Not A Mean; Certainly Not Golden!

 NOT A MEAN; CERTAINLY NOT GOLDEN!

there is no golden mean between truth and falsehood...
any attempt to find one will result in something
that is not a mean, and certainly not golden!

Preamble: 

During a brief Catechism session after the Mass of Sexagesima Sunday, at some point one of the faithful put forward the following question: 

“Please, Fr” he said, “some philosophers and Theologians alike believe that virtue lies in the middle. How is that explained? Does it lie at the middle or at the extreme end? Have the modernists misapplied that concept? 

Though a brief, but satisfying response was given, here we wish to expound on the question in a more encompassing way. 

How is it explained? 

St. Thomas Aquinas explained “the mean of virtue” in the 64th question of the First Part of the Second Part of his Summa Theologiae. The following points are to be noted: 

• Virtue is a good habit productive of good works, thus the nature of virtue is that it should direct man to good. 

• Good is measured /ruled by its conformity with its rule; while evil is measured by its discordance with its measure. 

• The good of moral virtue consists in its conformity with the rule of reason; and evil consists in the discordance with the rule of reason.

• The mean of virtue is its conformity to the rule of reason, and this lies between excess and deficiency. 

Now, virtue can be seen either with respect to reason or with respect to its matter which consists of passions or operations. 

• With respect to reason: there are two extremes - conformity and deformity. So, virtue holds the place of the extreme of conformity, while excess and defect holds the other extreme of deformity. 

• With respect to the matter of virtue: it holds the position of mean, insofar as it makes the passion conform to the rule of reason. 

Furthermore, in actions and passions, the mean and the extreme depend on various circumstances, thus what is an extreme in virtue in a particular circumstance can be the mean with respect to other circumstances. 

A classic example is that which applies to the virtue of fortitude, the virtue which makes one brave to meet dangers. Excess with regards to this virtue is reckless daring; while defect is undue timidity or cowardice. What may seem an excess to one naturally timid, could indeed be the mean for the stout hearted. 

Take justice as another example: the golden mean which consists in conformity with right reason coincides with the objective thing i.e. rendering to every man his due, no more, no less. 

And, with regards to the intellectual virtues, the golden mean is truth or conformity to reality, while the excess consists in false affirmation and defect in false negation. For instance, what is true is that God exists; excess will consist in affirming plurality of gods; while defect in negating the existence of God. 

Modernists and the Golden mean.

Expressing the fact that “their whole system, with all its errors, has been born of the alliance between faith and false philosophy” as Pope St. Pius X acquaints us, Modernists have utilized the principle of the golden mean to unimaginable proportions. It will suffice to single out few instances: 

• Premised on the presupposition that the Catholic claim to be the unique means of salvation is extreme; and desiring a wishful golden mean, they teach that though the “Church of Christ subsists” in the Catholic Church, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure, [Lumen Gentium n.8] and that the Holy Spirit is equally operative among Protestants with His Sanctifying power. [LG, n. 15]. Put differently, “that the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church” [Unitatis Redintergratio n.3] 

• Also, premised on the presupposition that the Catholic stand that the Pope alone enjoy supreme power by divine right while the college of bishops enjoy supreme power only by human right, i.e. subject to the Pope as in a general council duly convened, is excess; and, wanting to find a middle way between this Catholic view and the  he liberal stand -that the only subject of supreme power is the college of bishops together with its head, the Pope; they teach their doctrine of Collegiality according to which the Pope personally is the subject of supreme power and also the college of bishops when united with its head, the Pope; this supreme authority of the college of Bishops is, they say, is unbroken, i.e. habitually and constantly, over the whole Church…. This view which describes Collegiality is called the ‘moderate liberal view”. 

• In the same vein, taking as extreme the Catholic view that “the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it” [Mortalium Animos, n. 10], they promote union of Christians based on ecumenical dialogue on equal footing between the Catholic Church and the legion of Protestant sects, this for them is a mark of evangelical moderation. 

• Furthermore, on the presupposition that, giving the "new order of human relations" in the "present order of things", the Catholic position that there is only One True Religion -the Catholic Religion, is extreme, they promote the doctrine of plurality of religions willed by God as such, thus the need to teach a sacred right to religious liberty for all irrespective of religious affiliation; and promote inter-religious dialogue, exchange and collaboration.    

• Moreso, wanting to maintain a middle ground of pleasing both nostalgic Catholics and Protestants, the Modernists permit the terms “Mass” and “Lord’s Supper” and ‘liturgical assembly’ to be used interchangeably to describe its ecumenical service falsely called the  “new order of Mass”, which was concocted with the help of six protestant ministers.. This promiscuous use of these terms can be found  in the 27th article of the [so-called] “General Instruction of Roman Missal”, [GIRM]. 

• In addition, in the same article as above, wanting to maintain a middle ground of pleasing both nostalgic Catholics and Protestants concerning the question of the Real Presence, the Modernists speaks of a fourfold real presences: the real presence of Christ in the people gathered; in his minister; in his word; and in the Eucharistic species.  

All the above instances are cases dealing with intellectual virtues. And, it must be remembered that the golden mean with reference to intellectual virtues is truth or conformity to reality. But, in none of the applications above is there reference to ‘conformity’ to reality. On the contrary, they fall between false affirmation and false negation.  The reason is not far-fetched: according to the Modernist system, truth simply or dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative. Yes. The conviction that there is one truth and that, that truth is definable in a precise way does not exist in the Modernist mind. And, the lack of this conviction is present in the masses infected by the modernist poison -indifferentism; made airborne by means of Vatican II Council. What is obvious is that the purported middle way in each of the instances is not a mean, and certainly not golden. 

The moderns and the Golden mean.

Very often nowadays, when the principle “virtue lies in the middle” is appealed to, the attainment of a good which is measured by its conformity to right reason, is never the consideration. 

Those who make appeal to this principle have the custom ridiculing whoever they take to be taking things too seriously, for instance, with reference to themes of modesty in dress and manners, and also themes bordering on purity. The victims of their ridicules are accused of being “holier than so and so”: and very often the name of our Blessed Mother, the Immaculate Virgin, is sacrilegiously used. 

In their ridiculing spree you hear expressions like: “you cannot be too logical”; “body is not firewood”; “everyone has the right to his own opinion”; “don’t force your opinion on me”; “what is important is the heart, not appearance”, etc.  

Getting stuck to such guns, many wallow in all degrees of impurity both in thoughts and actions; thinking to themselves they do not want to ‘go too far’. This not ‘going too far’ often means avoiding pregnancy while at the same time indulging their curiosity about venereal pleasure which can only be lawfully had in a lawful matrimonial bed. 

The idea of modesty for such as these is not to regulate one’s conduct in matters of dress, deportment, etc, that are apt to induce forbidden pleasure, nor is it to avoid acts that would be for self or others an incitement to passion or to remove sources of danger, close approaches to impurity or to safeguard chastity. Yes, to them, it is not a question of any conformity to a specific rule of reason.

Rounding up.

Modernists try in vain to find a golden mean
between what is Catholic and what is Protestant;
between what is Orthodox and what is Heterodox... 

True: virtue lies in a golden mean between excess and defect. However, those having no concept of objective truth -be it philosophical, religious, or moral; have wrongly applied this principle, doing a great disservice to society. Being victims of a false philosophy combined with an appearance of religion, they wishfully strive to establish a ‘golden mean’ between truth and error, between good and evil, between virtue and vice. We know the result too well: something which is not a ‘mean’; and certainly not ‘golden’: rather having the rottenness of falsehood, evil and vice.