Conversion of St. Paul

Vol 8 Issue 4 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
January 24, 2015 ~ St. Timothy, opn!
1. Baptism: Means of Salvation (3)
2.Third Sunday after Epiphany
3. St Paul’s Conversion
4. Marriage and Parenthood (4)
5. Articles and notices 

Dear Reader:

Tomorrow concludes Unity Octave Prayers. The devotion was started by an Anglican, Paul Wattson, who was seeking unity with Rome. He had founded the Friars and Sisters of Atonement with Lurana White.  When they were accepted into the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Pius X gave his blessing to a week of prayers seeking union of all non-Catholics (by conversion) to the Roman Catholic Church. This started the Church Unity Octave in the Roman Catholic Church and in 1916, Pope Benedict XV extended its observance to the universal church. It is now known as the Chair of Unity Octave to emphasize its Petrine focus. It was not an ecumenical initiative, but on par with the devotion of the Green Scapular: to pray and invite fallen away and non-Catholics to pray for the graces needed “to come to the knowledge of the Truth.” Unfortunately the Modernists have perverted this pious devotion into an ecumenical movement where, according to Jorge Bergolio:

Yesterday, I saw something that I would have never imagined in Madhu. They weren’t all Catholics, not even the majority. There were Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and all of them go there to pray and they say that they receive graces. There is in the people, who never err, something that unites them; and if they are so naturally united so as to go together and pray in a church, which is Christian but it is more than Christian because everyone wants it. How could I not go to the temple of the Buddhists to greet them, no? And this testimony yesterday in Madhu was very important. It makes us understand the sense of inter-religiosity that is lived in Sri Lanka. Respect among them. There are fundamentalist groups, but they are not with the people. They are ideological elites, but they are not with the people.
Then, (the question) that they will go to Hell. But people said the same of Protestants, when I was a child. At that time, 70 years ago, all of the Protestants were going to Hell, all of them – that’s what we were told. But then, I remember the first experience I had of ecumenism. And I told this the other day to the heads of the Salvation Army. I was 4 or 5 years old but I remember and I can still see it. I remember I was walking down the street with my grandma hand-in-hand and on the other sidewalk, two women from the Salvation Army were coming down the street with those big hats on that they used to wear with the ribbon. It was a special thing, but now they don’t wear them anymore. But, I asked my grandma, but tell me are they sisters? And she told me this: “No, they are Protestants but they are good people. That was the first time that I heard someone speak well of someone from another religion, of Protestants. At that time, in catechesis they told us that everyone was going to Hell. But I think that the Church has grown so much in its awareness, in respect – as I told them in the religious meeting there in Colombo – in values – when we read what the Second Vatican Council says to us about the values in the other religions. The respect of the Church has grown a lot in this respect, no? And, yes, there are dark times in the history of the Church. We need to say so without embarrassment because also we are on a path of continuous conversion always from sin to grace. And, this inter-religiosity as brothers always respecting each other is a grace. (January 15, 2015)

Please join with Catholics who pray for the conversion of fallen away Catholics and non-Catholics that they do save their souls.

As always, enjoy the readings and commentaries provided for your benefit. —The Editor

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Baptism

Means of Salvation 

Introduction (c)

The Reign of Mary continues:

Father Feeney refused to adhere to this declaration and wrote with regard to the matter that “it can be considered as having established a two-sided policy in order to propagate error.”
On October 28, Father Feeney was expelled from the Jesuit Order.

Things remained unchanged until September 14, 1952. At this point, the Archbishop of Boston demanded that Father Feeney retract his false interpretation and make an “explicit profession of submission” to the Roman Declaration within one month or suffer the penalty of being reduced to the state of a layman.

Father Feeney, accompanied by four witnesses, presented himself before his Archbishop. He told him that his only option was to declare the letter of Marchetti-Selvaggiani “absolutely scandalous because it was frankly heretical.” Then he asked His Excellency if he was in agreement with the views expressed by the Roman Declaration. He obtained the following response: “I am not a theologian. All that I know is what I am told.” Then, in the presence of these witnesses, Father Feeney accused the Archbishop of failing to perform his duty, and left.

On September 24, 1952, a letter was sent from the St. Benedict Center to Pius XII, accusing the Archbishop of Boston of heresy.

There were already difficulties in Leonard Feeney’s relationship with his Jesuit Superior prior to 1949, for they had already assigned him to another house, and his faculties for administering the Sacraments at the College and Center had expired.

On 25 October, 1952, Cardinal Pizzardo summoned Father Feeney to present himself in Rome for a hearing by the Holy Office as follows:

“The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching and conduct in the Church the object of its special care and attention, and recently, after having again carefully examined and calmly weighed all the evidence collected in your cause, it has found it necessary to bring this question to a conclusion.

“However, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, in His tender regard and paternal solicitude for the eternal welfare of souls committed to His supreme charge, has decreed that, before any other measure be carried into effect, you be summoned to Rome for a hearing. Therefore, in accordance with the express bidding and by the special authority of the Supreme Pontiff, you are hereby ordered to proceed to Rome forthwith and there to appear before the Authorities of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office as soon as possible” [As quoted in ., p.150.]

Father Feeney replied that he would only go if he was told what were the charges against him.

On February 16, 1953, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis announced the excommunication of Father Leonard Feeney. The following is an official translation of the Decree:

“Since Father Leonard Feeney remained in Boston (St. Benedict Center) and since he has been suspended from performing his priestly duties for a long time because of his grave disobedience to the Authority of the Church, in no way moved by repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, and has still failed to submit, the most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with the responsibility of safeguarding faith and morals, during a plenary session held on February 4, 1953, have declared him excommunicated with all the effects that this has in law.

“On Thursday, February 12, 1953, Our Most Holy Father Pius XII, Pope by Divine Providence, has approved and confirmed the decree of these Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that this be made a matter of public record. 

“Given in Rome in the general quarters of the Holy Office, February 13, 1953. Marius Crovini, notary.”

It is not that Pius XII was unaware of the movements that were promoting false ecumenism, for on August 12, 1950, he wrote in Humanum Generis:

Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an “eirenism” according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.

Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.

These new opinions, whether they originate from a reprehensible desire of novelty or from a laudable motive, are not always advanced in the same degree, with equal clarity nor in the same terms, nor always with unanimous agreement of their authors. Theories that today are put forward rather covertly by some, not without cautions and distinctions, tomorrow are openly and without moderation proclaimed by others more audacious, causing scandal to many, especially among the young clergy and to the detriment of ecclesiastical authority. Though they are usually more cautious in their published works, they express themselves more openly in their writings intended for private circulation and in conferences and lectures. Moreover, these opinions are disseminated not only among members of the clergy and in seminaries and religious institutions, but also among the laity, and especially among those who are engaged in teaching youth.

When one looks at Fr Feeney’s entrance into the Conciliar Church, the issue of his stance against those who claimed salvation outside the Church becomes an enigma. Vatican II specifically claimed salvation was obtainable in all religions, yet Leonard Feeney gave no hint of holding even the principle of “no salvation outside the Catholic Church.”

Tracey Kline summarizes the process as outlined in Pepper’s book (Pepper, The Boston Heresy Case, 45-52.) as follows:

The first proposals for Feeney’s reconciliation with the Catholic Church came in May 1971.  At an installation ceremony in Annapolis, Center member Br. Gabriel and Church authorities agreed to work towards the reversal of Feeney’s excommunication without requiring a retraction of the Center’s doctrinal ideologies.  Fr. Shmaruk played an important role in Feeney’s reconciliation, and his records provide the most detailed account of its rationale.  Shmaruk explains, “‘Fr. Feeney’s excommunication had nothing at all to do with the theological issue of salvation,’ but with disobedience, the penalty ‘after twenty-five years had served its purpose and was no longer necessary or, indeed, helpful in finding a solution to the Church’s problem with Leonard Feeney.’”   Fr. Shmaruk believed the new standards of reconciliation and ecclesial penalties set by Vatican II should be extended to Feeney –and thus, along with Bishop Riley and Archbishop Medeiros, spearheaded a reconciliation effort. 

Contacts between Feeney and Boston Archdiocesan clergy were soon initiated, and by November 22, 1972, following a protracted process, Feeney was notified of his official reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church.  Church authorities waived the requirement that Feeney express remorse for his disobedience and erroneous teaching (knowing such would cause severe mental torment), and thus required him only to make a positive expression of faith with the recitation of a creed.  The removal of Feeney’s censures, they furthermore agreed, would be publicly announced only after his death –thereby allowing Feeney to live in peace within his community to the end of his days.

Feeney’s reconciliation with the Catholic Church was determined solely on grounds of pastoral concern.  The Church lifted Feeney’s excommunication without requiring any penance or statement of wrongdoing, in turn leaving the doctrinal issue untouched.  “Reconciling Fr. Feeney was an act of pastoral care for the spiritual welfare of one of the Church’s faithful… The concern extended to [him] but another expression of the Church’s ancient mission of care for fallible souls.”   The reversal of Fr. Feeney’s excommunication was an act of compassion for a faithful and well-intentioned soul, though it in no way implied that the Catholic leadership endorsed Feeney’s theological views.

Pius XII died on October 9, 1958. The person elected on October 28 to succeed him was Angelo Roncalli, a Cardinal (1953) who was already 76 years of age but who was likeable by everyone and especially popular in the secular world. Sent to Bulgaria as Apostolic Delegate in 1925, he worked with Orthodox and Muslims and then went on to Turkey as Apostolic Delegate in 1935, continuing to work among the Christians and Muslims. His seeming ability to enable opposing factions to work together caused Pius XII, at the direction of Giovanni Battista Montini and in opposition to Domenico Tardini, to send him to France to retire the Bishops who had collaborated with the Nazis. On his route to France, Roncalli met with Giovanni Battista Montini in Rome. Pius XII made Angelo Roncalli a Cardinal in 1953 and assigned him the Patriarch of Venice—seemingly as a place of retirement after his years of work for the Church.

The time of Angelo Roncalli in the Vatican was a paradox. Seemingly allowing the “conservative” Cardinals to condemn the Modernists and innovators (Teilhard’s books were condemned), he promoted liberals (Giovanni Battista Montini was made Cardinal). His Encyclical, Pacem et Terris,  denotes an evolutionary social and political development, much akin to the “class struggle” of Karl Marx.

In determining what form a particular government shall take, and the way in which it shall function, a major consideration will be the prevailing circumstances and the condition of the people; and these are things which vary in different places and at different times. (Pacem et Terra, par 68)

The radical change in morality was also the basis of laws no longer rested upon the Divine Law, but the “dignity of man.” Roncalli’s call for a Council, a surprise to all who realized his days were numbered with his age, was to initiate the change of faith based on divine revelation and dogmatic to one that was based on humanism and “pastoral”, an aggiornamento or bringing up to date. The beginnings of questioning the faith and morals arose with Roncalli appointing a six-member non-clerical panel to discuss the question of birth control—contrary to the absolute rejection of such a concept in the Scriptural condemnation of onanism (cf. Gen. 38:8-10) and the divine institution of matrimony with the command to increase and multiply (cf. Gen. 1:27-28).

Vatican II, taking the cry of the French Revolution, “Liberté, égalité, fraternité”, formulated documents on Religious Liberty and Equality (Dignitatis Humanae) and fraternity (Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio), accomplished its own a coup d’état and reign of terror as every vestige of the Eglise ancienne was removed (altar and priest) and man was enshrined as president (There is no difference between being a presider and president).

What was the foundation? Freedom of Conscience and Equality gave the arguments and impetus to accept concepts of conscience and man’s relationship within faith and with God. Instead of objective truths, subjective experience or intuitive judgment became the guide of right and wrong. And, who are we to judge? Therefore, everyone has the right to live their own life as they wish and cannot be condemned for how they choose to live—for all are god’s children and He loves them as they are, for they are just following their own path to him. Baptism was no longer necessary; baptism was just an initiation into a church that allowed the initiate to be associated with a faith-community and to partake in the later rites of adulthood, marriage and death. The story of the Fall and Original sin was allegorical of man’s striving for full actualization of his personality within the limitations of his being. Redemption came to be the realization that man can be whatever he desired and no longer was to be held back by superstition in personal sin-guilt.

It is in this context, the affair of the Boston Heresy and the aftermath of Vatican II, that I wish to revisit the subject of Baptism. It appears to be a daunting challenge, knowing the theologians, such St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, who, having already sketched the Sacrament of Salvation in clear formulas, should not have their presentations muddied in the attempts to restate the teachings of the Church in an understandable work.

May the reader bear with the author in plowing the field of Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, the Councils, the Popes and the theologians to turn up the richness of Catholic teaching and the Christian’s participation in the Divine Life Christ came to bestow upon those who choose to follow Him.

(To be continued)

———————-

Third Sunday after Epiphany

Benedict Baur, O.S.B.

Living in union with God

1. “The Lord hath built up Sion.” The Lord has built a new city, in which He is to appear in His majesty. The old Jerusalem has fallen, but a new city has risen on the ruins of the old, and its inhabitants are the nations of the Gentiles. To the inhabitants of the new city He has given new life and strength, as He gave them to the leprous man and to the centurion of the Gospel. “I shall not die, but live, and shall declare the works of the Lord” (Offertory).
2. This new life is a participation in the life of the Divinity. Our life as Christians is not merely a matter of calling on Christ as our Redeemer in our necessities. Much less does it consist in honoring Him as a mere man who by the power of His example has taught the world to live a life of virtue and holiness. Christ was more than a teacher of a new and excellent philosophy; He was the author of an entirely new life, a life that was to share in the divine life. This life is to begin for men even while they are still on earth; they are to will what God wills; they are to understand as God understands; they are to enjoy the blessedness of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in the world to come. “Behold what manner of charity the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called and should be the sons of God” (I John 3:1).

This new life is a life in union with God. “If anyone love Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and will make Our abode with him” (John 14:23). After this union is effected by Christ, human life is charged with a new sensibility and a new felicity, and is born to an inexhaustible fullness of life. A Christian comes to know himself, no longer as a mere man, but as a child of God. His mind is occupied with the thought of the goodness of God, and his soul is enthralled by the charm of His love. Man now converses with God as a child with its father. God in turn enlightens the intellect of His child and fortifies the will of His beloved one with His own divine strength. In all His dealings with the soul, God is most wise. At times He fills it with an ineffable sweetness; at times He leaves it to wander in spiritual dryness; but He is always there. He guides the faltering soul through the darkness as a skillful pilot guides his boat through the surf. We have only to follow the direction of the pilot to arrive safely at port.

3. “The Lord hath built up Sion.” The liturgy is here referring to the new race that is born by baptism, which has been filled and permeated with the spirit of Christ. This new race can be brought forth only from the divine life. Christ alone can give it to us, and He gives it gladly. All power is given Him by the Father, and He gives this life to all who confide in Him.

The Christian soul should feel deep gratitude for this wonderful gift of God. Let us rejoice, then, with the holy liturgy, for “The right hand of the Lord hath wrought strength; the right hand of the Lord hath exalted me; I shall not die, but live, and shall declare the works of the Lord” (Offertory). Let us be confident. We are filled with the light and the life of God, and are sustained by His strength. Have we not every reason to be confident? What a treasure is ours! We are privileged to live in union with the omnipotent, omniscient and infinitely loving God who lives and operates within our souls!

PRAYER

Almighty and eternal God, graciously look upon our infirmity and stretch forth the right hand of Thy majesty to protect us. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

“Be thou made clean!”

1. As Jesus descended from the mountain, a great multitude followed Him and a leper came and fell at His feet and cried out, “Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean. And Jesus, stretching forth His hand, touched him, saying: I will. Be thou made clean” (Gospel). Christ thus manifested both His goodness and His power over nature.
2. “Lord if Thou wilt Thou canst make me clean.” Leprosy is the figure of sin, which defiles the soul. Leprosy is a disease that is particularly horrible because of the disfigurement that it produces in its victims. The effect of leprosy on the body gives us a tangible impression of the effect of sin on the soul. Passion is so deeply rooted in our natures that, unless it is ruled with a firm hand it may destroy and disfigure the beauty both of our body and of our soul. This passion is insatiable and will not rest until it has destroyed our soul and the souls of others. Any soul that wishes to become a member of Christ must first cleanse itself from the vices of passion. “Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean.” Jesus wills to make us so. “I will. Be thou made clean.” We must be clean in our thoughts, actions, and desires. How could it be otherwise, since by baptism we have become living members of His body? The body and soul of man belong to Christ and are part of Him since He has by His death snatched them from the hands of the enemy. But even after our incorporation in the body of Christ, the deeply rooted evil of our animal passions remains with us, and we must wage a continual war against it. “Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean.”

“Blessed are the clean of heart” (Matt. 5:8). Christ expects not only that the soul be clean of actual sins of impurity, but also that the heart be clean. No attachment to sin can be allowed to grow up in the soul, and everything that fosters such an attachment must be cut off. The Christian must always keep in mind the end for which he was created, and with a determined will strive continually to attain that goal. He must be prepared for trials and difficulties, for the way is not easy, and trials, suffering, and self-denial mark the way that leads to salvation. Only when the soul has detached itself from all that might tarnish its beauty can it fulfill its proper function of reflecting the beauty of God. To accomplish such detachment is the work of continual mortification and earnest sacrifice. “Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.” Blessed are they who by continual self-control have overcome all that is earthly and human, and have made themselves a holocaust to God.

3. “Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean.” “The Lord hath built up Sion [His Church] and [there] He shall be seen in His glory” (Gradual). Christ loved chastity, and He desires to see this virtue reproduced in His disciples. He wishes us, as members of His body, to manifest the splendor of His purity. You are “now light in the Lord. Walk, then, as children of the light” (Eph. 5:8). We pray, not only for ourselves, but also for our brethren: “Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean.”

Today as we approach the Holy Sacrifice, we cry out with the leper of the Gospel, “Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean.” We kneel with the leper at the roadside, and the Lord comes to us in the Mass. At Holy Communion He presses us to His breast and stirs our soul with His grace as though we were not loathsome, vile creatures, the outcasts of men. He whispers into our ear, “I will. Be thou made clean.” We rest satisfied, for the holy liturgy assures us: “The right hand of the Lord hath wrought strength; the right hand of the Lord hath exalted me; I shall not die, but live and shall declare the works of the Lord” (Offertory).

PRAYER

Almighty and eternal God, graciously look upon our infirmity and stretch forth the right hand of Thy majesty to help and defend us. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. (Oration.)

__________________________________________________

JANUARY 25

Conversion of St. Paul

1. On the road to Damascus, Paul, the furious hater and persecutor of Christ and His Church, was changed into a most ardent champion of Christ, a “vessel of election.” Conscious of our oneness with him today, we jubilantly proclaim, in the Introit: “He to whom I have given my confidence is no stranger to me, and I am fully persuaded that he has the means to keep my pledge safe until that day comes” (Introit). For we instinctively expect a day of home-Coming, when all our labors will be rewarded.
2. Saul was deeply attached, body and soul, to his people, to his religion, and to the traditions of his ancestors. For that reason, he hated the infant Christianity, and he used whatever form of attack he thought likely to destroy it. First, he took part in the stoning of Stephen; then, he hunted out the Christians, pursuing some even to Damascus in Syria, for the purpose of bringing them as prisoners before the Jewish court in Jerusalem. Passionate, intolerant, fully convinced of the justice of his cause, he even considered himself in duty bound. Suddenly, he saw Christ. What a revelation I His only question: “Lord, what do you want me to do?”

Paul understood the grace that came to him so undeservedly and unexpectedly. He surrendered, sacrificed everything-his religion, most sacred of all his possessions, his previous convictions and ideals, his past, his reputation. He knew that his former fanatical abettors would henceforth despise him and reject him as a traitor. What matter, if only he had Christ! With full confidence and perfect trust, he knew that in Christ he had gained everything; that with Christ and Him alone, would his life and labor henceforth have substance and significance; that only from Christ could salvation or any real good come. To Him, would he give himself; for Him, would he live; Him alone would he serve; for His sake would he die! Paul experienced in himself the truth of the promise that our Lord had made to all who should leave everything and follow Him. “They shall receive their reward a hundredfold and obtain life everlasting” (c£. Matt. 19:29). Truly, Paul gained, in Christ, a hundredfold.

3. The vision on the road to Damascus was for Saul the decisive experience of his career. It made him another, a new man, with new ideals, ambitions, impulses, and powers. First thing he went into retreat, praying and fasting; then, having obtained baptism, he put all his tremendous energy into this new life that he had found; this life for Christ, for the Church, for souls. We should thank God for having given His Church a St. Paul. We honor, in the Apostle, a “vessel of election,” a precious vessel of grace to the Gentiles, and we listen reverently to the words that he so often speaks to us in the liturgy.

On this day each of us can see himself in the story of St. Paul, for each of us has experienced a Damascus incident: holy baptism. On that occasion, Christ revealed Himself to us, bending down to us, unworthy sinners that we were, and illumined our souls with an entirely unmerited grace. In effect, we, too, asked. “Lord, what do you want me to do?” We accepted faith in Him:

I believe in God the Father; I believe in Jesus Christ; I believe in the Holy Spirit.

Damascus is repeated in every grace that comes to us on our way through everyday life. Suddenly, with neither merit nor expectation on our part, the Lord appears to the eye of our mind. Perhaps He says reprovingly, “Why do you persecute Me? Why do you disobey My will?” And His grace prompts us to ask, “Lord, what do you want me to do?” His answer: “Go into the city, seek safety in the Church, show yourself to the priest. He will tell you what to do.” And the priest raises his hand in blessing over us saying, “’I absolve you from your sins.”

Yes, every day a Damascus-grace comes to us in our participation in the Holy Sacrifice. In the Offertory we leave all things by placing ourselves on the altar in the form of bread and wine and saying, “Lord, what do you want me to do?” Again here, as in baptism, we choose Christ, the sacrificed, crucified Victim. We become one victim with Him, promising, with Him, to do always the things that please God. Having sacrificed all in the Offertory, we then receive our hundredfold in Holy Communion: we receive Christ, His life, His spirit, His strength. Finally, we leave the altar to go out like another Paul, filled with Christ, showing forth Christ. We go out into everyday life as apostles of Christ, bringing Christ to souls, becoming “everybody’s slave, to win more souls” (I Cor. 9:19).

With St. Paul we exclaim today: “He to whom I have given my confidence is no stranger to me.” He has the power to preserve my treasure of good works until the day of my passage to that eternal communion, to which He has called me. Then shall I realize, personally, the full import of His promise: “You who have left all things and followed Me shall receive a hundredfold and obtain everlasting life” (Communion).

Collect: O God, who by the preaching of the blessed apostle hast taught the whole world, grant that we who today celebrate his conversion may make our way to Thee by following in his footsteps. Amen.

MARRIAGE AND PARENTHOOD

The Catholic Ideal

By the Rev. Thomas J. Gerrard

(1911) 

CHAPTER II

THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

IT is part of God’s providence that when He sets before us an end to be attained He provides us also with the means of attaining that end. So in the case of marriage, having ordained it for the high purpose of preparing souls for heaven, God has endowed it with qualities which make it an apt instrument for the purpose for which it was instituted. These qualities are revealed in the truth of Christ and the Church. Christ’s Church was to be one only, and it was to last until the end of time. The bond of Christian marriage must likewise be one only and must last until broken by death. Unity and perpetuity are the qualities which make the marriage state specially fitted for the great object of bringing children into the world, of nourishing them in body, mind, and spirit, of bringing them to the final perfection for which man was created. If the bringing of children into the world is attended with great pain and labor, the bringing of their souls to perfection is attended /18/ with still greater pain and labor. It requires nothing else than the united life and love of both parents.

Now such is the nature of man and woman that they cannot love effectually with a divided love. Let either partner give the other the slightest cause for jealousy and there is an end of that perfect love and harmony in the family which is so needful for the well-being of the children. The archtype of perfect love is the mutual love of the three Persons of the blessed Trinity. One of the fairest created reflections of that love is the triple love of family life, the love of husband, wife, and child. It will brook no intrusion from without. It cannot bear the prospect of it coming to an end. This is a fundamental and universal law of nature, a law of nature which is accentuated, ennobled, and made perfect by a law of grace. The Sacrament of matrimony implies a special divine sanction to the laws of unity and perpetuity in the marriage bond.

The need of the higher sanction and help is seen from the passing nature of the merely natural charms. The mere physical pleasures pass away with their satisfaction. Youthful ardor burns out before the mature part of life is reached. In the course of a life so intimate as that of husband /19/ and wife many faults of character become exposed. Marriage certainly brings a revelation of many new beauties of character, but it also brings a revelation of many faults of character. It is fraught with disappointments even as with agreeable surprises. The fading of bodily beauty also tends to weaken the natural bond. When the hair turns gray, and the eye loses its luster, and the features fall into wrinkles; when the general buoyancy and ardor of youth tones down into the prose of middle age; then indeed is there need of something more sustaining, something more lasting than the mere tie of natural affection or natural contract. It is found in the unity and perpetuity of the Sacrament. The Sacrament imparts all the courage, the energy, the refreshment, and the love needful to make the bond strong and lasting. It renews the youth of married life and makes it satisfying even in spite of years.

The Church claims to have the care of this Sacrament. The Church, therefore, has ever insisted on its unity and perpetuity. The Church regards the sin of adultery as something infinitely more heinous than any sin possible among the unmarried. The father who has to provide for his children must be certain that they are his own. He cares for them only on the supposition that they /20/ are his offspring. Any infidelity, therefore, on the part of the woman must of necessity tend to break up these sacred family relationships. A father cannot love and care for children who may be those of the man who has done him the greatest possible injury. And if a woman gives unswerving fidelity to her husband she has a right to claim an equal fidelity in return. Infidelity on the part of the man, although it does not act directly in rendering the offspring of the family uncertain, yet it strikes at the root of conjugal love, and thus almost directly at the foundations of family life. A violation of the sanctity of marriage then by either party is a double violation of God’s law, a violation of chastity, and a violation of justice. Hence, we have the most stringent laws against adultery, against polygamy, and against divorce.

Among the Jews the penalty of adultery was death by stoning. In the most savage faces of the earth its punishment is immediate death. The law of Christ makes the law of nature and the Law of Moses more perfect. This it does by all the conditions and rules which it lays down for the prevention of polygamy and divorce. By polygamy we usually understand the possession of two wives at the same time. The possession of two husbands at the same time is known as polyandry. /21/ Both are equally condemned by the Christian law.

The cases of polygamy among the Jews are frequently quoted by those who want an excuse for disregarding the laws of Christian marriage. Attention must be paid to the circumstances of time and race. If polygamy was permitted then it was for a special reason. And the permission was mere toleration. The circumstances of the times required that it should be permitted in order to avoid greater evils. Nevertheless, God did not cease to give signs to His people as to what was the great ideal. The most wondrous love song ever sung by man was that inspired by the Holy Spirit, the song of songs, which tells of the love between one bridegroom and one bride, the love’ which lasts till death. “One is my dove, my perfect one is but one. . . . I to my beloved and my beloved to me, who feedest among the anemones. . . . Put me as a seal upon thy heart, as a seal upon thy arm, for love is strong as death, jealousy as hard as hell, the lamps thereof are fire and flames. . . . My beloved to me and I to him who feedeth among the lilies, till the day break and the shadows flee away.” So the young Tobias could say to his wife Sara: “For we are the children of saints, and we must not be joined together /22/ like heathens that know not God.” In praying to God for a blessing on his marriage he referred back to its original conditions: “Thou madest Adam of the slime of the earth, and gavest him Eve for a helper. And now, Lord, thou knowest that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which Thy name may be blessed forever and ever.” And Sara prayed with him: “Have mercy on us, and let us grow old both together in health.”

Further, the Church, although she insists that the marriage bond lasts only till death, although she allows remarriage after the death of one of the partners, yet she looks upon such remarriage as something less perfect. Her ideal is that a marriage should be so distinctly one and perpetual as to exclude any other marriage even after the first has been dissolved by death. A marriage is not merely a union of two in one flesh, but also of two in one spirit. The more perfect thing, therefore, would be to consider the bond of love lasting right through death. The reason why the Church allows remarriage after the death of one of the partners is because there are other ends of matrimony besides mutual love. To give expression to her wish, however, and to mark the distinction between the more perfect state and the less perfect /23/state, the Church does not give the nuptial blessing in cases where the bride is a widow if she has received it in a previous marriage. She gives it where the bride is being married for the first time, even though the bridegroom be a widower. Having regard to the dignity of the bride, the Church in this case overlooks the defect in the bridegroom. Her end is achieved by withholding the blessing only in the case of the marriage of widows, as stated above.

(To be continued)

————————

For your information—The Editor

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350967?eng=y 

For the “Hard of Heart” the Law of Moses Still Applies

So says an illustrious biblicist, with a new interpretation of the words of Jesus on marriage and divorce. But the Catholic Church has always preached indissolubility without exception. Will it come to admit second marriages, as in the East?

by Sandro Magister

ROME, January 16, 2015 – There are not only the well-known arguments of Cardinal Walter Kasper in favor of communion for the divorced and remarried.

There are also those who are traveling new and original paths, in obedience to the assignment of the synod last October, according to which “the question must be examined further.”

This is the case of one famous biblicist and patrologist, Guido Innocenzo Gargano, a Camaldolese monk, former prior of the Roman monastery of San Gregorio al Celio, and professor at the Pontifical Biblical Institute and the Pontifical Urbaniana University.

In an article in the latest issue of the theology quarterly “Urbaniana University Journal,” Fr. Gargano shows how Jesus’ words about marriage are mainly prompted by what God says through the mouth of the prophet Hosea: “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.”

And as a result he maintains that Jesus, when he affirms that “man must not divide what God has joined,” does not thereby cancel God’s forbearance with the “hardness of heart” of his people, for whom Moses had permitted divorce.

The keystone of Fr. Gargano’s argument is the statement of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: “I have come not to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them.”

In his judgment, the significance of this statement is that the two laws – that of “it was said to them of old” and the new one of “but I say to you” – both coexist in the preaching of Jesus and clarify each other.

So much so that Jesus, again in the Sermon on the Mount, does not exclude from the kingdom of heaven but brings in as the “least” even “he who transgresses the least of these precepts” and therefore – Fr. Gargano comments – also the one who makes use of the Mosaic concession of repudiation because of “hardness of heart.”

The author of the article develops these and other points at length and with acuity, without explicating the practical applications that could result from this in the life of the Catholic Church, not only on the “vexata quaestio” of communion for the divorced and remarried, but also on whether or not to allow second marriages.

He limits himself, in fact, to an exercise of New Testament exegesis and theology on texts in Matthew concerning marriage, with only minimal references to the subsequent developments of Church doctrine and practice in East and West, and with complete silence on the dogmatic canons of the Council of Trent and the pastoral constitution of Vatican Council II “Gaudium et Spes,” which confirm the absolute indissolubility of Christian marriage.

Of course, the discussion also remains open on the exegesis that Fr. Gargano makes of the saying of Jesus: “I have come not to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them.”

For example, this saying, as also the antithesis “it was said to them of old…but I say to you” that characterizes the Sermon on the Mount, is given a decidedly different and no less evocative interpretation by Joseph Ratzinger in the first volume of his “Jesus of Nazareth.”

Ratzinger demonstrates the originality of the relationship between the new law and the old law in two exemplary cases: the commandment on the sabbath and the other commandment, “honor your father and mother,” to which Jesus, without abolishing them, gives a new and broader significance.

And he then shows how in the old law two kinds of codes interacted: the “casuistic,” conditioned historically and susceptible to developments and corrections, and the “apodictic,” pronounced in the very name of God and of perennial value, whose “fundamental option is the guarantee offered by God himself on behalf of the poor.”

Jesus, Ratzinger writes, “contrasts with the casuistic, practical norms developed in the ancient law the pure divine will, as the ‘greater justice’ (Mt 5:20) that is to be expected from the children of God.”

And therefore, “do not love only your neighbor, but even your enemy.” And therefore “not only do not kill, but reach out to the brother with whom you have argued in order to be reconciled with him.” And therefore “no more divorce…”

The complete text of the article by Fr. Guido Innocenzo Gargano in the “Urbaniana University Journal” can be found on this other page of www.chiesa:

Giustizia e misericordia nelle parole di Gesù sul matrimonio

English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.

________________

Contrary to true Unity, the following is an example of what Vatican II has brought about: partnerships.—The Editor

Inter-Christian collaboration in view of interreligious dialogue

Vatican City, 21 January 2015 (VIS) – Yesterday the annual meeting took place between the officials of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (PCDI) and the staff of the Office for Interreligious Dialogue and Cooperation (IRDC) of the World Council of Churches (WCC). The event enabled information to be exchanged regarding activities carried out during 2014.

The meeting also offered the opportunity to reflect on future partnerships between the two institutions, which have collaborated for some years now, in order to exchange information and with a view to joint initiatives for the examination of various issues.

The most recent initiatives include the presentation, in 2011, of the document “Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World: Recommendations for Conduct”, by the PCDI, the World Council of Churches and the World Evangelical Alliance.

————————

For those who purchase through Amazon, please help support the work here at Saint Joseph’s by going through this link:

http://smile.amazon.com/ch/94-2855162

———————–

Father Courtney Edward will be in Los Angeles February 3, San Diego February 4 and Eureka, Nevada, February 10.

_________________________

The topics of Faith and Morals will correspond to the Roman Catholic Faith in Tradition and the Magisterium. The News will be of interest. The commentaries are for the reader to ponder and consider. The e-mail address will be for you to provide thought for consideration. The donations will be to support the continuation of this undertaking.

While the Newsletter is free of charge it is not free of cost. Please consider supporting St Joseph’s Catholic Church with a tax – deductible donation by clicking the secure link below

Click Here to Donate

 

Or if you prefer send a check to

 

Catholic Tradition Newsletter

c/o St Joseph’s Catholic Church

131 N. 9^th St

Las Vegas, NV 89101

 

Visit us on the Worldwide Web: http://stjosephlv.org

e-mail news and comments to: tcatholicn@yahoo.com

 

To unsubscribe, please type, “unsubscribe”‚ in subject line.