For those who are new to traditional Catholicism, the various different groups can be hard to understand and clearly distinguish. I haven’t seen a succinct summary of the different varieties of traditionalist, so I will attempt to summarize here. But first, let me begin with a definition. What is a traditionalist Catholic? A traditionalist Catholic is a Catholic who rejects, in some way, the changes which happened in the Catholic Church as a result of the Second Vatican Council. As we will see, this covers a broad spectrum. Most Catholics do not consider a “traditional” Catholic to be the same as a “conservative” Catholic. While anybody in the traditionalist milieu would be considered “conservative” by the standards of the modern world, when we refer to conservative Catholics we usually mean Catholics who are not particularly concerned with Vatican II or modernism, and probably even accept both of them.
Indult Traditionalists: So-called because they first showed up when John Paul II issued an indult permitting the Latin Mass under his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei. These Catholics operate fully within the approved Church structure. Some are utterly opposed to the new Mass and the new Church in general, while others will quite freely go to Novus Ordo masses as long as they are “reverent.” Generally these Catholics accept the Vatican II documents, but believe they have been hijacked and misinterpreted by liberal modernists. Indult traditionalist groups include the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICRSS), and various diocesan priests who say the traditional Mass. Some of these diocesan priests continue to say the New Mass, while some will exclusively say the TLM.
Recognize and Resist: R&R Catholics recognize the current pope as valid, but they believe he is evil and possibly a heretic. They therefore recognize him in name only and tend to ignore most attempts by the pope to use his authority. They reject Vatican II as a heretical council that is not consistent with Catholic tradition. The most notable of these groups is the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), although there are a number of other groups as well. Tradition in Action is another example of such a group, and they are not supporters of SSPX even though they espouse similar positions.
Resignationist: Resignationists believe that Pope Benedict XVI was a valid pope, but that Pope Francis is not. They believe that Benedict’s resignation was invalid for some reason, and that he therefore continues to be pope.
Sedevacantist: Sedevacantists (from the Latin meaning “empty chair”) believe that the current pope is not, in fact, pope at all, but a false claimant to the title. They believe that the See of Peter became vacant sometime around Vatican II. I’ve heard different accounts of who was the last real pope, but it is usually either John XXIII or Paul VI. All popes since then are false popes. Although it is not directly part of the sedevacantist thesis, normally sedes believe that the new rite of episcopal consecration, and probably the new rite of ordination, are invalid. Therefore, any bishop consecrated (or priest ordained) in the new order is not truly a bishop (or priest). This means that not only the pope, but most of the hierarchy, are imposters as well. There are several sub-divisions of sedevacantism. Father Anthony Cekada is probably the most articulate spokesman for this thesis, although there are several groups (e.g., Most Holy Family Monastery) that do not agree with his positions. Conclavist: Conclavists are sedevacantists who believe that it is necessary to elect a new pope since the Holy See is vacant. They believe they are a tiny remnant of true Catholicism, and therefore have a right to proceed with their own election. Pope Michael is the most prominent example. They generally have a very small following.
Month: December 2014
Sports and Catholicism
Introduction
Recently a number of Catholic authors have risen up to do the unthinkable in modern America–to condemn sports, the national religion. Sports seem to generally be considered acceptable, if not good, by Catholic authors, especially “conservatives.” Condemnation of sports is seen as one more sign of liberal, feminized religion, whereas real Catholics support masculine competition. Because of modern mass media, professional sports have a tremendous influence on the world around us, and it is nearly impossible to live and work in modern America without being subjected to a constant barrage of sports-related metaphors. However, the Catholic should be suspicious of anything so widely accepted by a culture that is so debauched.
Ann Barnhardt, one of the stronger traditional Catholic authoresses currently operating a blog, has made a number of references to the evil of sports in her blog. See here, for example. New Oxford Review also recently published an anti-sports article called The Apotheosis or Sports.
One of the stronger voices condemning sports is Dr. Raymond Lloyd Richmond, a San Francisco psychologist who operates a site called Chastity in San Francisco. Dr. Richmond condemns not only sports, but competition in general. As one might expect from a convert who holds a theology degree from a Protestant seminary, Dr. Richmond relies primarily on scripture quotations to make his point, with no supporting citations of reliable Catholic theologians. He does cite a passage from the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, condemning the “cult of the body” and the idolization of sports, which is a somewhat weak source for his argument. Subsequently he also cites an abridged quotation from Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich which does not directly support his argument, and is really irrelevant anyways, since the venerable visionary is not recognized as a Catholic theologian and Catholics are free to disregard private revelations. (“…there is no obligation for the faithful to believe them…”, Tanquerey, The Spiritual Life, 1490). Astonishingly Dr. Richmond closes with a quote from Lao Tzu, the founder of the false religion of Taoism, as though such a quote would have any relevance for Catholics.
Two things should be noted: First, Dr. Richmond, while relying on weak sources (out of context Scripture, visionaries, infidels), is very much correct. Second, it is hard to find much in the way of direct, magisterial or theological teaching on the subject, so sports have to be considered less in and of themselves, but with respect to their effects.
Background
St. Francis de Sales’ Introduction to the Devout Life, is not really a manual of theology, but a guidebook for layman. However, St. Francis, as a doctor of the Church, gives advice that must be regarded highly. At III.31 St. Francis says that “harmless games” and “field sports” are “entirely lawful,” and that “games of skill, which exercise and strengthen body or mind, such as tennis, rackets, running at the ring, chess, and the like, are in themselves both lawful and good.” This clearly opposes Dr. Richmond’s suggestion that all competition is harmful, since St. Francis not only says it is lawful but actually good. However, St. Francis de Sales does place limits on such friendly competition, noting that too much attention to them causes them to become an “occupation” instead of recreation. And surely if a recreation causes one to violate basic principles of Catholic morality, the Doctor of Charity would not approve.
Modesty
Modesty can be both interior or exterior, but here we are primarily concerned with the exterior variety. Modesty is a component of the larger virtue of temperance. “Modesty in external behavior is the virtue inclining man to observe reasonable decorum in externals” (Prummer, Handbook of Moral Theology.) Remember that St. Thomas teaches in the Summa that “Moral virtue consists in the things pertaining to man being directed by his reason” (ST II-II Q168, A1). McHugh and Callan tell us “The movements and gestures of the body should be regulated by reason” (Elements of Moral Theology, 2566). They go on to tell us that our behavior must be suitable (a) to ourselves and (b) to our neighbor. By (a) he means that our behavior must be appropriate given our age, sex, social station, etc. By (b) he means that we must behave in a way consistent with good social order. There should be “nothing offensive in one’s movements” and we should be “sedate and dignified in demeanor.” McHugh/Callan further tell us that relaxation must be modest, and that we can sin against modest relaxation by the sin of excess: Our relaxation can be immodest when it is improper in and of itself (e.g., obscene); the circumstances can be harmful (e.g., a man belittling his dignity by acting as a clown, or women taking part in sports “unsuited to their sex”); or when the time is inappropriate (e.g., when one should be in Mass on a Sunday, or on Good Friday.)
Furthermore, vainglory is a sin. In Elmendorff’s Moral Theology, we are taught that it is acceptable to seek glory, but that such glory can be vain if we seek glory primarily for ourselves and not for God. This can be a mortal sin.
While Romano Amerio’s Iota Unum is not a manual of moral theology and is not well accepted by non-Traditionalists, he is a fine philosopher and his chapter on Somatolatry (the worship of the body) is worth summarizing. “Sport fills the lives” of athletes and the youth, leaving little time for anything else. Newspapers cover sportsmen “as if referring to heroes of a great saga,” confusing “winning of some competition with the achievement of personal perfection.” They use elevated language to describe the “style” and “philosophy” of what is really just “different forms of a quasi-homicidal rage.” Sports have been removed from their proper dimension of relaxation and are now given a spiritual dimension.
Amerio, citing Pius XII, points out that the end of sport is the perfecting of a perishable body. Sport does not necessarily tend to the perfection of man’s moral character, which is often claimed by its proponents. (They often emphasize various alleged moral benefits such as teamwork, and learning to lose gracefully, but few of these supposed benefits seem to be on display in modern professional sports.) As we shall see soon, the claim that sports lead to a form of civic brotherhood are not true at all.
Sports and Culture
With this background in mind, let us consider modern sports and their effect on the culture.
Modesty, the reasonable control of our external actions, is virtually non-existent in modern sport. Athletes consistently act like juvenile fools, a fact which is just as consistently celebrated by the media. The supposed lessons in good sportsmanship children are supposed to learn from all of this are nowhere present when mainstream publications devote pages to the celebration of “trash talk” among athletes, a barely human form of communication that would never, ever, be recognized by a Catholic of the past as moderate behavior.
Look at the picture of San Francisco 49ers coach Mike Harbaugh, above. Did this look like a man whose behavior is under the control of reason? And yet this sort of contorted and demonic face is commonplace in professional sports. In bygone days, if a man had been photographed in such a disgusting display, the editors would have thrown the negative in the dustbin. Now, however, this sort of behavior is held up as the model, and such photographs are celebrated and placed on the front page of magazines.
Next, we can see San Francisco Giants member Aubrey Huff in the 2010 World Series victory parade. In this repugnant image, he is seen holding up a pair of lucky thong underwear that he claims were responsible for his performance in the competition. Leaving aside what sort of man would wear such a thing, why on Earth would he want the world to know it? Is it any wonder that children today have so little self-restraint when their “role models” are man-boys of this sort?
Recall the Catholic Church’s moral teaching on vainglory, and look at these pictures of San Francisco 49ers Quarterback Colin Kaepernick:
Does this man, kissing his own muscles in celebration, glorify God or himself? Is he exhibiting the virtues of temperance, humility, and modesty? Could anybody possibly answer yes to that question? What about his vain and immodest nude photo in Sports Illustrated’s “Body Issue” (blurred here for modesty.) Can this man, who has devoted so much time to sculpting and tattooing his body be considered humble and modest? It can no way be said that this man is an exception to the rule. This sort of vainglory and body-worship is the norm among athletes, and these men are the role models for the youth of today.
Sports and women
In my background material, there were a couple of references to women and modesty. Such ideas about women are fundamental to Catholicism and its notion of a universe ordered by God, and are completely inimical to modern society, which has made a great effort to destroy the distinction between male and female, a distinction as fundamental as life and death, or night and day. Remember that for women, modesty especially concerns dress (not revealing the body), and acting appropriately for her sex. Dressing in clothing which is not revealing, but inappropriate to her sex is immodest.
Above we see a female soccer star celebrating her victory, flaunting both standards of female modesty. Having ripped her shirt off, she quite openly displays her body to public view. Her victory scream shows absolutely no respect for feminine decorum. In fact, this photograph was celebrated by the press precisely because it showed a female behaving as a male. Next to her I have inserted a picture of a girls volleyball team at an allegedly Catholic high school. For modesty I blurred the picture, but you can see that these girls are wearing extremely short shorts, displaying their bodies to the view of the world, including parents, teachers, and male classmates. They are almost nude on their lower halves. This may be acceptable by the standards of the pagan society in which we live, but how can anyone who calls themselves Catholic possibly accept or endorse such gross immodesty and overt sexuality? Women have been stripped of their femininity and dignity, and sports have been a great contributor to this.
Sports and youth
The next pair of pictures is an exercise in contrasts.
Here we see a youth at the San Francisco Giants World Series victory parade in 2014. This child is out of control, and his gross facial contortions show that his reason isn’t governing anything. Next to him I have placed a picture of a young Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira. Notice the difference! The young Professor Plinio is dignified in his bearing and modest. This is how any youth of the past would want to be pictured. Now, taking after their athlete models, youth show no restraint and act like beasts. What sort of adults will these children grow up to be?
Conclusion
I began this article with some criticism of Dr. Raymond Lloyd Richmond. Now, I ask you to review these images, to think about them, and to ask, with Dr. Richmond: Do these look like Christ’s disciples, or Satan’s? If you are a Catholic and you are an athlete, or a sports fan, you can only justify it in one of a few ways:
- The moral theologians and authors I have cited are wrong.
- The people depicted in this article are exceptions I have unfairly singled out, and not the rule.
- The people depicted in this article are not actually behaving contrary to Catholic morality.
- Catholic morality changes with the morals of the times, and what was once considered immodest or lacking in decorum no longer is.
Good luck with any of these arguments. They are all wrong. More than likely, you don’t want to give up your cherished pastime, which you may even prefer to Mass on Sunday. However, if you love Christ more than your sports heroes, it should be clear what to do.
Mors Sanctorum 