The book that shoud be read by all U.S.A.´s catholics (and no catholics too)

“The Rise and Fall of Triumph. The History of a Radical Roman Catholic Magazine, 1966-1976”. Mark D. Popowski. Lexington Books. 2012. Pages xxi – xxiv.


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...IL._AA160_.jpg



MY PERSPECTIVE


I decided study Triumph for three reasons. First, there were no extensive studies of the magazine. Second, Triumph was incredibly interesting. Triumph´s political ideas were intriguing –definitely different from the more familiar liberal and conservative political ideas. Possibly, Triumph´s bold tone was even more interesting. Third, I like Triumph. As a Roman Catholic, I had an instinctual attraction to the magazine; and although, I found much to disagree with, it was refreshing to read Triumph. Reared and living in the apologizing, defensive, feckless, indifferentist lay world of the Roman Catholic Church, Triumph –really the lay opposite of all of these characteristics– was astoundingly different. In addition to a theological attraction, I also had a political attraction to Triumph. Like Triumph, I am critical of our secular-liberal democracy, especially the secular part.


Triumph´s origins –including the post-war anti-liberal and anticommunist intellectual revival, the Second Vatican Council, Spain and Carlism, and the magazine´s actual founding– are the topics of chapters 1 and 2. The staff´s views on liturgical affairs in the post-Vatican II Church are the focus of chapter 3. The editor´s political views and commentary on 1960s and 1970s America are the focus of chapters 4 and 5. Foreign policy perspectives are the subject of chapter 6. Their views on contraception, abortion and feminism are the topic of chapter 7. The causes of Triumph´s collapse and concluding commentary are the subject matter of chapter 8. Triumph´s radicalism is manifest in every chapter in the obvious contrast between the editor´s ideas and the prevailing views of the period. Also evident is a persistent crusading theme.

Triumph´s editors were crusaders (without the swords). To be a crusader was to set upon a mission of spreading the banner of the Cross. To be a crusader was to hold a triumphalist view of the faith. To be crusader, then, in a age of dialogue and ecumenism, was to set one´s self apart from the mainstream, to be a contrast to the times; it was, in effect, to draw swords against them (in a metaphorical sense). If Catholicism was “about swords”, as Wilhelmsen remarked, so Triumph was about swords –crashing, with a conventional-shattering clangor, against the conventionally unorthodox forces of the late twentieth-century America. [28] The editors exclaimed the following in a pilot issue of Triumph: “We offer our swords to the Cross, center of Christendom and the heart of Being. And to Christ: Our Resurrection: The Future: His Triumph.” [29]



SOMES NOTES ON UNDERSTANDING TRIUMPH


It is important to know that although Triumph´s editors often employed a militaristic lexicon, they were not violent. They were writing metaphorically and invoked such vivid imagery to inspire dedication, not bloodshed. Obviously, swords would not have inflicted much damage on the United States´ civil order, which was defended by the most advanced military technology on earth. They hoped for a state that conformed to the moral order, but when it did not, they did not seek change through guerrilla warfare or assassinations, but through the work of conversion on a personal level and being the Christian tribe. Their weapons were the words of Christ, the Church´s teachings and specially its sacramental graces, which naturally to them, were more effective than any cache of weapons, no matter the degree of technological sophistication. They did not have guns or militia training camps. They were warriors in a metaphysical sense –their battle was principally spiritual.

Furthermore, by design, the focus is on the editor´s criticism of both the direction of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church in the United States and the United States´ secular-liberal trajectory –both of which they believed to be at a crisis. While hopefully accurate in expressing their perspectives and purposes, this focus is misleading in conveying their natures. The perception is that they were merely prophets of doom, but to the contrary, they were “not a dour lot”, wrote Alexandra Wilhelmsen (Frederick D. Wilhelmsen´s daughter). [30] That they should have been might seem like a natural conclusion to make –how indeed could men with such a traditionalist perspective not be heaved into an abyss of despair by the manifestly, monolithic secular swell? Yet the decision to develop Triumph was derived not solely from the anxiety of such a trajectory but simultaneously from the belief that this course was not inevitable; that men moved by the spirit could shape their world. They were faithful and hopeful men –and such men do not despair. Frederick D. Wilhelmsen once wrote that Christianity was “the dice clacking at the feet of the Savior”; that is, men of Christ –in a naturally, less-than-perfect world– will face such odds, but it was worth the risk, and it might be speculated, after reading and studying Wilhelmsen, that he relished such odds.

Before a meeting with Dr. Alexandra Wilhelmsen, I concocted a view of her probable disposition. I assumed, as she generally shares her father´s religious and political views, that she must be either depressed, angry, or both. How could she be otherwise? Certainly, there have been no reversals in the secular advancements in the United States, and even her beloved Spain only intermittently reflects it sacral past, which now suffocates under its increasingly secular and socialist exterior. This, I believed, must be too much for her to bear. However, I did not encounter such despair. She was a jovial woman, a humorous story-teller and a delightful host. There may have been a lamentation here or there, but we mostly laughed. In a phone conversation with Patrizia Bozell, the wife of L. Brent Bozell, I encountered a woman, not bitter or resentful about our secular world, but seemingly undeterred by it, and proud, happy, and exceptionally kind.

If damnation was potentially written on the proverbial walls constructed by our secular world –as Triumph´s editors maintained– those same walls, no matter how imposing or numerous, could be knocked down. Their minds were neither mechanistic nor deterministic, but spontaneous and spiritual (a sovereignty derived from their Roman Catholic faith) from which serenity flowed –all they could expect of themselves was to fight for the Faith.

[28] Frederick D. Wilhelmsen, “Catechism V. The Child: A New Religion”. Triumph 3 nº. 4 (April, 1968).

[29] Pilot issue of Future, December 8, 1965, Francis G. Wilson Papers.

[30] Dr. Alexandra Wilhelmsen made this remark in a letter commentary on the manuscript.


----------------------------------------



TEXT OF THE COVER

“For decades I´ve heard people remark that someone would eventually write the story of Triumph and the Christian Commonwealth Institutes. I am glad it turned out to be Mark D. Popowki. His study is extremely well researched, and he has placed Triumph and its editors into historical context very well.”

Alexandra Wilhelmsen,

University of Dallas.