ism-
noun

2. A doctrine, theory, system, or practice having a distinctive character or relation; chiefly used in disparagement (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition)

A few examples come to mind where “ism” is used, not disparagingly, but as a suffix to some sort of noble disposition.  One who makes great sacrifices for the sake of others is practicing “heroism”.    It is generally considered upright to learn and temperately practice “patriotism”.  Here’s a good one: when someone is possessed by a demon, a priest practices an “exorcism”.  Yet, these are all atypical "isms".

More often than not, “ism” is used to indicate an ideological fixation, one whereby it is implied that one lacks temperance in his adherence to it.  Here are a few unflattering “isms” that readers of this blog obviously don’t want any part of: Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Liberalism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, Transhumanism, Feminism, etc…  But there are some other “isms” that are also hazardous if practiced obsessively or with some sort of “blow-hard” charisma.  In other words, mindsets and practices that are indulged in as typical “isms”.  

Take for example, “Americanism”.  America is home.  It is wonderful to live in a country that grants the freedoms (more or less) that it does.  I would rather live in the United States of America than any other place in the world, and it’s not even close.  But “Americanism” is flawed.  More on that in a bit.  Though preferable to economic alternatives, Capitalism isn't perfect either.  Some actually argue that Marxists invented the term "Capitalism" as a means to caricature those who endorse Free Enterprise (an inherent societal good).  If so, this would be an example of where people instinctively understand that the suffix “ism” typically signifies a degree of intemperance.  

Here’s a fairly easier one to see: Republicanism.  Most of the people who vote straight ticket Republican know that the Republican party does not actually have all of the answers to the current problems our country and our world face.  In fact, the most upright citizens I know complain frequently about the spineless nature of many crony Republicans within their party.  Yet, you can still run into an occasional Republican fanboy who seems to believe that the Republican party itslef can solve everything and that criticism of the Republican party is some sort of betrayal against the red team.  It’s strange that some would act so zealously over a human established party of corruptible and flawed human beings, but there are some who see the party as almost sacred, rather than a practical means to more favorable political consequences than the alternative.  There you have Republicanism.

In this article I would like to challenge myself and my readers on what “isms” we are falling for.  “Isms”, as I have described and will further elaborate, ought to be avoided.  We are all called to discern ideas and actions based upon their own individual merits, not as they seem compatible with our personal intellectual, moral, patriotic, or ecclesial “landing spots.”  Can we learn and practice nuance and discretion together, or are we doomed to live in an age of “isms"?


Reductionism

reductionism-
noun

    1. An attempt or tendency to explain a complex set of facts, entities, phenomena, or structures by another, simpler set. (ibid.)

“Reductionist” is another term that is often used pejoratively.  One is guilty of Reductionism when he grossly oversimplifies things.  Many such theories are Dualistic in nature.  Old expressions that begin with: “There are two kinds of people in this world…” are Reductionistic expressions.  One problem with Reductionist theories is that they are founded upon a degree of question begging.  “Because everyone knows that sharing everything in common results in poverty and violence, Socialism is flawed and should be avoided…” skips a lot of intellectual proof that others would really benefit from.  Because, clearly, everyone doesn’t know that government insistence that everything be shared in common is wrong.  Perhaps some labored intellectual leg work would offer a much welcomed reprieve to Socialism’s current popularity.  

Additionally, a Reductionist sets parameters that his opponent must box himself into in order to engage in a discussion with him.  That’s a neat strategy for “winning” arguments, but it’s not a recipe for equally pursuing the truth with someone.  Reductionists often proceed to set up straw men of their opponents arguments and then present false dilemmas.  A deadly rhetorical combination.  “There are two types of people in this world, those who want to prevent the earth from being destroyed within the next decade, and those who reject the Paris Climate Agreement!!”, blathers the Reductionist.  Or consider Justin Trudeau before he walked out of Canadian Parliament last year during the truckers strike:  “Conservative Party members can stand with people who wave swastikas… We will choose to stand with Canadians who deserve to be able to get to their jobs…”  

I believe that every “ism” naturally depends upon some level of Reductionism.  Okay, so one has to try to be so blatant and asinine as Justin Trudeau (what else is new) in that last example, but at least some degree of reductionism is present in a typcial “ism”.  


Americanism

Wait, America is awesome!  How can there be an “Americanism!”  Actually, Americanism was condemned as heretical by Pope Leo XIII in an Apostolic letter, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae (1899).  To be fair, Leo XIII was specifically concerned about American Catholic attitudes that he believed jeopardized the faithful’s obligation of religious submission to the Magisterium.  He was worried that American Catholics were being overtaken by Individualism (and preference of their own beliefs and moral preferences over the teachings of the Church), the notion of “Separation of Church and State”, and the general Protestant beliefs and dispositions that American culture naturally absorbed from it’s Protestant founders.  

There is another kind of Americanism that still threatens all Americans, Catholics and non-Catholics.  Heck, it even threatens people in other nations as well.  It is the idea that the American experiment is perfect, that America can do no wrong, and that America has all the answers.  It is the idea that the founding fathers were divinely guided when they won the Revolutionary War.  That the founding documents are “sacred” in some pseudo-religious way.  That America is a “shining beacon on a hill” that is meant by God to be an example to others.  That a Democratic Republic is God’s preferred form of government, and that Syncrotism, Egalitarianism, and Locke style Liberalism are all essential ingredients to the pinnacle nation of all nations.  Mankind finally got it right, and God looked down and said, “That’s my country!”  

In a more colloquial sense, the founding documents are “sacred”, i.e. they are not profane, ordinary, or frivolous in any way.  They are authoritative because they have been around since the beginning of this nation and they invoke self-evident truths about inalienable rights held by all men given to them by their Creator.  They defend basic human rights.  That’s the stuff to preserve and defend.  To ensure the defense and sovereignty of this nation, these documents must be defended against tyrants who wish to rule apart from them.  Let these documents go, and you have tyranny, by definition.

But it is delusional and dangerous to view the Constitution and the Declaration as if they are practically religious and divinely inspired documents.  Listen carefully to presidential speeches throughout the last two centuries; there are some presidents who speak this way.  There are textbooks, pod-casters, and religious leaders across the country who practically hold this theory today.  

When many Protestant and Catholic influencers alike were reassuring that there was nothing to worry about leading into the 2020 election, because “Trump is God’s chosen man” or “America cannot fall!” or “God won’t let this happen to His country”, they were spouting Americanism.  When people dismiss the types of concerns patriots like Ron Paul have asserted for decades about America’s military conquests, they are blowing Americanism.  “America must stop horrible dictators and spread democracy!  The American military is a global force for good!” is Americanism rhetoric. 

At least the current proxy war against Russia, through Ukraine, has opened the eyes of many that the US (specifically the CIA) has been guilty of fomenting wars in order to install dictators who serve the banking and corporate interests of American AND foreign elites in cahoots with one another.  

One can love America and desire to defend his nation without succumbing to Americanism.  Clinging to false hope that America will “Get back on track” with the right leader in charge, that American ideals can answer all of the problems of the current era, or that restoration of all constitutional principles as the founders intended will suffice to guide the world to prosperity and peace are as delusional as they are fundamentally flawed.  Nevertheless, America has been a generally successful experiment.  There have been wonderful American saints.  There are certain points of the Declaration and Constitution that defend basic human goods and rights with the highest respect for  natural law that you will find compared to any other present nation's constitution.  

Love America.  Shun Americanism.  


Traditionalism

Why have Latin Mass parishes grown so substantially over the last three years?  To the point where the numbers are causing significant space problems?  I’m going to venture a not so bold theory that Covid had something to do with it.  And no, it’s not because Latin Mass churches were more lax on masking policies in 2020.  It has more to do with the readiness of Latin Mass priests to give the sacraments again at the first opportunity available, and in the most normal way possible.  People desire the sacred and respect those willing to risk illness in order to give the sacred to others.  It’s human nature.  Furthermore, 2020 was the most turbulent year to date in the lives of anyone who lived it.  Nothing was solid.  Everything was in flux and nonsensical.  The Latin Mass offered something solid, solemn, and sacred in a world of crazy, fluid, and profane.

Once these transplants arrived at their new parishes, they quickly began having conversations with the old hands of the Latin Mass community.  This further solidified attendance, but it has not been without issue.  “This Covid stuff is all part of the New World Order (Novus Ordo Seclorum) plan?  Yes, that makes sense to me!  Tell me more…”.  And they were overwhelmed by a lot more information.  Information about Free-Masonry, Vatican Council II, Modernism, and a plethora of scandals they were never previously conscious of.

Where are we now?  Three years later and there are many who have “settled in”, not to their Latin Mass parish per se (that took only a few weeks in 2020), but into Traditionalism.  Traditionalism is not an automatic “landing spot” or a “necessary condition” for everyone who attends the Latin Mass.  There are, in fact, many Latin Mass goers who consciously avoid Traditionalism.  

Still there are others whose faith journey seems to have arrived at finding more and more and more Latin prayers and older devotions.  To knowing more and more about Vatican II, the Jesuits of the 60's, the Freemasons, and the rest.   To removing the Catechism of the Catholic Church from their homes, and exclusively replacing it with the Catechism of Trent.  Some have sworn to go SSPX before they ever go back to even one Novus Ordo Mass.  

There are a few problems that stem from the precarious spot that Latin Mass communities have been placed in by the Vatican.  We can have the Latin Mass, but under certain guidelines.  And Rome is always watching!  Priests feel a tremendous amount of pressure not to publicly opine about the Novus Ordo, Vatican Council II, or Pope Francis.  Or else Rome might take it all away!  This pressure has silenced many priests.  Whereas most Latin Mass Catholics hold their priest’s authority in very high regard.

If their priests are generally silent about such touchy but pressing subjects, then where do the Latin Mass goers report for guidance?  Where are they getting their catachesis or information about typical "Trad" topics?  Aside from other parishioners, it seems to be coming from a lot of podcasters. Many of them are quite sensational.  And at the end of each podcast are comments sections loaded with hot takes from opinionated Latin Mass Catholics, many of whom are anonymous.  This breeds Traditionalism.

When an impressionable new "Trad" receives a ton of exciting information about the Catholic faith, The Council of Trent, Vatican II, scandal in the Church, and the rest, it is easy to form quick and hard opinions.  But again, if one is new to a lot of this information, he may feel like he has quickly become an expert.  And when this information comes all at once, it can be easy to neglect asking a number of essential questions that may help one avoid digging deep into Traditionalism.  

Here’s one: “When did development of Doctrine STOP in the History of the Catholic Church”?  Did it stop at Trent?  Why stop at Trent?  Why not go back to the Filioque dispute?  Why not further?  

To the man who denies the canonization of St. Pope John Paul II; which other saints should be removed from the canon?  Who has the authority to determine how someone must have been mistakenly or wrongly canonized?  How much should the expressed form of the mass (particularly the language) NEVER be changed?  Some of the boldest Traditionalists I know make statements such as “the Latin Mass is the ‘Mass of the Ages’!  It should therefore never be changed!”  Does such a person desire to practice the mass as Jesus did with his Apostles?  In Aramaic and reclined at table?

The Latin Mass, the Catechism of Trent, and older ecclesial disciplines (like old Lenten rubrics) are not elements of “the Traditional faith”, as if there is some juxtaposition of these devotions to those of the “the Novus Ordo faith”.  I recently heard someone refer to the Novus Orodo “Rite”.  I have heard people refer to the Latin Mass and these sorts of devotions mentioned above as the “fullness of the faith” three different times over the last three years.  Recently, I read an insistence that Feeneyism is actually not a heresy!

Surely we are not called as Christians and as Catholics to hunker down within our Trad bubbles, shunning what is outside of Traditionalism, and daring to solve the problem of whether there are unbaptized babies in heaven.  I for one know that I’m not even diligent enough keeping my moral life spotless, my kids in tip top spiritual shape, and fulfilling my missionary call from Jesus to “Go, therefore into all nations, baptizing men in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them all that I have taught you” (Mt. 28:20) to have time for what might amount to hours of discussion on such points of Traditionalism.

One can enjoy the Latin Mass, even significantly more than the Novus Ordo (that’s exactly where I am) without falling for Traditionalism.  Don’t ever forget your true calling as a Christian, as a practicing Catholic, commanded by Christ to participate in the evangelizing mission of the Church in the age in which God placed you on this earth do so.  


Post-Modernism

In 1907, Pope Pius X condemned Modernism in his Encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis.  Specifically, Sinat Pope Pius X was condemning false reconciliation between Humanism and the Catholic faith.  He was condemning the errors of the Modern Age, and specifically the Intellectual errors of the 19th century that were teaching people to either reject their faith or to contaminate it with Secularism, Progressivism, and Syncretism (the blending of religions, cultures, and schools of thought).  

Some of the major errors of these 19th century philosophers include Darwinism, Hegalianism, and Existentialism.  It’s obvious then, why a synthesis of these “isms”, Modernism, is worth combating.  

But, if we understand the philosophy of these various isms, and what has happened, historically, over the last 100 plus years, it should be clear that we currently face not Modernism per se at this time, but the logical result or conclusion of Modernism: Post-Modernism.  The current age we live in may even be a stage beyond that.  

In the 19th century, Friedrich Nietzsche wrote two books in particular that inadvertently summarized the damage Modernism had already done to the West.  Furthermore, in God is not Dead and Thus Spoke Zarathustra, he predicted the horrible (though he did not think it horrible) offspring Modernism would eventually breed; Post-Modernism.  In his own time, Nietzsche had already seen the decline of religion and Christianity in the West at the hands of Humanism and an Intellectualism that had dismissed God as a myth.  Hence, he titled a book, God is Dead.

While Nietzche did celebrate the seeming defeat of organized religion and Christianity at the hands of Modernism, he granted that the concerning result of Western Atheism was going to be nihilism.  Nihilism is the belief in nothingness.  Nihilists distrust basic societal norms, disbelieve in objective truth, and they especially reject the concept of objective moral norms.  Nihilism is a precursor to Moral Relativism, Critical Theory, and Emotivism (the theory that there are no objective truths, just emotions).  

In the time of Nietzche, most people were generally afraid of Nihilism.  Mass belief against objective moral truth used to be scary to the average Westerner.  Heck, such radical apathy against the truth of moral norms themselves could result in horrors such us World Wars, Eugenics, Abortion on demand, and denial of self-evident realities as basic as gender itself!  

Some argue that the  Post-Modern era began in the West as early as the 1930’s.  Let's just consider the West since the the Pax Americana began (since the end of WWII).  Over a short 70 years, one thing has fallen after another that used to all be part of the moral bedrock of the West.  The Atheistic Existentialism advanced by Nietzsche and then Sartre eventually weren’t enough.  We needed feminism, then we needed contraceptive devices to re-engineer the family structure, and then we ushered in abortion as a back up to contraception.  Then, having completely divorced procreation from sexual responsibility, we tolerated sodomy.  And we keep sliding down the slippery slope of Post-Modern nihilism today.  

Heck, even the more “conservative” people you know have probably learned their morality from a loose collection of vaguely religious sentiments, life experiences, and crap they have collected from movies and television.  None of this was even on the radar of Saint Pope Pius X.  This stuff isn’t Modernism, these are all the effects of Post-Modernism.  

In the Academy, within the Holy See, and within parishes and larger communities, thankfully many Catholics have kept up the fight against Post-Modernism.  Novus Ordo and Latin Mass goers alike.  “Should women wear pants?” was a question for fighters in the Modern Age.  “How do we combat the drag queen story hour at our public library?” is a question to answer in the Post-Modern Age.  

Nietzche was even more forward thinking than most give him credit for.  In so many ways, the man was such a half baked intellectual.  And his moral prescriptions on how to live once one rejects moral prescriptions couldn’t be more self-defeating.  But he projected the Post-Modern Ubermensch that the West faces today better than he could have ever known.  

Nietzche’s prescription to overcoming the inevitable age of nihilism was to become the “supermen” of society once all the moral fabric and the traditional social contracts within Western Civilization dissolve.  The sheep of society who depend upon the wimpy crutch of religion, he opined, will just have to be losers in the Post-Modern era.  The winners will be the ones who choose to make the best of themselves according to their desires at that time (Existentialism) and go on to conquer and inherit the earth.  

Aside from the Nazi threat of the 30’s and 40’s, the Post-Modern era has more so shaped up to be an age of moral degradation, debauchery, irresponsibility, objectification, “harmless” consumerism and corporatism, etc… all mixed with plenty of Nihilism, Relativism, and apathy.  Not until recently has the Transhumanist, Marxist, Great Resetter “Ubermensch” become so clearly and immediately ominous.  But, Nitezche was right.  His warning was right.  His timing was a bit off, and perhaps we now live in an even newer era, one subsequent even to Post-Modernism, but, nevertheless, Modernism ran it’s course, and here we are now in this Brave New World Order.  

Now that the most obvious moral oughts are dismissed by society, there are no clear boundaries that distinguish how one can treat the human person.  This is clearly the attitude the Great Resetters take by their actions.  And now that the timeless social contracts protecting culture and society have been subverted by generations of Marxists, the Ubermensch and all of his hellish pursuits to enslave humanity have emerged.  These nihilists are currently in the background scrounging and fighting for a piece of the world they believe they are resetting and conquering.  That’s where we are at this very moment and this is who and what we the faithful are actually up against today.


Catholicism

I think it was unwise for Bishop Barron to name his documentary series “Catholicism”.  A more appropriate title would have been “The Catholic Faith”.  

Catholicism is a term we should expect opponents of the faith to use to pejoratively against Catholics.  The kind of opponents who caricature us as “Mary worshiping, rabbit like reproducing, Papists”.  

Catholics practice the Catholic Faith, not Catholicism.  We have a creed we recite across the globe together and a culture that we have participated in for 2000 years.  As Catholics, we take a stand on what is true, both spiritually and materially, then seek understanding of what we have taken that stand upon.  This was the position of St. Anselm when he argued for “Faith Seeking Understanding” and which was profoundly expounded upon by Cardinal Ratzinger in Introduction to Christianity.  

We practice our faith by adhering to a code we bind ourselves to when we renew our Baptismal promises and recite the Nicene Creed.  We prove our adherence to this faith when we choose to live a morally upright life (according to the natural law, confirmed by the teachings of the Magisterium for the last 2000 years) and then worthily receive the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the source and summit of our Faith.  Practicing the Catholic Faith essentially starts with doing these things. Additionally, it’s a good idea to learn basic Catechesis, discover the deposit of faith, and strive to live according to your vocation.  Wow, there’s a lot of basics to do way before we get into Demonology, of which knowledge is unnecessary for salvation by the way.  And perhaps dilemmas of the Modern Age, which came and went, should take a backseat too.

There’s a priority list we must follow as to how we live our faith and what we dedicate our time, efforts, focus, and spiritual life towards.  I don’t engage in elaborate refutations of Feeneyism, women in pants questions, the benefits of a Catholic monarchy, and Distributism (Just wait, someone you know will bring it up soon enough) because I have greater responsibilities as a husband and father to tend to at this time.  I have hay to make now before the Post-Modern Newer World Order Agenda takes all the money, guns, and rights away.  I have to devote so much of my time to preparing my kids to thrive and evangelize in a Godless, Satanist, Transhumanist, and Post-Modern hellish age that we are living in RIGHT NOW.  The practice of our Catholic Faith starts primarily with living the moral life, as taught by the Church, and evangelizing in the world we currently live in.  The weeds can wait.

As each saint has done in his own time, we must be salt of the earth in the age in which God has put us, believing in and living the one Catholic and Apostolic Faith.  This is the call we all share as Catholics.
 

Conclusion

St. Pope Pius X’s papal motto was “Insturare Omnia in Christo”, which translates to “Restore all Things in Christ”.  This is the same motto held at my Alma Mater, Christendom College, in Northern Virginia.  When I was a senior in college, someone noticed how many graduates were planning to stick around Northern Virginia, many securing jobs that had nothing to do with the degrees they just spent four years securing.  What happened to their Freshman aspirations of going out and bringing the good news back to all different parts of the country, as the college founder intended?  A friend of mine opined, “I thought Saint Pope Pius X told us to restore all things in Christ, not just restore the Shenandoah Valley.”  

In response to the Modernist cry of, “Restore! Renew! Rethink! Re-imagine!”, Saint Pope Pius X called men of his time to live the same gospel dictate of Christ in Matthew 28, yet he beautifully framed that dictate according to his own time.   “Restore all things in Christ.”  Every saint in his time has called his fellow man to do just that, albeit in different language framed for his day.  We may be up against a whole new animal these days, and maybe there’s an even newer way it could be said, but Pope Pius X’s motto, or even the words of Christ himself, should be enough for us in our own day; “Go, therefore into all nations, baptizing men in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them all that I have taught you”. (Mt. 28:20)

We have a lot of work ahead of us.  Let’s pray we aren’t too distracted.  


God bless,

Gadfly