nn. 9, 11.

[2] Even the new Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges this. See, CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, paragraph 2354 ("Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.")

[3] ST, II-II, Q. 66, Art. 7.

[4] John A. Ryan, A Living Wage (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1920), p. 29.

[5] Ibid.

[6] John Paul II, Centesimus Annus (1991), n. 6.

​Below is a list of Traditional Latin Masses (TLMs) in southern California for the Feast of All Saints on November 1, 2019. DISCLAIMER. Also, please note that this list may be updated as new information about other Mass times and locations becomes available.



Key: 

Diocese: TLMs administered by priests that operate under the control or approval of the local diocese or bishop (not including FSSP). 

FSSP: TLMs administered by priests of the Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP).

Independent: TLMs administered by priests that do not operate under the control or approval of the local diocese or bishop (not including SSPX). 

SSPX: TLMs administered by priests of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX).


Archdiocese of Los Angeles  

Saint Mary Magdalen (Diocese/FSSP)
2532 Ventura Boulevard
Camarillo, California 93010
(805) 484-0532
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Saint Anthony Roman Catholic Church (Diocese)
​710 East Grand Avenue
El Segundo, CA 90245
(310) 322-4392
Time: 1:30 p.m.

San Felipe Chapel (Diocese)
738 N. Geraghty Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90063
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Saint Vitus Catholic Church  (FSSP)
607 4th Street
San Fernando, CA 91340
(323) 454-1002
Time: 12:00 p.m. & 7:00 p.m.

St. Thomas Aquinas College Chapel (Diocese)
10000 N. Ojai Road
Santa Paula, CA 93060
(805) 525-4417
Time: 7:15 a.m.

Saints Peter and Paul Catholic Church (Diocese)
515 West Opp Street
Wilmington, CA 90744 
(310) 834-5215
Time: 7:30 p.m.

Diocese of Orange

Our Lady Help of Christians (Independent)
9621 Bixby Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92841
(714) 635-0510
Time: 7:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m., & 7:00 p.m.

Saint Mary's by the Sea (Diocese)
1015 Baker Street  
Costa Mesa, CA 92626   
(714) 540-2214   
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Diocese of San Bernardino 

San Secondo d'Asti (Diocese)
250 North Turner Avenue
Guasti/Ontario, CA 91761
(909) 390-0011
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Diocese of San Diego

Saint Anne Catholic Church (FSSP)
2337 Irving Avenue
San Diego, CA. 92113
(619) 239-8253
Time: 7:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m., & 7:00 p.m.

By: Christ the King Law Center (CKLC)

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! Portions of this abstract were also taken from traditional Catholic attorney and author Christopher Ferrara's book The Church and the Libertarian: A Defense of the Catholic Church's Teaching on Man, Economy, and State.




Not only the market, but the moral order of society generally would be protected by the legal prohibition of not only theft and violence, but also such evils contrary to the common good as abortion, divorce, adultery, sodomy, public lewdness and drunkenness, drunk driving, drug abuse and prostitution, homosexual "marriage" and adoption.

Freedom of speech would be restricted according to established categories of unprotected speech, including incitement to violence, publication or distribution of pornography, lewd and indecent public speech, libel and slander. In addition, the advocacy of legalized abortion and other grave offenses against the natural and divine law would be prohibited. It is madness to maintain that one has no right to engage in false advertising, for example, but that one must have every right to advocate and persuade others to commit mass murder in the womb or other such intolerable evils.
    
A Catholic movement for true liberty, freed from the oppression of a federal government, could actually reverse the status quo of political modernity where religion is concerned. Why not restore the civil law protection and promotion of religion that was a juridical norm for more than fifteen centuries before the disastrous "age of democratic revolution," hailed by Mises and Rothbard, foisted massive, secularized central governments on once Christian peoples?

The constitutional scholar Leonard Levy notes that as of the date of the First Amendment's ratification (1791), all but two of the new states had precisely what the U.S. Constitution forbids: religious tests for public office that disqualified atheists and agnostics from exercising political authority. Some states denied the franchise to atheists, prohibited court testimony by anyone "refusing to swear or affirm the existence of God," and barred atheists from holding or conveying property in trust. In general "anyone who rejected the doctrine of the Trinity suffered civil disabilities." Profanity and blasphemy were punishable as criminal offenses in every state, and the observance of the Christian Sabbath was legally enforced. In short, "Christianity was regarded by state jurists as part and parcel of the law of the land." [1] And so it had been throughout the Western world since the Edict of Milan.

The basic scheme predominating in the colonies, and to a great extent in most of the States for some time even after ratification of the Constitution and the First Amendment, reflected the logical and historically unbroken recognition that revealed religion must be the lodestar of the State, and as such must be protected and defended by law and made part of the juridical basis of public morality for the common good. As the Anglican scholar John Millbank has observed: "Once there was no secular. Instead there was the single community of Christendom with its dual aspects of sacerdotium and regnum.... The secular as a domain had to be created or imagined [Milbank's emphasis], both in theory and in practice." [2] 

True liberty means taking back the public square for Christ by abolishing the great Liberal and Libertarian fiction of a realm of the secular, including a "free" market arbitrarily deemed exempt from the liberating law of the Gospel. Without federal interference (precluded by subsidiarity), at least the localities in which Catholics constitute a majority could recreate the conditions necessary for a Christian commonwealth. Why not a truly Catholic town, or even a Catholic city or a Catholic county? 

[1] Leonard Levy, The Establishment Clause (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1994), 74-77 & 78 n. 7.

[2] Milbank, Theology and Social Theory (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), p. 9.

Below is a list of Traditional Latin Masses (TLMs) in southern California for the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary on August 15, 2019. DISCLAIMER.










Key: 

Diocese: TLMs administered by priests that operate under the control and approval of the local diocese or bishop. 

FSSP: TLMs administered by priests of the Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP).

Independent: TLMs administered by priests that do not operate under the control or approval of the local diocese or bishop. 

SSPX: TLMs administered by priests of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX).




Archdiocese of Los Angeles  

Our Lady of the Angels Church (SSPX)                              
1100 West Duarte Road
Arcadia, CA 91007
(626) 447-1752
Time: 10:00 a.m. & 7:00 p.m.

Saint Mary Magdalen Chapel (Diocese)
2532 Ventura Blvd.
Camarillo, CA 93010
(805) 484-0532
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Saint Anthony Roman Catholic Church (Diocese)
710 East Grand Avenue
El Segundo, CA 90245
(310) 322-4392
Time: 1:30 p.m.

San Felipe Chapel (Diocese)
738 N. Geraghty Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90063
Time: 7:00 a.m.

Saint Patrick's Roman Catholic Mission (Independent)
Northridge Women's Club
18401 Lassen Street
Northridge, CA 91325
Time: 8:30 a.m.

Saint Vitus Catholic Church (FSSP)
607 4th Street
San Fernando, CA 91340
(323) 454-1002
Time: 12:00 p.m. & 7:00 p.m.

Maria Stella Maris Mission (SSPX)
3600 S. Gaffey Street
San Pedro, CA 90731
(310) 548-4706
Time: 7:30 p.m.

St. Thomas Aquinas College Chapel (Diocese)
10000 N. Ojai Road
Santa Paula, CA 93060
(805) 525-4417
Time: 7:15 a.m.

Saints Peter and Paul Catholic Church (Diocese)
515 West Opp Street
Wilmington, CA 90744 
(310) 834-5215
Time: 7:30 p.m.

Diocese of Orange

Saint John the Baptist Catholic Church (Diocese)
1015 Baker Street 
Costa Mesa, CA 92626  
(714) 540-2214  
Time: 12:00 p.m.

Our Lady Help of Christians (Independent)
9621 Bixby Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92841
(714) 635-0510
Time: 7:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m. & 7:00 p.m.

Saint Mary's by the Sea (Diocese)
321 10th Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 536-6913
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Diocese of San Bernardino 

St. Joseph's & Immaculate Heart of Mary Church (SSPX)
1090 West Laurel Street
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-0323
Tim: 7:00 p.m.

San Secondo d'Asti (Diocese)
250 North Turner Avenue
Guasti/Ontario, CA 91761
(909) 390-0011
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Diocese of San Diego

Saint Mary Church (Diocese)
1160 South Broadway
Escondido, CA 92025
(760) 745-1611
Time: 12:00 p.m.

Saint Anne Catholic Church (FSSP)
2337 Irving Avenue
San Diego, CA. 92113
(619) 239-8253
Time: 7:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m., & 7:00 p.m. 

By: John P. Joy, STD

Editor’s Note: The following article was published on the website of THE JOSIAS. It has been rep-published with permission from the Josias and with the permission of the author John P. Joy, STD. 




In view of the uproar caused by Pope Francis’ decision to alter the text of the Catechism on the death penalty, it may be helpful to pause and consider the magisterial weight or degree of teaching authority exercised by the pope in promulgating this text and the corresponding response due to this teaching on the part of the faithful. The three levels of magisterial authority are outlined in the concluding formula of the Profession of Faith as follows:

• With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.
• I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.
• Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act. [1]

The first two paragraphs refer to the infallible teaching of the Church, which is proposed either as contained in divine revelation and so “to be believed as divinely revealed” (first paragraph) or as at least connected to divine revelation and so “definitively to be held” (second paragraph). The third paragraph refers to the authentic (that is, authoritative) but not infallible teaching of the pope or bishops.

The pope teaches infallibly only when he fulfills the requirements set forth by the First Vatican Council. [2] These requirements are essentially three, pertaining to the subject, object, and act of the teaching. [3] (1) On the part of the subject, the pope must be speaking as supreme head of the universal Church and not merely as a private person or a local bishop; (2) on the part of the object, the pope must be speaking about a matter of faith or morals; (3) and on the part of the act itself, the pope must define the doctrine by a definitive act. [4]


Magisterial Weight of the New Text of the Catechism


In the present case, there is no great difficulty in recognizing that Pope Francis was acting in an official capacity as supreme head of the Church when he approved the new text of the Catechism n. 2267 and ordered it to be inserted into all editions of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is intended as a teaching document for the whole Church. And there seems to be no doubt that the text in question has to do with matters of faith and morals, for the death penalty pertains in itself to morals and the teaching is proposed explicitly “in the light of the Gospel” [5] and in the context of an exposition of the Fifth Commandment. But with respect to the third requirement, there does not seem to be any evidence of the definitive mode of proclamation that is required for infallibility. The burden of proof would in any case be on anyone who wanted to assert that it does constitute an infallible definition. [6]

But just because it is not infallible does not mean that it is not authoritative. The conditions for authoritative (or authentic) papal teaching are less stringent than for infallible papal teaching. For authentic papal teaching it is enough for the pope, acting in an official capacity as pope, to propose a teaching regarding faith or morals even if not by a definitive act. The rescript, therefore, by which the new text of the Catechism on the death penalty was published on August 2, 2018, is an act of the authentic papal magisterium, which calls for a religious submission of will and intellect on the part of all the faithful. [7]


Religious Submission of Will and Intellect


The nature of this religious submission of will and intellect corresponds to the nature of the authentic but non-definitive magisterium: because the teaching is authoritative, it calls for a genuine internal assent; but because the teaching is not definitive, the nature of the assent will be provisional. In other words, it will have more the character of opinion rather than knowledge, since the doctrine is to be accepted as true, though with the awareness that it could possibly be false. [8]

However, although this religious submission is normally due to the teaching of the authentic magisterium, it may legitimately be withheld in certain cases. [9] To do so merely on the basis of one’s own private judgment would certainly be rash and dangerous, but assent must be withheld when the teaching in question openly conflicts with the public dogma or definitive doctrine of the Church. For in the case of conflicting obligations, precedence must always be given to the stricter obligation; and the obligation to give definitive assent to the irreformable doctrines of the infallible Church is a stricter obligation than the religious submission due to the non-infallible teaching of the authentic magisterium. (And it is not possible to assent simultaneously to contradictory propositions.)

The duty of religious submission to the authentic teaching of the Holy Father, therefore, is very much like the duty of children to obey their parents. Just as children have a duty to obey their parents in all things unless their parents command them to violate the law of God, so too Catholics have a duty to assent to all things taught by the authentic papal magisterium unless the pope should teach something contrary to a truth revealed by God himself or infallibly taught by the Church as pertaining to divine revelation. And just as children must obey the higher law of God even when it means disobedience to their parents, so Catholics must believe and hold the dogmas and definitive doctrines of the Church even if this means withholding assent from a given instance of authentic papal teaching.


Magisterial Weight of the Traditional Catholic Teaching


Now the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church is that the death penalty is in principle legitimate, [10] which means that it is not intrinsically immoral. And this traditional teaching is absolutely unchangeable, for it is a dogma of divine and catholic faith. [11]

A dogma is a doctrine contained in divine revelation (Scripture or Tradition) which has been proposed as such by the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium. [12] Now the legitimacy in principle of the death penalty is clearly taught in Scripture. For example: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image” (Gen 9:6). [13[ Nor may any Catholic legitimately dispute this interpretation of Scripture, for the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are unanimous in interpreting Scripture (especially Gen 9:6 and Rom 13:4) as affirming the legitimacy in principle of the death penalty as a matter of justice. [14] And it is never permitted for any Catholic to interpret Scripture contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, as the Councils of Trent and Vatican I have declared. [15] Moreover, such a unanimous consensus is sufficient proof that the doctrine has been infallibly taught by the magisterium of the Church dispersed throughout the world.[16] Therefore, the legitimacy in principle of the death penalty as a matter of justice is a dogma of divine and catholic faith. And to doubt or deny a dogma of divine and catholic faith is heresy. [17]


What Does this mean for the New Text of the Catechism?


The new text of the Catechism n. 2267 reads as follows:

• Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
• Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
• Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide. [18]

In the letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the bishops regarding this new revision, Cardinal Ladaria asserts that this teaching constitutes “an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium,” [19] which can only means that it does not deny the legitimacy in principle of the death penalty. He also acknowledges that, “the political and social situation of the past [may have] made the death penalty an acceptable means for the protection of the common good,” [20] which seems to suggest that this text is not intended to be understood as meaning that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral. For anything that is intrinsically immoral can never be justified under any circumstances, past, present, or future. Moreover, the development of more effective prisons in modern society is cited as one of the reasons for the new teaching, which would seem to allow for the fact that the death penalty could have been justified prior to the development of better prisons, in which case, presumably, it can still be justified in less developed societies, and could be justified again if the prison systems in more developed societies deteriorate. And anything that could ever be justified cannot be intrinsically immoral.

On the other hand, to say that the death penalty is inadmissible precisely “because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” is hard to understand in any other way than as an assertion of its intrinsic immorality. For surely it is always and everywhere immoral to attack the inviolability and dignity of the person. Likewise, the earlier remark of Pope Francis cited in the letter to the bishops: “The death penalty, regardless of the means of execution, ‘entails cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.’” [21] For again, it is surely always and everywhere immoral to treat people in a manner that is cruel, inhumane, and degrading.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion, therefore, that this text suffers from serious ambiguity (inasmuch as it seems to be open to multiple interpretations) or even incoherence (inasmuch as it seems to assert contradictory propositions). In any case, however, Catholics are obliged to continue believing that the death penalty is in principle legitimate, since this is a dogma of divine and catholic faith; and because of the religious submission of will and intellect due to the authentic magisterium of the Holy Father, Catholics should also refrain from interpreting the new text of the Catechism in a manner that would contradict the traditional dogma as long as any other interpretation remains possible.
​​
[1] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Professio fidei (1998). 

[2] Vatican I. Pastor aeternus, cap. 4: "When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals."

[3] See The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican Council I, trans. James T. O'Connor (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1986), 45-46.

[4] Cf. Vatican II, Lumen gentium, 25: “And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Lk 22:32), by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.”

[5] New redaction of n. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty (2 Aug. 2018).

[6] CIC 749, §3: “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.”

[7] Vatican II, Lumen gentium, 25: “This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

[8] Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, de Veritate, q. 14, a. 1.

[9] This is discussed by the CDF in Donum veritatis (1990), 24–31.

[10] See, for example, the Catechism of the Council of Trent: “Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: ‘In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord’ (Ps 101:8).”

[11] Vatican I, Dei Filius, cap. 4: “That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.” Cf. Dei Filius, cap. 4, can. 3 “If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.”

[12] Cf. Vatican, Dei Filius, cap. 3: “Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture or tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.”

[13] See also Rom 13:1-4; Acts 5:1-11; Acts 25:11; John 19:10-11; and the many crimes for which God required the death penalty to be applied in the law of Moses.

[14] For a thorough review of the evidence of this consensus, see Edward Feser and Joseph Bessette, By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment (Ignatius Press, 2017); see also Avery Card. Dulles, “Catholicism and Capital Punishment,” First Things (April 2001).

[15] Vatican I, Dei Filius, cap. 2: “In matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy Mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consensus of the Fathers.” Cf. Council of Trent, Second Decree on Scripture.

[16] Cf. Pope Pius IX, Tuas libenter; Vatican I, Dei Filius, cap. 3.

[17] CIC 751.

[18] New redaction of n. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty (2 Aug. 2018).

[19] CDF, Letter to the Bishops regarding the new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty (1 Aug. 2018), 1.

[20] Ibid., 2.

[21] Ibid., 6. Citing Pope Francis, Letter to the President of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty (20 March 2015): L’Osservatore Romano (20-21 March 2015), 7.

By: Christ the King Law Center (CKLC)

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! Portions of this abstract were also taken from traditional Catholic attorney and author Christopher Ferrara's book The Church and the Libertarian: A Defense of the Catholic Church's Teaching on Man, Economy, and State.



​
​And how would a Catholic state deal with the economy? When it comes to the so-called "free" market it would be subject to those legal restraints required by the moral order and natural justice, but men would otherwise be free to order their economic affairs. For example, the sale of immoral "goods" such as abortion pills, deadly drugs like heroin and PCP, contraceptives and pornography would be prohibited, as well as the provision of immoral "services" such as abortion and prostitution. Economic crimes such as false advertising, consumer fraud, price gouging, blackmail and bribery would be punished by public authority, either civilly (by actions for restitution and civil penalties) or criminally in accordance with the common law and other established legal traditions. Usury would be outlawed under local and state laws imposing limits on interest rates, which laws exist in many jurisdictions in the United States but have been superseded by federal law on account of lobbying by Big Finance.

Under local and state law employers would be required to allow the observance of the Sunday rest by employees, and communities would have the right to enact "Blue Laws" requiring the closing of retail businesses on Sunday-a legal measure still in effect in various American localities, such as Bergen County, New Jersey. [1] Local law, including zoning ordinances, would otherwise protect the character of the community.
​
[1] See "Blue Law," en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law, surveying the remaining state and local laws in this area.

By: Christ the King Law Center (CKLC)

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! 













It is the traditional teaching of the Church (and still the teaching of the Church) that the husband is the head of the wife and the family. Pope Leo XIII taught:

• 'The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and in her who obeys, a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties. For "the husband is the head of the wife; as Christ is the head of the Church. . . Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things."' [1]

"Outrageous! Crazy! Sexist! Machista!" These are a few of the things we might hear if we repeat these words to the average modern woman (and man). Doubtless even the vast majority of so called Catholics and even conservative Catholics would not like it. However our faith is not subject to the whims of popular opinion but on the will of God. We can recall how many of the things Our Lord Jesus Christ taught which were rejected in His day and He was eventually crucified for them.

This teaching-that the husband is the head of the wife and family-was upheld in the laws and customs of Christian society. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that:

• "In Christianized society ... man was to act as the lawful representative of authority, and   the lawful defender of rights... in the civil, [and] national... community. Therefore, the social position of woman remains in Christianity that of subordination to man, wherever the two sexes by necessity find themselves obliged to supplement each other in common activity. The woman develops her authority, founded in human dignity, in connection   with, and subordinate to, the man in domestic society as the mistress of the home. At the same time the indispensable motherly influence extends from the home over the development of law and custom. While, however, man is called to share directly in the affairs of the state, female influence can be ordinarily exerted upon such matters only indirectly. Consequently, it is only in exceptional cases that in Christian kingdoms the direct sovereignty is placed in the hands of woman, as is shown by the women who have ascended thrones." 

A good example of this is fifteenth and sixteenth century Spain during the time of Servant of God Queen Isabella the Catholic. Queen Isabella became Queen of Castile only after her brother and half-brother died without any legitimate male heirs and Queen Isabella herself designated her son-Prince John-as her heir when she became queen (The prince did not succeed Isabella as King of Castile because he died before Isabella's death).

However in the republics that came after the monarchies of Christendom the issue came up as to whether women should be given the right to vote. In his book "To Build the City of God: Living as Catholics in a Secular Age" law professor Brian McCall stated the following:

• 'Turning from economics to politics, we see that voting prior to the turn of the twentieth century was a public act undertaken by men. Again, contrary to the cries of the suffragettes, the reason was not that women were incapable of making elective decisions, but that as one flesh, man and woman should vote as only one voice not two (and even opposite, thus cancelling each other out). Again, as the headship is placed on the husband, it was the husband who bore the burden of expressing the choice of one flesh after properly considering the matter (including what his "heart" or wife had to say on the matter).' [2]

The Irish Jesuit priest, Father Edward Cahill, had a somewhat different view of votes for women in his 1932 book "The Framework of a Christian State". Father Cahill wrote:

• "Whatever may be said of universal suffrage as a political system, consistency and good sense seem to require, where such a political system actually exists, that the woman as such have the same franchise as the man..... Seeing however, that in the Christian concept of social life as opposed to the Liberal and unchristian theory of individualism, the family, and not the individual (except where the individual is not an organic part of an existing family), is the social unit in the State, it seems clear that the family in its external social relations and activities should be treated as an indivisible whole, Hence the family vote should, according to the Christian ideal, be indivisible, and should be exercised in the name of the family by its official head. The latter, as already shown, is the husband and father, or if he be dead or absent, the wife and mother. The matter is all the more important by reason of the closeness of the ties which, according to Christian teaching, unite the members of the family with one another; and of the perils to all the best interests of the community, which are inherent in every tendency towards the disintegration of the home. The family vote, should, of course, be accorded a special value in excess of the vote of the individual. It should have double or treble, or even more value in accordance with the size of the family. Even though such a system may seem to include certain difficulties, or even incongruities, these are to be accounted rather a result of the principles of universal suffrage, than of the family vote which is in fact the system advocated by some of the standard Catholic authors as reconciling the principle of universal suffrage with Christian ideals." [3]

Thus whether or not the right to vote should be limited to men or preference given to heads of families it would seem that the liberal concept of the right to vote being given equally to individual men and women is against Christian ideals.

Christian laws upheld the divinely ordained hierarchy in marriage in other ways. As Professor McCall put it:

• '[U]ntil the past century and a half, property was not held individually by each spouse but by the one flesh. Since the husband was the head of that one body, it was held in his name. The squawking of modern feminists notwithstanding, such a practice was not intended to oppress women. With the obligation to hold the marital wealth comes the duty of doing so in the best interests of the whole body, not just the head. Again, this duty is natural as one does not act against the interest of his own flesh (which now includes the wife). The husband may have held property in his own name, but he was not free to use it solely for his own benefit. He bears a solemn obligation to provide for the needs of his wife and children. The taking on of this responsibility is seen in the custom of the dowry. In recognition of this burden, on marriage the wife's family transfers a portion of their wealth to the husband to aid him in this obligation. This understanding, that the husband although the legal owner of the marital property is not the sole beneficiary of such wealth, is clearly seen in the words of the Traditional Rite of Marriage. While placing the wedding ring on his wife's fingers he says, "With this ring I thee wed; this gold and silver I thee give, with my body I thee worship; and with all my worldly goods I thee endow." Webster defines "endow" as "to furnish with an income especially: to make a grant of money providing for the continuing support or maintenance of." As there is no reciprocal right of the husband or obligation for the wife, the Traditional Rite does not prescribe that these words be said by the wife. As the husband bears the obligation to support the wife, the wife is endowed with the right to be cared for in all her physical needs by the husband. It is to satisfy this duty that the husband owns the property. Seen in the proper context, such a system is actually beneficial for women. They have a right to demand their husband use all worldly goods for their care and benefit.' [4]

[1] Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, n. 5.

[2] Brian McCall, To Build the City of God (Ohio: Angelico Press, 2014), 59.

[3] Rev. E. Cahill, S.J.; The Framework of a Christian State (Dublin: M.H. Gill and Son, LTD., 1932), 443-445.

[4] Brian McCall, To Build the City of God (Ohio: Angelico Press, 2014) 57-58.

Below is a list of Traditional Latin Masses (TLMs) in southern California for Holy Week 2019. DISCLAIMER. Also, please note that this list may be updated as new information about other Mass times and locations become available.


















Key: 


Diocese: TLMs administered by priests of the local diocese. 

FSSP: TLMs administered by priests of the Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP).

Independent: TLMs administered by priests that do not operate under the control or approval of the local diocese or bishop. 

SSPX: TLMs administered by priests of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX).


Archdiocese of Los Angeles  

St. Therese Church (Diocese)
1100 East Alhambra Road
Alhambra, CA 91801
(626) 282-2744
Easter Sunday: 1:00 p.m. (Sung High Mass)

Our Lady of the Angels Church (SSPX)
1100 West Duarte Road
Arcadia, CA 91007
(626) 447-1752
Holy Thursday: 7:00 p.m.
Good Friday: 2:00 p.m. (Liturgy of the Passion)
Holy Saturday: 10:00 p.m. (Easter Vigil)
Easter Sunday: 12:00 a.m. & 10:00 a.m.

St. Mary Magdalen Chapel (Diocese)
2532 Ventura Boulevard 
Camarillo, California 93010 
(805) 484-0532
Easter Sunday: 1:00 p.m.

St. Anthony Roman Catholic Church (Diocese)
710 East Grand Avenue
El Segundo, CA 90245
(310) 322-4392
Easter Sunday: 1:30 p.m.

Holy Innocents Catholic Church (Diocese) 
425 E. 20th Street
Long Beach, CA 90806
(562) 591-6924
Holy Thursday: 7:00 p.m.
Good Friday liturgy: 11:00 a.m.
Holy Saturday: 7:00 p.m.
Easter Sunday: 10:00 a.m.

Northridge Women's Club (Independent)
18401 Lassen Street
Northridge, CA 91325
Easter Sunday: 9:30 a.m.

St. Vitus Catholic Church [1] (FSSP)
​607 4th Street
San Fernando, CA 91340
(323) 454-1002
Holy Thursday: 7:00 p.m.
Good Friday liturgy [2]: 3:00 p.m.
Holy Saturday Easter vigil: 7:00 p.m.
Easter Sunday: 7:30 a.m., 9:00 a.m., & 11:00 a.m.

Maria Stella Maris Mission (SSPX)
3600 S. Gaffey Street
(on Leavenworth Drive inside Angels Gate Park
& Ft. MacArthur)
San Pedro, CA 90731
(310) 548-4706
Easter Sunday: 8:00 a.m.

St. Thomas Aquinas College Chapel (Diocese)
10000 N. Ojai Road
Santa Paula, CA 93060
(805) 525-4417
Easter Sunday: 7:15 a.m.

Saints Peter and Paul Catholic Church (Diocese)
515 West Opp Street
Wilmington, CA 90744
(310) 834-5215
Easter Sunday: 9:30 a.m. (sung High Mass)

Diocese of Orange

Saint John the Baptist Catholic Church (Diocese)
1015 Baker Street  
Costa Mesa, CA 92626   
(714) 540-2214   
Holy Thursday: 1:00 p.m.
Good Friday: 3:00 p.m. (Hall)
Holy Saturday: 10:00 p.m. (Hall)
Easter Sunday: 12:30 p.m.

Our Lady Help of Christians (Independent)
9621 Bixby Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92841
(714) 635-0510
Holy Thursday: 7:00 p.m.
Good Friday: 1:00 p.m. (Passion/Veneration of the Cross/Mass of the Presanctified)
Holy Saturday: 8:00 p.m. (Easter Vigil)
Easter Sunday: 7:30 a.m. & 10:00 a.m.

Saint Mary's by the Sea (Diocese)
321 10th Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 536-6913
Easter Sunday: 12:00 p.m.

Serra Chapel (Diocese) 
San Juan Capistrano Mission Basilica
51520 Camino Capistrano
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92657
(949) 234-1360
Easter Sunday: 8:00 a.m.

John Paul II Polish Center (Diocese)
3999 Rose Drive
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
(714) 996-8161
Easter Sunday: 12:00 p.m.

Diocese of San Bernardino 

St. Joseph's & Immaculate Heart of Mary Church (SSPX)
1090 West Laurel Street
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-0323
Holy Thursday: 7:00 p.m.
Good Friday: 12:00 p.m. (Stations of the Cross followed by Good Friday Liturgy)
Holy Saturday: 10:00 p.m.
Easter Sunday: 10:00 a.m.

San Secondo d'Asti (Diocese)
250 North Turner Avenue
Guasti/Ontario, CA 91761
(909) 390-0011
Good Friday: 7:00 p.m.
Easter Sunday: 10:45 a.m.

Sacred Heart Church (Diocese)
43775 Deep Canyon Road
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 346-6502
Easter Sunday: 2:30 p.m.

Divine Word Seminary-Stone Mansion Chapel  (Diocese)
11316 Cypress Avenue
Riverside, CA 92505
(951) 689-4858
Easter Sunday: 1:00 p.m.

Diocese of San Diego

Saint Mary Church (Diocese)
1160 South Broadway
Escondido, CA 92025
(760) 745-1611
Easter Sunday: 3:30 p.m.

Saint Margaret of Scotland Church (Diocese)
4300 Oceanside Boulevard
Oceanside, CA 92056
(760) 941-5560
Easter Sunday: 7:00 a.m.

Saint John Bosco Mission (SSPX)
Clairemont Mortuary
4266 Mt Abernathy Ave
San Diego, CA 92117
858-705-2423
Easter Sunday: 4:00 p.m.

Saint Anne Catholic Church (FSSP)
2337 Irving Avenue
San Diego, CA. 92113
(619) 239-8253
Holy Thursday: 7:00 p.m.
Good Friday: 3:00 p.m. (Solemn Liturgy), 
Holy Saturday: 10:00 p.m. 
Easter Sunday: 7:30 a.m., 9:00 a.m., 11:30 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 6:00 p.m.

[1] At St. Vitus Catholic Church the pre-1955 Missal will be used for the holy week celebrations. Such Missals will be provided to any of the faithful who attend Holy Week services here. 

[2] The pre-1955 Good Friday prayer for the Jews will be omitted during the Good Friday liturgy at St. Vitus Catholic Church. Instead, they will be using the Good Friday prayer for the Jews issued by Pope Benedict XVI. Below is a comparison of the prayers:

Pre-1955 Good Friday prayers: 

"Let us pray also for the perfidious Jews; that the Lord God would withdraw the veil from their hearts, that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ thy Son. 
[Kneeling is here omitted, in abhorrance of the insult offered by the Jews to our Saviour, when they knelt before him in derision, in the hall of Pilate's palace.]

O Almighty and Eternal God, who deniest not thy mercy even to the perfidious Jews; hear our prayers which we pour forth for the blindness of that people; that by acknowledging the light of thy truth, which is the Christ, they may be brought out of their darkness. Through the same Lord.
R. Amen"

Pope Benedict XVI's modification:

"Let us pray also for the Jews: May our God and Lord enlighten their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, savior of all men.
Let us pray.
Vs. Let us kneel.
R. Arise.

Almighty and everlasting God, who desirest that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, mercifully grant that, as the fullness of the Gentiles enters into thy Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ Our Lord.
R. Amen."

Editor's Note: Below is series of email debates a Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) attorney had with the President of a "Catholic" organization that had campaigned for the passage of Proposition 8, the California initiative in 2008 to amend the state constitution defining marriage as between only a man and a woman. Our attorney had previously volunteered with this "Catholic" organization in order to help pass proposition 8. After the election, the president of this "Catholic" organization stated in an email to the volunteers that he wanted the organization to broaden its mission and avoid appearing "reactionary". This prompted a debate with our CKLC attorney as you will see below. We will refer to the President of this "Catholic" organization as BM and our attorney as CKLC. 





BM: On the call Wednesday at 6:30 PM, I would like to continue with where we left off two weeks ago -- specifically with goals and targeting for the growth of this movement related to forming and training Catholics for action -- a Catholic action that is not reactionary but a witness of truth with faith, charity and reason. I have pasted a section of my email from last week below that discusses targets of our opponents and demographics of the state. Catholic leadership will play a critical role in rebuilding institutions that support marriage and opposing efforts to redefine it.

The call in number is 877 298 1612

Last Friday our board had a planning meeting, the results of which we will be sharing shortly. We are working to become more specific in our goal setting so that we can be most effective in supporting you and accomplishing the goals that we all agree on regarding marriage and family. One thing that came out of the meeting is a clearer statement of what we are doing related to marriage and family.
"promoting the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society"

this was inspired by some of Pope Benedict's own words in Caritas in Veritate. Each word is key and we can discuss further on tomorrow's call. -- For the Common Good,


CKLC: Hey BM, Wondering what you mean by not being "reactionary"?


BM: Raise the question tonight and I will answer it. Thanks


CKLC : Sorry. Couldn't make it tonight. Don't have time. I am studying for the bar. This is the only way to communicate.


BM: Good luck with your studying.

To answer your question, we are not approaching marriage advocacy as a matter of ideology, but a matter of truth which we witness by the way we live as well as what we say. If we were just doing political tactics based on an ideology, we would be no different from our opponents. We are on a journey of formation as well. It is very exciting and the people who have been through the training or retreat are equally excited.

Hope this helps.

We are putting this out on CDs.


CKLC: Done studying. I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with it. I would just express it differently. Rather than say that we don't want want to be "reactionary" I would just say we don't want to be ideological or partisan. The reason I say this is because as Catholics WE MUST BE REACTIONARY. It's not me saying this. The Church herself teaches this:

Catholics are obliged "to bring back all civil society to the pattern and form of Christianity which We have described." (Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical Immortale Dei, ).

"[C]ivilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions. It has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. Omnia Instaurare in Christo ["To organize all things in Christ" or "To re-establish all things in Christ"]." (Pope St. Pius X's Encyclical On the "Sillon")

Our goal of protecting marriage is part of the larger struggle to set up and restore our Christian civilization which has always regarded marriage as only between a man and a woman.


BM: Have you taken the bar already? Hope all went well. What a relief to have that behind you.

Here is more recent stuff on the responsibility of the laity [deleted by CKLC] that says essentially the same thing in a slightly different way. Defining this responsibility for the modern world was one of the key outcomes of Vatican II which John Paul II and Benedict have continued to elaborate on. As you point out, it is critical for us to accept this responsibility in the mission of the Church -- but is a secular role.

From the dictionary definition, reactionary has the connotation of ideological and a response -- a reaction or radical opposition. 

We are called to restore civilization to its original value -- according to God's plan for creation. Because of the effect of original sin this will always be a work in progress -- not a reaction to a specific event or condition. It is a work that is not achievable in time and space but we are called by Christ to work toward this and we do so with Christian hope in fulfillment of our batismal promises. It is part of treating the other as another self and restoring that order is the work of justice. 

If we are reactionary, become like our opponents. Our reaction must not be to them, but to the injustice that they cause. We must not focus on them, but work in solidarity with the victims and the common good.

This may sound very confusing right now, but please hang in there with us. It took me a long time to get this. All of this is not to say that we will not wage a good fight, but it will be a Christian fight with love. Our weapon will be the truth which we must live as well as speak. We are going to build an army -- a truth squad that will fight on our terms rather than reacting to our opponents.


CKLC: Great meeting yesterday.

Anyway I've looked at the website link you gave below and neither Pope John Paul nor Benedict ever state that we should not be reactionary. With that said we can't ignore or dismiss what other Popes have said about the role of the Church and laity in the world especially when there is such a wealth of teaching about this topic from such great Popes as St. Pius X and Leo XIII.

The definition I use for reactionary comes from Merriam Webster's pocket dictionary which states that reactionary is "relating to or favoring return to an earlier political order or policy." This is precisely what the Church teaches us when it comes to restoring a Christian civilization:

"[H]uman society in its civil aspects was renewed fundamentally by Christian institutions; that, by virtue of this renewal, mankind was raised to a higher level, nay, was called back from death to life, and enriched with such a degree of perfection as has never existed before and was not destined to be greater in any succeeding age; and that, finally, the same Jesus Christ is the beginning and the end of these benefits; for as all things have proceeded from Him, so they must be referred back to Him. When, with the acceptance of the light of the Gospel, the world had learned the great mystery of the Incarnation of the Word and the redemption of man, the life Jesus Christ, God and man, spread through the nations and imbued them wholly with His doctrine, with His precepts and with His laws. Wherefore, if human society is to be healed, only a return to Christian life and institutions will heal it. In the case of decaying societies it is most correctly prescribed that, if they wish to be regenerated, they must be recalled to their origins. For the perfection of all societies is this, namely, to work for and to attain the purpose for which they were formed, so that all social actions should be inspired by the same principle which brought the society itself into being. Wherefore, turning away from the original purpose is corruption, while going back to this purpose is recovery." (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Rerum Novarum.)

Thus as Christians and Catholics we are duty bound to return to the Christian principles upon which our society was founded. Gay marriage is a radical break from that past for in the beginning God created man and woman. Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Immortale Dei writes about a time when human society gave the One True Faith the treatment that it deserved:

"There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favor of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies. Christian Europe has subdued barbarous nations, and changed them from a savage to a civilized condition, from superstition to true worship. It victoriously rolled back the tide of Mohammedan conquest; retained the headship of civilization; stood forth in the front rank as the leader and teacher of all, in every branch of national culture; bestowed on the world the gift of true and many-sided liberty; and most wisely founded very numerous institutions for the solace of human suffering. And if we inquire how it was able to bring about so altered a condition of things, the answer is--beyond all question, in large measure, through religion, under whose auspices so many great undertakings were set on foot, through whose aid they were brought to completion."
Such words are those of a true reactionary. Thus to say that we shouldn't be reactionary is to condemn the sacred teachings of the Popes.

I am not saying that by being reactionary we have to be partisan. The Church is not attached or supports any one political party above another. CCG and the defenderes of Prop 8 can come from all political backgrounds whether it be democrats, republicans, green party, libertarion, etc. However when it comes to political philosophy we are essentially reactionary.

I think that you agree with me on these principles and thus it shouldn't be dificult for us to come to an agreement on bringing civilization back to the principles upon which God has desired. Being reactionary has nothing to do with being like our opponents. Our opponents are radicals and revolutionaries. They want to rip society from its roots and destroy it. They want to built a new civilization based on principles fundamentally opposed to the law of Christ and His Holy Church.

I do agree with you that we must not simply respond to what our opponents are doing and must help others realize the truth. If this is what you mean by reactionary, as a simple response to the tactics of our opponents, then I don't disagree with you. But if you're condemation of reactionaries refers to a condemnation of reactionary (i.e. Catholic) ideology and philosophy then I don't agree with you.

This might seem like an insignificant matter but being in a position of authority in a Catholic organization charged with teaching others about Catholic morals we must be careful not to be too ambiguous in teaching about the Faith. We must be clear that we are not against returning to a Christian civilization. Yet at the same time we must be clear that we are not just waiting for our opponents to do something before we take action. We can continue to teach and do good works. But our spirit must always be the same.

Being reactionary has nothing to do with not loving others. I think that Pope St. Pius X said it well: "Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators, they are promoters of tradition." (Encyclical On the "Sillon".)


BM: See below modern definitions. We must not be reactionary. 

At times I don't think we differ much on intent, but at other times I am not sure. I am sure, with the help of our scholarly advisers, that we are in complete sync with the Church.

We are to restore creation to it original value. You need to be careful how you present that lest it sound like imposing Christian faith -- something counter to Church doctrine and to the dignity of the human person.

I think the period you are talking about below was a theocracy plague with terrible human rights abuses. We are not about returning to the past, but about the future. Christianity flourished because it was new. We are bringing reasoning purified by faith to the culture that is new.

[CKLC] -- at some point you need to let this one go. There are much more important things that need to be done. As time passes, if you continue to work with us, you will come to understand what we are saying.

From WikipediaReactionary (also reactionist) refers to any political or social movement or ideology that seeks a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) and opposes changes in society it deems harmful. The term originated in the French Revolution, to denote the counter-revolutionaries who wanted to restore the real or imagined conditions of the monarchical Ancien Régime. In the nineteenth century, the term reactionism denoted those who wished to preserve feudalism and aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism, liberalism, and socialism. Today the term is largely used pejoratively to refer to ideas that are considered backwards, outdated and opposed to progress.

From Merriam Webster online dictionary

• Main Entry: re·ac·tion·ary
• Pronunciation: \rē-ˈak-shə-ˌner-ē\
• Function: adjective
• Date: 1840

: relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics


CKLC: Your definition is no different then the one I quoted. We must be reactionary.

I am simply trying to help our cause by showing that using terminology that runs counter to that used by the Church and being ambiguous in our teachings is not helpful.

The Church does not teach that we should impose our faith and I hold onto nothing other than what the Church teaches. However, we must be careful not to fall into the modern error of seeking a vague utopia that has never existed in human history and which was explicitly condemned by Pope St. Pius X as I have showed you below.

I also ask that you please not disparage a Papal Encyclical. The period that you describe as "plagued with terrible human rights abuses" was one that gave Our Holy Church its proper respect and honor according to the teaching of Pope Leo XIII. The words describing that period of civilization are not mine but were taken out of Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical Immortale Dei.

Christianity only seemed new because the world had fallen so far from God that it was no longer the world that Christ wanted it to be.  Your last email is ambiguous in the sense that on one hand you state that we must restore creation to its original value (which is true) yet on the other hand you state we must not be reactionary and not return to the past (which is wrong).

As I have stated below this issue is important. We don't want to confuse people and help lead them astray from the right path.

With that said I'd like to say that I still desire to work for the protection of Prop 8. However this is conditioned on my not being required to renounce my conscience. I am and will continue to be a proud reactionary.

I encourage you to read some of these documents from the Popes which illustrate much of what I am saying:

Syllabus of Errors - Pope Pius IX,  March 18, 1861, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

Quanta Cura - Pope Pius IX, December 8, 1861,  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm  Did you know that the Catholic Church has condemned the very principles on which modern pluralistic societies are founded?  

Diuturnum Pope Leo XIII, June 29, 1881,  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061881_diuturnum_en.html 
Where does political authority come from? This encyclical shows that if political authority came from the people, there actually would be no authority at all, and that the only real basis for political authority is God. Without God as the basis for political authority, we end with the tyranny of the majority, unbound by any moral law, and the loss of true liberty. That is why we must fight against abortion and other social evils by appealing to the law of God, not the will of the majority.  

Immortale Dei - Pope Leo XIII,  November 1, 1885, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01111885_immortale-dei_en.html  Why simple logic demands that every state be Catholic  

Libertas - Pope Leo XIII,  June 20, 1888,  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html 
Why the modern notion of liberty is social suicide, and is actually a form of slavery.  

Vehementer Nos - Pope Pius X,  February 11, 1906, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_11021906_vehementer-nos_en.html 
On the divinely ordained role of the state in helping souls get to heaven. 

Notre Charge Apostolique - Pope Pius X,  August 15, 1910, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10notre.htm 
Why a "brotherhood" of different religions in a pluralistic society will never work.  

Quas Primas - Pope Pius XI, December 11, 1925, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_11121925_quas-primas_en.html  Why a state that rejects the authority of the Catholic Church can only end in self-destruction.