Decline in a sense of the supernatural
From a 2001 interview with Alice Von Hildebrand in The Latin Mass magazine [via Plato's Stepchild]
TLM: Did your husband think that the decline in a sense of the supernatural began around that time, and if so, how did he explain it?
AVH: No, he believed that after Pius X’s condemnation of the heresy of Modernism, its proponents merely went underground. He would say that they then took a much more subtle and practical approach. They spread doubt simply by raising questions about the great supernatural interventions throughout salvation history, such as the Virgin Birth and Our Lady’s perpetual virginity, as well as the Resurrection, and the Holy Eucharist. They knew that once faith – the foundation – totters, the liturgy and the moral teachings of the Church would follow suit. My husband entitled one of his books The Devastated Vineyard. After Vatican II, a tornado seemed to have hit the Church.
Modernism itself was the fruit of the calamity of the Renaissance and the Protestant Revolt, and it took a long historical process to unfold. If you were to ask a typical Catholic in the Middle Ages to name a hero or heroine, he would answer with the name of a saint. The Renaissance began to change that. Instead of a saint, people would think of geniuses as persons to emulate, and with the oncoming of the industrial age, they would answer with the name of a great scientist. Today, they would answer with a sports figure or cinema personality. In other words, the loss of the sense of the supernatural has brought an inversion of the hierarchy of values.
Even the pagan Plato was open to a sense of the supernatural. He spoke of the weakness, frailty and cowardice often evidenced in human nature. He was asked by a critic to explain why he had such a low opinion of humanity. He replied that he was not denigrating man, only comparing him to God.
With the loss of a sense of the supernatural, there is a loss of the sense of a need for sacrifice today. The closer one comes to God, the greater should be one’s sense of sinfulness. The further one gets from God, as today, the more we hear the philosophy of the new age: “I’m OK, You’re OK.” This loss of the inclination to sacrifice has led to the obscuring of the Church’s redemptive mission. Where the Cross is downplayed, our need for redemption is given hardly a thought.
The aversion to sacrifice and redemption has assisted the secularization of the Church from within. We have been hearing for many years from priests and bishops about the need for the Church to adapt herself to the world. Great popes like St. Pius X said just the opposite: the world must adapt itself to the Church.
The "loss of the inclination to sacrifice has led to the obscuring of the Church’s redemptive mission" is right on. This same loss has been a catalyst for much of societies ills especially marriage. When we lose or obsure the transforming power of sacrifice we move towards a fast-food concept where hapiness is based only on getting what you want now and very quickly. The concept of marriage and life without sacrifice is like training for a marathon by watching tv from your couch while eating potato chips. The concept of a sacificial-lite Christianity is the same thing. Jesus would never have gotten a job on Madison avenue. His saying "pick up your cross daily" is akin to a fried chicken chain with a motto of "This will make you fat and contribute to clogging our arteries."
She is also correct on the closer one gets to God the greater one is aware of their sinfulness. When St. Peter more fully realized who stood before he said “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man." The loss of sin goes hand and hand with the loss of a need for a redeemer. Is it no wonder the crucifix has disappeared from so many churches? Especially since we do not want to be reminded that sin not only has consequences but required Our Lord and Savior to die on the cross for them.
Known as 
Dead-on on the realtionship between sacrifice and marriage. In today's sex-soaked society, relationships are founded on selfish lust rather than unselfish love. No one is willing to make sacrifices anymore. My parents have been happily married for 27 years, and it is because they both make little sacrifices for each other every day.
It continuously amazes me when people see my mom as a poor, unliberated woman because she chose to stay at home and raise nine kids. Those career-hungry, "liberated" woman out there will never achieve the stability and happiness which my mom has in her marriage, and I pity them for it.
Sometimes I find myself wistfully thinking back to my pagan days, when I could do whatever I wanted and rationalize away my poor behavior by saying "Well, that lie really didn't harm anyone," or (my personal favorite): "Everybody does it!"
It is intensely uncomfortable to do an examination of conscience and realize that, yes, Lord, I really am a sh*t. Really doesn't help my "self-esteem."
My only hope - our only hope - is God's boundless love and mercy and forgiveness. But how can anyone ask for forgiveness if they don't think they've done anything that needs forgving?
It's occurred to me that some American Christians probably think that God's judgement of the Living and the Dead will be like the US Court system, with God as a nice, lenient liberal Justice. That docket's gonna be mighty packed, so most of us, who aren't Dahmers and Hitlers, will be let off with an infinitely suspended sentence. And we'll get to stand there and defend our case, just like they do on "Judge Joe Brown," in case we feel God's got it all wrong.
Hey! There's a parody for you! Court TV interviewing disgruntled souls who are terribly shocked and P.O.ed that they're getting time in Purgatory. "Yeah, I cheated on my wife a bunch of times and ignored my kids. But, hey, everybody at work liked me and I gave regularly to the Sierra Club! God's got his priorities all wrong, if you ask me!"
I think the hierarchy, especially its more conservatives elements struggle with the sense and meaning of sacrifice. Who have been the American bishops who have rejected fine living arrangements? Most often the ones most reviled by the neo-orthodox.
The mutual adaptations we're talking about are not the same as conformity. The Church must indeed find new ways to communicate the message of evangelization. But the world's goal of conformity is not the Church, so much as it is Christ himself. The Church's mission is to adapt so as to be most effective in preaching the gospel and inviting unbelievers to conformity. Adaptation to Christ is simply not enough.
Todd,
"Who have been the American bishops who have rejected fine living arrangements?"
I have no idea what you mean by "fine living arrangements". I am curious to what you are talking about?
Is it the more conservative elements who have denied the resurrection or that Christ died for our sins. Has it been conservative elements that have replaced crucifixes with crosses or who have removed them entirely from universities. Is is conservative elements who are more likely to deny that a sin is a sin and thus the need for redemption. I would think that more liberal elements are more likely to do this.
When DOMINUS IESUS came out and talked about the redemptive sacrifice of Christ it was not consevative elements who attacked it.
On a slightly off-topic thread, the decline in a sense of the supernatural comes to mind, too, when one encounters objections to the doctrine of the Real Presense in the Eucharist. It is tragic when they attack the doctrine because it is "superstitious" and contradicts the senses.
"I have no idea what you mean by "fine living arrangements". I am curious to what you are talking about?"
I thought not. Bishop Untener of Saginaw was notable for eschewing an episcopal mansion, setting up an apartment in a nursing home and living in parishes from time to time. Gumbleton has lived in an inner city parish for years. I recall a recent bishop in Hartford who spent half a mil to buy a house, for his predecessor had sold the episcopal mansion. O'Malley in Boston has a simple living arrangement, but Braxton in Belleville wanted a few six figures to renovate a place he had never lived in.
As far as lived examples of a sense of sacrifice, some bishops have been good role models, others have not. You might include a module for it in your game, which was quite entertaining, btw.
"I would think that more liberal elements are more likely to do this."
You would think, but I wouldn't. The more materialist/pragmatic elements seem to have the greatest difficulty.
Belief and holiness is not predicated on being a conservative. Amazing, but true.
Todd,
Well you might also consider the example of Archbishop O'Malley who did the same thing. Though living conditions aren't exactly a sign of holiness either. Citing the example of extreme dissident Bishop Gumbleton is not exactly going to convince me.
"Belief and holiness is not predicated on being a conservative. Amazing, but true."
Well since I almost never cast myself as a conservative Catholics, I agree with the statement. What I have problems with are Catholics who don't follow Church teaching. There is no holiness without obedience to truth.
Well I have to agree with Todd on the living arrangements thing - although I don't think you can say that it is more or less prevalent in any one particular 'kind' of bishop.
But Jeff is right, "What I have problems with are Catholics who don't follow Church teaching. There is no holiness without obedience to truth" --- that's what matters, humility, simplicity, obedience and holiness, regardless of whichever political box someone tries to shoehorn you into.