o do? Do you expect them to run the banks? Do you expect them to repair cars or run dental clinics?
Of course not. You expect ordinary people, who are Catholic, to be running banks and to adhere to Catholic financial principles. You expect farmers, not priests, who are working the land to husband the land according to Catholic principles. You expect to see Catholic doctors and dentists, Catholic mechanics and engineers. In other words, you expect Catholic laymen to be running everything at all levels of temporal society.
The problem is that ever since the Second Vatican Council the distinction between priest and layman has been blatantly ignored, as has the simple fact that both have a clearly defined role within the Church Militant. In the 'Conciliar Church', for example, the laity fancy themselves as substitute priests by scandalously distributing the Eucharist. The implementation of the social teaching, of building Christendom, is principally the work of Catholic laity and not the work of the priest. The role of a priest is to provide the Sacraments to the faithful and to teach Church doctrine, along with some practical guidance on how social teaching might be applied. But, generally speaking, the priest promulgates the doctrine of the Church's social teaching whilst the laity implements it.
Christendom has to be made by individual Catholics combining their efforts. Chesterton wisely said that a true revolution, in the Catholic sense, is when all men are great, from the pope down to every member of the faithful, even in the most remote place on earth; and all men will be great only when they live their Catholic lives to the full, in public and in private.
The Faith blossomed in Europe and from there it was, in a manner of speaking, exported. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church in North America (excepting Mexico) never took root as it did in Europe. Freemasonry and extremist Protestant sects like the Puritans prospered from the beginning in what was to become the U.S.A., not to mention that by that time the U.S. hierarchy had Liberal influences already entering into it. In other words tolerance, in the bad sense of the word, had begun and inevitably it led to indifference. The settlers were too brainwashed by Protestant ideas to possibly create a truly Catholic society. Even Maryland, which was a Catholic State on paper, wasn't really, properly Catholic. The religious society of the future U.S.A. began in an undesirable position, failing to develop in a Catholic sense as a direct result of the influence of Protestantism and Masonry, whereas Europe had things start off properly and then got thrown off track. So we're trying to get back to somewhere where we've been, whilst in the USA and Canada people have got to get to somewhere where they've never been, but should be.
At any rate, no matter what the particular historical circumstances, every Catholic, in every nation, has got to be ready to start marching in the right direction.
Part of marching in the right direction is having the right thoughts. For thought proceeds action, or at least it should. If you don't have Catholic thoughts, you cannot have Catholic actions. By this is not meant random or disconnected thoughts. The Catholic Church and its role and position in the world form one, integrated whole. All our thoughts have to be consistent. You cannot, for example, act according to authentic Catholic social teaching and believe in the Novus Ordo.
It is impossible to act according to Catholic social teaching and at the same time believe in the New Mass for many reasons. The New Mass has promoted indifference, the growth of the enemies of Jesus Christ in the world, the disintegration of the Church, and so on. Social teaching brings truth into the world in many areas: truth in agriculture, truth in commerce, truth in finance, truth in economics, truth in politics. The New Mass, being fundamentally Protestant, wants to make truth subjective and keep it within certain artificial limits, making it impossible to bring into the world because it is not seen as objec