The Oral Style in the Gospels

Six Unpublished Conferences 

Second Conference -- The Oral Style

By Father Leonardo Castellani

Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope

The Holy Books are written in an oral style — that is, they were first quoted from memory and later transcribed in writing. This is a quite important discovery for the study of Scripture made by Jesuit Father Marcel Jousse (my teacher in Paris) in 1932, that has been slowly penetrating in Germany and England, very little in France, and almost not in Spain.

In this lesson, I will present what I omitted saying in the Introduction to my Comments on the Gospel; that is, the scientific foundation of the oral style. As support, I will take a question once made to me by a young sales clerk in a bookstore.

How did Jesus Christ write?

Jesus Christ did not write,

How is it, then, that we now have a written Gospel?

Transcribed, rather than written.

And I informed him that the Gospels were recited first.

Then, Christianity in its entirety is up in the air — said he.

We will leave it in the air for the time being and settle it again later, explaining how the Gospels came about, with which their authenticity, rather than being ruined as the young man said, gets strengthened.

Christ did not write the Gospel, neither did he dictate it to Matthew, Mark and Luke; He did not dictate it, except in a very special sense. The first Gospel, that of Matthew, was transcribed some seven years after Christ having died; perhaps a bit more, but not more than 18 years; the last Gospel, that of John, took some 40 or 50 years. And in the meanwhile? In the meanwhile it was transmitted by 'oral tradition'.

Does that mean they were being learned by memory by some persons from others?

In a certain sense, yes.

But that is quite unverifiable; really, if the Christian faith about Christ being God is based on those four pamphlets...

Indeed, this faith is based on those four pamphlets; we have no other documents on the sayings and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth. But they are not the least unverifiable: quite the contrary.

How have those unique pamphlets which so much noise have caused and so great effect have had in the world? What has the form of their composition been? And how do you prove all that? Marcel Jousse proved his discovery, in a strictly scientific manner, in a quite hard to read paper titled "Le Style oral rythmique et mnémotechnique chez les Verbo-Moteurs" (The rhythmic and mnemonic oral style among the verbomotor people).

Let's stretch out the objection of the young bookstore sales clerk with an example: let´s suppose that a biography of Hipólito Irigoyen were written today by an author who does not even put his last name on the work, he just signs it Gabriel or Robustiano; there is no reference in it to any document, all of it is conversations of Irigoyen with the author; in it, utterly extraordinary acts by Irigoyen are narrated, let's say that he once stopped the rain with a single word, or paralized General Uriburu's soldiers with just one cry.

Let's suppose, moreover, that all documents dealing with Irigoyen had been annihilated, his certificate of baptism, his law degree, the collection of "La Época" daily, and any and all journals which make any single mention of Irigoyen.

Even more, let's suppose that the biography is not written seven, but fifty years after his death; and everyone who reads that book is obligated to believe it, to pay a 60% tax on all his belongings to the People´s Radical Party, and to die for that party should it become necessary.

This is what appears to the eyes of the bookstore sales clerk in considering the Gospel. Evidently, such a book on Irigoyen would not be believed, it would have no authority. And what would he think if half the world believed it? That half the world or more had become crazy. This is how Catholics appear in the eyes of the sales clerk.

He lives, just as all of us, in the world of the written style; but ... a different world has existed, the world of the oral style, of which traces and examples remain, even in the language of children, of drunkards, and of madmen; and also of the great orators and the great poets. By means of science — by means of very profuse and accomplished scientific investigations, we can exit this world to which we are accustomed, and move for a moment to the Palestine world of 2,000 years ago, the world of Rabbi Jeshuª ben Nazareth, who pretended the title represented by his name, Savior, "Jeshuª" . 

Let's imagine ourselves standing on the hill called "the horns of Hattin", at a break in the mountains surrounding the lake of Genezareth, in the year 31 or 32 of our age. There is a man dressed in white on one of the small rocky "Horns" or hillocks, who can be seen by the crowd located at the foot, in the "Valley of the Dove". The man has at his back, the lake and the smooth hills that surround it; at his front is the snow-capped crest of Mount Hermon; at his left, Nazareth and Mount Tabor, at his right, the town of Bethsaida Julia

Those who followed him were standing or sitting, as they could, on the roughness of the rocks; they could have been 5,000 men, maybe more, maybe less, but not less than 1,000: 'turba multa', that is, a large crowd, coming from everywhere in Judea or from outside Judea. Having seen the photographs we have of the area, it is impossible for a man, even if he were a stentor yelling, to make himself heard by the people at the foot of the hill as believed by José María Bover; and there is no place in all of Judea more suited for one to make himself heard, other than this kind of natural pulpit. The question: "How did Christ preach to those large crowds that the Gospel describes?" Up to now, that had been an unanswered question, it was simply incomprehensible. How did he preach? Yelling? Using a megaphone?

The man dressed in white with a red headband on his temples over his turban, stood up and gave a signal to indicate that the 'Sermon of the Mount', that we now quote, would begin; in actuality, his Oral-Improvised-Recitation. "He opened his mouth (άνοιξαν τα στόμα) says the Gospel, and if he spoke, he naturally opened his mouth; but that expression represents the conventional signal with which the reciter would indicate his starting to talk, or demanded attention, and slowly moving himself rhythmically, uttered this balad:

Blessed are the poor in spirit:

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they that mourn:

for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek:

for they shall possess the land.

Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice:

for they shall have their fill.

Blessed are the merciful:

for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the clean of heart:

for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers:

for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: 

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are ye when they persecute you

and revile you

and speak all that is evil against you untruly, 

for my sake

Be glad and rejoice then

for your reward is very great in heaven

For so they persecuted the prophets

that were before you.

These are the eight beatitudes, the opening or overture of the Sermon of the Mount. Those who heard them for the first time — since we are tired of hearing it — did not need interpreters, because they were the ones referred to, the poor, the sweet, the persecuted: they heard a kind of simple little poem that opens and closes with the same word, the “Malkûtha”, magic word to the Hebrews : the kingdom of the Messiah; small poem inside of which is a kind of play of words — "sons of peace / sons of God" — of repetitions, of antithesis, a delicate rhythm and a delicate artifice which makes it quite easy to keep in memory.

Jesus sat again, and the Twelve stood up and repeated the Recitation word by word before the master, and then. climbing down from the summit, dispersed themselves among the groups, and then one or two from each group — the chiefs of the groups — repeated the recitation before the apostles and in turn dispersed themselves among the other groups. After a while the recitation had been memorized by hundreds and hundreds of hearers. This was the "printing press" of the ancient peoples of oral style.

The Apostles having come back, Jesus stood up again and pronounced another recitation.

"You have heard what was told to your parents:

Thou shalt not kill

And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.

But I say unto you

Whosoever shall say thou fool ...

And so forth: the recitation of the "Amplification of the law° or "Magnification of the law", seeped from top to bottom with the word 'say': 'it was said', 'I say', 'he who says',,,

The Sermon of the Mount was delivered that way, in an entire day or over several days — which was summarized in Matthew's Gospel, and put in writing some 8 or 9 years later. The Apostles had memorized in their heads — in their laryngeal and mouth muscles — the Recitations of the Master, and they would quote them to the groups of people that would ask them to; such was the task of the 'Apostolate' — quite different from that of the 'apostolates' of today. Apostle means 'envoy'; that is, depository of an inviolable message and authorized by the author of the message,

How can it be proven that this was so?

As I said, this system still exists nowadays, even though it exists in an imperfect form. Putting together the various imperfect forms, the entire system became clear. This system was a full blown institution in all peoples before the introduction of writing, of the document and the book. The experimental tests had been made by ethnologists, explorers, missionaries, linguists; with many languages and in many places, whose testimonies were compiled by Father Jousse in his 'Account'; but science does not want to know only the facts, but mainly the wherefore; and then arose a brilliant theory regarding human language, which Jousse called 'the psychology of the gesture'.

Human languages are the product of an evolution of human natural expression (which is not animal only, but animal-intellectual); evolution which has three stages: the manual style, the oral style and the written style. And the principle of such evolution is the 'gesture'.

What gesture?

The gesture taken in its most general sense.

If you study philosophy at the Instituto Nacional del Profesorado, in the first year you will be taught the origin of language in the following manner:

"The Traditionalists such as the Count De Maistre, pretend that language was taught by God to men.

The Positivists teach that language comes from a convention or agreement.

Max Müller says the language comes from an onomatopoeia or imitation,

Darwinists say that language is a transformation of the bestial screams and chatter of our symian ancestors..."

 And so forth.

The language comes from Gesture. In the beginning it was the Gesture. the gestures of the face are called 'grimaces', the gestures of the hand are called 'gesticulations', the gestures of the entire body 'attitudes', and additionally there are phonetic gestures of the bucal chords, larynx, tongue, palate, teeth, the 'voice'. All this we designate with the general name of 'gesture'; etymologically, the word has that meaning; from the verbs gésere and gestare: in Latin, gesture is the entire human comportment, including the features of the face; in old Spanish the face was called 'gesto' — a man could be 'agestado', 'malgestado', 'biengestado'...

"Virginibus tiriis mos est gestare pharetram”

says Queen Dido in Virgil: "The Tyrian maidens are used to get the quiver" — to carry the bow and the quiver on the back.

In summary, gesture means the face, the gesticulations, the attitude, the movement and the comportment — and by extension also the accomplishments of men: gesta Dei per francos, God´s accomplishments achieved through the Francs; 'chansons de geste´, songs of noble and heroic deeds; the geste of the independence; gestation, gesticulation, gestic, gerund — the word has been ramifying; in Spanish to "gestor" or "gerente", the manager of the English, one who handles, directs, controls.

But there is much more. There are internal gestures that express our emotions and are at the same time their material cause or support: he was fuming — he had a stiff face — I tremble just of thinking of it — my blood curdled — I got goosebumps — I went weak at the knees — my mind went blank — made my mouth water — my hair stood on end — he gnashed his teeth in anger — seeing him makes me sick — I can't stand that woman — I just can't stomach that kind of books — I was left speechless — it was shocking to me .... all these are internal gestures.

"My entire body was in shock". If I hear an unexpected door slam, or a fire gun shot, my entire body is shaken. Are you sure of that? You are wrong. The entire body vibrates the same, but so faintly that it does not reach the level of consciousness. This was proven by psychologist Feré through Mosso's balance, and it had been discovered earlier by Maine de Biran. Any sensation, no matter how faint it is, is a vibration; that is, a gesture. It was thought that eyesight was an exception to this, vision appears to be static, something like a mirage or a photograph. No. Dr. Nuel has proven that vision is supported by very delicate muscular and nervous movements, a “bundle of brain reflexes”, as they say today; but not only of the brain — also muscular ones. Do we think with the brain? No: we think with the entire body, and we say that some people think only with their heart — or with their stomach. “There is not a single drachma in man´s body that does not think the same way that he lives”. Uncultured people have a 'somatic' religion; that means, it has no religious sentiment other than by means of movements; for example, walking on their knees from the door of the Cathedral in Cajamarca to the image of the Virgin of the Valley, practice that some priests forbid. Religious sentiment has also three stages, somatic, psychic, and pneumatic.

Experimental psychology has come to confirm what the ancient people said, that "life is movement": vita in motu Aristotle had said; That is, it is gesture. Pleasure, for example, is the conscience of a harmonious dynamogenesis — pain is the conscience of an inharmonic dynamogenesis; and the language is a directed and significant dynamogenesis: some women cannot think without talking, and some men too. A kind of continuous and marvelous dance is what we call life; and the drum is the heart. This is why dance is the first of the fine arts and the origin from which all the rest came; and the origin of language is a manual rhythmic and imitative state. 

The vital human gesture is comprised of energetic explosion, imitation and rhythm. If we inquire how the body comes about to produce movements, the method is always the same. It consists of using certain substances that could be called explosives, and like gunpowder do not await but a spark to explode. I speak of food. especially of the carbohydrates (mainly sugar) and fats- We have a sum of energy stored, ready to produce movement. This energy has been gradually, imperceptibly obtained from the sun by plants; and an animal that feeds on a plant or of another animal that has fed from a plant (as when we eat chicken) simply makes pass through his body an explosive that life manufactured by storing solar energy. When it makes a movement, it releases stored energy ... This is what biological chemistry tells us. This is the body of the gesture, what we call "energetic explosion". The soul is its sense or signification; and man from his intellect is capable of perceiving that sense: and so, instead of saying 'I was scared' he says 'my hair stood on end'

Man is capable of more: he is capable of intentionally giving a sense to his movements in order to say things; that is, he is capable of representing, of mimicking. Man is the most imitating animal in existence, says Aristotle; and from that — he says obscurely — poetry was born. All his gestures are subject to an absolutely universal law, which rules everything from the movement of the stars to the beats of the heart, which we call rhythm; which we cannot define unless with the word 'measure', a certain measure, and man is capable of becoming aware of the rhythm and seek it on purpose, and again from it is born poetry, music, song, and dance, which is a combination of the first three (like the South American 'pericón con relaciones' folk dance) and afterwards the oral style, which is also a combination of the three. Thus, scientifically, the expressive movements of man (and all are so in some way), that is 'his gestures' comprise four elements, two of them essential. body and soul, energetic explosion and sense; and two properties, rhythm, property of the body, and mimesis, property of the soul.

Theoretically, the manual and corporal style was first; I say theoretically because phonation, the phonic gesture existed always at the same time, and the purely manual style never existed, except in the deaf-mute. It belongs to language prehistory, it no longer exists, even though its traces exist everywhere. In fact, there are redskin tribes (Father Jousse traveled to North America to study them) that cannot speak at night if they don't light a fire: their language is a mixture of gesticulations and sounds, and I am about to believe that the same happens with the Napolitans and the Jews. But why go so far? Have you not seen an orator such as Mussolini, Father Golia, German Dominican Gozzano? The extraordinary force of their word, that sort of magic or magnetism, comes from the fact that their body accompany it in everything, as if it were a single thing, as full expression is, or should be, knowledge and emotion at the same time. The great orator dances his discourse. Mussolini used to move himself little, but he moved as a lion. In contrast, Hitler literally danced, he seemed to be Italian. The bad orator, the orator of written style, moves his arms or his head haphazardly, his gestures are nothing more than discharges of excessive nervousness and his words do not incarnate those movements, stiff, conceited, sometimes ridicule. I saw a great preacher in Mendoza who, to note that his sermon was well done, it was necessary to close your eyes,

Children are a bundle of natural gestures, which have to be directed and not repress too much; bad teachers repress too much.

"What's that, you crying? Boys do not cry."

"Aren't you going to sit still at the table?

"Oh, Monica behaves quite well, she behaves as a young lady."

"Please, Johnny, do not point the finger at people"

"Charlie, don't laugh so noisily"

"Fred, it is not necessary for you to jump to say you are glad you got a bicycle"

"Susan, don't run like that, you are not a small child anymore"

"Lucy, don't hug just anyone in the street, you're seven already"

Repressing the gestures is good, since the way to repress emotions, which form one thing with them, are the internal gestures that produce the external ones, and that leads to self-control; but caution, not too much nor too early. Our education takes the child and submerges him into the written style: read and write; what things, dear God! The book: I am not going to talk against the book; it would mean ruining my business, I write books, but books aren't everything and before the book there are other things. Sports: they are very good, but it is too little; much better to direct the gestures of children are games, song and dance, manual work and pure mimesis or theatrical representation, which the goold schools of old used to have: At Stonyhurst College (which I visited in 1933) boys study latin and greek, but they frequently present Shakespeare plays (and there is a teacher in charge of theater exclusively) and every boy has to learn a manual trade.

Leaving aside the paedagogical applications of the psychology of gesture (which I expounded in another conference) let's go back to our topic, exegesis. The Apostles, in possession of their Teacher's talks, composed in the same style other recitations, with His acts, His miracles, His Passion and Death. Where? Perhaps in the Cenacle, where they remained shut in with the Virgin for 40 days. It is revealing that the primitive Holy Fathers call the Gospel "The Apostolic Catechesis." Saint Peter would stand up during the supper (which is our 'mass' of today) before Communion and recite a piece of the life of the Teacher, the one he was asked. His interpreter or "meturgeman", Mark, would translate it into Latin or Greek. The faithful in Rome, people of written style, would have asked Mark to put Peter's preaching in writing. Saint Peter may have not been very happy with that, but did not forbid it — says historian Eusebius. That way our Gospel according to Mark came about in year 55 (that is, 22 years after Christ's death), which is in reality the preaching of Saint Peter

Let's put the Gospel of next Sunday as an example.

-A-

Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake

a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake

a man approached

he was a leader of the synagogue

-B-

he saw Jesus 

he fell at his feet

He shouted

and pleaded

Rabbi, my daughter is dying

Please come to my house

put your hands on her

and she will be healed and live

-A-

And Jesus stood up

And a large crowd followed him

And a woman was there 

who had been subject to bleeding 

-B-

she heard Jesus

she came up behind him

and touched his cloak

and she thought

If I just touch his clothes,

I will be healed.

Immediately her bleeding stopped

and she was healed.

Our Gospels in Greek keep traces of the oral style everywhere; It suffices to translate a pericope to the Aramean, as Father Jousse has done, for the original lttle poem of the verbomotor peoples to appear in all its purity and with all its ingenious laws: the propositional gesture, the parallelism or repetition of the first gesture in the form of an echo, the word

This discovery of the "oral style" has brought much light to exegesis; it has resolved many difficulties. Allow me to give you some examples: 

1) Maldonado's “superfluous features”. In the Parable of the Great Banquet the king who made the invitation says: “The fat calf has been killed, the chickens have been seasoned". The ancient fathers thought that parables were ‘allegories’ (they are nothing but symbols), they tried to interpret all the features of the narrative and would leap into a sea of the imagination to the point of the outlandish; for example, "the fat calf means the hierarchy, the seasoned chicken means the faithful". Juan de Maldonado in the sixteenth century saw that such interpretations lead to nowhere, saying: "They are ornamental features, superfluous features that signify nothing" — that is, paddings, as if Christ were a bad poet. No. They are simply a cliché of the oral style, as the tail of Tobiah's dog; and within the symbol of the invitation "means my banquet cannot be postponed (on these matters of allegory and symbol we will see more in the next conference).

2) in His 'Eschatological Sermon', Christ said: "Amen I say to you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." The modern impious raised a serious difficulty against Christ, so much so, that a rationalist school called the 'eschathological school', founded by Julius Wellhausen in 1860 and the present head of that school is that Alsacian Swiss, Sweitzer, to whom so much flattery is given by the newspapers: this school claims that Christ erred by believing that the end of the world would come within 40 years, and that therefore Christ was as son of God and as prophet as you or I — or even less. No. Christ was asked two things at once, the end of times and the destruction of Jerusalem; and Christ answered both together, as all the nabis and reciters — doctors — prophets of an oral style; that is, he described the type and the antitype at the same time, a proximate event and a remote one.

3) The Holy Virgin, on being greeted as Mother of the Messiah by her cousin Isabel, prorupted in a hymn we now call the Magnificat

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord

and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior

From this hymn which has nine double propositional gestures, the Germans drew an objection against the authenticity of the Gospel of Luke — that is, against Saint Paul: it is an invention, a literary creation: because it is impossible that a fourteen or fifteen year old girl could have improvised at once such an admirable little poem, which includes 11 or 14 allusions to the Old Testament. But it turns out that that feat is not impossible for a young girl of the oral style who has been educated in the temple of Jerusalem. The holy martyr de Foucauld, who lived as a hermit among the Bedouins and was martyred by them, he found out that a poor arab woman, of the tribe of Imrad, who received charity from a French official, thanked him by improvising a hymn full of cliches of the arab poets from among those she had learned and recited since she was a child:

I go out of my tent before the prayer

A march full of worries

I have left Tekadeit and Lilli there

Starving, extenuated, crying

Locusts are death to the poor

I met the captain that had pity on me

He is a man that strives for the good

he is valiant in war, he is generous

He is blessed with the cries of joy of women

he has merits before God

His defiance no one picks up

He can to all the pagans

And so, many other difficulties. But the main service rendered by Father Jousse's discovery is to have liquidated the famous "synoptic question" once and for all, which had become an unending mess (but still is being taught at the seminaries) and to have corroborated the authenticity of the Four Gospels and the apostolic writings (or recitations) for good.

In summary, Christ "preached", that is, recited in the old rhythmic and mnemonic oral style then common in Palestine: He deposited his message in a number of "living printers" zealously controlled ones by the others. This oral style has the following characteristics:

First: It is not poetry, though at times is very beautiful, more than the poetry of the present time (at least that published in La Nación's Supplement), its primordial end is not aesthetic but mnemonic, to produce compositions that can be easily held in memory by the people, and to conserve that way (without printers or parchments) the great religious, historical, legislative, monuments of a people.

Second: Those compositions are not made with separate words but with set phrases, or with oral clichés, which are the primordial unity of all languages; the which are made up not of the separate words appearing in our dictionaries but by phrases; and this is why such thing called 'syntaxis' exists in them; the law for constructing the phrase.

Third: In those peoples, the institution called 'nabi' (or prophets in Israel) exists, of which a pale reflection are our South American 'payadores', who have as a purpose to conserve and transmit those recitations; and also create them, improvise them; then they are called 'rabbis' or teachers — as Rabbi Jeshoua ben Nazareth, who was not a beggar but had that honorable and important office: although he would recite for free and live on charity.

Fourth: Nabis do not change a word in the recitations of their Teacher; that was strictly prohibited.

Fifth: That way, the recitations have been kept intact, even over entire centuries, as has been proven experimentally; and when they are put in writing it is simply to control the reciters; thus, the tyrant Pisistratos had Homer's rhapsodies put in writing, when it was noted that the rhapsodists or reciters began to diverge slightly from one another.

So here is the answer to my bookseller: "How did Christ write?" To transmit His doctrine (His Revelation) Christ made use of an instrument even safer than if he had written a book, sent it to the printer and proofread the copy. If you open the anthology of my books that has been made by the National Commission of Culture you will meet with the enormous errors which make me say what I never said or thought. Books die or at least become old; many books of the time of Christ have disappeared. The oral, rhythmical, mnemonic transmission lives, and gives sequel to numberless books. The priests who know dead languages have as a mission that of reviving the words of Christ before the faithful in the current language.

So were produced "the Vedas" of the Hindus; the "Alkoran" of the muslims, and even the "Chanson de Roland" and the "Cantar del Mio Cid" in the Middle Ages; and eminently, the Four Gospels of Christ.

Go to first conference On Inspiration in the Bible

On Bible's Inspiration

On Inspiration

First of six unpublished lectures
Presumably delivered in Buenos Aires, or perhaps in Montevideo, in the Spring of 1963

By Father Leonardo Castellani

Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope

The Bible, gentlemen, to Christians and Hebrews alike, is the word of God; for many learned men it is the object of arduous research, and it has been so for twenty centuries; for many poets, if is a coffer of sublime poetry; and for all, it is a matter that will generate curiosity and be brought to public attention and public discussion by the current Vatican Ecumenical Council — as well as by journalists. That's why we´re here to learn something about it.

I delivered these lectures recently — still convalescing of surgery — in Uruguay, because a friend of mine had asked me to do so, and because I enjoy talking about Sacred Scripture. As you shall see, these are scientific lessons, not preaching, therefore they can serve Catholics and Hebrews, Protestants, and even atheists should it come to that. They have been sponsored by this Parish as a homage to the Ecumenical Council, which will deal with Scripture if I'm not mistaken, and I would be much surprised if it were not to do so.

To Catholics and Hebrews, as I just said, the Bible has been inspired by God; it is the "Sacred Books", much questioned and attacked these days — but also defended. On them the religious faith of practicing Christians and Hebrews is founded.

What does "inspired" mean? It means that God is their main cause, and for that reason it can be called simply "the word of God". We Catholics believe that God deigned to make a revelation to men about Himself, and for that reason he used this manner of word: "He who created speech cannot speak?" Yes, but if He speaks, His word has to be quite special. 

How did God go about speaking, or (technically) what is the nature of His inspiration? This is an object of discussion, scientific and theological, on which all opinions possible have been expressed, not being it possible to add a single different one, and about which numberless books have been written. I will set it forth; first by giving a paradigm of all opinions, then making an exegesis of a passage in Scripture (since movement is proved by walking), and finally expounding the exact and true theory. I propose in these lessons to proceed with examples rather than by abstractions: “breve iter per exempla, longum iter per praecepta”, would the ancient pedagogy claim: "short is the way of example, long is the way of precepts."

*

Jesus assumed as His the assertion of the Jews that the books of the Thorah (the Old Testament for us) were the Word of God, and likened His own preaching with that of the Hebrew prophets, and afterwards the Apostles did likewise. This is a fact.

This is the reason why we believe in the Divine inspiration of Scripture, and there is no other one. This one is more than enough: Jesus Christ, the Messiah, Son of God, canonized the books we call "the Bible", Greek word meaning " the books". The Bible cannot err because Christ cannot err; the Bible contains Divine Revelation because Jesus Christ was Divine Revelation. Thus, to the question "How do you understand this passage of Scripture?" the answer is: "I understand it as Jesus Christ understood it". This is the basis of exegesis — "And how did Christ understand it?" Here comes the task of the exegesis; that is, of interpretation, about which we will talk in the third lesson.

My teacher, Father Van Laack used to say that in the New Testament (that is, in the sacred books proceeding from Jesus Christ and His Apostles) there were 3,000 quotes or allusions to the books of the Old Testament. I have not counted them, though I suppose it is exact, but what interests me is that fifteen times in the Gospels, Jesus Christ appeals to Sacred Scripture against His adversaries, giving it as Word of God: "Have you not heard the Spirit of God from the mouth of Isaiah the Prophet, who says (this or that) — and Scripture cannot err?" says Jesus Christ. And the Apostles continue with this same attitude. This is the unshakeable foundation of the Catholic faith on the "inspiration" of Sacred Scripture. It is not the same foundation that the Jews have. Bur it is the foundation that Hebrew philosopher Bergson had in placing Jesus Christ on the same line as the Hebrew prophets — and above them, by the way, in his book "The Two Sources of Morals and Religion"; the last of his books.

This is sufficient to tell us about the incomparable treasure we have in our hands in the Holy Books. If at the time of Jesus someone had announced to the entire world that in some forgotten place in the Roman Empire, in Palestine, God was speaking face-to-face with men, would not numberless people have gone there to listen directly the message of God Himself? But now all of us for a few dollars or for none can have that message, called "the Good News", ευβχνγελος, the Beautiful News, and we do not read it — or we read it quite seldom; I confess that I read it much less than I should.

*

The most solemn moment when Jesus Christ canonizes the books of the Old Testament is in his conversation with the disciples of Emaus. The latter, full of consternation for the tragedy at Calvary, said to the pilgrim stranger: "What? Have you not heard what happened to Jesus the Nazarene? We had thought God was with him and that he was to restore the Kingdom of Israel... But he failed. He has been crucified. Certainly, some of our women have been telling us that they found his sepulcher empty. But..." This "but" is loaded with this sentence: "but who pays attention to those women sayings?" Jesus got mad, above all, I suppose, for this judgment about the Saintly Women. "Oh, fools and slow of heart in getting to believe all that the prophets have said!" And taking the lead, He began interpreting for them all that had been written about Him in the Books, beginning with Moses up through Malachi, the last of the prophets; namely, that it would be convenient that the Awaited Messiah should suffer and die, so as to be able to enter His Kingdom. They were astonished and recognized Him later in the "breaking of bread"; that is, probably, in the unforgettable gesture with which Christ instituted the Eucharist.

Christ did not explain how God had gone about making the Holy Books, even though he suggested it by saying that God spoke through the mouth of the prophets, wherefrom the early Holy Fathers drew the other comparison, of the instrument at the hands of the artist, like Saint Justin, who says: "as the plectrum at the hands of the musician who plays the lyre or the cither." 

Dictation was Luther's first position, or so it seems; it is also that of the ancient Jewish exegesis, the which is divided between the two extremes, the rationalist extreme, and the opposite, fanatic one of the dictation, which a Jewish sect called "the Kabbala" has carried to the extreme of extravagance; and finally, many protestant sects, as for instance the "Jehovah Witnesses". I have a weekly review published by this sect, called 'Despertad' (Awaken) which is printed in New York City, in three and a half million copies, in all languages (including an awful Spanish for Latin American consumption) in which, with indignation, the statement that the birth of Christ from a Virgin is just a myth is rejected; it is rejected on grounds of the "dictation", which approximates them to the Catholics much more than the rationalist doctrine that the Virginal Conception of Christ is a "midrash", that is, a "myth", even though it approximates them by virtue of a false idea: God did not dictate Scripture, since if it were so, there would be no errors in Scripture, and there are minor errors in Scripture. 

The rationalist doctrine of "common poetic inspiration" likens the Holy Scripture with the works of Homer, Dante or Lugones, let's say, therefore evacuating from it all prophecy and all inerrancy, of course, and all Revelation. But we cannot call Word of God the works of Lugones or the Divine Comedy of Dante's. Jesus Christ would then have erred in calling those books Word of God. Obviously, he who does not believe in the Divinity of Christ has to adopt such opinion, which has become today quite harmful and dangerous, and of which we will see much in the Third Conference.

Of the other intermediate opinions I will give you some major examples; some of them are negative; It suffices for divine inspiration that God approve of a book once it has been written — said a great Catholic theologian called Leonardo Lessio, as well as the Protestant Haneberg, and since the Church approved the Gospels and Jesus Christ approved the Old Testament, by having done this, He made them Divine Word. Similar to these are the opinions of Holden and John, that God simply disposed that the hagiographer or prophet not commit any serious error, said Monsignor D'Huist and others, that is, an error in doctrine or morals; and finally, the famous theory of the 'obiter dicta' of Cardinal Newman, that so much difficulty gave to Vatican Council [I], that is, that God did not inspire the things that are said in passing, "by and by" is the phrase used by Newman, in Latin, "obiter dicta": God inspired only important things. This theory overcomes the difficulty of the errors in Scripture but makes a kind of dissection in it, for which reason the adherents of this theory are justly called 'vivisectionists'. Who is going to resolve which are the things said in passing and which others are said in seriousness? and what is the criterion to distinguish them? — What the Holy Mother Church says, answered Newman. But in twenty centuries Holy Mother Church has not defined one single time what in Holy Scripture is "said in passing" and not inspired by God, and she will never say it.

All these negative explanations (though maybe just in part) collide with the expression "Word of God". If I approve of a book, not for that reason is the book the word of mine. If of "El Estado Comunitario" (The Communitarian State) by Jaime María de Mahieu I say that I find not a single phrase of which I do not approve (as in fact I have said) not for that reason is that my book nor am I its author and Mahieu only my mouth.

Other opinions say that Scripture is inspired by God because it contains prophesies that have been fulfilled (second of Luther's position) or because it contains a morality that is superior to any other, or because it contains sublime poetry. The discourse on the Bible by Donoso Cortés, which we were made to learn by memory in school, is well known; it adduces these three criteria:

"There is a book, treasure of a people, which has now become fable and humiliation of the land that in gone times was the star of the East, from which all the poets of the Western regions of the world have come to imbibe... this book is the Bible, the book par excellence"

"In it, Petrarch learned to modulate his wails; in it, Dante saw his terrifying visions; from that lit furnace, the poet of Sorrento drew the splendor of his cantos. Without it, Milton would not have caught woman in her first weakness, man in his first sin, Lucifer in his first conquest, God in His first frown... and to talk about our Spain, who taught master Fr Luis de León to be simply sublime? From whom did Herrera learn his high, imperious and robust intonation? Who inspired Rojas those lugubrious lamentations, full of pomp and majesty, and full of sorrow? In what school did Calderón learn to rise up to the eternal abodes on the quill of the winds?"

Etcetera. Of course, the young marquis of Valderrama does not exclude the main criterion of why the Bible is the word of God, the which criterion is the testimony of Christ; but his oratory would prolong these secondary criteria, which by themselves do not suffice to prove that Scripture is the word of God, though they incline the animus to accept it so.

This being said, I will proceed with the exegesis of the passage in Scripture about the Woman in Labor, in Revelation, to prepare the ground for the expounding on the true nature of the divine inspiration of the Holy Books — according to Catholics, mentioning first the two prime principles of biblical exegesis which are evident in themselves.

1st. Oriental literature is symbolic.

2nd. It should always be interpreted literally, unless that becomes impossible. This is what is called St Augustine's "golden rule". The allegoric, figurative, or moral interpretation comes afterwards.

Revelation Chapter XV contains an impressive description of the struggle between a Dragon and a Woman who gives birth to a son who is carried to heaven, and then she is isolated in the desert. It is evidently a symbol. Symbol of what? Either of the Virgin Mary, or of the Catholic Church, or of Israel. We say that it is a symbol of Israel, but of the "Israel of God" (as the Holy Fathers say), which in a certain way comprises the other two.

(Reading of the text and interpretation)

We ought to know the true nature of God´s inspiration, because we all have to make exegesis — a simple one — at least when we read the Gospels or they are read to us in Mass; we have to understand it rightly and not wrongly.

God inspired the prophets and hagiographers in a similar way as He inspires poets, but in a higher plane: this is the nature of the inspiration of the Holy Books. This has been said by Christ when He says that Isaiah was the mouth of God, and by St Justine where he says that prophets are as the cither is to a citherist; that is, an instrument.

Philosophers have a very important doctrine about the "instrument"; that is, about the principal cause and the instrumental cause, as they say. The effect proceeds in its entirety from the two causes, and all proceeds from both causes but not completely "totum sed non totáliter". An artist paints a picture with a paintbrush, he paints it all; you cannot say that in a portrait by Rembrandt the paintbrush paints the shadows and the painter paints the lights; the entire portrait is made by the paintbrush and by the painter. there is not a single stroke that does not proceed from both, but naturally the picture is the expression of the painter, not of the paintbrush, the which only transmits it, except that in the case of the prophets, the transmission is not a mechanical one, it is through a live brush: therefore, Christ's metaphor, "a mouth" is better than St. Justin's "a cither".

So, for St. Thomas it is enough to simply say that the prophets were the "instrumental cause" of the Holy Books, but just as the paintbrush influences the picture only with its own nature, since the picture does not come out the same if the paintbrush is wide or if it is fine; it is not the same if the painter uses a spatula or a brush, in the same way, the Holy Book contains the Prophet's characteristics, his style, his education, his knowledge, his environment, and even his errors if God did not deem it necessary to suppress them; thus, Isaiah, who was a nobleman in the court of King Uzziah, writes with elegance, and Amos, who was a shepherd in the plains of Thekôa, writes roughly. Because that is simply God's general way of acting on men; he does not destroy their natures — why would He destroy them when He created them? — he acts through them by being inside them. This is what theologians say, that the supernatural presupposes the natural, and that grace does not destroy nature but completes and elevates it. Had God dictated Scripture, He would have eliminated man, His instrument.

God elevates the sacred poet to the supernatural plane in which God's action is not immediate and direct, but mediate and indirect. God raises the sacred poet to a height or summit, let us say, where they see things that natural man at his own plane cannot see. The Prophet is conscious that he is speaking in the name of God and with God's light; but it could well happen that the Prophet does not know all that God is saying through him; thus, we see that the ancient prophets speak of the two comings of the Messiah, sometimes without distinguishing one from the other — the founding of the Church and the Parousia, which are the type and its antitype; which are the two objects of all prophecy, as we shall see, which the Germans with all exactness call Zeichen and Gegenzeichen, that is, "figure" and "counterfigure". So likewise, the Evangelist in Chist's Eschatological Sermon speaks at the same time of the ruin of Jerusalem and of the end of times without distinguishing between those two events — the type and its antitype —, without distinguishing clearly, I shall say, because there is one word in St. Luke's that indicates two similar events separated by a long interstice.

The Prophet, then, is a cither, but a vital, rational and supernatural one; and his inspiration, though not the same as that of the profane poet, is similar to it, only better, only more elevated. Poets say someone inspires them, the Muse, they feel superior to themselves, it is not Homer who sings, it is the Muse:

Sing, O Muse, of Peleus' son, Achilles, 
Of fateful vengeance and of rage do sing
Source of great ills fallen upon the Achaeans
All in fulfilment of the will of Jove
Who mighty warriors to the battle sent
So many souls he sent with such a fury
That countless bodies filled the plains and hills 

Unburied lay, prey to the vultures and a feast to dogs

What happens to the poet, then; or how is a poem written? The poet is wounded by an intense emotion which comes to him from sensitive things and reaches the depths of the soul; in consequence a kind of ineffable vacuum is produced in the depths of his soul, where the images that caused the emotion float; as well as a sparking of lose images and words. The poet wants to express that warm knowledge he has, transmit it to others; not as he is, because that is impossible, but building a kind of words artifact or machine that serves to discharge on the listeners a similar emotion and knowledge, and he starts to select images: this I want, this I do not, and taking the instruments of the trade, the language, the verse, the rhyme, the meter, the strophe, and the models of other poems he likes, produces that artifact of words. I know that, because I have written poems, bad poems though as judged by my friend Roque Aragón and others, but I know it especially by confirmation from a great French poet, Paul Claudel, who of his own inspiration makes a similar analysis. After a few days, the writer re-reads the poem and it seems to him that it is not he who has been the author, that if he wished to write it now, he would not be capable. This is why poets say it is a god or a goddess; to Homer or to Virgil, it was the Muse Calliope, Apollo's daughter.

Musa, mihi causas mémora quo númine laeso
Quidve dolens regina deûm tot vólvere casus
Insignem pietate verum, tot adire labores
Impulerit. Tantæne animis coeléstibus irae?

The same does God with the sacred poet, but in a direct and supernatural manner performs the role of a muse. Everything in the book proceeds from the Prophet and from God; everything is inspired, but not everything in an equal degree; because just as in a poem there are essential words and others that are accidental (and in bad poets even filler — that is, superfluous — words) so is it that in Sacred Scripture all words are inspired by God but not all equally, that is, not all of equal importance. "The dog that came out to meet young Tobit was wagging its tail" — says the book of Tobias. Did God also inspire that passage? Why not? He inspired the entire book on placing the Prophet on the plane of religious excitement; that is, of enthusiasm. Also Homer says that Ulysses' dog, Argos, wagged its tail on seeing him, and after describing it in thirty hexameters, tells us that it fell dead from the joy of seeing his master; in two superb hexameters full of music.

Дργον δ΄αΰ ηατά μοίρ΄ Ёλαβεν μέλανος Οανάτοιο αύτίή ίδόντα ΄Οδυσήα έειηοττώ ένιαυτώ

which means:

But the dark shadow of death enwraps Argos
Just as it recognizes Ulysses after a score of years

These verses are so inspired; that is, beautiful, as the rest of the poem; and the same goes for the tail of Tobit's dog; unless it is a superfluous filler, as it might well be; we shall see in what sense; in the sense of a cliché of oral style.

* 

 Liberalism

by Leonardo Castellani

Taken from Las Canciones de Militis 

Jean Jacques Rousseau says that, when born, the baby cries ¨I don´t want to be swaddled." The baby does not say it does not want to be slapped, which would be quite natural, but that it does not want to be wrapped, but it does get swaddled nonetheless. "Men are born and remain free and equal" says Rousseau. Born, yes, but they do not remain; poor them if they were to remain! Immediately the mother, with a perverse anti-liberal instinct, begins to establish between her and her baby all kinds of links. Note that links are the pieces that make up a chain.

Men, to say nothing of women, are essentially seekers of chains. It is precisely because of this that they enjoy hearing the sound of broken chains. It is to seek new ones. Love promises, marriage contracts, religious vows, promises of eternal fidelity, strict military discipline, juridical construction of laws, constitutions and Magna Cartas, loyalty to chief, faithfulness to friend, attachment to fatherland ... wherever man can find a chain that frees him from his essential changeability and contingency, and which ties him to something permanent, just as a shipwrecked man clings to a mast, there he feels happy and noble. And what's most phenomenal is that he feels free. One of the freest men I have known was a Jesuit who, besides the fourth vow Jesuits make, had made other five or six vows of his own accord. And he used to say that with one of these he had freed himself from an internal tyranny. I believe he was not lying. All this militates fundamentally against a book of Rousseau's named The Social Contract which I can remember how much I had struggled to understand when I went to school.

What's worse is that another of Rousseau's books, the Émile, is more questionable than the first. According to him, the boy, in reaching school age, is a being who loves washing his face, likes being clean, enjoys going to school and learning everything in books, beginning with botany.

Oh, sweet Botany and Geography!
Oh, comfortable Mineralogy!
You are the three Muses of my ingenuity!

This is Rousseau's boy. But it turns out that real-life boys like playing with mud, wandering the streets, fighting other boys, stealing tangerines, and learning everything by themselves. When a desperate teacher tells a boy he is a rascal, a good for nothing, a disaster, and a scoundrel, the kid that has some respect of himself and who is not a fool or is not unwell, will reply with another of Rousseau's phrases, which is the nucleus of the entire liberal theory invented by this celebrated author: "Leave me alone!". Then is when, by force of circumstances, the two possible meanings of the baby's cry at birth become indistinct; and the teacher, whom the official teacher´s college has taught to respect Émile as the bible of Modern Education, in practice, given also he is not a fool or is unwell, behaves as the most vulgar absolutist and anti-Rousseauist.

Now comes another book by the inventor of liberalism; its title is Julie or the New Eloise. Here liberalism comes applied to women and here my wisdom ends, because I have never been able to read it beyond the first half of the first part, and it has five parts. I did read the entire index, though, which represents a summary of the puzzle, because it is a novel, and left me with a giddiness that lasted an entire afternoon; a mixture of feeling like vomiting or like going to sleep, which is the sickness of the philosopher when he tries to swallow an excessive dose of absurdity in a single gulp. Liberalism applied to women is a perfect failure. There are three words that a woman will never understand and they are: liberty, equality and fraternity.

Liberalism applied to peoples is contained in Rousseau's fourth book, titled The Confessions, which has three volumes, because each of these tomes is longer than the preceding one. There one understands everything. We are dealing with a madman. A madman is the least free of beings, even if it may appear to be the opposite, even when he wanders about loose, because the madman´s stiffness is in the inside... But this Rousseau was a madman of the most dangerous kind, because he was a madman who knew his French quite well and besides, as every madman, imitative mimics. A madman, aside from being a born liar, is a walking fear of being interned and a permanent scrupulousness in working evil in anything he does. To react against these two deadly affections, Rousseau invented the theory of "Leave me alone" and the theory of the essential goodness of man; he defined that everything he did was necessarily good and besides nice and cute. Only an obese man is capable of writing that meticulous description of the trivialities and squalors of his life wrapped in a syrupy scent with an aftertaste of bedbugs and dirty linen, which produces repulsion in us today, but at the time and in his milieu, which seems to be the milieu of the joli and the mignon, produced a considerable effect. It even looks like he would give himself the pleasure of inventing squalors so that he could please himself in embellishing them: like that of having had five children and having abandoned them to a foundlings home. It is believed nowadays, with great physiological and psychological foundation ‒ according to J. Lemaitre ‒ that he never engendered any child. Luckily.

True liberty is a study in obedience. Man frees himself of corruption of the flesh by obeying reason, he frees himself from matter by subjecting himself to the unswerving profile of a form, he frees himself of the ephemerous by tying himself to a style, of the capricious by adapting himself to customs, of solitary infecundity by obeying life, and of his own outmoded and mortal life he frees himself sometimes by obeying Him who said "I am the life." Only the bad poet resorts to the free verse, Lugones used to say. The good poet multiplies the ties of his matter to make the triumph of the form, of which beauty consists. Lugones went to seek the sand and the mud of Río Seco to write his last work, which will survive the cedar, the ivory and the silver of his preceding works. Where the madman, the slave, the prisoner and the boor say: Liberty, the nobleman says: Honor, Beauty, Love and Wisdom. The greatest liberty grows from the greatest rigor, said Leonardo da Vinci: because man is freer to the extent he is stronger ‒ as it is taught at the National Defense Academy in La Plata ‒ and an obsession with liberty is the proof of maximum weakness, which is a weakness of the mind. Who in the world wants to be free as the Uruguayans? ‒ freest men in the world, judging by what they say of themselves.

Well. That obsession with liberty typical of a madman came to serve marvelously the economic forces that at that time sparked, and also the power of Money and Usury, which had also been obsessed with being left alone. They were left alone; technology and products triumphed over blood and soul, and an epoch in which liberty has never been spoken of so much and in which man has never been really less free, was inaugurated. A half-Catholic, half-Protestant and half-atheist heresy ‒ because Rousseau was, in succession, first Catholic, then Protestant and finally atheist ‒ it came to life precisely when we Argentinians were approaching independence. It did us so much harm as a demijohn of wine in a cage of monkeys: and it did not ruin us entirely because, thank God, here were strong Spanish vitamins. And there were also men who were not monkeys.

But the evil worked by liberalism in the Old World, where it was born, was perhaps worse: here the man of the Pampa, the sun and the long distances air the environment. There, in Europe, we have now this terrible war, of which I cannot even think about. And other moral and spiritual destructions much worse, if possible, than that of war, and of which I cannot stop thinking even when I want to; and they burden my mind in a way such, that they make me look prematurely old, and they would also make me crazy were it not for the two celestial consolations of philosophy and journalism.

Philosopher Santayana at one time dreamed of seeing pass four knights in four horses, one black, one sorrel, one bay and the last one white. He saw them pass plumed and armed and asked them:

‒ Where are you heading?
‒ We are going to free the peoples.
‒ Free them from what? ‒ the philosopher shouted.
The crowned man on the white horse answered:
‒ From the consequences of liberty.

Originally published in Cabildo, Buenos Aires, N° 606, June 14, 1944.

On Subversion

On Subversion

By Father Leonardo Castellani

Taken from Jauja, a monthly review, issue N° 10, October 1967

Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope Sánchez Mejorada

I have here a small heap of clippings on SUBVERSION — the Anti-Communist Law included —. These newspaper editorial writers know plenty; they know about everything, from the strategy in Vietnam to the sale of vegetables in carts, but they don't know the meaning of words. Thus, subversion, for example, means to them "extremism of right and left"; and "extremist" is whoever thinks something that is not convenient to them. So, it behooves for us to explain that strange word in three "tempos": tempo adagio, tempo andante con moto and tempo mesto con serenitá.

I Adagio

1° — Today's "Subversion" is what intelligent people (such as the late Rodolfo Irazueta) call "Revolution" with a capital letter. Subvertir in Latin means "turn upside down"; and is related to 'invert' and 'pervert', its opposite is 'convert'. This Revolution is much older than the "Argentinian Revolution" — which does not exist.

Let's put its beginnings in the beheading of Charles I, by Cromwell in the representation of the new aristocracy. It ended the ancient Christian Monarchy. Then, the French went on decapitating the King, the Queen, Duchesses, Countesses, poets, learned men, and, finally, their own henchmen, up to a million beheaded, to ensure Fraternity and destroy Liberty. Napoleon's armies propagated such "ideology" all over Europe and South America. Its crown and peak is the Russian subversion of 1917, not counting the two World Wars or Great Wars.

All this "Revolution" is clearly a series of "Subversions" on the ground left by the great religious subversion of the Sixteenth Century. "Revolutions" (in Mahieu's sense "Diccionario de Ciencia Política") there have been but two, the Revolución de Mayo and Franco´s revolution  — perhaps some other: that is, an "uprising which changes an inconvenient political situation for the better."

Now, subversion (or making things turn upside down) is installed nowadays in the bosom of the States, and consequently also around them, by counter-blow. If you want a quick example, see what happens here. Let´s put the extraordinary tax of 1% which we have paid. There is nothing more contrary to the Christian idea of the State. Phillip II and Ferdinand the Saint even more, would have cried out in astonishment "But that is simply an act of tyranny! What sultan or Mogul has done that?"  — Well, a "Catholic" general, and some confused economists.  — Any Mohammedan among them?  —  None, Your Majesty. And the noble Argentinian people have gone to pay it to the tune of the National Anthem.

Don't ask me for all of its "subversive" angles. Suffice it to say that this is a mean attack on private property, which is put that way at the complete disposal of the politicians in power. The "Revolution", after having eliminated Christian Monarchy in mobilizing against Property, with Capitalism and its offspring, Communism; awaiting the time to subjugate the Army and the Family, the two other pillars of the Roman Order, and to open the doors to the Antichrist.

"The subversion that La Nación newspaper sees only in Cuba or in China is within our liberal State:
          No need for the North to send them. 
          The barbarians are in Rome. 
And besides this recent example, the disproportionate inheritance taxes, the electoral ruse or loss of legitimacy, the destruction of political stability, the temptation of sedition, even the guerrilla, sedicent "Revolutions" in all of South America.

The Christian faithful talk about "progressivist" priests, "halfway progressivists" and not "progressivists"... "What is this?  When has something like this, which looks like the proliferation of Protestant sects, been seen in the Catholic Church?  

I don´t see it anywhere else other than in the Seventeenth Century, in France: "Jansenist, halfway Jansenist and non-Jansenist" priests; and the faithful not knowing which saint to pray to. Great confusion, polemics, the "Provincials" of Pascal, the suppression of the Jesuits, etc. But then came the condemnation of Jansenism by the Holy see: four condemnations in a row (Innocence X, Alexander VII, Innocence XI, Alexander VIII), and the confusion ended.

Now, it gets no condemnation.

Some days ago, a Hungarian worker, very catholic himself as well as very keen, 
told me: "We don't know what to think. The things of religion we were taught when we were kids, even the Rosary to the Virgin and the First Communion,  are being changed. We don't know which saint to pray to, when they are even suppressing the saints"

I told him: "The changes are not substantial; and an epidemic of chicken pox has hit the liberal clerics who preach rubbish." That´s all.

"Yes, but what teacher to believe who is safe?"

II Andante con moto: 

From the bosom of the liberal "Revolution", the monster of Communism was born, similar to the ancient heresy of the Albigensians, but a lot more fortunate and fierce. It seized the greatest empire in Europe and the greatest empire in Asia, and now makes all the world tremble.

About Communism, readers know what it consists of; that is, we know what they say it is. We will only note three things:

1° Communism does not come from the poverty or the exploitation of the poor: Such is not its, at least single, cause. Poor people lack the strength to revolt, much less to seize power. In the French Revolution, the peasants in France (it has been proven) were the ones in the best circumstances in all of Europe.

In reality, they were not the ones who made the "Revolution" except in a cosmetic role; but it was the Bourgeoisie, the Third Estate — which was still better; full of money, envious of the noblemen, and wanting to annihilate the obstacles, i.e. the Monarchy and the Guilds, to the nascent Capitalism; which they achieved making use of the populace in Paris and of the guillotine.

In the Spanish Civil War: the workers in the North were relatively affluent, and they bent to the reds (Barcelona,  Basque Provinces). The peasants and sharecroppers of the masters in Andalusia were much worse paid; and they adhered to the "whites", and joined the ranks of Queipo del LLano, decisive happening which encouraged Franco to invade from Africa.

And more instances could be added. In his prologue to Dickens' Oliver Twist, Chesterton notes that Oliver rebels against the horrible orphanage because it is somewhat better than the others and not worse, and formulates the law I wrote above.

2° Communism is a Judaic heresy. It has a religious, messianic ferment; it is not a political party. If you read the excellent book by Miguel Ángel Speroni "Vida Cotidiana en la URSS Actual" (Daily life in today's USSR) you will see it very clearly without many explanations; the same for China in Faruz's "Un Gran Convento sin Dios" (A Great Convent without God.)

What has simply been done is to take religion away from the masses (Christianity and Buddhism), substituting it with another one, heretic and entirely illusory. The "adhered" Russian people (many others painfully conserve their old religion) literally believe in the advent of the Messiah-Communism; the redemption of the entire world. They are told that Communism has not yet arrived for them; they are in the penultimate stage, the ironclad dictatorship of the Proletariat (really a swarm of ferocious politicians.) After which comes "Liberation", total suppression of the State and ... paradise on earth.

In reality, the Communist doctrine in Russia serves as an instrument to an imperialism like that of the Czars but with the cassock turned inside out: that of the Czars was religious; this one is anti-religious and much much more ambitious. The same goes for China.

3° The only remedy against Communism is religion or 'the conversion of Europe' as Belloc put it. They know that, and this is why they hate especially the Catholic Church, "the main enemy" — said Lenin.

Don't make me laugh with the "Anti Communist Law", that sort of lukewarm inquisition — and liberal. It is a fact that, since the time it was promulgated, Communist propaganda has worsened. Go to Calle Florida number 200 and you will find a great Communist bookstall there, selling anti-catholic books. Go to Librería Álvarez and listen to a continuous record with a psalmody or Communist psalm against matrimony.  Anyway, go to ... go to the Servicio de Inteligencia del Estado (State Intelligence Service) and ask.

It is funny that this government has invented a kind of spurious Spanish Inquisition. So much have we ranted and raved against the Inquisition, and now we timidly resuscitate it. Even Krieger Vasena has become convinced that the Inquisition was necessary. But they have no claws to be inquisitors.

I am not saying that the law is bad and lacks any effects. But it will never repress Communism, which is as slithery as a snake and has thousands of Mafias and ruses.

III Tempo mesto con serenitá. 

The third tempo, which was supposed to be "the remedies", does not fit anymore. 
This editorial is already much too long.

In summary, it is THERE IS NO REMEDY.

I apologize for saying something so grave, but if I knew something graver, that is what I would say.

In the current state of the world, no remedy can be seen for Argentina. The 'conversion of Europe' is not in our own hands; much less that of the USA. The remedy of the Communist heresy will have to be analogous to that of the Albigensians, which was like this one here, a commotion at the same time economic, political and religious. According to historiographers, it would have submerged Europe had it followed its course... The king of France, Philip Augustus — encouraged by Pope Innocence III — contributed the triple remedy: alleviated the misery in the south of France, enacted a law condemning any Albigensian to great penalties and sent Simon de Montfort with an army; and by Saint Dominic de Guzmán, founded the Inquisition. The Popes had opposed the use of force; and had sent even the great Saint Bernard to preach, but when they saw that heretics would kill the missionaries and had assassinated even the Papal Legate, Pedro de Castelnau; and that the Count of Toulouse threatened even Paris, allied with the King of Aragón Pedro I (called "the Catholic" by the Spaniards, and "the Drunkard" by the French), they realized that the potatoes were too hot and proclaimed the crusade. Simon de Montfort defeated Raymond VI and Pedro I in the miraculous battle of Muret — a thousand men against 100,000 men. The "first Inquisition" was founded.

Inquisition means "to inquire"; and that was what they would do: Obstinate heretics were condemned to death, and the French soldiers, irritated by the danger they had barely gotten through in safety, would put to death any "heretic" they felt like executing, especially if they were wealthy. Saint Dominic persuaded the Monarch that only those heretics that a tribunal of theologians should "inquire" ought to be condemned. That tribunal was so lenient that it would suffice for one to be married to be absolved: because the Albigensians rejected marriage, although they would allow "free love" and (in practice) sodomy — just as now. The indiscriminate slaughter ended: the famous phrase "Kill them all,  God will recognize His own" is an invention, but 'bene trovata' because it gives a good idea of what was happening.

So, Communism, which is also an economic, political, religious and international heresy, has only one remedy on a par with it, one which conjugates all four spheres.
— And, do you not want to say the remedy?
— Next month

What's that called God?

What's that called God?

Tell me, what's that called God? oh, lovely lights.
Order! — answered the stars. 
Tell me, what's that called God? delicate flowers.
Beauty! answered the roses.

Tell me, what's that called God? oh, Mother mine
And She, her eyes turned to Christ on the cross
God is all love — She said
Love that is purer than the light of day.


Father Leonardo Castellani

Song of Fatherland Love

Song of Fatherland Love

by Paul Verlaine

Translated by Roberto Hope from a Spanish version made 
from the French original by Father Leonardo Castellani.

To love the homeland is the first of loves,
and it is the last one after God;
if it is crucified and unfeigned,
becomes a single love, not two anymore.

To love the fatherland, even to risk one's life
in the pursuit of the homeland´s common good,
withstanding the upwellings and the furious winds:
Such is inscribed to the credit of God.

God who cannot be seen, the inscrutable God;
of everything that's good, obscure abyss,
perceptible through Faith alone 
blind as blind may be.

Cannot love, despite how much of Him he speaks,
he who from the bottom of his icy self
is unable to love what he can´t see.

On the Temptations of Christ

On the Temptations of Christ

By Father Leonardo Castellani (1899 - 1981)

From: 'El Evangelio de Jesucristo', Itinerarium, 1956

Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope

About the temptations of Christ much can be said; but let us be brief and note three major points: the tempter, the Tempted, and us.

The malignant spirit did not know for sure whether Christ was or was not the Messiah and much less whether He was God or no. It seems incredible, with the talent the devil has, and knowing the messianic prophecies better than any rabbi, that he did not draw the conclusions that many men drew. But it was so, it suffices to read the Gospel; in addition, Saint Paul expressly says that the devil would not have — by means of the Jews — crucified Christ had he been aware that He was the Son of God (I Cor II, 8).

That a God be made man is an Absolute Mystery, it is, shall we say, an Absurdity; it is beyond the comprehension of any created mind. That mystery cannot be discovered and known if it is not by means of a supernatural act of faith, an act which is impossible without God's grace, which the devil lacks.

That is why the purpose of the Tempter was, as it clearly appears, not only to make Christ sin but also to rid himself of that doubt, which he was unable to accomplish: "If you are the Son of God, make these rocks turn into bread." It must be granted that the devil's audacity is infinite: he is a scoundrel because he no longer has anything to lose. Suspecting Christ to be a divine person, having, however, grabbed Him and taken Him to the Belfry! "How scared must the wretch have been — says Saint Theresa — as he went flying!"... But we don't actually know whether he went flying.

The devil has enormous power — this is what this Gospel says — but on the other hand, it is a vain power because it can be overcome "in words", with the Word of God.

Great praise of the Holy Scripture is contained in this Gospel: Christ overcomes the three temptations with the weapon of the Holy Scripture. But the power of the devil is tremendous against those who go unarmed. When he told Christ: "All this is mine and to whomsoever I wish, I give it", showing him the kingdoms of this world — in politics it can be said that the devil has no competitor — Christ did not respond: "Liar! All this is God's, not yours", He did not get into an argument with him, because in a certain sense all this is, indeed, the devil's; in the sense that, because of our sins, he meddles with everything these days. He is the Armed Strong Man, the Powers of Darkness, the Prince of this World, as Christ called him elsewhere. It is likely that, on birth, Satan was the Archangel who had been predestined to maneuver and control the material world; or at least of this planet; and not for having sinned did he lose that connatural power over this silent planet (Castellani alludes to  C. S. Lewis' 'Out of the silent planet' theological novel). But all power is God's.

That which our elders used to call "selling the soul to the devil" is possible: it was the transaction proposed to Christ in the Third Temptation. When an evil man does incessantly well in this world. you can tell he is a possessed; to the common iniquitous men, morality imparts punishment in the short term. If God does not prevent him, the devil can do the strangest things to man, and that I know from the books, but if I were to say that I know it only from the books, I would be lying.

Why did he tempt Christ with those things? With the Dumbobrigida (referring to Gina Lollobrigida, a popular Italian starlet of Castellani's time — translator's note) or with some other of God's little female creatures which give us the honor of amusing the rabble of Buenos Aires, with the key to the Central Bank; with the urns full of votes in Congress, I can tempt anybody. But with rocks, with motorless flights, with fantastic promises of universal empires?...

The devil knew that Christ was a saintly religious man — he had seen Him prepare Himself for His religious mission with Moses' fasting, he had seen him burning like a great bonfire in continuous prayer —; and he tempted Him as a religious man, on a religious plane, not on the carnal plane. A note on the Gospel translated by Straubinger says: "the first one was a temptation of sensuality"... This is an error. The three of them were temptations of pride. The devil tempts those who do as rigorous Lents as Christ did, with temptations of pride, not of sensuality.

The devil tries to ape God since his fall was from wanting to be like God and this is his constant obsession. The devil tempts promising or giving God's things; the same that God is to give us if we have patience and fidelity. Christ could have gotten bread by waiting a bit — "and the angels served it to Him" — without the need of a miracle. The devil pushes us, he hastens us, he is the spur of the world: he invites us to anticipate, to abuse, to get there first. To the first humans, he said "You shall be like gods" which is what God proposed to do and does with man, by means of divine adoption (sanctifying grace) and of the beatific vision. "We will then be like Him because we will see Him as He is", says Saint John. Eve sinned because she coveted an anticipation of the divine vision, We cannot be tempted but according to our own nature.

Thus, he tempted Jesus in accordance with what was natural of Him, with the same that He was to attain one day. Christ was to convert the rocks of gentility into the bread of his Mystic Body, according to that: "Do you think that from these rocks I cannot get sons of Abraham?". Christ was to fly visibly to heaven in front of his apostles and some five hundred disciples. Finally, Christ will someday be Universal King of the whole world as he is already by right and hope.

The devil is now tempting humanity with a Universal Kingdom to be achieved without Christ, with the force of man alone. All this great movement of today's world (the UN. UNESCO, the World's Council of Churches, the great imperialisms, the promises of a thousand years of peace on the part of the Leaders) represents that unstoppable yearning of humankind for the Millennium, for its natural and peaceful unity, for its integration as the Human Race.

It is useless to oppose that most present yearning — ultra-nationalists are wrong — because it is a yearning contained in the bosom of the world's historical evolution as it is a divine promise. But the devil wants to get there first. We Christians know that this will come, but it can only come with and by Christ; and that this manner, as it is being done now, we cannot accept, because it is the vast preparation of the Anti-Christ. "If this is serving the country, the how, to me does not tally" (a paraphrase of "si eso es servir al Gobierno, a mí no me gusta el cómo" from José Hernández novel 'Martín Fierro' — translator's note). So we give the appearance of impotent on the one hand, of backward reactionaries on the other.

The Church appears to be in a downright crisis these days; she cannot achieve the peace of the nations, the most urgent of the world needs, she is bruised within herself, she does nothing but take apparently negative measures: Syllabus, Anti-modernist oath,  forbid this, forbid that. She is not at the head of "civilization" as in other times; she does nothing but to pull backward: this is because "civilization" has taken the wrong road, that of the Tower of Babel. A satanic road.

"All this is mine and I give it to whomsoever I want; all this I will give you if, prostrating at my feet, you adore me." Some man someday will accept this deal. I know not when. A friend of mine who pretends to be a prophet says that this man will be born in 1963 and will become Emperor in 1996. I think that neither he nor I know when. I, at least, don't know.

It is not necessary to know much Latin of Greek to predict that the Church will be tempted, if Christ was tempted, and it will be with the same temptations of Christ.

We could perhaps say that the first one was in the Middle Ages, the second one in the Renaissance, and the third one now. This so that we may understand each other, although the three work together.

The first temptation is this: by means of the religious procure material goods for herself — as if we should say to trade miracles for bread — which may go to an extreme called simony, or the sale of what is sacred. But the priests also have to eat and the Church needs goods. I do not deny that the Church needs goods, what I do know is that there is a very fine line, beyond which the "goods" become evils. Being the effect rather taking the bread and turning it into stone, a backward miracle, as for example making great stone temples where the bread of the Divine Word is lacking, of which as from bread, man lives, responded Christ to Satan.

The second temptation is by religious means attain prestige, power, pomposities, and "the glory that men give" (John 12:43). And it is also true that the Church needs a good name since one of the distinctive notes of the true religion is for it to be saintly. Thus one of Saint Augustine's major arguments against the heretics and pagans were the admirable 'customs' of the primitive Church as opposed to the evil customs of them. See his books De Civitate Dei, De Moribus Ecclesiae, De Moribus Manicheorum.

But one thing is that others call one saint and another that one calls himself so. Days ago I heard a preacher who dared say a eulogy of the order to which he belonged, that the Belfry of the Church trembled (ie the Temple's Pinnacle) and I could not less than think: This would be better that the people were the ones who said it.

The third temptation is unconcealedly satanic: prostrate before the devil in order to rule the world. Can the Church be so tempted? The Church is not greater than Christ. Cruelty, for instance, is demoniacal. The saintly and the demoniac are opposites and consequently, they are both on the same plane, and corruption of the best is the worst. Talking about Savonarola, Cardinal Newman said: "The Church cannot be reformed by disobedience." and his interlocutor answered: "Much less by cruelty, my dear Cardinal" The Ascetic can be tempted of hardness of heart, of inhumanity, of cruelty. "My daughter has become cruel as the ostrich", says God through His Prophet.

This is the last temptation, of which God may deliver and guard me, and above all, may God deliver and guard the others: As Ramón Ibarra, the man from Jachal, in a knife fight with Dionisio Mendoza said: "Hold him! Hold him! Hold the other one! As I, whether well or bad, can hold myself alone."