Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Europe rejects notion of abortion as human right
From http://cathnews.com/cathnews/16378-european-parliament-rejects-notion-of-abortion-as-human-right
The rejection of the report affirms the ability of the individual nations in the European Union to promote their own approach to sexual education and abortion policies.
'The formulation and implementation of policies on sexual and reproductive health and rights and on sex education in schools is a competence of the member states,' stated the European People's Party and the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, two groups within the European Parliament who presented an alternative report that passed by a vote of 334 to 327, with 35 members abstaining from the vote.
The rejected report, Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, had been submitted by Edite Estrela, a European Parliamentarian from Portugal, intended to establish abortion 'as a human rights and public health concern' in the EU.
As a result of this view of abortion as a right, the report sought to expand abortion in all countries of the EU and restrict 'obstacles to the access of appropriate services' such as conscientious objection, waiting periods, pro-life counseling, and religious hospitals' ability to refuse to perform certain 'sexual health' procedures such as abortion.
Estrela's report also called for the provision of 'sufficient funding for the broad (sexual and reproductive health and rights) agenda in all appropriate instruments' throughout the European Union.
The rejection of the report affirms the ability of the individual nations in the European Union to promote their own approach to sexual education and abortion policies.
'The formulation and implementation of policies on sexual and reproductive health and rights and on sex education in schools is a competence of the member states,' stated the European People's Party and the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, two groups within the European Parliament who presented an alternative report that passed by a vote of 334 to 327, with 35 members abstaining from the vote.
The rejected report, Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, had been submitted by Edite Estrela, a European Parliamentarian from Portugal, intended to establish abortion 'as a human rights and public health concern' in the EU.
As a result of this view of abortion as a right, the report sought to expand abortion in all countries of the EU and restrict 'obstacles to the access of appropriate services' such as conscientious objection, waiting periods, pro-life counseling, and religious hospitals' ability to refuse to perform certain 'sexual health' procedures such as abortion.
Estrela's report also called for the provision of 'sufficient funding for the broad (sexual and reproductive health and rights) agenda in all appropriate instruments' throughout the European Union.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Pro-life leaders urge caution, while Pope, Cardinal Dolan praise controversial Nelson Mandela
From http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-leaders-urge-caution-while-pope-and-bishops-praise-controversial-n
CAPE TOWN, South Africa, December 6, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com)
The death of South African former President Nelson ‘Madiba’ Rolihlahla Mandela on Thursday has led to an outpouring of glowing praise for the man most known for ending apartheid – a system of racial segregation. However, pro-life leaders have warned that praise from Christian leaders is inappropriate given Mandela’s role in bringing abortion-on-demand and homosexual “marriage” to South Africa.
According to official statistics, nearly a million unborn children have been killed in South Africa since President Mandela signed legislation in 1996 permitting abortion on demand two years after taking office. Same-sex ‘marriage’ was legalized in 2006, with Mandela having supported it long before its passage.
In the face of praise for Mandela coming even from Catholic leaders all over the world, Paul Tuns, the editor of the Canadian pro-life newspaper The Interim, wrote, “A little balance is necessary in our reaction to the man who fought one injustice, but helped institute another.”
Similarly England’s John Smeaton, President of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) commented on his blog saying, “It is absolutely vital that Catholic leaders do not allow themselves to become respecters of persons, swept away by personality cults. Catholic leaders have a duty to stand up to public figures with anti-life and anti-family records, however praiseworthy their record may be on other issues.”
Smeaton’s comments came in reaction to praise for Mandela from the Bishops conference of South Africa. However, since then, New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Pope Francis have also issued statements of praise for Mandela.
Pope Francis’s official statement says, “Paying tribute to the steadfast commitment shown by Nelson Mandela in promoting the human dignity of all the nation’s citizens and in forging a new South Africa built on the firm foundations of non-violence, reconciliation and truth, I pray that the late President’s example will inspire generations of South Africans to put justice and the common good at the forefront of their political aspirations.”
Cardinal Dolan’s statement calls Mandela a “hero to the world.” The Cardinal recalls the praise for Mandela from Pope John Paul II’s visit to South Africa in 1995.
That visit came before Mandela passed the law permitting abortion.
It was 1996 when Mandela signed into law one of the world’s most pro-abortion laws. Passage of the “Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Bill” was assured since Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) refused its members a free vote on the issue of providing state-funded abortion on demand.
The same year, Mandela’s new constitution made South Africa the first country to place “sexual orientation” alongside race and religion as a restricted grounds for discrimination – something that paved the way for homosexual ‘marriage’ a decade later.
Smeaton quotes from a book of quotations from Mandela noting his statement on abortion: "Women have the right to decide what they want to do with their bodies." In addition to his promotion of abortion, homosexuality, contraception and close ties to Communism, Smeaton notes Mandela’s formation of ‘The Elders” as a cause for concern.
In 2007, Mandela announced ‘The Elders’ as a global council of retired world leaders who would give behind the scenes advice and direction to government officials and rulers around the world. The proposal was received by pro-life leaders as being of great concern since its membership formed a ‘who’s who of the pro-abortion and pro-population-control movements.”
While during his life, Mandela denied being part of the communist party despite his friendly interaction with communist world leaders, the African National Congress revealed today that Mandela was in fact a high-ranking member of the Communist Party.
“Madiba was also a member of the South African Communist Party, where he served in the Central Committee,” said the ANC release.
Given the adulation Mandella has received from the worldwide media, it is possible that many Christians had little or no knowledge of the controversial aspects of Mandela’s life.
While it may be difficult for Catholic officials to discern how to proceed with world leaders and politicians who are pro-abortion, in 2004, the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops adopted a policy on the matter. “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions,” it said.
The death of South African former President Nelson ‘Madiba’ Rolihlahla Mandela on Thursday has led to an outpouring of glowing praise for the man most known for ending apartheid – a system of racial segregation. However, pro-life leaders have warned that praise from Christian leaders is inappropriate given Mandela’s role in bringing abortion-on-demand and homosexual “marriage” to South Africa.
According to official statistics, nearly a million unborn children have been killed in South Africa since President Mandela signed legislation in 1996 permitting abortion on demand two years after taking office. Same-sex ‘marriage’ was legalized in 2006, with Mandela having supported it long before its passage.
In the face of praise for Mandela coming even from Catholic leaders all over the world, Paul Tuns, the editor of the Canadian pro-life newspaper The Interim, wrote, “A little balance is necessary in our reaction to the man who fought one injustice, but helped institute another.”
Similarly England’s John Smeaton, President of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) commented on his blog saying, “It is absolutely vital that Catholic leaders do not allow themselves to become respecters of persons, swept away by personality cults. Catholic leaders have a duty to stand up to public figures with anti-life and anti-family records, however praiseworthy their record may be on other issues.”
Smeaton’s comments came in reaction to praise for Mandela from the Bishops conference of South Africa. However, since then, New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Pope Francis have also issued statements of praise for Mandela.
Pope Francis’s official statement says, “Paying tribute to the steadfast commitment shown by Nelson Mandela in promoting the human dignity of all the nation’s citizens and in forging a new South Africa built on the firm foundations of non-violence, reconciliation and truth, I pray that the late President’s example will inspire generations of South Africans to put justice and the common good at the forefront of their political aspirations.”
Cardinal Dolan’s statement calls Mandela a “hero to the world.” The Cardinal recalls the praise for Mandela from Pope John Paul II’s visit to South Africa in 1995.
That visit came before Mandela passed the law permitting abortion.
It was 1996 when Mandela signed into law one of the world’s most pro-abortion laws. Passage of the “Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Bill” was assured since Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) refused its members a free vote on the issue of providing state-funded abortion on demand.
The same year, Mandela’s new constitution made South Africa the first country to place “sexual orientation” alongside race and religion as a restricted grounds for discrimination – something that paved the way for homosexual ‘marriage’ a decade later.
Smeaton quotes from a book of quotations from Mandela noting his statement on abortion: "Women have the right to decide what they want to do with their bodies." In addition to his promotion of abortion, homosexuality, contraception and close ties to Communism, Smeaton notes Mandela’s formation of ‘The Elders” as a cause for concern.
In 2007, Mandela announced ‘The Elders’ as a global council of retired world leaders who would give behind the scenes advice and direction to government officials and rulers around the world. The proposal was received by pro-life leaders as being of great concern since its membership formed a ‘who’s who of the pro-abortion and pro-population-control movements.”
While during his life, Mandela denied being part of the communist party despite his friendly interaction with communist world leaders, the African National Congress revealed today that Mandela was in fact a high-ranking member of the Communist Party.
“Madiba was also a member of the South African Communist Party, where he served in the Central Committee,” said the ANC release.
Given the adulation Mandella has received from the worldwide media, it is possible that many Christians had little or no knowledge of the controversial aspects of Mandela’s life.
While it may be difficult for Catholic officials to discern how to proceed with world leaders and politicians who are pro-abortion, in 2004, the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops adopted a policy on the matter. “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions,” it said.
Horror: Violent mob of topless pro-abort feminists attacks praying men defending cathedral
From http://www.lifesitenews.com/horror-mob-of-topless-pro-abort-feminists-attacks-rosary-praying-men-defend.html
Buenos Aires, December 2nd, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com)
Extremely disturbing video footage from Argentina shows a mob of feminists at a recent protest attacking and sexually molesting a group of Rosary-praying Catholic men who were peacefully protecting the cathedral in the city of San Juan from threats of vandalism.
The women, many of them topless, spray-painted the men’s crotches and faces and swastikas on their chests and foreheads, using markers to paint their faces with Hitler-like moustaches. They also performed obscene sexual acts in front of them and pushed their breasts onto their faces, all the while shouting “get your rosaries out of our ovaries.” (Note: Some of the most graphic content has been removed from the video. Uncensored footage is available here. Viewer discretion strongly advised.)
According to InfoCatolica, some of the women chanted a song, with the lyrics: “To the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, who wants to get between our sheets, we say that we want to be whores, travesties and lesbians. Legal abortion in every hospital.”
During the attack some men were visibly weeping. None of them retaliated against the abuses heaped on them.
While the site of the protest was the front of the cathedral, InfoBae reports that "the whole city awoke to graffiti in favor of abortion."
Inside the cathedral, 700 people were also in prayer accompanied by their bishop Mos. Alfonso Delgado.
After unsuccessfully trying to get into the building, the women burned a human-sized effigy of Pope Francis. “If the pope were a woman, abortion would be legal,” they shouted.
The attack took place on Sunday, November 24th during the National Women’s Encounter, which annually brings together Argentinean feminists who support “women’s rights.”
The police reportedly told the media they were unable to intervene because “they are women."
The parish priest Fr. Rómulo Campora said to the Diario de Cuyo that “the burning of the image of Pope Francis is an offense, not just to the Church but to every Argentinean because the pope is Argentinean.”
Praising the men who defended the church, he said: “San Juan loves its God, loves its faith, loves its family.”
He lamented the damage done to the cathedral and concluded that “if they don’t respect life, we can’t expect them to respect the buildings.”
The National Women’s Encounter takes place every year in different Argentinean cities, sponsored by the Department of Culture as a “social interest” event.
According to the Argentinean pro-life site ArgentinosAlerta.org, this is not the first time that the feminists wind up in public violence against churches and Catholics.
In past protests, the cathedral of Bariloche, Paraná and Posadas have also suffered damages from these groups.
“These encounters of women represent today’s civilization that seeks to impose it’s own rules,” reads the site.
“On one side, they try to impose political agenda that international organizations dictate: population control, abortion, contraception, homosexualism. On the other side, they become barbaric in the most literal sense.”
Buenos Aires, December 2nd, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com)
Extremely disturbing video footage from Argentina shows a mob of feminists at a recent protest attacking and sexually molesting a group of Rosary-praying Catholic men who were peacefully protecting the cathedral in the city of San Juan from threats of vandalism.
The women, many of them topless, spray-painted the men’s crotches and faces and swastikas on their chests and foreheads, using markers to paint their faces with Hitler-like moustaches. They also performed obscene sexual acts in front of them and pushed their breasts onto their faces, all the while shouting “get your rosaries out of our ovaries.” (Note: Some of the most graphic content has been removed from the video. Uncensored footage is available here. Viewer discretion strongly advised.)
According to InfoCatolica, some of the women chanted a song, with the lyrics: “To the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, who wants to get between our sheets, we say that we want to be whores, travesties and lesbians. Legal abortion in every hospital.”
During the attack some men were visibly weeping. None of them retaliated against the abuses heaped on them.
Inside the cathedral, 700 people were also in prayer accompanied by their bishop Mos. Alfonso Delgado.
After unsuccessfully trying to get into the building, the women burned a human-sized effigy of Pope Francis. “If the pope were a woman, abortion would be legal,” they shouted.
The attack took place on Sunday, November 24th during the National Women’s Encounter, which annually brings together Argentinean feminists who support “women’s rights.”
The police reportedly told the media they were unable to intervene because “they are women."
The parish priest Fr. Rómulo Campora said to the Diario de Cuyo that “the burning of the image of Pope Francis is an offense, not just to the Church but to every Argentinean because the pope is Argentinean.”
He lamented the damage done to the cathedral and concluded that “if they don’t respect life, we can’t expect them to respect the buildings.”
The National Women’s Encounter takes place every year in different Argentinean cities, sponsored by the Department of Culture as a “social interest” event.
According to the Argentinean pro-life site ArgentinosAlerta.org, this is not the first time that the feminists wind up in public violence against churches and Catholics.
In past protests, the cathedral of Bariloche, Paraná and Posadas have also suffered damages from these groups.
“These encounters of women represent today’s civilization that seeks to impose it’s own rules,” reads the site.
“On one side, they try to impose political agenda that international organizations dictate: population control, abortion, contraception, homosexualism. On the other side, they become barbaric in the most literal sense.”
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Family Prayers before Advent Wreath
From http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/adventwreath.htm
THE ADVENT WREATH
Advent is a Christian Festival that can be observed in the home as well as in the Church. This simple ceremony takes place in the home when the family is gathered together during the main meal. It is a time to remember the First Coming of Christ and to anticipate His Second Coming.
THE SYMBOLS
The Circle of the Wreath: God Himself, His eternity and His endless mercy, without beginning, nor end.
The Green of the Wreath: Our hope of newness, renewal and eternal life.
Light of the Candles: The Light of God that came into the world through Christ to bring newness, life and hope.
Lighting the Candles: The progressive departure of darkness from the world as the more and more light is shed through the candles.
Four Candles: The four weeks of Advent, representing the four centuries between the time of the Prophet Malachi and the birth of Christ.
Three Coloured (purple or blue) Candles: A period of waiting, expectation and preparation.
The First Candle: A time of expectation and hope.
The Second Candle: The peace that is to come.
The Pink (or Rose) Candle for the Third Week: It symbolizes joy for the promise is almost fulfilled.
The Fourth Candle: The love of God for mankind.
The Fifth White Candle (if applicable). Called the "Center Candle", it is lit on Christmas Eve or Day to display that the light of Christ has come into the world in fulfillment of the prophecies.
The Blessing of the Advent Wreath
The following is one example of many available ceremonies, prayers and devotions that are associated with the tradition of the blessing of the Advent wreath.
Leader: Our help is in the Name of the Lord.
All: Who has made Heaven and earth.
Leader: Let us pray: "O God, by whose Word all things are made holy, pour forth Your blessing upon this wreath, and grant that we who use it may prepare our hearts for the coming of Christ."
All: Amen.
First Week
Leader: The Lord is our faith and our life.
All: May the Lord's peace be with us all.
Leader: And His love shine in our hearts.
All: Our hope is in the coming of the Lord.
One purple candle is lit (traditionally by the youngest child; however, you may want all of your children to share in this activity). During the rest of the week, this candle is relit at the evening meal or whenever the family gathers together.
Leader: Let us pray: that our faith may be strengthened for the coming of the Lord.
Pause for silent prayer.
Father in Heaven, our hearts desire the warmth of Your love and our minds are searching for the light of Your Word. Increase our longing for Christ our Saviour and give us the strength to grow in our faith so that the day of His coming may find us prepared and filled with joy.
All: Amen.
Suggested Readings from the Holy Bible:
Isaiah 11:1-10
Luke: 1:26-38
Isaiah 7:10-14
Matthew 1:18-24
Second Week
Leader: May the Lord's peace be with us all.
All: The Lord is our faith and our life.
Leader: May His love shine in our hearts.
All: Our hope is in the coming of the Lord.
Two purple candles are lit and allowed to burn as before.
Leader: Let us pray: that we may experience fully the peace of Christ.
Pause for silent prayer.
Father in Heaven, the day draws near when the birth of your Son will make radiant the night of the waiting world. May His quiet coming fill us with true inner peace.
All: Amen.
Suggested Readings from the Holy Bible:
Micah 5:2
Matthew 2:1-2, 9-11
Isaiah 2:1-5
Matthew 3:1-6
Third Week
Leader: May the Lord's love shine in our hearts.
All: And may His peace be with us all.
Leader: The Lord is our faith and our life.
All: Our hope is in the coming of the Lord.
Two purple candles and the rose-colored candle are lit by the mother and allowed to burn as before.
Leader: Let us pray: that we may grow in love for each other as the Lord comes to us.
Pause for silent prayer.
Father in Heaven, may we Your family who look forward to the birthday of Christ experience the joy of Your love and celebrate His birth with a new sense of love for each other.
All: Amen.
Suggested Readings from the Holy Bible:
Isaiah 9:6-7
John 1:19-34
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
Philippians 2:1-11
Fourth Week
Leader: Our hope is in the coming of the Lord.
All: May His love shine in our hearts.
Leader: And may the Lord's peace be with us all.
All: The Lord is our hope and our life.
All four candles are lit by the father and allowed to burn as before.
Leader: Let us pray: that the newborn Saviour will bring us His love which lasts forever.
Pause for silent prayer.
Lord, our minds and hearts are filled with hope. We long to hear the voice which tells us of the coming of the Christ Child.
All: Amen.
Suggested Readings from the Holy Bible:
Malachi 3:1-5
Romans 8:18-25
Isaiah 52:7-10
Revelations 21:1-4
Friday, November 29, 2013
The Sword of the Saint, Unsheathed
From http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1113-gardiner
Book of Gomorrah: An Eleventh-Century Treatise Against Clerical Homosexual Practices. By St. Peter Damian. Translated and edited by Pierre Payer. Wilfrid Laurier University Press. 108 pages. $38.95.
By the time he published the Book of Gomorrah around A.D. 1049, St. Peter Damian had been preaching for some time against homosexuality. He told Pope St. Leo IX, to whom he directed this work, that he needed his support against those who despised him for this preaching. While others in authority remained silent, he lamented, homosexuality kept spreading: “Vice against nature creeps in like a cancer and even touches the order of consecrated men.”
That homosexuality was indeed a problem at that time may be inferred from the fact that the vice was addressed at the Council of Rheims (A.D. 1049) in the canon de sodomitico vitio. Also, Damian received, in reply to his treatise, what he had requested from Leo IX, “a decretal writing as to which of those guilty of these vices ought to be deposed irrevocably from ecclesiastical orders; and to whom, truly taking the view of discretion, this office can be mercifully granted.”
In the Book of Gomorrah Damian says he has preached against this sin “with a whole fountain of tears” because the sinner he addresses sheds none at all: “O miserable soul, I weep for you with so many lamentations because I do not see you weeping. I prostrate myself on the ground for you because I see you maliciously standing up after such a grave fall, even to the point of trying for the pinnacle of an ecclesiastical order.” Damian weeps from “fraternal compassion” because he sees a “noble soul made in the image and likeness of God and joined with the most precious blood of Christ” cast down from a great height of dignity and glory. Any Christian who commits sodomy, he explains, surpasses in sin the men of Sodom, for he “defies the very commands of evangelical grace.”
Damian reports that he has endured persecution for preaching against this sin, and he begs the Pope to use his sacred authority to quiet “the complaint of perverse men” who reason that “a statement brought forward by one person…is rejected by others as prejudice.” At one point he addresses the dissenters as men “who are angry with me and who hate to listen to this writer.” He tells the Pope that some of them “accuse me of being a traitor and an informer on the crime of a brother,” while others think it “valid to attack me who am on the attack” and to “accuse me of presumptuous prattle.” They also denounce him for not being “afraid of picking on Christians.”
No surprise, Damian observes, that he is not believed and that his “admonition is rejected,” since God’s own command is “taken lightly by the puffed-up heart of the reprobate.” His opponents even ignore the scriptural verses that condemn homosexuality because “the rashness of the complainers [does not] give in to divine testimony.” Still, he hopes that when the Pope speaks out, “the sick Church” will rise once again to her “rightful vigor.”
In his reply, Leo IX gives Damian his full support and warns those who would dare to criticize or question his papal decree concerning sodomy that they will be putting themselves in danger of being deposed from their rank. He agrees with Damian that severity against this sin is needed, that he who does not attack it encourages it, and that silence about it is rightly thought to incur guilt.
In this remarkable treatise, Damian condemns priests in authority who have been too indulgent with these sinners. As a result of their laxity, priests who have “fallen into this wickedness with eight or even ten other equally sordid men” have remained in their ranks. And so the sin has come “to be committed freely” without its practitioners fearing the loss of their priestly faculties. Damian calls this negligence rather than love because it allows a wound to spread in a neighbor’s heart, a wound “from which, I have no doubt, he dies cruelly.” Therefore, Damian himself will not “neglect to cure” that wound with the “surgery of words,” for if he remains silent, he too will deserve punishment. Rather than “fear the hatred of the depraved or the tongues of detractors,” Damian fears God, who warns him through the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel, “If you see your brother doing evil and you do not correct him, I will require his blood from your hand” (3:20). Damian will not be silenced, no matter how many tell him to put the sword of his tongue in the sheath of silence: “Who am I to see such a harmful outrage growing up among the sacred orders and, as a murderer of another’s soul, preserve the stricture of silence, and to dare to await the reckoning of divine severity? Do I not begin to be responsible for a guilt whose author I never was?”
Citing St. Paul’s condemnation not only of those who commit sodomy but also of those who “approve” it in others (Rom. 1:32), Damian observes that his adversaries’ silence can be interpreted as consent: Anyone who would “censure me when I dispute against mortal vice,” he says, should consider that Damian is trying to “promote fraternal salvation, lest while he persecute the reprover he might seem to favor the delinquent.” Although maligned and threatened for accusing his brothers, Damian refuses to be intimidated: “I would rather be cast innocent into the cistern with Joseph, who accused his brothers to his father for a terrible crime, than to be punished by the vengeance of divine fury with Eli, who saw the evils of his sons and was silent.” He even summons others to join him in his all-out battle to reform the clergy: “Whoever sees himself as a soldier of Christ should fervently gird himself to confound this vice, and not hesitate to wipe it out with all his strength. He should pierce it with the sharpest verbal arrows wherever it is found and try to slay it.” He will thus free the captive from “bonds by which he is held in slavery.”
Although it is “clearer than light” that homosexuals should not serve as priests, Damian says, some might plead “imminent necessity” and argue that there is “no one to perform a sacred function in a church.” In reply, he says that making shepherds of such “carnal men” will “result in the destitution of a whole people.” Their “burning ambition” to be priests is sure to “ensnare the people of God” in their own ruin. Although they may seem useful for their learning, they will lead the flock astray: “If the right order of ecclesiastical discipline is confused in a learned man, it is a wonder it is kept by the ignorant.” By the example of their presumption, these sinners lead the simple onto the “path of error” on which they walk with the “swollen foot of pride.”
What fruitfulness can be expected from men engulfed by “thick, dark blindness”? They have lost their “interior eyes” and cannot see the gravity of what they have done. Like the men of Sodom who tried to break into Lot’s house and seize the angels whom they mistook for young men, these carnal men “try to break in violently on the angels” by approaching God “through the offices of sacred orders.” Damian warns them: Take care lest you “provoke more sharply by your very prayers the one you offend openly by acting evilly.”
At one point in his treatise, Damian refers to the ancient Council of Ancyra (A.D. 314), which dealt with homosexuality in two canons. In canon 16 the Church Fathers declared that laymen who had committed sodomy before the age of 20 were not to receive communion for 20 years; and those who had committed it after the age of 20, for 30 years. Damian comments that if laymen in the early Church had to wait decades before receiving communion again, how can a priest who commits the same sin in his own day “be judged worthy not only to receive but even to offer and to consecrate the sacred mysteries themselves?”
In canon 17 of the same Council, the Fathers ordered those who had committed this sin to pray among the “demoniacs.” Damian comments: “When a male rushes to a male to commit impurity, this is not the natural impulse of the flesh, but only the goad of diabolical impulse. This is why the holy fathers carefully established that sodomists pray together with the deranged since they did not doubt that the sodomists were possessed.” Lamenting that this sin “evicts the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart,” the saint warns that it also “gnaws the conscience as though with worms” and “sears the flesh as though with fire.”
Even so, like a good pastor, Damian encourages these sinners to hope in God’s mercy through repentance. He rallies them to take a bold stand “against the importunate madness of lust. If the flame of lust burns to the bones, the memory of perpetual fire should extinguish it immediately.” He urges them not to let the “present satisfaction of one organ” cause them to be cast body and soul into everlasting fire. Calling them his brothers, he summons them to conversion: “If you were unable to spend time with Abraham far from the Sodomites, it is permitted to migrate with Lot, urged on by the destructive burning which is near at hand.”
The Book of Gomorrah demonstrates that it was no easier a thousand years ago than it is today to speak out against this vice and to bring active homosexuals to repentance, to an acknowledgement of the natural law, and to the practice of purity. In his little treatise, St. Peter Damian warns us against keeping silence in the face of such a growing evil and thus becoming complicit. He offers us a needed model of how to speak out fearlessly against the corruptions of our age.
St. Peter Damian, pray for us!
Book of Gomorrah: An Eleventh-Century Treatise Against Clerical Homosexual Practices. By St. Peter Damian. Translated and edited by Pierre Payer. Wilfrid Laurier University Press. 108 pages. $38.95.
By the time he published the Book of Gomorrah around A.D. 1049, St. Peter Damian had been preaching for some time against homosexuality. He told Pope St. Leo IX, to whom he directed this work, that he needed his support against those who despised him for this preaching. While others in authority remained silent, he lamented, homosexuality kept spreading: “Vice against nature creeps in like a cancer and even touches the order of consecrated men.”
That homosexuality was indeed a problem at that time may be inferred from the fact that the vice was addressed at the Council of Rheims (A.D. 1049) in the canon de sodomitico vitio. Also, Damian received, in reply to his treatise, what he had requested from Leo IX, “a decretal writing as to which of those guilty of these vices ought to be deposed irrevocably from ecclesiastical orders; and to whom, truly taking the view of discretion, this office can be mercifully granted.”
In the Book of Gomorrah Damian says he has preached against this sin “with a whole fountain of tears” because the sinner he addresses sheds none at all: “O miserable soul, I weep for you with so many lamentations because I do not see you weeping. I prostrate myself on the ground for you because I see you maliciously standing up after such a grave fall, even to the point of trying for the pinnacle of an ecclesiastical order.” Damian weeps from “fraternal compassion” because he sees a “noble soul made in the image and likeness of God and joined with the most precious blood of Christ” cast down from a great height of dignity and glory. Any Christian who commits sodomy, he explains, surpasses in sin the men of Sodom, for he “defies the very commands of evangelical grace.”
Damian reports that he has endured persecution for preaching against this sin, and he begs the Pope to use his sacred authority to quiet “the complaint of perverse men” who reason that “a statement brought forward by one person…is rejected by others as prejudice.” At one point he addresses the dissenters as men “who are angry with me and who hate to listen to this writer.” He tells the Pope that some of them “accuse me of being a traitor and an informer on the crime of a brother,” while others think it “valid to attack me who am on the attack” and to “accuse me of presumptuous prattle.” They also denounce him for not being “afraid of picking on Christians.”
No surprise, Damian observes, that he is not believed and that his “admonition is rejected,” since God’s own command is “taken lightly by the puffed-up heart of the reprobate.” His opponents even ignore the scriptural verses that condemn homosexuality because “the rashness of the complainers [does not] give in to divine testimony.” Still, he hopes that when the Pope speaks out, “the sick Church” will rise once again to her “rightful vigor.”
In his reply, Leo IX gives Damian his full support and warns those who would dare to criticize or question his papal decree concerning sodomy that they will be putting themselves in danger of being deposed from their rank. He agrees with Damian that severity against this sin is needed, that he who does not attack it encourages it, and that silence about it is rightly thought to incur guilt.
In this remarkable treatise, Damian condemns priests in authority who have been too indulgent with these sinners. As a result of their laxity, priests who have “fallen into this wickedness with eight or even ten other equally sordid men” have remained in their ranks. And so the sin has come “to be committed freely” without its practitioners fearing the loss of their priestly faculties. Damian calls this negligence rather than love because it allows a wound to spread in a neighbor’s heart, a wound “from which, I have no doubt, he dies cruelly.” Therefore, Damian himself will not “neglect to cure” that wound with the “surgery of words,” for if he remains silent, he too will deserve punishment. Rather than “fear the hatred of the depraved or the tongues of detractors,” Damian fears God, who warns him through the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel, “If you see your brother doing evil and you do not correct him, I will require his blood from your hand” (3:20). Damian will not be silenced, no matter how many tell him to put the sword of his tongue in the sheath of silence: “Who am I to see such a harmful outrage growing up among the sacred orders and, as a murderer of another’s soul, preserve the stricture of silence, and to dare to await the reckoning of divine severity? Do I not begin to be responsible for a guilt whose author I never was?”
Citing St. Paul’s condemnation not only of those who commit sodomy but also of those who “approve” it in others (Rom. 1:32), Damian observes that his adversaries’ silence can be interpreted as consent: Anyone who would “censure me when I dispute against mortal vice,” he says, should consider that Damian is trying to “promote fraternal salvation, lest while he persecute the reprover he might seem to favor the delinquent.” Although maligned and threatened for accusing his brothers, Damian refuses to be intimidated: “I would rather be cast innocent into the cistern with Joseph, who accused his brothers to his father for a terrible crime, than to be punished by the vengeance of divine fury with Eli, who saw the evils of his sons and was silent.” He even summons others to join him in his all-out battle to reform the clergy: “Whoever sees himself as a soldier of Christ should fervently gird himself to confound this vice, and not hesitate to wipe it out with all his strength. He should pierce it with the sharpest verbal arrows wherever it is found and try to slay it.” He will thus free the captive from “bonds by which he is held in slavery.”
Although it is “clearer than light” that homosexuals should not serve as priests, Damian says, some might plead “imminent necessity” and argue that there is “no one to perform a sacred function in a church.” In reply, he says that making shepherds of such “carnal men” will “result in the destitution of a whole people.” Their “burning ambition” to be priests is sure to “ensnare the people of God” in their own ruin. Although they may seem useful for their learning, they will lead the flock astray: “If the right order of ecclesiastical discipline is confused in a learned man, it is a wonder it is kept by the ignorant.” By the example of their presumption, these sinners lead the simple onto the “path of error” on which they walk with the “swollen foot of pride.”
What fruitfulness can be expected from men engulfed by “thick, dark blindness”? They have lost their “interior eyes” and cannot see the gravity of what they have done. Like the men of Sodom who tried to break into Lot’s house and seize the angels whom they mistook for young men, these carnal men “try to break in violently on the angels” by approaching God “through the offices of sacred orders.” Damian warns them: Take care lest you “provoke more sharply by your very prayers the one you offend openly by acting evilly.”
At one point in his treatise, Damian refers to the ancient Council of Ancyra (A.D. 314), which dealt with homosexuality in two canons. In canon 16 the Church Fathers declared that laymen who had committed sodomy before the age of 20 were not to receive communion for 20 years; and those who had committed it after the age of 20, for 30 years. Damian comments that if laymen in the early Church had to wait decades before receiving communion again, how can a priest who commits the same sin in his own day “be judged worthy not only to receive but even to offer and to consecrate the sacred mysteries themselves?”
In canon 17 of the same Council, the Fathers ordered those who had committed this sin to pray among the “demoniacs.” Damian comments: “When a male rushes to a male to commit impurity, this is not the natural impulse of the flesh, but only the goad of diabolical impulse. This is why the holy fathers carefully established that sodomists pray together with the deranged since they did not doubt that the sodomists were possessed.” Lamenting that this sin “evicts the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart,” the saint warns that it also “gnaws the conscience as though with worms” and “sears the flesh as though with fire.”
Even so, like a good pastor, Damian encourages these sinners to hope in God’s mercy through repentance. He rallies them to take a bold stand “against the importunate madness of lust. If the flame of lust burns to the bones, the memory of perpetual fire should extinguish it immediately.” He urges them not to let the “present satisfaction of one organ” cause them to be cast body and soul into everlasting fire. Calling them his brothers, he summons them to conversion: “If you were unable to spend time with Abraham far from the Sodomites, it is permitted to migrate with Lot, urged on by the destructive burning which is near at hand.”
The Book of Gomorrah demonstrates that it was no easier a thousand years ago than it is today to speak out against this vice and to bring active homosexuals to repentance, to an acknowledgement of the natural law, and to the practice of purity. In his little treatise, St. Peter Damian warns us against keeping silence in the face of such a growing evil and thus becoming complicit. He offers us a needed model of how to speak out fearlessly against the corruptions of our age.
St. Peter Damian, pray for us!
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Monday, November 11, 2013
21 Things We Do When We Make the Sign of the Cross
From http://catholicexchange.com/21-things-cross
The Sign of the Cross is a simple gesture yet a profound expression of faith for both Catholic and Orthodox Christians. As Catholics, it’s something we do when we enter a church, after we receive Communion, before meals, and every time we pray. But what exactly are we doing when we make the Sign of the Cross? Here are 21 things:
1. Pray. We begin and end our prayers with the Sign of the Cross, perhaps not realizing that the sign is itself a prayer. If prayer, at its core, is “an uprising of the mind to God,” as St. John Damascene put it, then the Sign of the Cross assuredly qualifies. “No empty gesture, the sign of the cross is a potent prayer that engages the Holy Spirit as the divine advocate and agent of our successful Christian living,” writes Bert Ghezzi.
2. Open ourselves to grace. As a sacramental, the Sign of the Cross prepares us for receiving God’s blessing and disposes us to cooperate with His grace, according to Ghezzi.
3. Sanctify the day. As an act repeated throughout the key moments of each day, the Sign of the Cross sanctifies our day. “At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign,” wrote Tertullian.
4. Commit the whole self to Christ. In moving our hands from our foreheads to our hearts and then both shoulders, we are asking God’s blessing for our mind, our passions and desires, our very bodies. In other words, the Sign of the Cross commits us, body and soul, mind and heart, to Christ. (I’m paraphrasing this Russian Orthodox writer.) “Let it take in your whole being—body, soul, mind, will, thoughts, feelings, your doing and not-doing—and by signing it with the cross strengthen and consecrate the whole in the strength of Christ, in the name of the triune God,” said twentieth century theologian Romano Guardini.
5. Recall the Incarnation. Our movement is downward, from our foreheads to our chest “because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth,” Pope Innocent III wrote in his instructions on making the Sign of the Cross. Holding two fingers together—either the thumb with the ring finger or with index finger—also represents the two natures of Christ.
6. Remember the Passion of Our Lord. Fundamentally, in tracing out the outlines of a cross on ourselves, we are remembering Christ’s crucifixion. This remembrance is deepened if we keep our right hand open, using all five fingers to make the sign—corresponding to the Five Wounds of Christ.
7. Affirm the Trinity. In invoking the name of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we are affirming our belief in a triune God. This is also reinforced by using three fingers to make the sign, according to Pope Innocent III.
8. Focus our prayer on God. One of the temptations in prayer is to address it to God as we conceive of Him—the man upstairs, our buddy, a sort of cosmic genie, etc. When this happens, our prayer becomes more about us than an encounter with the living God. The Sign of the Cross immediately focuses us on the true God, according to Ghezzi: “When we invoke the Trinity, we fix our attention on the God who made us, not on the God we have made. We fling our images aside and address our prayers to God as he has revealed himself to be: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
9. Affirm the procession of Son and Spirit. In first lifting our hand to our forehead we recall that the Father is the first person the Trinity. In lowering our hand we “express that the Son proceeds from the Father.” And, in ending with the Holy Spirit, we signify that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, according to Francis de Sales.
10. Confess our faith. In affirming our belief in the Incarnation, the crucifixion, and the Trinity, we are making a sort of mini-confession of faith in words and gestures, proclaiming the core truths of the creed.
11. Invoke the power of God’s name. In Scripture, God’s name carries power. In Philippians 2:10, St. Paul tells us that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth.” And, in John 14:13-14, Jesus Himself said, “And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.”
12. Crucify ourselves with Christ. Whoever wishes to follow Christ “must deny himself” and “take up his cross” as Jesus told the disciples in Matthew 16:24. “I have been crucified with Christ,” St. Paul writes in Galatians 2:19. “Proclaiming the sign of the cross proclaims our yes to this condition of discipleship,” Ghezzi writes.
13. Ask for support in our suffering. In crossing our shoulders we ask God “to support us—to shoulder us—in our suffering,” Ghezzi writes.
14. Reaffirm our baptism. In using the same words with which we were baptized, the Sign of the Cross is a “summing up and re-acceptance of our baptism,” according to then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
15. Reverse the curse. The Sign of the Cross recalls the forgiveness of sins and the reversal of the Fall by passing “from the left side of the curse to the right of blessing,” according to de Sales. The movement from left to right also signifies our future passage from present misery to future glory just as Christ “crossed over from death to life and from Hades to Paradise,” Pope Innocent II wrote.
16. Remake ourselves in Christ’s image. In Colossians 3, St. Paul uses the image of clothing to describe how our sinful natures are transformed in Christ. We are to take off the old self and put on the self “which is being renewed … in the image of its creator,” Paul tells us. The Church Fathers saw a connection between this verse and the stripping of Christ on the cross, “teaching that stripping off our old nature in baptism and putting on a new one was a participation in Christ’s stripping at his crucifixion,” Ghezzi writes. He concludes that we can view the Sign of the Cross as “our way of participating in Christ’s stripping at the Crucifixion and his being clothed in glory at his resurrection.” Thus, in making the Sign of the Cross, we are radically identifying ourselves with the entirety of the crucifixion event—not just those parts of it we can accept or that our palatable to our sensibilities.
17. Mark ourselves for Christ. In ancient Greek, the word for sign was sphragis, which was also a mark of ownership, according to Ghezzi. “For example, a shepherd marked his sheep as his property with a brand that he called a sphragis,” Ghezzi writes. In making the Sign of the Cross, we mark ourselves as belong to Christ, our true shepherd.
18. Soldier on for Christ. The sphragis was also the term for a general’s name that would be tattooed on his soldiers, according to Ghezzi. This too is an apt metaphor for the Christian life: while we can be compared to sheep in the sense of following Christ as our shepherd we are not called to be sheepish. We instead are called to be soldiers of Christ. As St. Paul wrote in Ephesians 6, “Put on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil. … take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”
19. Ward off the devil. The Sign of the Cross is one of the very weapons we use in that battle with the devil. As one medieval preacher named Aelfric declared, “A man may wave about wonderfully with his hands without creating any blessing unless he make the sign of the cross. But, if he do, the fiend will soon be frightened on account of the victorious token.” In another statement, attributed to St. John Chrysostom, demons are said to “fly away” at the Sign of the Cross “dreading it as a staff that they are beaten with.” (Source: Catholic Encyclopedia.)
20. Seal ourselves in the Spirit. In the New Testament, the word sphragis, mentioned above, is also sometimes translated as seal, as in 2 Corinthians 1:22, where St. Paul writes that, “the one who gives us security with you in Christ and who anointed us is God; he has also put his seal upon us and given the Spirit in our hearts as a first installment.” In making the Sign of the Cross, we are once again sealing ourselves in the Spirit, invoking His powerful intervention in our lives.
21. Witness to others. As a gesture often made in public, the Sign of the Cross is a simple way to witness our faith to others. “Let us not then be ashamed to confess the Crucified. Be the Cross our seal made with boldness by our fingers on our brow, and on everything; over the bread we eat, and the cups we drink; in our comings in, and goings out; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we rise up; when we are in the way, and when we are still,” wrote St. Cyril of Jerusalem.
Sources include: The Sign of the Cross, by Bert Ghezzi, and Signs of Life, by Scott Hahn
The Sign of the Cross is a simple gesture yet a profound expression of faith for both Catholic and Orthodox Christians. As Catholics, it’s something we do when we enter a church, after we receive Communion, before meals, and every time we pray. But what exactly are we doing when we make the Sign of the Cross? Here are 21 things:
1. Pray. We begin and end our prayers with the Sign of the Cross, perhaps not realizing that the sign is itself a prayer. If prayer, at its core, is “an uprising of the mind to God,” as St. John Damascene put it, then the Sign of the Cross assuredly qualifies. “No empty gesture, the sign of the cross is a potent prayer that engages the Holy Spirit as the divine advocate and agent of our successful Christian living,” writes Bert Ghezzi.
2. Open ourselves to grace. As a sacramental, the Sign of the Cross prepares us for receiving God’s blessing and disposes us to cooperate with His grace, according to Ghezzi.
3. Sanctify the day. As an act repeated throughout the key moments of each day, the Sign of the Cross sanctifies our day. “At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign,” wrote Tertullian.
4. Commit the whole self to Christ. In moving our hands from our foreheads to our hearts and then both shoulders, we are asking God’s blessing for our mind, our passions and desires, our very bodies. In other words, the Sign of the Cross commits us, body and soul, mind and heart, to Christ. (I’m paraphrasing this Russian Orthodox writer.) “Let it take in your whole being—body, soul, mind, will, thoughts, feelings, your doing and not-doing—and by signing it with the cross strengthen and consecrate the whole in the strength of Christ, in the name of the triune God,” said twentieth century theologian Romano Guardini.
5. Recall the Incarnation. Our movement is downward, from our foreheads to our chest “because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth,” Pope Innocent III wrote in his instructions on making the Sign of the Cross. Holding two fingers together—either the thumb with the ring finger or with index finger—also represents the two natures of Christ.
6. Remember the Passion of Our Lord. Fundamentally, in tracing out the outlines of a cross on ourselves, we are remembering Christ’s crucifixion. This remembrance is deepened if we keep our right hand open, using all five fingers to make the sign—corresponding to the Five Wounds of Christ.
7. Affirm the Trinity. In invoking the name of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we are affirming our belief in a triune God. This is also reinforced by using three fingers to make the sign, according to Pope Innocent III.
8. Focus our prayer on God. One of the temptations in prayer is to address it to God as we conceive of Him—the man upstairs, our buddy, a sort of cosmic genie, etc. When this happens, our prayer becomes more about us than an encounter with the living God. The Sign of the Cross immediately focuses us on the true God, according to Ghezzi: “When we invoke the Trinity, we fix our attention on the God who made us, not on the God we have made. We fling our images aside and address our prayers to God as he has revealed himself to be: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
9. Affirm the procession of Son and Spirit. In first lifting our hand to our forehead we recall that the Father is the first person the Trinity. In lowering our hand we “express that the Son proceeds from the Father.” And, in ending with the Holy Spirit, we signify that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, according to Francis de Sales.
10. Confess our faith. In affirming our belief in the Incarnation, the crucifixion, and the Trinity, we are making a sort of mini-confession of faith in words and gestures, proclaiming the core truths of the creed.
11. Invoke the power of God’s name. In Scripture, God’s name carries power. In Philippians 2:10, St. Paul tells us that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth.” And, in John 14:13-14, Jesus Himself said, “And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.”
12. Crucify ourselves with Christ. Whoever wishes to follow Christ “must deny himself” and “take up his cross” as Jesus told the disciples in Matthew 16:24. “I have been crucified with Christ,” St. Paul writes in Galatians 2:19. “Proclaiming the sign of the cross proclaims our yes to this condition of discipleship,” Ghezzi writes.
13. Ask for support in our suffering. In crossing our shoulders we ask God “to support us—to shoulder us—in our suffering,” Ghezzi writes.
14. Reaffirm our baptism. In using the same words with which we were baptized, the Sign of the Cross is a “summing up and re-acceptance of our baptism,” according to then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
15. Reverse the curse. The Sign of the Cross recalls the forgiveness of sins and the reversal of the Fall by passing “from the left side of the curse to the right of blessing,” according to de Sales. The movement from left to right also signifies our future passage from present misery to future glory just as Christ “crossed over from death to life and from Hades to Paradise,” Pope Innocent II wrote.
16. Remake ourselves in Christ’s image. In Colossians 3, St. Paul uses the image of clothing to describe how our sinful natures are transformed in Christ. We are to take off the old self and put on the self “which is being renewed … in the image of its creator,” Paul tells us. The Church Fathers saw a connection between this verse and the stripping of Christ on the cross, “teaching that stripping off our old nature in baptism and putting on a new one was a participation in Christ’s stripping at his crucifixion,” Ghezzi writes. He concludes that we can view the Sign of the Cross as “our way of participating in Christ’s stripping at the Crucifixion and his being clothed in glory at his resurrection.” Thus, in making the Sign of the Cross, we are radically identifying ourselves with the entirety of the crucifixion event—not just those parts of it we can accept or that our palatable to our sensibilities.
17. Mark ourselves for Christ. In ancient Greek, the word for sign was sphragis, which was also a mark of ownership, according to Ghezzi. “For example, a shepherd marked his sheep as his property with a brand that he called a sphragis,” Ghezzi writes. In making the Sign of the Cross, we mark ourselves as belong to Christ, our true shepherd.
18. Soldier on for Christ. The sphragis was also the term for a general’s name that would be tattooed on his soldiers, according to Ghezzi. This too is an apt metaphor for the Christian life: while we can be compared to sheep in the sense of following Christ as our shepherd we are not called to be sheepish. We instead are called to be soldiers of Christ. As St. Paul wrote in Ephesians 6, “Put on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil. … take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”
19. Ward off the devil. The Sign of the Cross is one of the very weapons we use in that battle with the devil. As one medieval preacher named Aelfric declared, “A man may wave about wonderfully with his hands without creating any blessing unless he make the sign of the cross. But, if he do, the fiend will soon be frightened on account of the victorious token.” In another statement, attributed to St. John Chrysostom, demons are said to “fly away” at the Sign of the Cross “dreading it as a staff that they are beaten with.” (Source: Catholic Encyclopedia.)
20. Seal ourselves in the Spirit. In the New Testament, the word sphragis, mentioned above, is also sometimes translated as seal, as in 2 Corinthians 1:22, where St. Paul writes that, “the one who gives us security with you in Christ and who anointed us is God; he has also put his seal upon us and given the Spirit in our hearts as a first installment.” In making the Sign of the Cross, we are once again sealing ourselves in the Spirit, invoking His powerful intervention in our lives.
21. Witness to others. As a gesture often made in public, the Sign of the Cross is a simple way to witness our faith to others. “Let us not then be ashamed to confess the Crucified. Be the Cross our seal made with boldness by our fingers on our brow, and on everything; over the bread we eat, and the cups we drink; in our comings in, and goings out; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we rise up; when we are in the way, and when we are still,” wrote St. Cyril of Jerusalem.
Sources include: The Sign of the Cross, by Bert Ghezzi, and Signs of Life, by Scott Hahn
Vatican to put St Peter’s relics on display for first time
From http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/11/11/vatican-to-put-st-peters-relics-on-display-for-first-time/
For the first time, the bones traditionally believed to be the relics of St Peter the Apostle will be on public display for veneration.
Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelisation, said the veneration of the relics at the Vatican was a fitting way to conclude the Year of Faith on November 24.
Writing in the Vatican newspaper, the archbishop, whose office organised many of the Year of Faith events, said millions of pilgrims marked the Year of Faith by making a pilgrimage to St Peter’s tomb and renewing their profession of faith there.
“The culminating sign” of the year, he said, “will be the exposition for the first time of the relics traditionally recognized as those of the apostle who gave his life for the Lord here.”
The bones were discovered during excavations of the necropolis under St Peter’s Basilica in the 1940s near a monument erected in the fourth century to honor St Peter.
No pope has ever declared the bones to be authentic. However, after scientific tests were conducted on the bones in the 1950s and 60s, Pope Paul VI said in 1968 that the “relics” of St Peter had been “identified in a way which we can hold to be convincing”.
For the first time, the bones traditionally believed to be the relics of St Peter the Apostle will be on public display for veneration.
Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelisation, said the veneration of the relics at the Vatican was a fitting way to conclude the Year of Faith on November 24.
Writing in the Vatican newspaper, the archbishop, whose office organised many of the Year of Faith events, said millions of pilgrims marked the Year of Faith by making a pilgrimage to St Peter’s tomb and renewing their profession of faith there.
“The culminating sign” of the year, he said, “will be the exposition for the first time of the relics traditionally recognized as those of the apostle who gave his life for the Lord here.”
The bones were discovered during excavations of the necropolis under St Peter’s Basilica in the 1940s near a monument erected in the fourth century to honor St Peter.
No pope has ever declared the bones to be authentic. However, after scientific tests were conducted on the bones in the 1950s and 60s, Pope Paul VI said in 1968 that the “relics” of St Peter had been “identified in a way which we can hold to be convincing”.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Friday, November 1, 2013
Halloween Festivities Violate Church Teaching
The Catholic Register October 30, 2013:
A Polish archbishop has cautioned that Halloween celebrations violate church teaching and urged Catholics not to take part "even in playful form."
"This is a fundamentally anti-Christian festival," said Archbishop Marek Jedraszewski of Lodz. "Parents and teachers should protect youngsters against its images of terror and dread, especially when many already associate it with the cult of Satan."
Polish Catholic leaders have been trying to foster alternatives to Halloween, which has been marked in Poland since the 1989 collapse of communist rule.
In a pastoral letter to his archdiocese, Archbishop Jedraszewski said Poland was "already seeing a clear reversion in the Western world, as well as in Poland, to pagan practices." He said the Nov. 1 All Saints' Day and Nov. 2 All Souls' Day had "long traditions" in Poland and were worthy Christian occasions for "praising God and honoring those who came before."
"Introducing children, and sometimes adults, to Halloween practices is a violation of church teaching. Christians should not take part, even in playful form," he said.
He added that, instead of celebrating Halloween, local Catholics should commemorate up to 20,000 youngsters who died at the only Nazi concentration camp for children, which operated in Lodz from 1942 to 1945.
A Catholic presenter with Polish Radio, Malgorzata Glabisz-Pniewska, told Catholic News Service data suggested that Poles' interest in Halloween was now declining.
"Post-communist countries like ours went through a phase when everything from the West seemed better," she told Catholic News Service interview Oct. 30. "Many people dislike Halloween now, not because of any link with Satanism, but because it's an imported custom alien to our culture. It would be better if the church just left it to die naturally."
Friday, October 18, 2013
Islam as a Christian Heresy
Hilaire Belloc in his book, "The
Great Heresies:"
"Mohammedanism was a heresy: that is the essential point to grasp before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. Its vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was-not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing. It differed from most (not from all) heresies in this, that it did not arise within the bounds of the Christian Church. The chief heresiarch, Mohammed himself, was not, like most heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth and doctrine to begin with. He sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified. It was the great Catholic world-on the frontiers of which he lived, whose influence was all around him and whose territories he had known by travel-which inspired his convictions. He came of, and mixed with, the degraded idolaters of the Arabian wilderness, the conquest of which had never seemed worth the Romans' while.
He took over very few of those old pagan ideas which might have been native to him from his descent. On the contrary, he preached and insisted upon a whole group of ideas which were peculiar to the Catholic Church and distinguished it from the paganism which it had conquered in the Greek and Roman civilization. Thus the very foundation of his teaching was that prime Catholic doctrine, the unity and omnipotence of God. The attributes of God he also took over in the main from Catholic doctrine: the personal nature, the all-goodness, the timelessness, the providence of God, His creative power as the origin of all things, and His sustenance of all things by His power alone. The world of good spirits and angels and of evil spirits in rebellion against God was a part of the teaching, with a chief evil spirit, such as Christendom had recognized. Mohammed preached with insistence that prime Catholic doctrine, on the human side-the immortality of the soul and its responsibility for actions in this life, coupled with the consequent doctrine of punishment and reward after death." ...
Now, why did this new, simple, energetic heresy have its sudden overwhelming success? One answer is that it won battles. It won them at once, as we shall see when we come to the history of the thing. But winning battles could not have made Islam permanent or even strong had there not been a state of affairs awaiting some such message and ready to accept it."
St Peter's List September 23, 2013:
"Mohammedanism was a heresy: that is the essential point to grasp before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. Its vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was-not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing. It differed from most (not from all) heresies in this, that it did not arise within the bounds of the Christian Church. The chief heresiarch, Mohammed himself, was not, like most heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth and doctrine to begin with. He sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified. It was the great Catholic world-on the frontiers of which he lived, whose influence was all around him and whose territories he had known by travel-which inspired his convictions. He came of, and mixed with, the degraded idolaters of the Arabian wilderness, the conquest of which had never seemed worth the Romans' while.
He took over very few of those old pagan ideas which might have been native to him from his descent. On the contrary, he preached and insisted upon a whole group of ideas which were peculiar to the Catholic Church and distinguished it from the paganism which it had conquered in the Greek and Roman civilization. Thus the very foundation of his teaching was that prime Catholic doctrine, the unity and omnipotence of God. The attributes of God he also took over in the main from Catholic doctrine: the personal nature, the all-goodness, the timelessness, the providence of God, His creative power as the origin of all things, and His sustenance of all things by His power alone. The world of good spirits and angels and of evil spirits in rebellion against God was a part of the teaching, with a chief evil spirit, such as Christendom had recognized. Mohammed preached with insistence that prime Catholic doctrine, on the human side-the immortality of the soul and its responsibility for actions in this life, coupled with the consequent doctrine of punishment and reward after death." ...
Now, why did this new, simple, energetic heresy have its sudden overwhelming success? One answer is that it won battles. It won them at once, as we shall see when we come to the history of the thing. But winning battles could not have made Islam permanent or even strong had there not been a state of affairs awaiting some such message and ready to accept it."
St Peter's List September 23, 2013:
In his work The Fount of Knowledge, St. John Damascene (c. 675 or 676 – 4 December 749) gifts the Church with one of the earliest summa theologicas. He is considered the last of the great Early Church Fathers and it would be difficult to exaggerate his influence on the Christian East. He is also esteemed in the Western Church as a forerunner to the scholastics and is considered by some as the first scholastic. St. John Damascene is best known for his fight against iconoclasm.1
The Fount of Knowledge is divided into three categories:
In his passage on Concerning Heresies, his section on the superstition of the Ishmaelites is considerably longer than most. One reason for this attention could be his prolonged battles against iconoclasm, in which the influence of Islam was a significant factor. The following are selected sections from his passage on Islam.
- “Philosophical Chapters” (Kephalaia philosophika) – “With the exception of the fifteen chapters that deal exclusively with logic, it has mostly to do with the ontology of Aristotle. It is largely a summary of the Categories of Aristotle with Porphyry’s “Isagoge” (Eisagoge eis tas kategorias). It seems to have been John Damascene’s purpose to give his readers only such philosophical knowledge as was necessary for understanding the subsequent parts of the “Fountain of Wisdom”.
- “Concerning Heresy” (Peri aipeseon) – “Little more than a copy of a similar work by Epiphanius, brought up to date by John Damascene. The author indeed expressly disclaims originality except in the chapters devoted to Islamism, Iconoclasm, and Aposchitae. To the list of eighty heresies that constitute the “Panarion” of Epiphanius, he added twenty heresies that had sprung up since his time. In treating of Islamism he vigorously assails the immoral practices of Mohammed and the corrupt teachings inserted in the Koran to legalize the delinquencies of the prophet.”
- “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” (Ikdosis akribes tes orthodoxou pisteos) – “The third book of the “Fountain of Wisdom”, is the most important of John Damascene’s writings and one of the most notable works of Christian antiquity. Its authority has always been great among the theologians of the East and West. Here, again, the author modestly disavows any claim of originality — any purpose to essay a new exposition of doctrinal truth. He assigns himself the less pretentious task of collecting in a single work the opinions of the ancient writers scattered through many volumes, and of systematizing and connecting them in a logical whole.2
1. Muhammed devised his own heresy
“There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites… From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.”
2. Christ’s shadow was crucified
“He says that there is one God, creator of all things, who has neither been begotten nor has begotten. He says that the Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit, but a creature and a servant, and that He was begotten, without seed, of Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron. For, he says, the Word and God and the Spirit entered into Mary and she brought forth Jesus, who was a prophet and servant of God. And he says that the Jews wanted to crucify Him in violation of the law, and that they seized His shadow and crucified this. But the Christ Himself was not crucified, he says, nor did He die, for God out of His love for Him took Him to Himself into heaven.”
3. Christ denied saying, “I am the Son of God and God.”
“And he says this, that when the Christ had ascended into heaven God asked Him: ‘O Jesus, didst thou say: “I am the Son of God and God”?’ And Jesus, he says, answered: ‘Be merciful to me, Lord. Thou knowest that I did not say this and that I did not scorn to be thy servant. But sinful men have written that I made this statement, and they have lied about me and have fallen into error.’ And God answered and said to Him: ‘I know that thou didst not say this word.” There are many other extraordinary and quite ridiculous things in this book which he boasts was sent down to him from God.”
4. Where did Scripture foretell Muhammad?
“But when we ask: ‘And who is there to testify that God gave him the book? And which of the prophets foretold that such a prophet would rise up?’—they are at a loss. And we remark that Moses received the Law on Mount Sinai, with God appearing in the sight of all the people in cloud, and fire, and darkness, and storm. And we say that all the Prophets from Moses on down foretold the coming of Christ and how Christ God (and incarnate Son of God) was to come and to be crucified and die and rise again, and how He was to be the judge of the living and dead. Then, when we say: ‘How is it that this prophet of yours did not come in the same way, with others bearing witness to him? And how is it that God did not in your presence present this man with the book to which you refer, even as He gave the Law to Moses, with the people looking on and the mountain smoking, so that you, too, might have certainty?’—they answer that God does as He pleases.”
5. Where are the witnesses?
“When we ask again: ‘How is it that when he enjoined us in this book of yours not to do anything or receive anything without witnesses, you did not ask him: “First do you show us by witnesses that you are a prophet and that you have come from God, and show us just what Scriptures there are that testify about you”’—they are ashamed and remain silent.”
6. What do the Muslims call Christians?
“Moreover, they call us Hetaeriasts, or Associators, because, they say, we introduce an associate with God by declaring Christ to the Son of God and God… And again we say to them: ‘As long as you say that Christ is the Word of God and Spirit, why do you accuse us of being Hetaeriasts? For the word, and the spirit, is inseparable from that in which it naturally has existence. Therefore, if the Word of God is in God, then it is obvious that He is God. If, however, He is outside of God, then, according to you, God is without word and without spirit. Consequently, by avoiding the introduction of an associate with God you have mutilated Him. It would be far better for you to say that He has an associate than to mutilate Him, as if you were dealing with a stone or a piece of wood or some other inanimate object. Thus, you speak untruly when you call us Hetaeriasts; we retort by calling you Mutilators of God.’”
7. On Women
“As has been related, this Mohammed wrote many ridiculous books, to each one of which he set a title. For example, there is the book On Woman, in which he plainly makes legal provision for taking four wives and, if it be possible, a thousand concubines—as many as one can maintain, besides the four wives. He also made it legal to put away whichever wife one might wish, and, should one so wish, to take to oneself another in the same way. Mohammed had a friend named Zeid. This man had a beautiful wife with whom Mohammed fell in love. Once, when they were sitting together, Mohammed said: ‘Oh, by the way, God has commanded me to take your wife.’ The other answered: ‘You are an apostle. Do as God has told you and take my wife.’
As shown by the artwork above, the Middle Ages also viewed Islam has a heresy. In Dante’s Inferno, Canto XXVIII, Muhammad is depicted as “twixt the legs, Dangling his entrails hung, the midriff lay Open to view…” Muhammad suffers the punishment of the schismatics: having his body rent from chin to anus for how he rent the Body of Christ. The great Catholic thinker Hilarie Belloc (1870-1953) is also known for his treatise on Islam as The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed.
************
- Fount of Knowledge: A digital download of Catholic University of America’s translation is available (here) and an except may be viewed online (here). Furthermore, a larger excerpt on Islam from Fount of Knowledge may be read on an Orthodox website (here). Another translation is available in its entirety online, but SPL is unfamiliar with the translation (here).
- St. John Damascene Information: Biographical information and the structure of the Fountain of Wisdom is adapted from the Catholic Encyclopedia article.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Pope consecrates world to immaculate heart of Mary
From http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/10/13/pope_consacrates_world_to_immaculate_heart_of_mary_/en1-736956
The Pope celebrated mass in St Peter’s square this morning in honour of the Marian Day, an event organised as part of the Year of Faith on the anniversary of the final apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima (13th of October 1917). He also consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Please find below the full text of Pope Francis’ homily in English translation.
In the Psalm we said: “Sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvellous things” (Ps 98:1). Today we consider one of the marvellous things which the Lord has done: Mary! A lowly and weak creature like ourselves, she was chosen to be the Mother of God, the Mother of her Creator.
Considering Mary in the light of the readings we have just heard, I would like to reflect with you on three things: first, God surprises us, second, God asks us to be faithful, and third, God is our strength.
First: God surprises us. The story of Naaman, the commander of the army of the king of Aram, is remarkable. In order to be healed of leprosy, he turns to the prophet of God, Elisha, who does not perform magic or demand anything unusual of him, but asks him simply to trust in God and to wash in the waters of the river. Not, however, in one of the great rivers of Damascus, but in the little stream of the Jordan. Naaman is left surprised, even taken aback. What kind of God is this who asks for something so simple? He wants to turn back, but then he goes ahead, he immerses himself in the Jordan and is immediately healed (cf. 2 Kg 5:1-4). There it is: God surprises us. It is precisely in poverty, in weakness and in humility that he reveals himself and grants us his love, which saves us, heals us and gives us strength. He asks us only to obey his word and to trust in him.
This was the experience of the Virgin Mary. At the message of the angel, she does not hide her surprise. It is the astonishment of realizing that God, to become man, had chosen her, a simple maid of Nazareth. Not someone who lived in a palace amid power and riches, or one who had done extraordinary things, but simply someone who was open to God and put her trust in him, even without understanding everything: “Here I am, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word” (Lk 1:38). That was her answer. God constantly surprises us, he bursts our categories, he wreaks havoc with our plans. And he tells us: trust me, do not be afraid, let yourself be surprised, leave yourself behind and follow me!
Today let us all ask ourselves whether we are afraid of what God might ask, or of what he does ask. Do I let myself be surprised by God, as Mary was, or do I remain caught up in my own safety zone: in forms of material, intellectual or ideological security, taking refuge in my own projects and plans? Do I truly let God into my life? How do I answer him?
In the passage from Saint Paul which we have heard, the Apostle tells his disciple Timothy: remember Jesus Christ. If we persevere with him, we will also reign with him (cf. 2 Tim 2:8-13). This is the second thing: to remember Christ always – to be mindful of Jesus Christ – and thus to persevere in faith. God surprises us with his love, but he demands that we be faithful in following him. We can be unfaithful, but he cannot: he is “the faithful one” and he demands of us that same fidelity. Think of all the times when we were excited about something or other, some initiative, some task, but afterwards, at the first sign of difficulty, we threw in the towel. Sadly, this also happens in the case of fundamental decisions, such as marriage. It is the difficulty of remaining steadfast, faithful to decisions we have made and to commitments we have made. Often it is easy enough to say “yes”, but then we fail to repeat this “yes” each and every day. We fail to be faithful.
Mary said her “yes” to God: a “yes” which threw her simple life in Nazareth into turmoil, and not only once. Any number of times she had to utter a heartfelt “yes” at moments of joy and sorrow, culminating in the “yes” she spoke at the foot of the Cross. Here today there are many mothers present; think of the full extent of Mary’s faithfulness to God: seeing her only Son hanging on the Cross. The faithful woman, still standing, utterly heartbroken, yet faithful and strong.
And I ask myself: am I a Christian by fits and starts, or am I a Christian full-time? Our culture of the ephemeral, the relative, also takes its toll on the way we live our faith. God asks us to be faithful to him, daily, in our everyday life. He goes on to say that, even if we are sometimes unfaithful to him, he remains faithful. In his mercy, he never tires of stretching out his hand to lift us up, to encourage us to continue our journey, to come back and tell him of our weakness, so that he can grant us his strength. This is the real journey: to walk with the Lord always, even at moments of weakness, even in our sins. Never to prefer a makeshift path of our own. That kills us. Faith is ultimate fidelity, like that of Mary.
The last thing: God is our strength. I think of the ten lepers in the Gospel who were healed by Jesus. They approach him and, keeping their distance, they call out: “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!” (Lk 17:13). They are sick, they need love and strength, and they are looking for someone to heal them. Jesus responds by freeing them from their disease. Strikingly, however, only one of them comes back, praising God and thanking him in a loud voice. Jesus notes this: ten asked to be healed and only one returned to praise God in a loud voice and to acknowledge that he is our strength. Knowing how to give thanks, to give praise for everything that the Lord has done for us.
Take Mary. After the Annunciation, her first act is one of charity towards her elderly kinswoman Elizabeth. Her first words are: “My soul magnifies the Lord”, in other words, a song of praise and thanksgiving to God not only for what he did for her, but for what he had done throughout the history of salvation. Everything is his gift. If we can realise that everything is God’s gift, how happy will our hearts be! Everything is his gift. He is our strength! Saying “thank you” is such an easy thing, and yet so hard! How often do we say “thank you” to one another in our families? These are essential words for our life in common. “Excuse me”, “sorry”, “thank you”. If families can say these three things, they will be fine. “Excuse me”, “sorry”, “thank you”. How often do we say “thank you” in our families? How often do we say “thank you” to those who help us, those close to us, those at our side throughout life? All too often we take everything for granted! This happens with God too. It is easy to approach the Lord to ask for something, but to go and thank him: “Well, I don’t need to”.
As we continue our celebration of the Eucharist, let us invoke Mary’s intercession. May she help us to be open to God’s surprises, to be faithful to him each and every day, and to praise and thank him, for he is our strength. Amen.
The Pope celebrated mass in St Peter’s square this morning in honour of the Marian Day, an event organised as part of the Year of Faith on the anniversary of the final apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima (13th of October 1917). He also consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Please find below the full text of Pope Francis’ homily in English translation.
In the Psalm we said: “Sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvellous things” (Ps 98:1). Today we consider one of the marvellous things which the Lord has done: Mary! A lowly and weak creature like ourselves, she was chosen to be the Mother of God, the Mother of her Creator.
Considering Mary in the light of the readings we have just heard, I would like to reflect with you on three things: first, God surprises us, second, God asks us to be faithful, and third, God is our strength.
First: God surprises us. The story of Naaman, the commander of the army of the king of Aram, is remarkable. In order to be healed of leprosy, he turns to the prophet of God, Elisha, who does not perform magic or demand anything unusual of him, but asks him simply to trust in God and to wash in the waters of the river. Not, however, in one of the great rivers of Damascus, but in the little stream of the Jordan. Naaman is left surprised, even taken aback. What kind of God is this who asks for something so simple? He wants to turn back, but then he goes ahead, he immerses himself in the Jordan and is immediately healed (cf. 2 Kg 5:1-4). There it is: God surprises us. It is precisely in poverty, in weakness and in humility that he reveals himself and grants us his love, which saves us, heals us and gives us strength. He asks us only to obey his word and to trust in him.
This was the experience of the Virgin Mary. At the message of the angel, she does not hide her surprise. It is the astonishment of realizing that God, to become man, had chosen her, a simple maid of Nazareth. Not someone who lived in a palace amid power and riches, or one who had done extraordinary things, but simply someone who was open to God and put her trust in him, even without understanding everything: “Here I am, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word” (Lk 1:38). That was her answer. God constantly surprises us, he bursts our categories, he wreaks havoc with our plans. And he tells us: trust me, do not be afraid, let yourself be surprised, leave yourself behind and follow me!
Today let us all ask ourselves whether we are afraid of what God might ask, or of what he does ask. Do I let myself be surprised by God, as Mary was, or do I remain caught up in my own safety zone: in forms of material, intellectual or ideological security, taking refuge in my own projects and plans? Do I truly let God into my life? How do I answer him?
In the passage from Saint Paul which we have heard, the Apostle tells his disciple Timothy: remember Jesus Christ. If we persevere with him, we will also reign with him (cf. 2 Tim 2:8-13). This is the second thing: to remember Christ always – to be mindful of Jesus Christ – and thus to persevere in faith. God surprises us with his love, but he demands that we be faithful in following him. We can be unfaithful, but he cannot: he is “the faithful one” and he demands of us that same fidelity. Think of all the times when we were excited about something or other, some initiative, some task, but afterwards, at the first sign of difficulty, we threw in the towel. Sadly, this also happens in the case of fundamental decisions, such as marriage. It is the difficulty of remaining steadfast, faithful to decisions we have made and to commitments we have made. Often it is easy enough to say “yes”, but then we fail to repeat this “yes” each and every day. We fail to be faithful.
Mary said her “yes” to God: a “yes” which threw her simple life in Nazareth into turmoil, and not only once. Any number of times she had to utter a heartfelt “yes” at moments of joy and sorrow, culminating in the “yes” she spoke at the foot of the Cross. Here today there are many mothers present; think of the full extent of Mary’s faithfulness to God: seeing her only Son hanging on the Cross. The faithful woman, still standing, utterly heartbroken, yet faithful and strong.
And I ask myself: am I a Christian by fits and starts, or am I a Christian full-time? Our culture of the ephemeral, the relative, also takes its toll on the way we live our faith. God asks us to be faithful to him, daily, in our everyday life. He goes on to say that, even if we are sometimes unfaithful to him, he remains faithful. In his mercy, he never tires of stretching out his hand to lift us up, to encourage us to continue our journey, to come back and tell him of our weakness, so that he can grant us his strength. This is the real journey: to walk with the Lord always, even at moments of weakness, even in our sins. Never to prefer a makeshift path of our own. That kills us. Faith is ultimate fidelity, like that of Mary.
The last thing: God is our strength. I think of the ten lepers in the Gospel who were healed by Jesus. They approach him and, keeping their distance, they call out: “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!” (Lk 17:13). They are sick, they need love and strength, and they are looking for someone to heal them. Jesus responds by freeing them from their disease. Strikingly, however, only one of them comes back, praising God and thanking him in a loud voice. Jesus notes this: ten asked to be healed and only one returned to praise God in a loud voice and to acknowledge that he is our strength. Knowing how to give thanks, to give praise for everything that the Lord has done for us.
Take Mary. After the Annunciation, her first act is one of charity towards her elderly kinswoman Elizabeth. Her first words are: “My soul magnifies the Lord”, in other words, a song of praise and thanksgiving to God not only for what he did for her, but for what he had done throughout the history of salvation. Everything is his gift. If we can realise that everything is God’s gift, how happy will our hearts be! Everything is his gift. He is our strength! Saying “thank you” is such an easy thing, and yet so hard! How often do we say “thank you” to one another in our families? These are essential words for our life in common. “Excuse me”, “sorry”, “thank you”. If families can say these three things, they will be fine. “Excuse me”, “sorry”, “thank you”. How often do we say “thank you” in our families? How often do we say “thank you” to those who help us, those close to us, those at our side throughout life? All too often we take everything for granted! This happens with God too. It is easy to approach the Lord to ask for something, but to go and thank him: “Well, I don’t need to”.
As we continue our celebration of the Eucharist, let us invoke Mary’s intercession. May she help us to be open to God’s surprises, to be faithful to him each and every day, and to praise and thank him, for he is our strength. Amen.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Priest quit Mater board over right to religious ethos
From http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/priest-quit-mater-board-over-right-to-religious-ethos-29637492.html
He maintains the Dublin hospital should have said no to carrying out terminations on women who were suicidal, because the direct taking of life is prohibited under the Mater's ethical code.
He believes the hospital's authorities should have defied Minister for Health James Reilly, refused to comply, and faced the consequences.
And he accused the minister of having a lack of respect for Catholic hospitals' religious beliefs.
Said Fr Doran: "The day the act was published in its final form, he said he did not see a problem with Catholic hospitals. He said no hospital in receipt of State funding could opt out and that while an individual could have their right to conscience, an institution couldn't.
"In doing so, he was setting at nought the whole possibility of an organisation having an ethos, be it Catholic, Church of Ireland, Quaker, be it a hospital or a school.
"He was basically saying 'if we pay you, we own you. We make the rules and irrespective of your ethos, you keep our rules'."
He said the "hardline" attitude fails to recognise that the original investment of resources over the years into the Mater was by the original founders, the Sisters of Mercy.
Fr Doran, administrator of the Sacred Heart church in Donnybrook, Dublin, said Minister Reilly has failed to realise the issue is "not an exercise in accountancy".
"For many years, the church and State have worked together in partnership on healthcare, education and social services," he said. "The present Minister for Health showed he had very little respect for the ethos of Catholic hospitals, making the statement that he made.
"Ireland is not a secular State, it is a pluralist society in which people are entitled to freedom of religion and it is perfectly legitimate for people like the Sisters of Mercy to engage in partnership in healthcare with the State and expect their values to be respected, in the same way as values of civil society are respected."
THE priest who resigned from a Catholic hospital board after it confirmed it would comply with new abortion laws has said he did so because he believes a religious organisation has a right to an ethos.
Fr Kevin Doran said he stepped down from Dublin's Mater Hospital board of directors and governors in protest last week "as a matter of conscience".He maintains the Dublin hospital should have said no to carrying out terminations on women who were suicidal, because the direct taking of life is prohibited under the Mater's ethical code.
He believes the hospital's authorities should have defied Minister for Health James Reilly, refused to comply, and faced the consequences.
And he accused the minister of having a lack of respect for Catholic hospitals' religious beliefs.
Said Fr Doran: "The day the act was published in its final form, he said he did not see a problem with Catholic hospitals. He said no hospital in receipt of State funding could opt out and that while an individual could have their right to conscience, an institution couldn't.
"In doing so, he was setting at nought the whole possibility of an organisation having an ethos, be it Catholic, Church of Ireland, Quaker, be it a hospital or a school.
"He was basically saying 'if we pay you, we own you. We make the rules and irrespective of your ethos, you keep our rules'."
He said the "hardline" attitude fails to recognise that the original investment of resources over the years into the Mater was by the original founders, the Sisters of Mercy.
Fr Doran, administrator of the Sacred Heart church in Donnybrook, Dublin, said Minister Reilly has failed to realise the issue is "not an exercise in accountancy".
"For many years, the church and State have worked together in partnership on healthcare, education and social services," he said. "The present Minister for Health showed he had very little respect for the ethos of Catholic hospitals, making the statement that he made.
"Ireland is not a secular State, it is a pluralist society in which people are entitled to freedom of religion and it is perfectly legitimate for people like the Sisters of Mercy to engage in partnership in healthcare with the State and expect their values to be respected, in the same way as values of civil society are respected."
Fr
Doran said he never had any issue of providing medical treatment to
save a mother, even if it unintentionally caused an unborn's death.
His only concern was around Section 9 of the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill, which allows abortion in cases where there is a real risk of the mother committing suicide.
"The
key issue for me is the provision in Section 9 where there can be a
direct intervention to terminate a life to possibly save a woman from
committing suicide. It is the direct taking of a human life as distinct
of the loss of a life of an unborn as a side-effect of a treatment. The
Catholic ethos does not permit the direct taking of life. The principal
is you may never deliberately do evil so that good may come about."
He said he was "surprised and disappointed" the Mater issued an "unqualified" statement.
"It
specifically indicated a willingness to abide by the terms of the
Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act in an unqualified way.
"It
was reasonable enough that I should expect a Catholic hospital, which
has in its ethical code a specific prohibition against direct abortion,
would have problems with the Act.
"I would be a
hypocrite, that's what it boiled down to. As a priest, had I continued
to be a member of the board in light of [that] statement, I would
undermine the confidence of people in the church's teaching ministry.
"I
am sad to end it in this way, having worked with he Mater for 10 years.
I wrote in my resignation, which was graciously accepted, I don't bear
any kind of resentment."
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Irish Catholic hospital overrules objections and decides to comply with abortion law
From http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/mater-hospital-to-comply-with-legislation-1.1539781
The Mater Hospital in Dublin has said it will comply with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013.
In
a brief statement issued yesterday the hospital said it would comply
with the Act, which sets out the circumstances where a termination of
pregnancy may be performed.
The statement says:
“The Mater Hospital has carefully considered the Act. The Hospital’s
priority is to be at the frontier of compassion, concern and clinical
care for all our patients. Having regard to that duty, the Hospital will
comply with the law as provided for in the act.”
The hospital’s compliance with the
legislation came into question during the summer when a member of its
board of directors said it could “not comply” with the legislation as it
ran counter to its Catholic ethos. Fr Kevin Doran,
who sits on both the board of directors and the board of governors
would not comment this afternoon on the hospital’s decision or his
future involvement in it.
The Mater Misericordiae University Hospital is a Catholic voluntary hospital and was founded by the Sisters
of Mercy in 1861. In its mission statement, the hospital says that by
caring for the sick, “we participate in the healing ministry of Jesus
Christ”.
Though it is named in the Act as one of
25 “appropriate institutions” for the termination of pregnancy, Fr Doran
said during the summer: “The Mater can’t carry out abortions because it
goes against its ethos. I would be very concerned that the Minister
[for Health, James Reilly] sees fit to make it impossible for hospitals
to have their own ethos.
“The issue is broader
than just abortion. What’s happening is the Minister is saying hospitals
are not entitled to have an ethos.”
A spokesman
said the hospital’s board and management had consulted “widely across
the hospital” since the enactment of the legislation in July. The issue
had also been discussed at board level.
When
asked yesterday about the hospital’s decision, Fr Doran said: “I’m not
going to comment on anything. This has just happened.”
Asked
if he was going to remain on as a member of the hospital’s boards of
governors and directors, again said: “I am not going to comment on
anything.”
He had said in August that if the
hospital were to decide to comply with the legislation he assumed there
“would be very serious discussion between the Archbishop [of Dublin Dr
Diarmuid Martin] and the management of the hospital.”
The Mater hospital is a single-member company.
Its parent company is the Mater Misericordiae and the Children’s University Hospitals (Temple St) Ltd.
Its
website says the majority of the members of the parent company are
Sisters of Mercy and the remaining members represent the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, the Catholic Nurses’ Guild of Ireland,
the Society of St Vincent de Paul and the medical consultants of Mater
Misericordiae University Hospital and the Children’s University
Hospital.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Vatican: 100,000 attend Syria peace vigil
From http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_VATICAN_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-07-17-17-36
VATICAN CITY
(AP) -- Tens of thousands of people filled St. Peter's Square for a
four-hour Syria peace vigil late Saturday, answering Pope Francis' call
for a grassroots cry for peace that was echoed by Christians and
non-Christians alike in Syria and in vigils around the world.
The
Vatican estimated about 100,000 took part in the Rome event, making it
one of the largest rallies in the West against proposed U.S.-led
military action against the Syrian regime following the Aug. 21 chemical
weapons attack near Damascus.
Francis spent
most of the vigil in silent prayer, but during his speech he issued a
heartfelt plea for peace, denouncing those who are "captivated by the
idols of dominion and power" and destroy God's creation through war.
"This
evening, I ask the Lord that we Christians, and our brothers and
sisters of other religions and every man and woman of good will, cry out
forcefully: Violence and war are never the way to peace!" he said.
"May the noise of weapons cease!" he said. "War always marks the failure of peace, it is always a defeat for humanity."
In
Damascus, a few dozen Syrian Christians attended a service in the
al-Zaytoun Church, joining Francis' invitation for a global
participation in the day of fasting and prayer and to oppose outside
military intervention in the conflict.
Greek
Catholic Patriarch Gregorios III Laham of Antioch and All East presided,
saying most countries supported a political solution to the crisis in
Syria and few wanted military action. "This is the start of the
victory," he told the Damascus faithful. "No to war. Yes for peace."
In
Washington, at least 150 protesters picketed in front of the White
House and marched to Capitol Hill to voice their opposition to a U.S.
military strike in Syria. Anti-war protests were also held in other
U.S. cities, including one in New York City's Times Squares and a prayer
vigil in Boston that echoed Saturday's massive gathering at the
Vatican.
Medea Benjamin, a founder of the
anti-war group Code Pink, said a cross-section of Americans, many of
whom disagree on a variety of issues, are united against military
intervention.
"We have suddenly found
ourselves united as Americans, overwhelmingly saying we will not let you
drag us into another war," Benjamin shouted into a megaphone in front
of the White House.
Francis announced the day
of fasting and prayer Sept. 1, alarmed at the acceleration of U.S.
threats to strike Syria after the chemical weapons attack.
Since
then, the Vatican has ramped up its peace message, summoning
ambassadors for a briefing by the Holy See foreign minister this week.
Francis appealed directly to world powers at the Group of 20 meeting in
Russia, urging them to abandon the "futile pursuit" of a military
solution in Syria and work instead for a negotiated settlement.
Bishops
around the world joined Francis in the daylong fast and organized
similar vigils in their home dioceses. In Francis' native Argentina,
human rights and religious groups held a vigil in Buenos Aires' Plaza de
Mayo and in cities across the country. Vatican Radio reported similar
initiatives were taking place throughout Italy, in Cuba and elsewhere.
Even the grand mufti of Damascus, who thanked the pope for his
initiative in a letter earlier this week, invited Muslims to join the
fast in solidarity.
Vatican officials have
stressed that Saturday's event was religious, not political. But the
gathering nevertheless took on the air of an anti-war rally, with
protesters holding up Syrian flags and banners in the square reading
"Don't attack Syria" and "Obama you don't have a dream, you have a
nightmare." A few rainbow "Peace" flags fluttered in the breeze.
But
by the time the vigil got underway, the posters and flags had mainly
disappeared as a more religious tone took over, with leaders from a
variety of Christian and non-Christian denominations joining cardinals,
politicians and ordinary folk for the evening of prayer, hymns and
meditation.
"This is already a success, the
fact that all of us are here, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, atheists," a
Hindu believer named Anata said. Pilgrims "made an effort to fast, not
to do many things, and come here from all over Italy and Europe. This is
already a success."
The pope entered the
square from the basilica steps, foregoing his usual high-spirited drive
through in his open car - an indication of the sobriety of the evening,
which capped a day of fasting for the pontiff.
The
76-year-old pope held up well throughout the four hours - lasting
longer than many who by the vigil's 11 p.m. conclusion had already gone
home. He thanked those who had stayed to the end for their company, and
wished them a good night's sleep.
The peace
vigil marked something of a novelty for the Vatican: Nothing of its kind
has ever taken place in St. Peter's Square, though popes past have
participated in daylong peace prayers in places like Assisi, known for
its peace-loving native son and the pope's namesake, St. Francis.
That's
not to say popes haven't taken vigorous anti-war positions in the past:
Pope Paul VI famously uttered the words "War never again, never again
war" at the United Nations in 1965 as the Vietnam War raged, a refrain
that has been repeated by every pope since. Pope John Paul II sent an
envoy to President George W. Bush on the eve of the 2003 U.S.-led
invasion of Iraq urging him to stand down - to no avail.
Francis
has condemned the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but has been
careful not to lay blame on any one side, exhorting world leaders
instead to focus on the plight of Syrian civilians and the need in
general to end the violence.
Other church
officials, both at the Vatican and in dioceses, have been more pointed
in their criticism of any internationalization of the conflict, saying
U.S.-French military strikes will only exacerbate the situation for
civilians, particularly Christian minorities.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Pope: Angelus appeal for peace. Asks for Day of Prayer and Fasting on September 7th
From http://en.radiovaticana.va/articolo.asp?c=724673
(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis has called for a day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria, in the entire Mideast region, and throughout the whole world to be held this coming Saturday, September 7th, 2013. The Pope made the announcement during the course of remarks ahead of the traditional Angelus prayer this Sunday. Below, please find the full text of the Holy Father's Angelus appeal.
*******************************************
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Hello!
Today, dear brothers and sisters, I wish to make add my voice to the cry which rises up with increasing anguish from every part of the world, from every people, from the heart of each person, from the one great family which is humanity: it is the cry for peace! It is a cry which declares with force: we want a peaceful world, we want to be men and women of peace, and we want in our society, torn apart by divisions and conflict, that peace break out! War never again! Never again war! Peace is a precious gift, which must be promoted and protected.
There are so many conflicts in this world which cause me great suffering and worry, but in these days my heart is deeply wounded in particular by what is happening in Syria and anguished by the dramatic developments which are looming.
I appeal strongly for peace, an appeal which arises from the deep within me. How much suffering, how much devastation, how much pain has the use of arms carried in its wake in that martyred country, especially among civilians and the unarmed! I think of many children will not see the light of the future! With utmost firmness I condemn the use of chemical weapons: I tell you that those terrible images from recent days are burned into my mind and heart. There is a judgment of God and of history upon our actions which are inescapable! Never has the use of violence brought peace in its wake. War begets war, violence begets violence.
With all my strength, I ask each party in this conflict to listen to the voice of their own conscience, not to close themselves in solely on their own interests, but rather to look at each other as brothers and decisively and courageously to follow the path of encounter and negotiation, and so overcome blind conflict. With similar vigour I exhort the international community to make every effort to promote clear proposals for peace in that country without further delay, a peace based on dialogue and negotiation, for the good of the entire Syrian people.
May no effort be spared in guaranteeing humanitarian assistance to those wounded by this terrible conflict, in particular those forced to flee and the many refugees in nearby countries. May humanitarian workers, charged with the task of alleviating the sufferings of these people, be granted access so as to provide the necessary aid.
What can we do to make peace in the world? As Pope John said, it pertains to each individual to establish new relationships in human society under the mastery and guidance of justice and love (cf. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, [11 April 1963]: AAS 55, [1963], 301-302).
All men and women of good will are bound by the task of pursuing peace. I make a forceful and urgent call to the entire Catholic Church, and also to every Christian of other confessions, as well as to followers of every religion and to those brothers and sisters who do not believe: peace is a good which overcomes every barrier, because it belongs all of humanity!
I repeat forcefully: it is neither a culture of confrontation nor a culture of conflict which builds harmony within and between peoples, but rather a culture of encounter and a culture of dialogue; this is the only way to peace.
May the plea for peace rise up and touch the heart of everyone so that they may lay down their weapons and be let themselves be led by the desire for peace.
To this end, brothers and sisters, I have decided to proclaim for the whole Church on 7 September next, the vigil of the birth of Mary, Queen of Peace, a day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria, the Middle East, and throughout the world, and I also invite each person, including our fellow Christians, followers of other religions and all men of good will, to participate, in whatever way they can, in this initiative.
On 7 September, in Saint Peter’s Square, here, from 19:00 until 24:00, we will gather in prayer and in a spirit of penance, invoking God’s great gift of peace upon the beloved nation of Syria and upon each situation of conflict and violence around the world. Humanity needs to see these gestures of peace and to hear words of hope and peace! I ask all the local churches, in addition to fasting, that they gather to pray for this intention.
Let us ask Mary to help us to respond to violence, to conflict and to war, with the power of dialogue, reconciliation and love. She is our mother: may she help us to find peace; all of us are her children! Help us, Mary, to overcome this most difficult moment and to dedicate ourselves each day to building in every situation an authentic culture of encounter and peace. Mat, Queen of Peace, pray for us!
(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis has called for a day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria, in the entire Mideast region, and throughout the whole world to be held this coming Saturday, September 7th, 2013. The Pope made the announcement during the course of remarks ahead of the traditional Angelus prayer this Sunday. Below, please find the full text of the Holy Father's Angelus appeal.
*******************************************
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Hello!
Today, dear brothers and sisters, I wish to make add my voice to the cry which rises up with increasing anguish from every part of the world, from every people, from the heart of each person, from the one great family which is humanity: it is the cry for peace! It is a cry which declares with force: we want a peaceful world, we want to be men and women of peace, and we want in our society, torn apart by divisions and conflict, that peace break out! War never again! Never again war! Peace is a precious gift, which must be promoted and protected.
There are so many conflicts in this world which cause me great suffering and worry, but in these days my heart is deeply wounded in particular by what is happening in Syria and anguished by the dramatic developments which are looming.
I appeal strongly for peace, an appeal which arises from the deep within me. How much suffering, how much devastation, how much pain has the use of arms carried in its wake in that martyred country, especially among civilians and the unarmed! I think of many children will not see the light of the future! With utmost firmness I condemn the use of chemical weapons: I tell you that those terrible images from recent days are burned into my mind and heart. There is a judgment of God and of history upon our actions which are inescapable! Never has the use of violence brought peace in its wake. War begets war, violence begets violence.
With all my strength, I ask each party in this conflict to listen to the voice of their own conscience, not to close themselves in solely on their own interests, but rather to look at each other as brothers and decisively and courageously to follow the path of encounter and negotiation, and so overcome blind conflict. With similar vigour I exhort the international community to make every effort to promote clear proposals for peace in that country without further delay, a peace based on dialogue and negotiation, for the good of the entire Syrian people.
May no effort be spared in guaranteeing humanitarian assistance to those wounded by this terrible conflict, in particular those forced to flee and the many refugees in nearby countries. May humanitarian workers, charged with the task of alleviating the sufferings of these people, be granted access so as to provide the necessary aid.
What can we do to make peace in the world? As Pope John said, it pertains to each individual to establish new relationships in human society under the mastery and guidance of justice and love (cf. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, [11 April 1963]: AAS 55, [1963], 301-302).
All men and women of good will are bound by the task of pursuing peace. I make a forceful and urgent call to the entire Catholic Church, and also to every Christian of other confessions, as well as to followers of every religion and to those brothers and sisters who do not believe: peace is a good which overcomes every barrier, because it belongs all of humanity!
I repeat forcefully: it is neither a culture of confrontation nor a culture of conflict which builds harmony within and between peoples, but rather a culture of encounter and a culture of dialogue; this is the only way to peace.
May the plea for peace rise up and touch the heart of everyone so that they may lay down their weapons and be let themselves be led by the desire for peace.
To this end, brothers and sisters, I have decided to proclaim for the whole Church on 7 September next, the vigil of the birth of Mary, Queen of Peace, a day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria, the Middle East, and throughout the world, and I also invite each person, including our fellow Christians, followers of other religions and all men of good will, to participate, in whatever way they can, in this initiative.
On 7 September, in Saint Peter’s Square, here, from 19:00 until 24:00, we will gather in prayer and in a spirit of penance, invoking God’s great gift of peace upon the beloved nation of Syria and upon each situation of conflict and violence around the world. Humanity needs to see these gestures of peace and to hear words of hope and peace! I ask all the local churches, in addition to fasting, that they gather to pray for this intention.
Let us ask Mary to help us to respond to violence, to conflict and to war, with the power of dialogue, reconciliation and love. She is our mother: may she help us to find peace; all of us are her children! Help us, Mary, to overcome this most difficult moment and to dedicate ourselves each day to building in every situation an authentic culture of encounter and peace. Mat, Queen of Peace, pray for us!
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Retired pope's secretary says 'mystical experience' story is untrue
VATICAN CITY (CNS)
Archbishop Georg Ganswein, retired Pope Benedict XVI's longtime personal secretary, said a story about the pope resigning after a "mystical experience" was completely invented.
"It was invented from alpha to omega," the archbishop said Aug. 24 in an interview on Italy's Canale 5 television news. "There is nothing true in the article."
In a report Aug. 19, the Italian service of Zenit, a Catholic news agency, said someone who had visited Pope Benedict "a few weeks ago" had asked him why he resigned. "God told me to," the retired pope was quoted as responding before "immediately clarifying that it was not any kind of apparition of phenomenon of that kind, but rather 'a mystical experience' in which the Lord gave rise in his heart to an 'absolute desire' to remain alone with him in prayer."
When Pope Benedict announced his resignation in February, he said he had done so after intense prayer and that he intended to live the rest of his life praying and studying.
Some Vatican officials and Vatican watchers were surprised by Zenit's report of Pope Benedict telling an anonymous visitor that his decision was the result of some form of extraordinary "mystical experience" rather than a decision made after long and careful thought and deep prayer. Catholics traditionally would consider that kind of intense prayer a "mystical experience," although not something extraordinary.
Explaining his decision to resign to a group of cardinals Feb. 11, Pope Benedict had said: "After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry."
He also told the cardinals that he wanted to dedicate the rest of his life to serving the church through his prayers.
Since stepping down Feb. 28, retired Pope Benedict has led a very quiet life, far from the public eye, although he did accept Pope Francis' invitation to be present July 5 for the dedication of a statue in the Vatican Gardens.
Living in a remodeled monastery in the Vatican Gardens, along with Archbishop Ganswein and four consecrated laywomen, he occasionally welcomes visitors, especially friends, former students and small groups accompanying former students. The meetings are private and rarely reported in the news.
Archbishop Georg Ganswein, retired Pope Benedict XVI's longtime personal secretary, said a story about the pope resigning after a "mystical experience" was completely invented.
"It was invented from alpha to omega," the archbishop said Aug. 24 in an interview on Italy's Canale 5 television news. "There is nothing true in the article."
In a report Aug. 19, the Italian service of Zenit, a Catholic news agency, said someone who had visited Pope Benedict "a few weeks ago" had asked him why he resigned. "God told me to," the retired pope was quoted as responding before "immediately clarifying that it was not any kind of apparition of phenomenon of that kind, but rather 'a mystical experience' in which the Lord gave rise in his heart to an 'absolute desire' to remain alone with him in prayer."
When Pope Benedict announced his resignation in February, he said he had done so after intense prayer and that he intended to live the rest of his life praying and studying.
Some Vatican officials and Vatican watchers were surprised by Zenit's report of Pope Benedict telling an anonymous visitor that his decision was the result of some form of extraordinary "mystical experience" rather than a decision made after long and careful thought and deep prayer. Catholics traditionally would consider that kind of intense prayer a "mystical experience," although not something extraordinary.
Explaining his decision to resign to a group of cardinals Feb. 11, Pope Benedict had said: "After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry."
He also told the cardinals that he wanted to dedicate the rest of his life to serving the church through his prayers.
Since stepping down Feb. 28, retired Pope Benedict has led a very quiet life, far from the public eye, although he did accept Pope Francis' invitation to be present July 5 for the dedication of a statue in the Vatican Gardens.
Living in a remodeled monastery in the Vatican Gardens, along with Archbishop Ganswein and four consecrated laywomen, he occasionally welcomes visitors, especially friends, former students and small groups accompanying former students. The meetings are private and rarely reported in the news.
How Liturgical Abuse Impacted the Family
Catholic Education Daily August 26, 2013:
The connection between the Sacred Liturgy and the family may not be the most obvious thing, but two excellent papers on this topic were delivered at the conference on Friday, June 28th
Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro Carámbula, the executive director of Human Life International’s Rome office, gave a talk on “Sacred Liturgy and the Defense of Human Life.” He stated that “a man who does not adore God in the liturgy will not be grateful to God for his greatest gift – life.” However, he spent much of his talk arguing that there was a connection between the rejection of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae and the way the reform of the Sacred Liturgy was carried out in the 1960s. In Monsignor Barreiro’s opinion, the rejection of Pope Paul’s reiteration of the Church’s teaching on contraception was at least partly the result of the radical changes that were already occurring in the liturgy.
The expectations of change in this central moral teaching were fueled by the liturgical changes or, as the Latin axiom puts it, Lex orandi, lex credendi. In other words, if the law of worship was so suddenly and radically to change, why not the law of belief?
Monsignor Barreiro also made the interesting point that the main reason to have children is “to populate heaven with more souls who will enjoy the eternal contemplation of God . . .but if the liturgy does not give us that beautiful contemplation of God, we are going to be less motivated to have children who will enjoy it.” As those of us very sensitive to the beautiful have sometimes felt – at an exceptionally bad liturgical celebration (I must add!) – “if this is supposed to be a foretaste of heaven, then I am not so sure why I would want to go there . . . . ”
Professor Miguel Ayuso, a sociologist from Spain, gave a talk entitled “Sacred Liturgy as the Heart of the Life and Mission of the Family.” His talk, which took for granted the importance of the family, touched on the nature and necessity of Christian institutions in a society. He said that “there cannot be a Christian people without Christian institutions.” His main point had to do with the tendency of contemporary thinkers, over the past fifty years or so, to criticize mere “practices” of religion.
While it is true that merely “going through the motions” is never good enough for a Christian believer, who has to worship in spirit and truth; nonetheless, there have to be“public motions” to go through. The Catholic religion is an incarnational religion, a religion that has to be manifested in the public square. It is a religion of processions, feasts and solemnities. It is neither a religion for angels nor for private individuals. It has always been a Protestant tendency to belittle the physical/communal aspect of Christian life in favor of the individual having a private relationship with the Divine.
Finally, this is where the Catholic college and its role in the liturgical formation of the students comes into play. Certainly Catholic students need to be taught right doctrine – both faith and morals – however, a non-traditional liturgy can set up a real cognitive dissonance. If the liturgy and its music change to keep up with and reflect the times, why should doctrine not change likewise? We are to be in communion with the Church not only throughout the world, but also through time. Although some might disagree, I contend that one of the best ways for a Catholic college to teach students intuitively that we believe the same things about marriage and the family as in the 12th century, is to worship in continuity with the way Catholics did in the 12th century.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
15 Major Heresies and Those Who Fought Them
Ascending Mount Carmel
July 1,
2013:
The history of the Catholic Church is full of all sorts of heresies that have assailed the truths of the faith. From the earliest days of the Gnostics and Docetists all the way down to the Jansenists and Quietists of later centuries, it seems there has never been a shortage of heretical thought.But in each age, God has brought forth great members of the faithful to combat each one. Each one gave their life in service to Christ and His Church in their own way, either as martyrs, confessors, or simply as servants to others for the sake of the love of Jesus.The following is a list of fifteen of the major heresies that the Church has faced, and the illustrious persons who stood against them.
1. Pelagianism and St. Augustine of Hippo"There is an opinion that calls for sharp and vehement resistance - I mean the belief that the power of the human will can of itself, without the help of God, either achieve perfect righteousness or advance steadily towards it."1Pelagianism radically corrupted the Church's teachings on grace, sin, and the Fall. Its namesake, the British monk Pelagius (who was startled by some of the words of St. Augustine in his Confessions), taught that the sin of Adam had no bearing on subsequent generations; essentially, man was inherently good and unaffected by the Fall. In practice, this meant that a man could come to God by his own free will, no grace needed. Many saints fought against this doctrine - St. David of Wales stands out among them especially - but it was St. Augustine of Hippo, arguably the greatest of the Latin Doctors and "the Church's mightiest champion against heresy"2, who rose to fight against this inherently venomous strand of thought.Against Pelagius, St. Augustine upheld the truth that God's grace is entirely necessary for any movement of ours towards God to occur at all. As he himself puts it, "We for our part assert that the human will is so divinely aided towards the doing of righteousness that, besides being created with the free choice of his will, and besides the teaching which instructs him how he ought to live, he receives also the Holy Spirit, through which there arises in his heart a delight in and love of that supreme and unchangeable Good which is God; and this arises even now, while he still walks by faith and not by sight."32. Gnosticism and St. Irenaeus of Lyons
"How can they say that the flesh goes to corruption and has no share in life, when it is nourished by the Lord's Body and Blood?"4Gnosticism was arguably the biggest heresy of the early Church, a Hydra-like species of varying sects and figureheads that espoused all manner of profane mysticism, asceticism, and produced many false gospels. Among its central tenets was that Christ was merely a spiritual being, and not a flesh-and-blood man, that God the Father was actually a malevolent Demiurge, and that all matter was inherently evil.The chief saint who fought Gnosticism, and dismantled all aspects of it was St. Irenaeus of Lyons. St. Irenaeus' monumental work, Adversus Haereses, is a systematic account and refutation of every Gnostic sect presumably known by St. Irenaeus at the time. He tenaciously held that Christ was God in the flesh, for if Christ was merely a phantasm, then He did not suffer and die at all. His writing is essential for understanding the heresies that assaulted the Church in the first two centuries of its existence, as well as being an incredible account of apostolic tradition up to his time.
3. Arianism and St. Athanasius"And thus, taking a body like to ours, because all men were liable to the corruption of death he surrendered it to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father..."5
Aside from the various Gnostic sects that plagued the early Church, it is Arianism that is arguably the most famous of all Christian heresies. It struck at the very root and core of Christian teaching, that Jesus was God Himself in the flesh, and relegated the person of Jesus Christ to that of a mere created thing. It lives on today in varying forms, from well-known sects like the Jehovah's Witnesses all the way to the bizarre world of Apollo Quiloboy; moreover, it still lurks within the sentences of some modern theologians who ambiguously state that Jesus is "the Christ" but no more than an exalted man.St. Athanasius of Alexandria was the walking cure for this heresy. Stubborn and unshakeable, I think it not a stretch to say at times that this great man stood alone against wave after wave of Arian attacks on the truth of the Christian faith. By emphasizing and stubbornly holding to the truth of Christ as both God and man, St. Athanasius (along with others such as St. Hilary of Poitiers) effectively ended the reign of the Arian heresy within the Church.4. Nestorianism and St. Cyril of Alexandria"Truth reveals herself plain to those who love her."6
St. Cyril of Alexandria was not known for his subtlety when it came to those who would attack the revealed truth of the Christian faith. When Nestorius arose on the scene, Pope St. Celestine I sent St. Cyril to quell the heresies spread by this man. Nestorius' error was essentially (and might I say, ironically) two-fold: the Blessed Virgin Mary was not the Mother of God but merely the Christotokos (meaning "Christ-bearer") and who also effectively claimed that Christ was really two persons accidentally united in one body (one divine, one human).
Against this, St. Cyril defended the unity of Christ's person as both God and man with a ferocity that I have personally not witnessed in writing since St. Jerome defended the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary against Helvidius in 383 AD. St. Cyril's brilliant defense of the person of Christ at the Council of Ephesus forever set up an impenetrable fortress against all those who would attack both the Incarnation and the Mother of God.5. Monothelitism and St. Maximus the Confessor"I have the faith of the Latins, but the language of the Greeks."7
Monothelitism declared that Christ had only one will (divine). Much like Monophysitism which had declared that Christ had only one nature (divine), Monothelitism is viewed by some as a compromise aimed at bringing Monophysites back to the Church. But by declaring that Christ had only a divine will, it amounted to little more than essentially stating that Jesus was not God in flesh but merely a human controlled by a divine will - Justin Holcomb of the Reformed website The Resurgence humorously describes it as "Jesus is controlled by Skynet"8.
Against this heresy arose the valiant St. Maximus the Confessor, who is to this day one of the most revered theological minds of the Christian East. His defense of the orthodox doctrine that Christ had both a human will and divine will was met with fearsome resistance - he ended up having his tongue torn out and his right hand cut off for refusing to acquiesce to the Monothelite Emperor Constans II, before being exiled and dying soon after.6. Albigensianism and St. Dominic Guzman"...his heart was well-nigh broken by the ravages of the Albigensian heresy, and his life was henceforth devoted to the conversion of heretics and the defence of the faith."9
Gnosticism again reared its ugly head in the Middle Ages, this time in the form of what was known as Albigensianism. With its dualist worldview and inherent dislike for the Church due to corruption within her own ranks among the clergy, Albigensianism began to attract an incredibly large following, divided into the "perfect" and "believers." Though often romanticized nowadays due to the revival of interest in Gnostic ideas and history within the New Age movement, from my point of view, it was anything but. In fact, it was alarming in its view of all matter as evil - suicide by starvation was encouraged among its members, in order to free the soul from the body. In fact, when a run-of-the-mill "believer" was given the spiritual baptism whilst seriously ill and/or dying, and happened to recover somehow, they were "as often as not smothered or starved to death (endura) in order to assure [their] salvation,"10 because only once could this ritual be performed.
Though the Cistercian order had been enlisted to combat this heresy, its success was minimal at best. St. Dominic instead founded the Order of Preachers, because in all practicality "what was needed was a new policy with missioners travelling in poverty, but well-equipped intellectually to deal with the errors in a charitable but effective way."11 The accounts surrounding his battles against the heresy of the Cathari (as the Albigensians were also known) are incredible - his staying up all night in discussion with an Albigensian innkeeper in order to save his soul, the Virgin Mary's arming him with the Holy Rosary, his singing hymns aloud along the roads where Cathari assassins lay in wait to murder him (much to their astonishment!), his only book that he carried being a copy of the Gospel of St. Matthew. It is even said of the Dominicans that "Our Lady took them under her special protection, and whispered to St. Dominic as he preached."12Though the murder of a papal legate by the Albigensians sparked a massacre in the form of the Albigensian Crusade, "Dominic himself took no part in the violence of the crusaders."13 In the end, due to his zeal for, love of, and devotion to Christ, "he revived the the courage of the Catholic troops, led them to victory against overwhelming numbers, and finally crushed the heresy."147. Latin Averroism and St. Thomas Aquinas
"This then is what we have written to destroy the error mentioned, using the arguments and teachings of the philosophers themselves, not the documents of faith. If anyone glorying in the name of false science wishes to say anything in reply to what we have written, let him not speak in corners nor to boys who cannot judge of such arduous matters, but reply to this in writing, if he dares. He will find that not only I, who am the least of men, but many others zealous for the truth, will resist his error and correct his ignorance."15
One does not exactly hear of the movement known as Latin Averroism too much these days. But it was indeed a kind of heresy, if you will, a school of thought that attacked the truth of Christian dogma and belief at its core. Influenced by the Islamic philosopher Averroes (Ibn Rushd, labelled by the Scholastics as "the Commentator" due to his extensive commentaries on Aristotle), the Averroist Scholastics taught a kind of double truth. For the Averroist, something that was true in religion and theology could be at the same time false in philosophy and practicality. Mixed in with this paradoxical notion of "true and not true at the same time", the Averroists also held that the world had always existed, and that there was only one collective soul in humanity.Against this school of thought, St. Thomas Aquinas rose like a mighty fortress to protect Holy Mother Church. Instead of outright dismissing the thought of Aristotle like some (due to its being associated with this new movement in thought, as well as some of Aristotle's ideas themselves), St. Thomas Aquinas answered the Averroists by using Aristotle himself. With precision and common sense, the Angelic Doctor pointed out the corruptions in the translations of Aristotle used by the Arab philosophers, corrected abuses of Aristotle's thought, and harmonized faith and reason rather than separating them into two spheres of truth. All in a day's work for one of the greatest minds the Church has ever known.8. Calvinism and St. Francis de Sales
"In fact I thought that as you will receive no other law for your belief than that interpretation of the Scripture which seems to you the best, you would hear also the interpretation that I should bring, viz., that given by the Apostolic Roman Church, which hitherto you have not had except perverted and quite disfigured and adulterated by the enemy, who well knew that had you seen it in its purity, never would you have abandoned it."16
In the inital aftermath of the Reformation, the varying schools of Protestantism had begun to take root. But none had shown themselves to be as staunch in resisting the Catholic faith as the followers of John Calvin. Though he makes extensive use of the thought of St. Augustine, he does so with hardly any reference to the rest of the Fathers (even a cursory glance at an index in a copy of his magnum opus, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, shows this), ignoring "all that Catholic foundation on which the Doctor of Grace built."17
Enter St. Francis de Sales. Only 27 years old at the time, he was sent into one of the most anti-Catholic regions of all, the Chablais, wherein Calvinism had especially fortified itself. To do so was to invite being despised, rejected, misunderstood, threatened, and turned away. In many respects, St. Francis' missions to the Calvinists call to mind the words of St. Paul himself - "I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure on me of concern for all the churches. Who is weak without my being weak? Who is led into sin without my intense concern?" (2 Cor. 11:26-29)With the Calvinist population staunchly refusing to listen to his words, St. Francis began to write and distribute pamphlets on the truth of the Catholic faith. These writings were compiled later on into one work, probably the greatest apologetic work against Protestant objections ever penned - Les Controverses. Known as "the gentleman saint", St. Francis' untiring love for souls (especially seen in his other great work, Introduction to the Devout Life), his knowledge of the faith and history, and his incredible ability to adapt and endure all manner of obstacles and hardship sent against him make him arguably the greatest of the Doctors who went forth against the errors of Calvinism.9. Monophysitism and Pope St. Leo the Great
"Keep your hearts free, my beloved, from poisonous lies inspired by the devil."18
Monophysitism was essentially the opposite of the Nestorian heresy mentioned above; where Nestorius emphasized that in Christ "there was both a human hypostasis or person and a divine"19, the Monophysite heresy declared that Christ had only one nature, that His humanity was absorbed into His divinity. While the heresy of Nestorius was largely vanquished twenty years earlier by St. Cyril of Alexandria at the Council of Ephesus, it was Pope St. Leo the Great who arose to do battle with the heresy of Eutyches and the Monophysites.Against Monophysitism, he taught the truth of the two natures of Christ (human and divine), saying of Christ that "we could not overcome the author of sin and death, unless He had taken our nature and made it his own..."20. "After three years of unceasing toil, Leo brought about its solemn condemnation by the Council of Chalcedon, the fathers all signing his tome, and exclaiming, 'Peter hath spoken by Leo.'"2110. Iconoclasm and St. John of Damascus"Conquest is not my object. I raise a hand that is fighting for the truth - a willing hand under the divine guidance."22
Iconoclasm, the rejection of the use of religious imagery in worship (icons, statuary, and even extending to the use of candles, incense, etc.) had a complicated history. In the early centuries, it was to be found amongst the heretical Paulician and Nestorian camps, but it was also espoused by some within the Church (including, very early on, St. Epiphanius of Salamis who "fell into some mistakes on certain occasions, which proceeded from zeal and simplicity."23). Moreover, the heresy of Iconoclasm found much of its influence and fuel in the rise of Islam, which was fiercely opposed to the use of imagery in worship.The chief heretic in this struggle was Emperor Leo II the Isaurian, who issued an edict forbidding the use of imagery in religious worship. St. John Damascene, considered the last of the Greek Fathers and the first of the Scholastics, immediately set to work defending the use of imagery by Christians since the earliest centuries of the Church. St. John was arrested by the Emperor, and (much like St. Maximus the Confessor) had his right hand severed as a punishment for his resistance to the heresy by way of his writings. Iconoclasm was eventually condemned by the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, but was resurrected again in the Protestant Reformation.11. Jansenism and St. Alphonsus de Liguori"He who does not acquire the love of God will scarcely persevere in the grace of God, for it is very difficult to renounce sin merely through fear of chastisement."24
The errors of Calvinism were not only to be found within the Protestant realm, but within the Church too did they take root as well. This Catholic/Calvinist hybrid was founded by the theologian Cornelius Jansen, who, like Calvin, took the writings of St. Augustine and ran with them to the most extreme conclusions. A species of ridiculous moral rigorism and religious fear spread its shadows over the Church. It discouraged frequent Holy Communion, espoused a form of moral perfectionism as being arequirement to even receive the Eucharist at all. So successful was its influence that it even found adherents in such brilliant Catholic minds as Blaise Pascal.
Many great men and women stood firm against the pessimistic theology and destructive results of Jansenist doctrine, but it was St. Alphonsus de Liguori's writings and thought which effectively sounded the death-knell of this particular form of heresy. Against the rigorism and fear espoused by Jansenism, St. Alphonsus encouraged frequent Holy Communion as a remedy for sin as long as one was not in a state of mortal sin, and developed a finely-tuned moral theology that became the standard textbook of all Catholic moral theology since. He is to this day not only revered as a Doctor of the Church and founder of the Redemptorist order, but as the most excellent of teachers on the subject of Catholic morality.
12. Brethren of the Free Spirit and Bl. John of Ruysbroeck"This is that Wayless Being which all fervent interior spirits have chosen above all things, that dark stillness in which all lovers lose their way. If we could prepare ourselves through virtue in the ways I have shown, we would at once strip ourselves of our bodies and flow into the wild waves of the Sea, from which no creature could ever draw us back."25
The heresy of the Brethren of the Free Spirit is not one that much heard of these days, but its influence is more widespread than is commonly known. Finding its beginnings in the Beguine and Beghard movement in the 13th and 14th centuries, this heretical movement found major inspiration in the sermons and writings of Meister Eckhart (though he himself denied any involvement with the movement). Emphasizing a form of indifference to salvation (a kind of proto-quietism), union with God in this life, and attacking the sacraments of the Church, this mystically-charged heresy began to spread itself all about central Europe.Though some of the followers of Meister Eckhart himself (especially Bl. Henry Suso) either denied involvement with the Free Spirit movement and/or attempted to correct its teachings and combatted its influence with that of orthodox mysticism within the bounds of the Church, it was the greatest of the Flemish mystics, Bl. John of Ruysbroeck, that led the charge against this particular brand of mystical heresy.The life of Bl. John is a fascinating one to peruse - spending much of his time in prayer and contemplation in the Sonian Forest near Groenendaal, his concern for the welfare of souls being led astray by the quietistic Free Spirit movement was such that he began to engage in open theological combat with them. His writings are some of the best ever penned on the Holy Trinity, as well as on the mystical life. Instead of writing linguistically remote treatises that could never be accessed by the average person at the time, Bl. John wrote many pamphlets in the vernacular that defended the faith against heretical attacks by such Free Spirit figureheads as Bloemardinne. By emphasizing the deepest aspects of mysticism within Church orthodoxy, he effectively brought about the end of this movement, though not without being persecuted intensely by adherents of this heresy.13. Modernism and Pope St. Pius X"That We make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man."26
Modernism is quite possibly the most controversial heresy mentioned on this list, because we are indeed, right up to this very moment, still in the throes of it. As for my own view, it seems to me to be the most ambiguous and chameleon-like of all heresies, and it can often be hard to pinpoint exactly where it is entrenched or where it has already passed through and damaged the faith.Modernism seems to have had its beginnings, somewhat officially, in the 19th century. Figures such as Maurice Blondel, George Tyrrell, Alfred Loisy, Friedrich von Hugel and many others are considered major figures within the movement within the Catholic Church; in Protestantism, I would argue that much of it was to be found initially in the thought of Friedrich Schleiermacher.The words of the modernist thinkers themselves is especially startling - Alfred Loisy wrote that "Christ has even less importance in my religion than he does in that of the liberal Protestants: for I attach little importance to the revelation of God the Father for which they honor Jesus. If I am anything in religion, it is more pantheist-positivist-humanitarian than Christian."27Its effects are highly destructive - central to it is the idea that the truths of the Christian religion must be subjected to Enlightenment-style rationalism, relativism and secularism. The truths of the ancient faith are viewed as outmoded, and consequently subjected to rigorous demythologization. Additionally, the notion of the evolution of dogma effectivelly brought to bear a devastating assault on the truths of the Christian religion.The effects of a modernistic viewpoint are seen to this day in much theological thought, both Protestant and Catholic, in the writings of many major thinkers such as Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx, Rudolf Bultmann, Karl Rahner, and a whole host of others. The status of whether many theologians and writers are actually modernistic is a hotly-debated topic.
On the Protestant end of it, it was resisted mightily by the Reformed theologian Karl Barth, especially in his clarion call against liberal theology entitled The Epistle to the Romans. Though beforehand, the Syllabus of Errors of 1864 and the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII entitled Providentissimus Deus had begun to defend the Church against Modernism, it was the great Pope St. Pius X who arose as the greatest defender of the Church by warning of modernism's threat to the faith.
Calling it the "synthesis of all heresies"28, Pope St. Pius X released Lamentaboli Sane(Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernist) and his monumental encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis against the modernist school of thought. Reading the work is a frightening wake-up call to the insidious nature of the heresy itself - unlike the dangerous yet frankly clumsy assaults of earlier heresies upon the faith such as Arianism and Montanism, Modernism was said to have infected the Church from the inside. One is reminded of a deadly illness more than an attack.
Pope St. Pius X also wrote the famed Oath Against Modernism which was required to be sworn to by clergy and others in the Church, and sought to warn the faithful before it was too late. Much work was done to extinguish modernist trends of thought within the Church thanks to this most venerable and saintly Pope, and to this day, he remains the most important saint to have ever fought against the poisonous infections of the movement.
14. Origenism and St. Methodius of Olympus
"Shun not, man, a spiritual hymn, nor be ill-disposed to listen to it. Death belongs not to it; a story of salvation is our song."29
Without a doubt, the Alexandrian theologian Origen was the greatest mind of the early Church. Many of the great saints of the early Church were enthralled by his brilliance and his devotion - I would make mention of St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. John Cassian especially. Even St. Jerome, who became a bitter opponent of Origen's thought later on, still held him to be one of the most admirable and brilliant minds the Church had yet known. St. Francis de Sales and St. Elizabeth Schonau, writing many centuries later, also spoke of his great services to the Church.Nevertheless, some of the thought of Origen was exceedingly problematic. Being one of the first theologians proper of the early Church, he was prone to stumble when going too far deep into the truths of the faith. His tendency to over-allegorize, his teachings on the pre-existence of souls, amongst other things, ended up getting him into trouble later on.But, in all fairness to Origen, there is a huge difference between the man and what later came to be known as "Origenism". Origenism took latent elements in the experimental and speculative thought of Origen and often ran with it, much in the same manner, I would argue, as such men as John Calvin and Cornelius Jansen had done with the thought of St. Augustine.Several saints began to criticize Origenism as such, notably St. Jerome and St. Epiphanius of Salamis. But the first to systematically attack the errors in Origen's thought was one St. Methodius of Olympus. Himself well-trained in Platonist philosophy as well as the theology of the Church, St. Methodius vigorously critiqued the major errors in the thought of the great Alexandrian, including the eternity of the world and certain teachings of his on the resurrection. Though a devoted opponent of the thought of Origen, it is interesting to note that he still recognized his service to the Church.The errors of Origenism were finally condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 AD, though The New Catholic Encyclopedia promulgated under the pontificate of Pope Pius XI says that "it is not proved that he incurred the anathema of the Church at the Fifth General Council."
15. Religious Indifferentism and Pope Pius XI
"For 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. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it."31
Religious indifferentism is, in essence, a kind of sub-species of modernism. It undermines the truth of the Catholic Church as the one true Church founded by Christ, and essentially states that it is a matter of indifference which church one belongs to. In many ways, it amounts to what might be termed "pan-Christianity".Against this notion, Pope Pius XI wrote the encyclical entitled Mortalium Animos, which again underlined that the Catholic Church was the Ark of Salvation, and attacked the idea of a kind of watered-down pan-Christian collective of churches. All that it amounts to, in essence, is a unity based upon false ecumenism, a kind of "whatever" pseudo-Christianity. This religious indifferentism essentially espouses the notion that "Controversies... and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers."32
Though many had condemned religious indifferentism beforehand (Pope Leo XIII, Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Benedict XV, as well as the 1864 Syllabus of Errors), it was Pope Pius XI who decisively defended the Church against it, quoting the early Church Father Lactantius: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."33
1 - The Spirit and the Letter, IV
2 - Butler's Lives of the Saints, "St. Augustine of Hippo", 1894 edition
3 - The Spirit and the Letter, V
4 - Against the Heresies, IV:18:5
5 - On the Incarnation, VIII
6 - Second Letter to Succensus, I
7 - From here.
8 - From here.
9 - Butler's Lives of the Saints, "St. Dominic", 1894 edition
10 - Rev. John Laux, Church History, IV:1
11 - David Farmer, Oxford Dictionary of Saints, "Dominic", pg. 146
12 - Butler's Lives of the Saints, "St. Dominic", 1894 edition
13 - David Farmer, Oxford Dictionary of Saints, "Dominic", pg. 146
14 - ibid.
15 - De Unitate Intellectus Contra Averroistas, 124
16 - The Catholic Controversy, "Author's General Introduction"
17 - William Barry, The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Calvinism"
18 - "Sermon 28", VI
19 - The New Catholic Dictionary, "Monophysites and Monophysitism"
20 - Ep. xxviii, II
21 - Butler's Lives of the Saints, "St. Leo the Great", 1894 edition
22 - On Holy Images, I
23 - Butler's Lives of the Saints, "St. Epiphanius of Salamis", 1894 edition
24 - From here.
25 - The Spiritual Espousals, found here.
26 - Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 2
27 - Memoires II, pg. 397
28 - Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 39
29 - Concerning Free Will
30 - The New Catholic Encyclopedia, "Origenism"
31 - Mortalium Animos, 10
32 - ibid., 7
33 - Lactantius, Divine Institutes, IV:30:11-12, cf. Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 11
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)