A weekly presentation of News, Information, Readings and Commentary for traditional Roman Catholics and Catholic Families remaining faithful to the teaching Magisterium as held by all faithful Catholics through the centuries.
Vol 7 Issue 34 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
August 23, 2014 ~Saint Philip Benizi, opn!
1. In Defense of the Faith, Chapter 31
2. Eleventh Sunday after Pentecost—Benedict Baur, O.S.B.
3. Saint Bartholomew, Apostle
4. The Christian Family (17)
5. Articles and notices
Dear Reader:
This month of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, instituted to express approbation of the apparitions in Fatima and the Mass authorized to be said as a votive Mass on the First Saturdays, brings us to the love of a mother for her child. There are two articles to show how much Satan hates motherhood and the ability of a mother to love her child. Richard Dawkins—he thinks, as an evolutionist, that humans are “mistakes” that survived as “the fittest”—that “mistakes” should be killed and that the mother should murder her own child, that is, cease to be a mother. Richard Dawkins should recognize he is a “mistake” according to his own definition and that therefore he is mistaken. As for California, normal people should recognize what happens when the state or country you live in is pagan: It will demand child sacrifice and force all its citizens to participate in its services to its demon.
Our Lady at Fatima warned that it was sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that brings most souls to perdition and why Catholics should be especially careful to safeguard the virtue of chastity so as not to be possessed with the demon of impurity.
As always, enjoy the readings and commentaries provided for your benefit. —The Editor
A Battle for the Catholic Faith
September 11, 1683
We Came. We saw. God Conquered!
Venimus. Vidimus. Deus Vincit!
September 12, 1683
King Jan Sobieskie’s words sent to Pope Innocent XI on conquering the Mohammedan besiegers.
Chapter 31
The Enemy Raises its Head to be Crushed
Last Catholic Crusades
The Ottomans, and, in general, the Mohammedans, cooperating with the Protestants and the French against the Catholics, would find themselves eventually defeated by these same powers. England, the Dutch and the French would not just gain the Portuguese and Spanish trade ports with Mohammedan support, but the English, Dutch and French would eventually also take control over much of the Orient and Africa from the Mohammedans with a superior fleet and weaponry.
The Ottomans seemed to have been occupied with the Safavids, for after the defeat of Osman II and the re-instatement of Mustafa I the Safavids invaded the Ottoman Empire. Murad IV (1623-40) was able to retake both the territory lost to the Shia and bring the government of the empire into his control, even though he began reigning at the age of eleven. He was succeeded in 1640 by Ibrahim I (1640-48), who was unstable. Mustafa Pasha, the Grand Vizier responsible for taking Baghdad and defeating the Safavids under Murad IV, virtually ruled the Ottoman Empire and brought stability. The harem women of Ibrahim, unable to dominate while Mustafa Pasha was Grand Vizier, were able to have Mustafa Pasha assassinated in the first month of 1644. When a convoy of merchant ships, underwritten by the harem women, was captured by the Knights of Malta, the women wanted revenge upon the Christians. Ibrahim had to be convinced that vengeance should only fall on the Venetian possession of Crete, where the Knights took shelter and sold the goods. This would begin a series of wars that would be the beginning of the end of the Ottoman Empire. The battles and siege of Crete would last from 1645-1669. Venice would become a lasting power against the Ottomans, joining in the efforts of the Pope to break the Ottoman stronghold, despite losing Candia (Venetian name for the main city of Crete).
Under Mehmet Pasha, the deposed Grand Vizier after Mustafa Pasha, a fleet was sent to Crete, though the Venetians were told it was destined for Malta. The Venetians, knowing the Greek Cretans would not support the Latin Catholics, began asking for support and used every Venetian resource for fighting against the Turks who arrived on the 23 June, 1645, with over 50,000 troops and 416 vessels. The French (under the papal banner—the French were also in league with the Ottomans and didn’t want to be exposed as also fighting against them) and Papal forces with the Knights of Malta (mainly French) came to their defense.
The Turks landed without any opposition (the Venetians believed the Ottoman agents that the ships were headed for Malta), for the local militia ran from the site fifteen miles from Canea. The first attempt to take a fortress brought the defenders, facing the formidable sight of the Turk fleet, to detonate the powder stored within its walls, bringing the fortress and it occupants to rubble. It took the Ottomans 56 days to take Canea, which fell on the 22 August. By this time help started arriving for the Latins on the Island.
The Christian forces were not well managed and the Turks were able to repel their attacks from the sea. When the Turks continued their advance in June of 1646, they were finally able to take Retimo in October. By 1647 the eastern half of the island was under Turkish control. At the same time the plague broke out, decimating the Venetians and the local population. The Turks were able to take the rest of the Island except a few fortifications and the city of Candia by 1648. It would take twenty years for the Turks to take the city, while the Venetian fleet attempted blockades and attacking the Ottoman positions in the Dardanelles. The blockade was unsuccessful for the local Greek populace provided the Ottoman army with provisions; nor were the Venetians strong enough to break through the Ottoman defenses along the Dardanelles. The constant haranguing of the Turkish convoys did prolong the siege of Candia and raised Christian consciousness of the threat of the Mohammedans.
Murad IV (1648-93) replaced his father Ibrahim, who had been murdered for his insanity (he had condemned to death each Grand Vizier he had chosen by the end of almost each year and chaos was starting to unfold in the Empire—and probably no one wanted to be Grand Vizier.) In 1656, at the age of fourteen, Murad chose the capable Köprülü Fazıl Ahmed Pasha as Vizier in directing the Cretan War.
With some victories in the Cretan war, Murad sent Köprülü Pasha to Transylvania to put down the rebellion by George Rákóczi. Rákóczi had joined the Swedish in 1656 in an attempt to take over Poland, but without the Sultan’s approbation. As George Rákóczi was defeated by the Polish-Lithuanian forces of king John Casimir II in 1657 at the Battle of Czarny Ostrow, the Sultan demanded his removal as ruler over Transylvania. Rákóczi returned to Transylvania to reclaim his title but the Turks under Köprülü Pasha invaded Transylvania and Rákóczi, mortally wounded at the Battle of Gilǎu, died in May 1660. Transylvania was now under the direct rule of the Ottomans and the Hapsburgs knew that the loss of Transylvania to the Turks would make an attack on Vienna and the Holy Roman Empire more imminent. Leopold was forced to askPope Alexander VII (1655-67) to call for a crusade.
Meanwhile, the Turks moved westward, and took the fortress of Nové Zámsky in 1663, which had not been able to be taken before because of its unique star shape (which may be seen similar at the fortress at San Augustine, Florida) that allowed cross fire on those attacking. Now south-eastern Slovakia was under Ottoman control, with the Ottomans on both sides of the Danube River. They continued pillaging Slovakia, Moravia and enslaved a large number of inhabitants as they continued toward Olomouc.
Leopold I (1658-1705) was provided by even the Protestant rulers support, aware that the Turks were now at their borders. Louis XIV agreed to also support Leopold, but Leopold did not trust the motive of Louis XIV and only allowed 6000 French troops under Coligny and de la Feuillade.
Louis XIV yielded to the prayers of the sovereign pontiff, and sent to Rome an ambassador charged to announce to his holiness, that he entered into the confederation of the Christian princes. On the other side, the states of the Germanic empire, which were the allies of France, assembled at Frankfort, and engaged to raise money and troops, promising to unite their efforts with those of the French monarch, for the defence of Christendom.
This generous forwardness on the part of the king of France and his allies merited, no doubt, the gratitude of Leopold ; but, what is difficult to be believed, the zeal they showed for the common cause, and which exceeded what was first hoped for, only awakened the jealous uneasiness of the emperor. We have even reason to think that this uneasiness extended to the sovereign pontiff; for his holiness welcomed the propositions of Louis XIV very coldly; and when the resolutions of the Germanic body reached Rome, Alexander received with indifference news for which any other pope, say the memoirs of the time, would not have failed to go and return solemn thanks in the church of St. Peter or of St. John of the Lateran. The king of France could not dissemble his surprise; and in a letter, which he caused to be written to his ambassador, are these remarkable words: “For the rest, it is more an affair of his holiness than ours; it will suffice for his majesty, for own satisfaction and his duty toward God, to have made all the advances with respect to this league, that a king, the eldest son of the Church, and the principal defender of religion, could do in a danger imminent for Christendom.” (Michaud, 233)
Leopold left Vienna for safety further within his empire, while the Western European forces were gathering to stop the Turks in Hungary.
Grand Vizier Köprülü was moving north through Croatia with his army of over 100,000 troops and used the large army to also take fortifications built to protect the region from the Turks. Novi Zrin was one such fortification and the Turks began the siege in June of 1664. When Ban Nikola Zrinski with his 3000 Croats and Germans knew he could no longer hold out—it was the purpose of defending the fort only as a delay tactic while the League was gathering and preparing to meet the Ottomans—he fled to Saint Gotthard and join the main forces. Köprülü had the fortifications of Novi Zrin completely level in rage over the heroic defense these Christians offered and their escape. It weakened both the strength and morale of the Turk forces.
Köprülü then led his forces through Hungary toward the Austrian border to meet the League under Raimondo Montecuccoli. Montecuccoli had already been involved in many heroic and victorious battles during the Thirty Year’s War and against George Rákóczi during the Deluge, or the Swedish invasion of Poland assisted by the Transylvanians (which started the present Hapsburg-Ottoman War from 1663-1664).
The League had troops from the Imperial army (under Montecuccoli and Prince Leopold of Baden), Germany (under Wolfgang Julius von Hohenlohe and Georg Friedrich of Waldeck) and French (under Coligny) of a total of not more than 30,000. The Ottomans, under Köprülü Fazıl Ahmed, numbered to about 150,000.
On 1 August 1664, the met the Turkish forces on the Hungarian side of the river Raab, near a monastery called Saint Gotthard. The division of command initially gave the Turks an advantage beyond their numbers. Montecuccoli was able to convince Coligny and Leopold of Baden to regroup and attack en force the Turks. This massive drive put the Turks in the front into panic, turning back on its own forces and preventing Köprülü from continuing to engage. Many of his men drowned as they tried to again cross the Raab River. The Turks lost more than 20,000 men, while the League lost a few more than a thousand.
Instead of pursuing the Turks, Montecuccoli held back. The Croats were furious and even more so when the Emperor signed a Treaty that contained a Truce of twenty years, a promise not to rebuild Novi Zrin and kept the Ottomans in possession practically everything they had just gained since George Rákóczi was defeated. In defense of the Emperor (seemingly a weak ruler), there was the fear that France had ulterior motives for wanting to send its forces (Carlos II of Spain was heirless and it would allow France to enter Spain to claim title if he died)—though it was the French who saved the day—, there were the numerically superior forces of the Ottomans (though most of the elite troops had been killed), still over 100,000 strong, and there was the delay that would allow the Emperor to build up his army to meet the Ottomans in another battle.
The Magnates, the Ban of Croatia Nikola Zrinski, with Counts Petar Zrinski and Fran Krsto Frankopan and the Hungarian Count Ferenc Wesselényi sought to free themselves of Hapsburg authority and engaged in obtaining support from France, Sweden, Poland-Lithuania and Venice. Venice would inform the Imperial Court of the Conspiracy that would bring these heroes to be sternly warned—as they had done such great service; but in 1670 they were again brought to trial for continuing the revolt against the Empire and were beheaded.
The Treaty of Vasvár allowed the Ottomans to return to Crete to complete the conquest of the Island. The Venetians and Christians from Europe attempted time after time to regain Canea, but failed. The last attempt in 1666, also failed and now it was a matter of how long the Venetians could hold on to Candia with the return of Köprülü Fazıl Ahmed Pasha and his recruits returning from the Battle of St. Gotthard (Despite their rout by the Christians, the Mohammedans considered themselves the victors). A French attempt on July of 1669 to break the siege of Candia failed when the flagship exploded in harbor by an accident. The remaining French returned back to France. This tragedy, along with scarcity of supplies, brought the Captain General Francesco Morosini, commander of Venetian forces, and his remaining 3,600 men to accept terms and surrender to Köprülü on the 27 September 1669. Clement IX (1667-69) had tried to bring Christian Europe to its rescue and sent enormous sums of money to support the defenders. The news of its fall, after a gallant resistance of twenty years, hastened the pope’s death. (Loughlin, article Clement IX)
This conquest revived the courage of the Turks, and their power, sustained by the genius of Kiouprouli, whom the Mussulmans called the great destroyer of the bells of impiety, might have still rendered themselves formidable to the Christian nations, if their policy had not been governed by a foolish pride. Intoxicated with some trifling successes, the Turks resumed their project of invading Germany. Towards the end of the seventeenth century, they made a last attempt, and the capital of Austria beheld beneath its walls an army of two hundred thousand infidels. (Michaud, 235)
(To be continued)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
WEEK OF ELEVENTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST
Benedict Baur, O.S.B.
Holy Baptism
1. “He hath done all things well; He hath made both the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak” (Gospel). Thus rejoicing, the Church never wearies of gratefully recognizing what the Lord did for her and her children in the sacrament of baptism. If we do not belong to Him, we are deaf and dumb; if we do belong to Him, however, our ears are opened and we speak right. “I will extol Thee, O Lord, for Thou hast upheld me” (Offertory).
2. “He hath made the deaf to hear.” Before we had been received into Christ’s life, we had an ear only for the voice of our fallen nature, of our self-love, and of the world. Searching for the things that please the natural man, our thoughts and feelings were according to those of men of the world: we knew only the natural struggle for existence. We were deaf to God, for our ears were not attuned to the things that are God’s. When He restored the power of hearing to us who were deaf, we became Christians and listened attentively for the voice from above, for the whisperings of God dwelling within us, and for the inspirations of the Holy Spirit. From then on we understood the language of God. We came to look at life from the viewpoint of God and the gospel; we suddenly realized that the wisdom of this world and its judgment and principles are foolishness, and that the ideals that the world despises and condemns are true wisdom in the sight of God. “The wisdom of the flesh is an enemy to God” (Rom. 8:7). “The Lord chose not them [men of renown], neither did they find the way of knowledge… And because they had not wisdom, they perished through their folly” (Bar. 3:27 f.). He gave us the spirit of wisdom and understanding of the things that are God’s. We therefore count earthly things for nothing; we bear with patience the vicissitudes and sufferings of life. Our foremost desire is to be united with God, who dwells, loves, and works within us, to listen to His inspirations and suggestions, and to draw ever nearer to our heavenly goal. “Rejoice to God our helper; sing aloud to the God of Jacob” (Gradual).
“He hath made… the dumb to speak.” While we were yet separated from Christ and His life, the Lord loosed our tongue in the sacrament of baptism and united us to Himself. From now on we are allowed to approach the Father as children. “You have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15). The word of the prophet is fulfilled in us through baptism: “I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and of prayers” (Zach. 12: 10). United with Christ, we may speak to the Father with confidence, but even more: as the deaf and dumb man in the Gospel “spoke right,” we likewise have been granted the grace of speaking to the Father in a manner that is pleasing to Him. Since the Lord has united us with Himself, He makes our prayers a part of His intercessions with the Father; thus we pray and speak to the Father in Christ, with Christ, and through Christ. It is not our voice, however, which the Father hears; it is rather the voice of Him in whom He is well pleased. We pray in the name of Jesus (John 14: 13); that is, in closest unity with Him and through Him. When we pray and speak to the Father, the word of the Lord is fulfilled: “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you” (John 15:7). We have no reason to fear that our praying and speaking will not please the Father, for we pray in Jesus Christ. The power of our prayer is the result of our baptism, of our union with Christ. “He hath made… the dumb to speak.”
3. “I will extol Thee, O Lord, for Thou hast upheld me and hast not made my enemies to rejoice over me” (Offertory). The sacrifice of today’s Mass must be a sacrifice of thanksgiving to Him who has cured us in baptism and has poured out His gifts to us in abundance. “Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.”
“God in His holy place; God who maketh men of one mind to dwell in a house; He shall give power and strength to His people” (Introit). These words taken from the sixty-seventh psalm are a hymn of triumph, the triumph of the Church. God’s place is heaven, whither He will lead us, His people, with wonderful power and strength. Though the road will pass through the desert of this earthly life, and enemies will oppress us from all sides, He will be our protection. The Lord bestows unity, perfection, and strength on His Church. Through baptism we have become members of God’s people. In the Mass let us again profess our fidelity to Him. In communion with Him we shall find the right way to heaven under His loving protection and guidance.
PRAYER
O almighty and eternal God, who in the abundance of Thy loving kindness art wont to give beyond the deserts and desires of those who humbly pray; pour down upon us Thy mercy, forgiving us those things of which our conscience is afraid, and granting us those blessings which we dare not presume to ask. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Our faith
1. “God in His holy place; God who maketh men of one mind to dwell in a house” (Introit). The Lord guides those who are of one mind towards their eternal destiny in His Father’s house. You are “one body and one spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:4 f.): the unity of God’s Church is founded on the unity of the faith (Epistle).
2. “I make known unto you the gospel which I preached to you” (Epistle). The Apostle wishes to assure the Corinthians: You have accepted the gospel; you stand by it staunchly; you want to keep it, thus saving your souls; but if it does not lead you to eternal happiness, you have accepted it in vain. “I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day” (Epistle). The whole structure of our faith depends on the fact of Christ’s resurrection. What leads us to heaven and matters most of all is our faith. We must have blind faith in the gospel as preached by the apostles and announced to us by the Church. There is but “one faith.” In this matter the Church admits no different opinion. What God has revealed to us and what Christ the Lord in His gospel or through His apostles and His Church has required us to believe, we must accept with unquestioning faith. Reason must give its assent to supernatural truth. As children of the Church we give our assent, even in the twentieth century, to the immutable teachings of God, of Christ, and of His Church. We accept the sacraments, Holy Scripture, belief in eternal life and the resurrection, just as did the early Christians of Jerusalem and Rome, of Corinth and Ephesus, of Philippi and Thessalonia. There is no difference between our faith today and the faith of antiquity, when persecution made so many glorious martyrs. It is the same faith whether it is preached to the people of Europe, America, Africa, or Australia; there is but one creed in all the languages of the world, one Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto, which the Church confesses with all her children everywhere. To those who are of one mind the Lord gives a dwelling in His holy place in heaven. In this one faith of the Church, if we accept it, we shall gain life eternal, providing that we live up to it after the manner preached to us by Christ and His apostles. The one faith of the Church is, therefore, the only way to our Father’s house.
“You stand . . . in the gospel which I preached to you” (Epistle). In today’s Epistle the Church expresses her concern that we stand in the faith which we once accepted and to which we swore fidelity at our baptism. In the ages of faith Catholics felt as safe in their faith as a child walking at the side of its mother. To them God’s existence admitted no doubt; He was near at hand like an earthly father. Christ with His saints was near at hand like a friend and brother; the Church had a place in their everyday life, and they loved her like a mother. The will of God was the law written in their hearts, and consequently the dawn of eternity beckoned to them like the warm sun on a serene spring day. The supernatural world was almost as familiar to them as this world.
Today, however, the whole world fights against our faith. Sometimes Christ is dismissed as a myth; sometimes God is looked upon as a fiction of human whims and desires. In some places the Church is considered a natural development growing out of the combination of Greek culture, Roman imperialism, oriental mysticism, and medieval piety; in other places divine providence is confused with chance and fate. A “new faith” is promulgated, calling into doubt the immortality of the soul and many other doctrines fundamental to Christianity. This “new faith” has so dominated modern thinking and modern education that he who accepts the creed of the apostles and the Church is opposed by the world. Our Catholic faith demands of us character, sacrifice, and heroism. If we seek the approval of the multitude, if we wish to be considered liberal, educated, and modern, we must renounce our faith, for it is out of fashion. Whoever wishes to keep his faith in our day must be a hero ready to withstand the secularism and atheism which pervades the modern world. The Christian of our time has become a martyr; he is a victim of prejudice, persecution, and contempt. Not without reason the Apostle admonishes us in the Epistle to stand in “the gospel which I preached to you.”
3. “I make known unto you the gospel which I preached to you,… and wherein you stand” (Epistle). These words implore us to stand firm in our faith and to live according to it. For “what shall it profit, my brethren, if man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?” (Jas. 2:14.) “Everyone therefore that shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32 f.).
We are men of one mind and of one faith in our devotion to the Church. It is her office to teach us the faith. The more faithfully we stand by her, the deeper and more fruitful our faith will become. Though the Church conveys the faith to us in various ways, she does so especially by means of the liturgy. Let us pray with her, thus making use of the surest means of preserving our faith.
PRAYER
We beseech Thee, O Lord, that we may feel supported in soul and body, that being saved in both, we may glory in the fullness of the heavenly remedy. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
————————
AUGUST 24
St. Bartholomew, Apostle
1. St. Bartholomew (Nathanael) was one of the first disciples of our Lord (cf. Matt. 10:3; John 1:45 and 21:2). “Jesus saw Nathanael coming towards him, and said of him, Here comes one of who belongs to the true Israel; there is no falsehood in him. How dost thou know me? Nathanael asked; and Jesus answered him, I saw thee when thou wast under the fig-tree, before Philip called thee. Then Nathanael answered him, Thou, Master, art the Son of God, though art the King of Israel” (John 1:47-49). After our Lord’s resurrection Bartholomew was with Peter and several other apostles when Jesus appeared at the Lake of Genesareth (cf. John 21:2). According to tradition he preaches the gospel in India, Mesopotamia, and Armenia. At the command of Astyages, Whose brother Polymius he had gained for Christ, Bartholomew was martyred by flaying. His relics are honored in the Roman church dedicated to him.
2. “God has given us different positions in the church; apostles first, then prophets [i.e., preachers possessed of such eloquence that the working of the Holy Spirit is evident]” (Epistle). In the organization of the Church God gives to each a special grace for the performance of his particular duty. In obedience to this call, and aided by the corresponding grace of God, Bartholomew left Jerusalem after Pentecost and traveled eastward as far as India, laboring tirelessly for the spread of the kingdom of God. As supporters for his preaching, God gave him “miraculous powers, then gifts of healing” (Epistle). Bartholomew gained various regions for the Faith, announcing to all his converts: “You are Christ’s body” (Epistle). In this unity with the mystical body, the Church, they experienced the happiness and riches of divine adoption, of grace, of redemption, of power over sin and hell; they receive the true life that comes only from God.
We owe gratitude for these supernatural gifts, not only to God and to Christ, but also to the apostles. For God established them “as princes over all the lands.” The feast of an apostle, then, is a day of grateful rejoicing over the treasure that they brought to the world and to us, personally. We renew our faith in the truths taught us by the apostles and their successors, our ecclesiastical superiors; we persevere in imperturbable fidelity to the body of Christ, and consider ourselves fortunate to belong to this fellowship. St. Paul defines us truly: “You are Christ’s body, organs of it depending upon each other” (Epistle).
“You who have followed me . . . shall sit on thrones” (Communion). The apostle follows his master to death in order to bear witness to His teaching and to become like Him. Only he is a true apostle and preacher who lives according to the gospel he preaches and is willing to give his whole life for it. Such an apostle was St. Bartholomew, and therefore he occupies a throne, like a prince; a great one in the kingdom of the glorified Lord, a friend of Christ. On the day of the resurrection of the dead, “when the Son of Man sits on the throne of his glory,” this apostle, too, will judge “over the twelve tribes of Israel.” He will ratify the sentence of Christ the Judge on the one hand: “Come, you that have received a blessing from my Father, take possession of the kingdom which has been prepared for you since the foundation of the world,” and, on the other hand, he will echo Christ’s condemnation: “Go far from me, you that are accursed, into that eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25: 34, 41). “Holy thou art, O Lord, and wast ever holy, and this is a just award of thine, blood to drink for those who have shed the blood of thy saints and prophets” (Apoc. 16:5). The apostle Bartholomew and all the apostles and saints will, in the judgment, along with Christ condemn all infidelity in the world, all apostasy from His Church, all sins and every injustice of which men are guilty. The holy ones will acknowledge and approve all the good deeds and holy intentions of the just, all the faithfulness to Christ’s example, all sacrifices and self-denial undertaken for Christ, all prayer and striving for virtue, in a word, all genuinely Christian conduct. In the judgment they will give testimony of Christ just as they have done in their apostolic life, work, and death. If God thus honors His apostles, should we not honor them too? Yes; “Great reverence I have for thy friends, O God,” not only in words, but also in the approval of their teaching and example, which I show forth practically, in my life.
3. “You are Christ’s body, organs of it depending on each other” (Epistle). In this body each member has his proper task and functions, whether as teacher, or healer of the stick, or worker of miracles. St. Bartholomew had his special vocation and grace, and he cooperated with God. Each of us has his place in the divine plan. We do not live for ourselves only; we live in and for the whole body of Christ. Our praying, our working, our suffering—everything bears fruit for all mankind, or at least for all who belong to the body of Christ. Must not consciousness of this fact be a powerful incentive to prayer and labors and sufferings?
“Behold, here is a true Israelite in whom there is no guile.” High praise, indeed! Happy is he whom the Lord can thus point out.
Collect: Almighty, everlasting God, who hast given us a reverent and holy joy in this day’s festival of Thy blessed apostle Bartholomew, grant, we pray Thee, that Thy Church may love what he believed and preached what he taught. Amen.
___________________________________________________
THE CHRISTIAN FAMILY
By MOST REV. TIHAMER TOTH (1949) IX
THE INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE
ON June 19, 1934, a speech was made in the Upper House of the Hungarian Parliament by Count Joseph Karolyi that well deserves to figure as an introduction to my present sermon. I now quote part of that address.
Millions and millions have been sacrificed by the Hungarian state for the material and moral future of the coming generation. Yet with grief I see that in our society a most saddening decline and crisis are taking place. The fault lies at the foundations of the family, society, and the state; the number of divorces is growing, and the number of unfortunate children deprived of the care of their parents is increasing rapidly. Of what avail is the great pecuniary sacrifice made for future generations by the Hungarian state, of what avail the moral training inculcated in institutes and in schools, if at home, in the domestic circle, children see only what is offensive, and in many places, a life that can be called anything but moral. According to history the purity of family life in every land and in every nation evidences the degree of national progress or decline.
According to our national statistics, although Hungary is only one-third of her former size, the number of divorces is exactly four times what it was in the year 1913. The columns of our newspapers are filled with reports of divorce cases, of domestic scandals, of crimes. In the last few years, I regret to say, crimes committed by juvenile criminals, such as the murder of father or mother, are frequently reported. I think neither the government nor the Parliament should continue to observe this state of affairs without taking action. The state and lawmakers must take energetic measures with regard to these revolutionary outbreaks of human passion and irresponsibility. /99/
These were the words of a noble-hearted man anxious for the fate of his country.
When we see, dear brethren, that legislators in all parts of the world are alarmed by the harmful results which are an inevitable consequence of the destruction of family life and of the countless number of divorces that take place, we can easily imagine how the heart of the Church is grieved by them. She is the first to deplore the incalculable loss of moral values that are buried by the falling ruins of ravaged domestic sanctuaries.
This anxiety urges me to make the fundamental Christian postulate of the indissolubility of marriage the subject of my sermon today.
The number of divorces is rising at a startling rate. It would seem that mankind is beginning to return to the polygamy of the world before the coming of Christ, the only difference being that then a man could keep as many wives as his purse would allow, and today he keeps as many of them, one after the other, as he can find reasons for divorce.
Yet the Church, in spite of this dreadful contagion and amazing moral recklessness, courageously continues to proclaim, defend, and demand the indissolubility of the marriage contract.
But what arguments does the Catholic religion bring to support her impressive and consistent stand for the indissolubility of marriage?
The reply will be threefold: Marriage must be indissoluble because of God’s will, because of the essence of marriage, and because of the object of marriage. /100/I
THE WILL OF GOD
A. Our first argument for the indissolubility of marriage is, of course, that God wills it to be so.
1) in the beginning God created one man and one woman, that is, a pair. In so doing He signified His will that marriage should come about between one man and one woman only. But He signifies His will continually by the remarkable and humanly inexplicable fact that the number of men and women remains always practically equal. With hardly any variation the number of boys and of girls born each year is the same. This peculiarity of nature, which cannot be influenced by man, also proclaims that the Lord and Creator of the world intended only one woman for each man.
When the Jews cited the Law of Moses, that in certain cases a man might dismiss his wife, Jesus emphatically replied: “Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19: 8).
From the beginning it was not so. At the creation the unity and indissolubility of marriage were the positive divine law, and Christ reinstated this law in its fullness. The words He spoke are known to all of us: “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. . . . What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committed adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committed adultery” (Matt. 19: 5, 6, 9). Could speech be plainer?
2) “What God hath joined together” How does God join in marriage? First with the flaming love that He kindles in /101/ two young hearts. Then with the power of the sacrament. But He also joins in marriage with the children that He bestows upon the young couple when conjugal love is manifested most fervently between them.
What God has joined together in such an unmistakable manner, man has no right to dissolve and separate. No third person has the right to force his way into the family sanctuary and disrupt it. Nor have the married couple themselves any right, either by a mutual agreement or by a one-sided decision, to dissolve their marriage.
From our Lord’s words we see clearly that He wished to reinforce the Old Testament idea toward which men had grown lax. From the words just quoted and from other teachings of our Lord (Matt. 5: 31 f.), was formed the fundamental proposition, that a valid and consummated marriage can never be dissolved.
B. Someone may think: “But perhaps Christ did not intend to be so strict after all.” At first glance our Lord’s words may seem to indicate that, in the event of the great sin of adultery, He would be willing to sanction divorce. But a careful study of the text, especially in the light of other words of Christ, shows that He does not intend any exception.
And the Church does not yield the least bit in this matter, because she cannot depart from the teaching of her divine Founder.
1) That such is our Lord’s teaching appears from His words on other occasions. In St. Mark’s Gospel it is recorded that Jesus said: “Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committed adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband and be married to another, she committed adultery” (Mark 10: 11 f.). Here the Savior makes not any exception. For whatever reason the woman /102/ may have been put away, even if for unfaithfulness, she cannot become another’s wife; our Lord makes no exception in His denunciation of remarriage.
By reason of this dreadful sin against conjugal fidelity, the guilty party may be sent away; this is called “separation from bed and board.” But even after this separation, the marriage bond does not cease, and remarriage is not permissible. The obligation to live together ceases, but the bond of marriage does not cease. And everything that our Lord said of a guilty wife is, in the nature of things, also applicable to a guilty husband.
2) That our Savior’s words are thus to be interpreted appears by the Apostles’ comment, as they reply in amazement: “If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry” (Matt. 19: 10): That is, if marital infidelity is a reason for separation, but afterwards neither party can marry again, then it is better not to enter upon any such undertaking. Evidently the Apostles understood Christ to mean that remarriage is not allowed even in a case of adultery.
St. Paul also understood Christ’s words in the same way, for he wrote to the Corinthians as follows: “To them that are married, not I, but the Lord commanded that the wife depart not from her husband, and if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband” (I Cor. 7: 10 f.). Certainly the meaning of St. Paul’s words are beyond question. Remarriage, then, is never allowed.
3) We reach this conclusion also by another consideration. No one can suppose that the Son of God wished to reward the dreadful sin of conjugal infidelity. Yet it would be rewarding an offense against such faithfulness if under this title one could contract a new marriage.
Let us consider life as it is. The cause of many divorces is /103/ not so much the incompatibility of the married parties, but rather the appearing of a third person on the scene.
One example will suffice. For twenty-four years a man and his wife lived together in peace and harmony. Of course little differences of opinion, little quarrels arose between them; where two people live together these are unavoidable. But on the whole they were quite happy. A son of theirs finished his studies at the University. A daughter became married. And now the parents wish to be divorced. The divorce is being sought, not by the daughter, but by the parents. After twenty-four years. And why? Because a young creature happened to cross the husband’s path. The fifty-year-old man became infatuated with a twenty-year-old girl.
This is only one example. But how many such examples could be cited! How many have lived happy married lives for years, and then some unscrupulous man or woman appears in the domestic circle, and with sacrilegious hand upsets the happiness of the family sanctuary.
But, my brethren, Christ comes with His interdiction; the Catholic Church with her veto. “I do not allow this marriage to be touched.” Do you not feel to what eternal gratitude the Church binds every honorable married party because she does not allow an unscrupulous third person to contract a valid marriage with a divorced person and then sardonically laugh at the ruin of family life thus caused?
To be continued.
—————
Richard Dawkins: ‘immoral’ not to abort if foetus has Down’s syndrome
Scientist says a mother has a responsibility to ‘abort it and try again’ if she knows her baby would have the disorder http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus theguardian.com, Thursday 21 August 2014 00.14 EDT
Richard Dawkins says it would be immoral for a mother to continue with a pregnancy if the baby would be born with Down’s syndrome.
The scientist Richard Dawkins has become embroiled in another Twitter row, claiming it would be “immoral” to carry on with a pregnancy if the mother knew the foetus had Down’s syndrome.
The British author made the comment in response to another user who said she would be faced with “a real ethical dilemma” if she became pregnant and learned that the baby would be born with the disorder.
Dawkins tweeted: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”
He faced a backlash for his comment, with one mother, who has a child with the genetic condition, saying: “I would fight till my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma.”
Dawkins later defended his view, saying he would not apologise “for approaching moral philosophic questions in a logical way”. He went on to point out that Down’s syndrome foetuses are aborted in many cases, and that abortion was a woman’s choice.
Some users supported the God Delusion author, agreeing with his assertion that there is a difference in deciding on a termination before a child is born, and suggesting after the child is born that it should have been aborted.
The Down’s Syndrome Association (DSA) issued a response to Dawkins’s initial comment. “People with Down’s syndrome can and do live full and rewarding lives, they also make a valuable contribution to our society.
“At the Down’s Syndrome Association we do not believe Down’s syndrome in itself should be a reason for termination, however we realise that families must make their own choice.
“The DSA strives to ensure that all prospective parents are given accurate and up to date information about the condition and what life might be like today for someone with Down’s syndrome.”
Previously Dawkins has caused controversy on Twitter by saying the world’s Muslims had won fewer Nobel prizes than Trinity College Cambridge; and by arguing some types of rape or paedophilia are worse than others, then telling people who couldn’t understand his logic to “go away and learn how to think”.
—————
State reverses abortion decision at 2 Catholic colleges http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/State-reverses-abortion-decision-at-2-Catholic-5705008.php – Bob Egelko
Updated 8:40 am, Friday, August 22, 2014
Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration has reversed an earlier decision to allow two Catholic universities to eliminate coverage of most abortions for employees, saying state law requires health insurance plans to cover all abortions.
The state had previously allowed insurance companies to offer plans to Santa Clara and Loyola Marymount universities that denied coverage for “elective” abortions, and allowed it only for abortions needed to save a woman’s life or prevent serious health damage. Loyola Marymount, in Los Angeles, implemented its policy in January, while Santa Clara’s was due to take effect next year.
Urged by abortion-rights groups and university employees to reconsider the issue, Brown’s Department of Managed Health Care, in letters to be sent Friday to insurers for both universities, said the exclusions violate a 1975 state law that requires group health plans to cover all basic services – defined, by the law, as those that are “medically necessary.”
“Abortion is a basic health care service,” the department’s director, Michelle Rouillard, said in the letter.
In addition, she said, “the California Constitution prohibits health plans from discriminating against women who choose to terminate a pregnancy. Thus, all health plans must treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally.”
Rouillard told the insurance companies to review all health plans, including those the department had previously approved, to make sure they comply with the law.
Both universities announced the coverage limitations last fall after being told by the insurers, Anthem Blue Cross and Kaiser Permanente, that the state had approved the policies. Leaders of the schools said they were driven by the principles of their faith.
“Our core commitments as a Catholic university are incompatible with the inclusion of elective abortion in the university’s health plan,” said Santa Clara’s president, Michael Engh.
Each university has more than 1,000 employees. Faculty groups at both schools protested the new policy, saying the institutions had always described themselves, to prospective students and teachers, as open to those of all views and faiths.
In response to the protests, Loyola Marymount allowed employees to pay extra for abortion coverage through a private administrator.
Insurance coverage for abortion is not mandated by the federal health care law. But California guarantees abortion rights both by statute and by privacy protections in the state Constitution. Until the current controversy arose, insurers in California had treated all abortions sought by women in their health plans as medically necessary.
Abortion-rights advocates and leaders of the Legislature’s Women’s Caucus had pressed the Brown administration to reconsider its decision to allow the cutbacks in abortion coverage.
“We’re thrilled that the state is complying with California law and ensuring that women of California have access to all reproductive health services,” Beth Parker, chief counsel for Planned Parenthood in California, said after learning of the new decision.
Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: begelko@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @egelko
…
[Message clipped] View entire message