Prof Leonard Wessell,

Many thanks for your reflections. I also haven't read the book, but I have little or no desire to do so.

1. The Jesuits have been a great and influential order, with many strengths and weaknesses. Their strengths are well known--courageous missionaries and zealous defenders of the faith.

On the other hand, over the years I have discovered a Jesuit weakness is that they have no understanding of the Monastic (thus the Contemplative) Life. None. Zip. So it is no surprise that the Pope doesn't seem to include a monk of old in his monastery having a heart burning for God.

2. Jesuits were formed to have a deep spiritual life, but Jesuit life has never been liturgical. Jesuit houses have never had a community, high mass nor Divine Office in common. All masses were private—and the Office was also read in private.

3. The SJ approach to liturgy is utilitarian. It is something necessary to confect the Sacraments. They have no concept of sanctification through the liturgy.

4. The contemplative understanding of Catholic life is Trans Cultural. The SJ understanding is Counter Cultural (thus agere contra), all the while adopting the contemporary idiom.

5. One other point. No order has personified an epoch as much as the SJ's have the Modern Age, with its mechanistic, top down approach. With the advent of Post Modernism, the Society has been in an identity crisis. The Benedictines only needed to keep their Office and Rule, and the Dominicans only needed to keep St Thomas (although most didn't), but the Jesuit MO really is not suited for the Post Modern Age.

Part 2: The Pope seems to have accepted Ferré's analysis as being the state of affairs, commonly called "the modern world". Ferré himself notes "that a practice must be opposed with another practice" Pp Francis, all in the spirit of Vat II, seems to hold that the traditional ways of the Church have failed to oppose "hedonism" and structurally must do so because these ways seek to focus upon the transcendent, the beyond the worldly, the Vetus Ordo being a prime hinderance to a liturgy to oppose "hedonism". No, the Pope's strategy should be one of "making the heart burn". What can that mean?

The Pope surely does not believe that a monk of old in his monastery using the traditional liturgy did not have "a heart burning" for God. The problem is this type of "burning" is not what is meant. On the contrary, the Pope has accepted Ferré's description of the modern world as "hedonistic", i.e., aimed at stimulating the senses. The "burning" is of a sensate, worldy nature. As I see it, the Pope has decided to fight fire with fire, i.e., libertine burning with Pentecostal-like liturgical burning. In other words, the Pope is opposing hedonistic atheism with the very hedonism constiutive of the very being of the (post)modern world. What are some of the liturgical implications.

The Mass should be seen as a "service" whereby friendship with God and with other worshipers (in the sense of being my "buddy") is the dominating liturgical atmosphere. All the "novelties" promoted are directed to stimulating sensately the senses of the parishioners so that their "hearts will burn" with enthusiasm. Here the Pentecostal whoopying it up enters the "new" liturgy. Enough for the moment.

Leaving aside that "buddy" liturgy lacks the sense of transcendence, is driven to try new novelties, is often intolerably boring, it can fall into a lower, more sexual burning. During the Rio Mass at certain points a bit of "Rock and Roll" music was introduced and many, including some Bishops, rocked and rolled. Ah, here is the rub! "Rock and Roll" was introduced with Elvis (ca 1956) and his girating pelvis. Those who introduced the music (so a documentary I heard) were aware of the sexual implications. The term "Rock and Roll" was a subterfuge, i.e., it seemed to refer to the rocking movements of the dancers. Its hidden, but intended, meaning was the girating movements of sexual intercourse. "Let's rock and roll tonight, Baby" was a double-entendre. I suggest that a "Rock and Roll" service is more likely to entice the participants (particularly young ones) afterwards to seek out condoms than prayer books.

Part 1: Using the article alone I would like to indicate my evaluation. Remember that "postmodernism" started as a sociological study by the sociologists F-R Loyatard, commisioned by a Canadian gov.. This seemingly accurate description was transformed into a movement with negarious effecs. That Ferré, after formulating a similar study, has entitled his interpretation of the Latin American condition as "libertine atheism", is, well, reflects scientific study, just as was the analysis by Loyatard. Bergoglio designated the apparently same description as "hedonistic atheism", which is a valid interpretative intellectual act. I do not know enough about Latin American conditions to justify a judgment. However, applied to Western Europe and the US, I conclude with a slightly diff. analysis. So my critique is:

A better, though not adequate, term would be "libertine hedonism". Short explanation. "Atheism" is secondary. Only a few in the West push for atheism. A better term = Abs-theism. "If there were gods, how could I stand not to be a god" << Nietzsche. An A-theist is not free from God, rather must define himself in terms of theism. Rare occasion. For much of Western civil. many simply find God to be absent of value, i.e., God plays no significant role for life, particular re death. For the Absentist God, existing or not, is indifferent. He may, being pressed, note that he believes in God (= theist) or does not (= atheist). The fully developed absentist simply has no consciousness of God whatsoever. Theism or atheism is of no importance. Lesser developed absentists evaluate God as a marginal value.

Yes, the modern world is "hedonistic" if the term is to mean: seeking pleasure, feelings, meaning solely within the horizontal reality of THIS world. In this sense hedonism means affirming the affirmative parts of worldly experience (could be intellectual, not just sensate). However, the primary sensate experience is pan-sexualism. Pansexualism entails than acts of sex, though they are central. One can live a sexual lifestyle (Hugh Hefner being an extreme case). Pansexualism leads to destroying all hinderances, e.g., marriage and in Germany and elsewhere even sexual identity. In other words, there is no connection between biological sex and sexual self-identity in a socio-psychological sense. >> Current "Gender Mainstreaming" is an exaxmple. In history "religion" has held people together in large groups including nations. Pansexualism is aimed at replacing religion as what holds us together. "Libertine" as a designation loses all meaning for pansexualism, since any and all forms of sexual activity are accepted as "normatively" equal. Pansexualism thereby become the horizon of human existence.

Dear Prof. Leonard,

Gloria.tv would appreciate very much Your review
Blessings

As a professional philosopher with two doctoral titles in philosophy from two different countries, I will attempt to purchase the book, whatever language. From the attached article, the thesis about life entailing satisfaction, etc. renders null and voide in meaning in the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The suffering of Jesus in an act of atonement for human sins (perhaps the wrong type of "satisfaction"?), Jesus' participation in "parties" (to use todays term) is what enables Him to save mankind from the world that Farré extols. If the Pope thinks that the philosopher has made an adequate analysis of current postmodern culture, that is a valid thing to do, right or wrong in his judgment. If the Pope thinks that Farré's described "modernity" or, better post-modernity is the world to which the Church should and must adjust itself, he has sadly erred, reprehensibly so because he, as a logical consequence, cannot logically introduce into such a frustraing, pleasure robbing notion of "sin". If I can obtain the work, ideally in Spanish, I will write for Gloria.tv (if Gloria so wants it) a review.