Continued from Part I...

As you know, this is no exaggeration as the stripping of our churches of their Catholicity has already happened. You can step into churches like this any day of the week (that is, if they are unlocked).

Here is an imaginary dialogue that the author recreated. Sadly, it's not far off. A church I attended for some time had any number of statues of saints (very large ones, too), all of which had been quite literally trash picked. Yes, all in the name of "reform." I have also been to many churches where it was difficult to find the tabernacle or where the tabernacle was removed from the altar. One of these churches was a cathedral in a largely conservative diocese. Finally, I have seen heretical religious education texts and even met one such textbook writer/publisher in a graduate level class on Catholicism. He was a guest speaker, portrayed by the professor as a poor, persecuted reformer.

"Get your tabernacle off the altar, and put it out of the way in a corner."

"But why, Your Excellency?"

"Because I tell you to!"

"I hear and I obey."

"Now smash the altar up."

"Mine not to reason why."

"Burn the altar rails."

"Why stop now?"

"Throw out the statues."

"If you say so."

"Get rid of the Baltimore Catechism. Use this textbook."

"Has Your Excellency noticed that it's full of heresy?"

"Full of heresy, full of heresy--can't you tell the difference between heresy and contemporary insights? Have it in your school tomorrow."

"I'll get it there today."

It goes on. Now we need to go on to wonder, naturally, who is being obeyed here? Such dilemmas beg the question: at what point must we draw the line at supposed "obedience?" If we know that we are being told to do something in direct contradiction to the clear teaching of the Church, what are we and what are our priests to do? This is certainly a tough one.

The author gives many examples of divergence from orthodoxy in the case of one particular contemporary bishop and remarks that, in such cases, it is crucial that the flock be protected from error: "The manifest duty of a Catholic priest submitting himself to the supreme law of charity, showing true Catholic obedience, is to protect his people from such a bishop." He cites a well known description of the life of a layman, Eusebius, in 428:

When the shepherd turns into a wolf the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. As a general rule, doctrine comes from the bishops to the faithful, and it is not for the faithful, who are subjects in the order of Faith, to pass judgment on their superiors. But every Christian, by virtue of his title to the name Christian, has not only the necessary knowledge of the essentials of the treasure of Revelation, but also the duty of safeguarding them. The principle is the same, whether it is a matter of belief or conduct, that is of dogma or morals.

The implications of all this, as told by Davies, are quite alarming. One doesn't want to believe them, yet they ring horrifyingly true. In any case, the author claims that the only real choice for priests charged with true spiritual care of the faithful is to uphold orthodoxy--the Truth--at all costs.

To be continued.