Vol 8 Issue 14  ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
April 4, 2015 ~ Saint Isidore, opn!

1. Freedom of Religion
2. Easter Sunday
3. St. Vincent Ferrer
4. Marriage and Parenthood (14)
5. Articles and notices

Dear Reader:

A most blessed Feast of the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ!

Because the issue of Freedom of Religion has taken center stage during this past week, the Editor felt it necessary to broach the subject and answer objections raised. Freedom to believe whatever one wants is not acceptable in Catholic teaching, for all have the obligation to believe the truth. Yet, Catholics live in a secular society and must contend with to live their faith. In this contention, in civil matters, the question of religious freedom is addressed.

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Freedom of Religion Restoration Act

In the states of Indiana and Arkansas, the fight for religious freedom has reached a climax, that is: Do Americans have religious freedom? According to the present Secular State—though Religious Freedom was guaranteed to allow the state to be secular in the United States of America  as included and understood by the Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution—secular laws now trump religious rights, which include freedom of conscience. This is accomplished by a vocal minority that has espoused “progress”, rejected religion as divinely revealed, and instead choose to believe in evolutionary development to justify distaining the past moral and embrace novelty.

Religious freedom has swung from the Federal Government  claiming public schools cannot force Jehovah Witnesses to pledge allegiance to the flag, Seventh Day Adventists cannot be forced to work on Saturday, Quakers are exempt from military and Jury duty, Mennonites could have their own communities, Sikh children were to be allowed to wear ceremonial knives in school and Sikh men could wear their turbans when and where normal people must remove their hats or caps or be liable of being arrested to the point today where Christians, the majority faith, are now to be forced to participate in the idiosyncrasies of non-Christians against their own conscience. That is, instead of being supportive of accommodating religious beliefs of the most bizarre sort if they are not directly harmful to the general public and themselves, the Federal government is now making it compulsory of Christians (and mind you it must be stressed, those awful Christians) to abandon their beliefs and practice and live the beliefs of non-Christians. So, the question arises: Do Christians have the protection of the First Amendment?

Indiana’s State assembly has, unfortunately, confined religion not to the individual, but to the place of worship (just as the Federal Government under Obama.) The question, therefore, is whether the individual has freedom of religion, or does it pertain only to the government to, contrary to the First Amendment, establish what religion is and relegate freedom within its established definition, i.e., a place of worship as defined by the Federal Government.

The First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .

When a religion has existed previous to the United States Constitution, and historically has been part of the development of the United States Constitution and has insisted on the First Amendment to protect itself, then it would seem that all laws that circumvent the free exercise of that religion would be opposed to the First Amendment. In looking at Constitutional challenges, the SHERBERT v. VERNER, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) provides a basic understanding when government interferes with the free exercise of religion. Justice Brennan gives the Courts decision, stating three objections to state opposition:

1. The door of the Free Exercise Clause stands tightly closed against any governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such, Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303. Government may neither compel affirmation of a repugnant belief, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488; nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities, Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 ; nor employ the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of particular religious views, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 ; Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 ; cf. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 . On the other hand,[374 U.S. 398, 403]   the Court has rejected challenges under the Free Exercise Clause to governmental regulation of certain overt acts prompted by religious beliefs or principles, for “even when the action is in accord with one’s religious convictions, [it] is not totally free from legislative restrictions.” Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 603 . The conduct or actions so regulated have invariably posed some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order. See, e. g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 ; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 ; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 ; Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 .
2. …The ruling [against her] forces her to choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of her religion in order to accept work, on the other hand. Governmental imposition of such a choice puts the same kind of burden upon the free exercise of religion as would a fine imposed against appellant for her Saturday worship.
3. We must next consider whether some compelling state interest enforced in the eligibility provisions of the South Carolina statute justifies the substantial infringement of appellant’s First Amendment right. It is basic that no showing merely of a rational relationship to some colorable state interest would suffice; in this highly sensitive constitutional area, “[o]nly the gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests, give occasion for permissible limitation,” Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530. [374 U.S. 398, 407] No such abuse or danger has been advanced in the present case.

And Justice Douglas gave in the concurrence further support for the prohibition of the state to prevent one from choosing faith over government regulations:

The case we have for decision seems to me to be of small dimensions, though profoundly important. The question is whether the South Carolina law which denies unemployment compensation to a Seventh-day Adventist, who, because of her religion, has declined to work on her Sabbath, is a law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion as those words are used in the First Amendment. [374 U.S. 398, 411]   It seems obvious to me that this law does run afoul of that clause.

Religious scruples of Moslems require them to attend a mosque on Friday and to pray five times daily. 1Religious scruples of a Sikh require him to carry a regular or a symbolic sword. Rex v. Singh, 39 A. I. R. 53 (Allahabad, 1952). Religious scruples of a Jehovah’s Witness teach him to be a colporteur, going from door to door, from town to town, distributing his religious pamphlets. See Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 . Religious scruples of a Quaker compel him to refrain from swearing and to affirm instead. See King v. Fearson, Fed. Cas. No. 7,790, 14 Fed. Cas. 520; 1 U.S.C. 1; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 43 (d); United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 655 (dissenting opinion). Religious scruples of a Buddhist may require him to refrain from partaking of any flesh, even of fish. 2  

The examples could be multiplied, including those of the Seventh-day Adventist whose Sabbath is Saturday and who is advised not to eat some meats. 3  

These suffice, however, to show that many people hold beliefs alien to the majority of our society – beliefs that are protected by the First Amendment but which could easily be trod upon under the guise of “police” or “health” regulations reflecting the majority’s views.

Some have thought that a majority of a community can, through state action, compel a minority to observe their particular religious scruples so long as the majority’s rule can be said to perform some valid secular function.[374 U.S. 398, 412]   That was the essence of the Court’s decision in the Sunday Blue Law Cases (Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Market, 366 U.S. 617 ; Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 ; McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420), a ruling from which I then dissented (McGowan v. Maryland, supra, pp. 575-576) and still dissent. See Arlan’s Dept. Store v. Kentucky, 371 U.S. 218 .

That ruling of the Court travels part of the distance that South Carolina asks us to go now. She asks us to hold that when it comes to a day of rest a Sabbatarian must conform with the scruples of the majority in order to obtain unemployment benefits.

The result turns not on the degree of injury, which may indeed be nonexistent by ordinary standards. The harm is the interference with the individual’s scruples or conscience – an important area of privacy which the First Amendment fences off from government. The interference here is as plain as it is in Soviet Russia, where a churchgoer is given a second-class citizenship, resulting in harm though perhaps not in measurable damages.

This case is resolvable not in terms of what an individual can demand of government, but solely in terms of what government may not do to an individual in violation of his religious scruples. The fact that government cannot exact from me a surrender of one iota of my religious scruples does not, of course, mean that I can demand of government a sum of money, the better to exercise them. For the Free Exercise Clause is written in terms of what the government cannot do to the individual, not in terms of what the individual can exact from the government.

The Conciliar bishops of Indiana made a stance in support of the law in February, 2015, that restated the above court decision and updated violations by the Federal and State governments:

The government is expanding its regulatory powers to redefine and intrude into areas traditionally beyond the authority of the state. A key example is the effort in several states to insist that all employers who offer prescription drug coverage for their employees must include contraceptives and drugs that cause abortion. The dilemma is that Catholic institutions offer health insurance as an expression of what, in justice, we should provide for those who work for us. The provision of insurance is now the trigger for these new mandates. These mandates are coupled with something even more insidious – a so-called religious employer exemption crafted not to exempt religious institutions. These so called exemptions involve the government in classifying among religious ministries, labeling some religious and other secular, depending on what the government thinks is the function of religion.

According to the definition, a religious employer is restricted to a narrow form of religious work:

1. It must be engaged in inculcation of religion. Would Catholic ministries qualify when the service primarily provides food and other material resources to those in need?
2. A religious employer primarily hires its own members. Would Catholic parishes qualify when many non-Catholic persons are employed in various capacities, including parish secretaries?
3. A religious employer primarily serves its own members. Under this definition, Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity is a secular employer because it does not check religious affiliations of AIDs patients it serves.

Another example is licensure or accreditation. Requirements for licensure or accreditation should not include unnecessary rules that compel agencies to act against their religious beliefs. Adoption agencies have been forced out of existence as was the case in Illinois. Therapists and doctors could be forced to practice in ways antithetical to one’s conscience and belief or lose one’s ability to serve and earn a livelihood.

Until recently, it was simply unthinkable that one person would attempt to force another to act contrary to that person’s religious conscience. While American law and culture reserved the right to act against religious practices when there was clear evidence that they directly endangered the public health and safety, it was simply not acceptable to force a person to choose between God and Government. Notwithstanding the Hobby Lobby decision, this has changed in many respects in many states’ laws and regulations.

SB 101 Religious Freedom Restoration Act establishes a legal standard that protects state interests as well as individuals and religious institutions. When there is a compelling state interest in the law or regulation, it must be done in the least restrictive manner thus protecting both the common good while respecting the conscience and religious freedom of all affected.

Long ago, the people of this country settled the question that there should be a variety of institutions serving the public, including religious and Catholic agencies. We want to continue our public ministries and practice our faith which enrich our country and build up the common good. This law would provide assurance that only compelling laws and regulations, applied in a least restrictive manner, can interfere with religious practice. The Catholic Church supports SB 101 RFRA as a prudent way to ensure the religious freedom of Hoosier individuals and institutions.

On April 1, 2015, the Conciliar bishops reiterated that there was not a question of respect for others, but the right of an individual to “to practice their religion without undue burden from the government.”

The opponents to Christians [some actually claiming to be Christian Catholics] give the following arguments:

Elizabeth Scalia, in her Blog “The Anchoress” points to Christian hypocrisy: [http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2015/03/30/indianas-rfra-and-daring-tolerance-as-demanded/#ixzz3WGKcp3bj]

For the Christians, whose concerns about the chiseling away of religious freedoms in America I share (and whose belief in the fundamental right of a person to honor their own conscience I certainly support): you argue that you are happy to bake a cake for a gay person, or arrange flowers for a gay person, and therefore there is no bigotry behind your refusal to perform a service for a gay wedding; rather, you say you are simply honoring your religious conscience. You fear that baking that SSM cake or arranging those SSM flowers will signal participation or advocacy for Same Sex Marriage, which is sinful.

Here’s the thing, though. If you want to be taken at your word that your stand is not bigoted, but only conscientious, shouldn’t you be able to demonstrate that your religious conscience is consistent?

 

• If a couple that is shacking up wants to celebrate the fifth anniversary of their moving in together, and comes to you for the celebration cake, are you baking it, or are you saying, “I’m sorry, but my religious conscience forbids it; I don’t want to be seen as giving even tacit support that sinful lifestyle which is negatively affecting society?”

• If someone is throwing a “divorce party” (as some do) or remarrying without an annulment, are you arranging the flowers, or are you saying, “I’m sorry, but Jesus is incredibly clear about divorce and remarriage, and if I arranged these flowers for you, I would be dishonoring his teaching?”

• If an unwed mother wants her baby photographed, are you photographing it, or are you saying, “I’m sorry, I believe a child is entitled to a mother and a father, and this person has clearly sinned against fornication, and I don’t wish to be seen as advocating and encouraging all this?” Would you figure “we’re all sinners and this is a one-off”, and — in charity — take the picture? What about if she comes back two years later, with another child from different father? Then, what will your conscience say?If, however, you are routinely baking cakes for shacked-up couples, doing the flowers for “divorce parties” and irregular remarriages, and snapping photos for unwed mothers, but drawing the line at same sex weddings, then — as Ricky Ricardo said — “you have some ‘splainin’ to do.” Specifically, how do you argue that the goods and services you provide for other sinners do not demonstrate participation or advocacy of their behaviors, but baking up three tiers for two men somehow does?You Christian bakers, florists and photographers need to decide whether you are ready to be consistent in what constitutes a participation in sin, or you need to just bake the [*] cake, put the [*] flowers in a vase or snap the [*] picture, already, and move on to the next customer.In response, there are two things Scalia neglects to understand. First, those who do the first two items she mentioned are the very ones who oppose or don’t care about Religious Freedom because they don’t have any Christian principles or morals and would not fight for Christian principles or morals. They usually have left the Church because they see the Church as too rigid. The third point is completely outside the spectrum of the argument unless Scalia insists that the child itself is a sin. There is no participation in a sin in taking a picture of a child however it came into being. That a sin was committed before can be granted. That a sin is being committed now cannot be granted. A mother is expected to bring her child into this world and care for the child and should be supported in so doing. It is disgraceful for Scalia to indicate otherwise. The person who bakes a cake for the child or takes pictures does an honorable service and in no way shows support for mothers being unwedded as it is not the act that of being unwedded that is being serviced.[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/freedhearts/2015/03/30/christians-why-do-you-need-protecton-for-your-religious-liberties-i-just-dont-get-it/#ixzz3W7Y1tmug]I’ve read the words of Christ, and I cannot find anywhere that he asks his followers TO judge their neighbor, TO condemn their neighbor, TO reject their neighbor. In fact, he said the opposite.

 

• I’ve looked at the requirements of Christianity. I’ve read the words of Christ, and I cannot find anywhere that he asks his followers to NOT serve your neighbor, NOT be kind to your neighbor, NOT to love your neighbor… (and he said everyone is your neighbor). I’ve searched and searched but it is not in there.
• Susan Cottrell stresses the normal pick the passages that support the argument and ignore the rest in her blog, Freed Hearts:
• Can you have it both ways? I suggest that consistency matters. Either no one living a life out of comportment with scripture gets a cake, because cake means you encourage their sin, or everyone gets a cake, because cake is just damn cake, and makes no statement at all.
• The thing is, if you are refusing to bake a cake for a same sex wedding, and you can demonstrate that you routinely refuse service to people whose lives singe your conscience, you’ll win any case brought before you. You won’t likely have enough customers to pay your bills, but no one would be able to convincingly charge you as a bigot or a hater, because your Christian conscience clearly does not discriminate between sinners.

Because I must tell you, you are breaking a lot of direct commands by driving people over the edge, laying on them heavy burdens you do not lay a finger to help lift, making them follow traditions of men, not the love of Christ.

Please, help me out here. Do not collapse paradigms. Don’t throw random stuff in here. I’m asking you where Jesus, the one you claim as your Savior, the Christ whose name you claim: where does he tell you to pass laws to protect your ability to exclude those you consider sinners.

Note: Especially to those who want laws to protect their religious liberties (i.e. to exclude “sinners”), remember this:

Remember Simon the Pharisee was highly offended at the “sinful woman” who washed Jesus’ feet – Simon wanted Jesus to throw her out. Instead, Jesus corrected Simon!

Simon was just like you, a religious man who believed he was fully justified to exclude this “sinner.” Yet, Jesus corrected him, instead.

Really.

So please, tell me. Help me get this straight.

Because honestly, I know Jesus never said anything like this. Jesus does not justify your “religious laws” in any way. In fact, he would correct you instead.

Unless you can prove otherwise, then you are just reflecting your own preferences. It’s time to admit it, because if you are proceeding on your own power, not Jesus’, then don’t call it religious liberty. You’re just fighting for your right to discriminate. 

Cottrell forgets that John the Baptist condemned the relationship Herod had with Herodias as found in Matthew 14:5 and Mark 6:18. We read in Luke:

Whose fan is in his hand, and he will purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his barn; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire. And many other things exhorting, did he preach to the people. But Herod the tetrarch, when he was reproved by him for Herodias, his brother’ s wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done; He added this also above all, and shut up John in prison. (Luke 3:17-20)

Even the Christ said about Herod: Go and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I am consummated. (Luke 13:32). John was very harsh to the self-righteous (that is, those who denied their sins), saying to them:

Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.  For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire. (Matt. 3:7-10; cf. Luke 3:7ff)

Not only does Christ say: Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.  (Matt. 7:6), but is action in the Temple does not bespeak of a tolerant person of evil:

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the chairs of them that sold doves: [13] And he saith to them: It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but you have made it a den of thieves.(Matt. 21:12; cf. John 2:13-17)

And the condemnations of the unrepentant continues in these verses of Luke:

But into whatsoever city you enter, and they receive you not, going forth into the streets thereof, say: Even the very dust of your city that cleaveth to us, we wipe off against you. Yet know this, that the kingdom of God is at hand. I say to you, it shall be more tolerable at that day for Sodom, than for that city. Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida. For if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the mighty works that have been wrought in you, they would have done penance long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgement, than for you. And thou, Capharnaum, which art exalted unto heaven, thou shalt be thrust down to hell. He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. (Luke 10:10-16)

Such passages directly contradict the Christ of Cottrell, who does not want to hear the words of Christ: If you love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15) followed by: If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father’ s commandments, and do abide in his love. (John 15:10) And this is clearly the commandments of God given Moses on Mount Sinai, as Matthew quotes Christ: But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (19:17) To the question Which? Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (19:18-20)

Love of neighbor is wanting what is best, not neglect of the neighbor. Therefore, the example that Cottrell brings up about Simon and the woman cannot be seen as Simon wanting to throw her out, but that the woman had a bad intention of touching the Christ. Christ turns this into showing what He wanted: Repentance. This woman had repented as revealed by telling Simon He knew what Simon was thinking and therefore that He knew this woman had repented and was expressing her gratitude and therefore said to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee. (Luke 7:48) Would Simon repent? This is a questioned asked, and one that is not answered also by Cottrell because she is the Simon who self-righteous.

Repentance is again found to be what Christ stressed with the woman caught in adultery: Go, and now sin no more. (John 8:11)

Why does Cottrell and all those supporting sodomy and the killing of children  not quote these passages? Because they would condemn themselves in their hypocritical use of Scripture. It is not discrimination by the Christian, it is refusing to participate in the sins of others and being forced by the state to participate when on the contrary it has the obligation to ensure one does not have to participate in the sins of others. According to Christian teaching, Sodomy and the killing of the deliberate killing of the unborn has always been held as sin and never has the state found this belief to be harmful to the state. To do so now shows discrimination toward Christians.

———————-

Easter Week

Benedict Baur, O.S.B. 

WEDNESDAY OF EASTER WEEK

Holy baptism

1. The liturgy today recalls the third appearance of Christ after His resurrection, when we gather with the neophytes in the church of St. Lawrence.
2. “Come, ye blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom which was prepared for you from the foundation of the world, alleluia” (Introit). With these words the Lord receives the newly baptized Christians as they present themselves at the threshold of the church of St. Lawrence. “Receive the kingdom” by reason of your membership in the Church, which is the kingdom of God on earth. In the Church, which the neophytes have entered by the gate of baptism, they receive supernatural gifts from heaven. Here they sing a “new canticle,” the song of the baptized, the song of the beloved children of God who have arisen from sin. Here in the celebration of Mass the Lord appears to us. We are like the apostles fishing in their fragile boat, while He appears to us walking on the firm shore of eternity. In the fire of His passion He has prepared for us fish and bread, which He offers us in the form of the Eucharist. By this means we become new creatures, cleansed from sin, and the seed of immortality is implanted in our souls. “Christ, rising again from the dead, dieth now no more, alleluia; death shall no more have dominion over Him, alleluia, alleluia” (Communion). We are now one with Him. By virtue of Holy Communion we share His immortality. Death shall no more have dominion over us. Death must release us when Christ calls us to eternity. Then we shall enter into the blessed kingdom of eternal life. “Come, ye blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom which was prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”

“Ye men of Israel, and ye that fear God [among the heathens], hear. The God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers hath glorified His Son Jesus, whom you indeed delivered up and denied before the face of Pilate, when he judged He should be released. But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer [Barabbas] to be granted unto you. But the Author of life you killed, whom God hath raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses” (Epistle). We, the baptized, are also witnesses of this miracle. Baptism imposes on us the duties of a witness, a martyr for Christ. Therefore we celebrate the holy mysteries today with the holy martyr St. Lawrence. He reminds us of the fish and bread on the hot coals in today’s Gospel. He is the patron and the model of the baptized, the living representation of the ideal for which we should all strive. Like St. Peter and St. Lawrence, we live among unbelievers and those who have gone astray. We are witnesses of the risen Christ. We have been inspired by His example and filled with grace by the reception of His holy body. We have become new men, risen men. We now have new ideals, new strength, and a new outlook on life. We are, as it were, a living testimony to Christ; He lives and works through us. We must bear witness to Christ’s resurrection, not with empty words, but by the testimony of a holy life. “I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me” (Gal. 2:20).

3. “Come, ye blessed of My Father.” Baptism gives us the right to expect that Christ will address these words to us and that we shall stand at His right hand on the day of judgment. It gives us the right to expect that we shall enter heaven triumphantly with Christ. Do we appreciate the benefits of baptism and live worthy of so great a grace?

Baptism is not an empty ceremony. It is a call to martyrdom for Christ. Are we strong enough for this? Are we detached from the things of the world? Are our lives truly mortified? Can we say with St. Paul: “I count all things to be but loss for the excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them but as dung, that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having my justice which is of the law, but that which is of the faith of Christ Jesus, which is of God, justice in faith; that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection [that is, the glorious life which He now lives and which He imparts to His own] and the fellowship of His sufferings [that is, to suffer with Christ], being made conformable to His death, if by any means I may attain to the resurrection which is from the dead” (Phil. 3:8-11)?

“Christ, rising again from the dead, dieth now no more, alleluia; death shall no more have dominion over Him, alleluia, alleluia” (Communion). In the mind of the liturgy, the mystical Christ, the Church, now dies no more. To be a good Christian, to receive Holy Communion worthily and frequently, implies the complete separation from sin. This idea is impressed upon us by the Easter liturgy. “If you be risen with Christ [through baptism], seek the things that are above . . . . You are dead [to sin], and your life is hid with Christ in God” (Col. 3: 1 ff.; Epistle of Holy Saturday). “Purge out the old leaven that you may be a new paste. . . . Let us feast . . . with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (I Cor. 5:7 f.; Epistle of Easter Sunday).

PRAYER

O God, who dost gladden us with the yearly solemnity of the Lord’s resurrection, grant in Thy loving kindness that through the temporal feast which we keep we may be worthy to reach eternal joys. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen

THURSDAY OF EASTER WEEK

Mary Magdalen

1. Eight days ago the penitents received absolution and were readmitted to communion with the Church. This reconciliation took place in the church of the Twelve Apostles. In this same church we gather every ember Friday to weep over our sins with Magdalen, the penitent. The church of the Twelve Apostles has a close relationship with St. Mary Magdalen, for at the tomb of the risen Savior, Mary was made an apostle: “Go to My brethren [the apostles] and say to them: I ascend to My Father and to your Father.” The liturgy lingers about the tomb today with the penitent Magdalen, to whom Christ first appeared after appearing to His mother. At Mass the Lord comes to us as He came to Mary at the tomb.
2. “Mary stood at the sepulchre without, weeping. Now as she was weeping, she stooped down and looked into the sepulchre; and she saw two angels in white. . . . They said to her: Woman, why weepest thou? She saith to them: Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him. When she had thus said, she turned herself back and saw Jesus standing; and she knew not that it was Jesus” (Gospel). St. Gregory thus comments on this touching incident:

Mary Magdalen, who had been a sinner in the city, by loving the Truth washed away the stains of her crime with her tears . . . . “Many sins are forgiven her, because she has loved much” (Luke 7:47). She who formerly had remained cold in her sin, afterwards became fervent with holy love . . . . Of the disciples [who had come to the tomb] it is written: “The disciples therefore departed again to their home” (John 20:10). And then is added: “But Mary stood at the sepulchre without, weeping.” What a great love glows in the heart of this woman, who did not leave the tomb even though the disciples left! . . . She sought Him in tears, and inflamed with the fire of love, she burned with yearning for Him whom she thought had been taken away. Thus it happened that she alone then saw Him, she who alone had remained to seek Him.

The former sinner, the penitent, is the chosen one of the Lord. She is allowed to see Him because she has loved much and because she remained to seek Him. The sign of real virtue is perseverance. “He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved” (Matt. 24: 13). Would that we had such a longing for Christ as Magdalen had! Would that we could love as she loved! Our hearts are filled with worldly desires, and we have little room left for Christ. We are so attached to the foolishness and emptiness of the world that we have no love for Christ.

“Why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou?” Christ asks Magdalen. She thinks that it is the gardener addressing her, and she says to Him, “Sir, if thou hast taken Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away. Jesus saith to her: Mary. She, turning, saith to Him: Rabboni (which is to say, Master).” She then casts herself at His feet, seeking to kiss and embrace them. Now she thinks she will never lose Him whom she has found. Christ does not permit this expression of her love. She has more important duties now. “Go to My brethren and say to them: I ascend to My Father” (Gospel). Mary obeys at once. She tears herself away from Him whom she loves and brings the glad news to the apostles. “Congratulate me, all you who love the Lord; for He whom I sought has appeared to me. And I saw the Lord as I wept at the tomb, alleluia, alleluia. Although the disciples went away, I did not leave, and glowing with the fire of love for Him, I burned with longing for Him. And I saw the Lord as I wept at the tomb, alleluia, alleluia” (Responsory at Matins).

3. Today the Lord appears to us in the Mass and calls us by name as He once called Magdalen. He called us by this name first when we were baptized. Today we should come to the Communion rail with a longing similar to Mary’s.

When we have recognized Him and received Him in Holy Communion, we also become apostles. Our mission is to love our neighbor. By our zeal in the practice of fraternal charity we give testimony to the world that Christ is risen and that He continues to live and work in us, the members of His mystical body. Having done penance, Magdalen now knows only the joy of possessing Jesus. We must share her joy.

PRAYER

O God, who hast united different peoples in the confession of Thy name, grant that there may be one faith in the mind and one piety in the deeds of those born again in the waters of baptism. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

____________________________________________

APRIL 5

St. Vincent Ferrer, Confessor

1. The world has rarely seen the equal of St. Vincent as a preacher of penance. He spoke “as one having power.” By his influence over minds and hearts he broke the tyranny of Satan in souls and substituted the reign of God. Born of a genuinely Christian family in Valencia, Spain, in 1357, he grew to manhood just before the unfortunate Western Schism (1378-1417), during which two or three men claimed the papal throne at the same time and the religious confusion and corruption of the Christian people were appalling.

It was into this chaos that God placed St. Vincent to be the “Angel of judgment,” He had been a Dominican since 1374 and was just then attracting attention as a preacher, at first in Valencia. Peter de Luna, Cardinal-legate, took him to the court of Charles VI of France, but Vincent could not stomach the pomp and artificiality there, and promptly returned to his monastery and his preaching. When, in 1394, Peter de Luna was elected as a second pope in Avignon, he took Vincent into his service. From 1399 to 1409, the preacher made his famous missionary journey through Catalonia, France, and Lombardy to Geneva and Fribourg in Switzerland, and even to England. Often thousands of penitent men and women followed him. In the hope of ending the schism he repudiated Benedict XIII (Peter de Luna) before an immense multitude in Perpignan, and then preached penance throughout France, and as far as Constance. From here he went to Normandy and Brittany, where he died, April 5, 1419. Pope Callistus III intended to canonize him, but it remained for Pius II to do so, in 1458.

2. “God, who wast pleased to enlighten thy Church with the virtues and preaching of thy confessor Vincent . . .” (Collect). For the Church and religion this was a most unhappy time, until God raised up this preacher. Benedict XIII, invalidly elected pope by Spaniards and Frenchmen, offered Vincent bishoprics and even the cardinalate, but he refused everything. All he wanted was a commission from the pope to work for the salvation of souls. Having obtained this he preached with ardent zeal throughout the provinces of Spain, calling all to repentance. He possessed a gift for picturing the judgment of God upon sinners, as well as the eternity and horrors of hell, in such a way that even the most obstinate sinners repented, wept over their sins, conscientiously performed the penances he imposed, and started a new life.

God supported Vincent’s preaching with many miracles, he possessed the gift of prophecy, and exhibited extraordinary holiness of life. Thus, he was able to lead numberless infidels, Mohammedans, and heretics to the true faith. When he preached in Toledo the Jews of the city accepted Christianity and changed their synagogue into a church dedicated to the Mother of God. In 1412, in the presence of a vast throng at Salamanca, the Saint raised a dead person to life. Then, entering the synagogue, he preached so convincingly to the Jews of the city that they immediately asked for baptism and converted their synagogue into a Church of the Holy Cross. Everywhere the results of his preaching were equally phenomenal. But withal he remained the humble friar, observing the rules of his Order even on the most tiring trips and in spite of prodigious missionary activity. Every day, except Sundays, he fasted; always he persevered in prayer and familiar intercourse with God. Truly, his life was a miracle of God’s grace, of virtue, and of union with God.

“My faithfulness and mercy shall go with him; as my champion he shall rise to greatness” (Offertory). On one occasion when the enthusiastic preacher had aroused the Valencians, a lascivious woman conceived an unchaste love for him. Pretending to be sick she sent for Vincent to come and minister to her. When she revealed her feelings and intentions, the Saint fled in fright. Then, out of a spirit of revenge, the woman spread shameful lies and calumnies about him, and tried in every way to undermine his reputation. But God’s “faithfulness and mercy” were with Vincent. When the woman saw that he remained patient and calm, she repented, confessed publicly, and apologized. St. Vincent not only pardoned her, but he also, through prayer, secured her release from the mental suffering that was torturing her.

But the young Dominican also had his interior trials. It was only by prayer and hard fighting that he conquered them and kept himself fit for the work of God. “My faithfulness and mercy shall go with him.” He continued to charge his words with the living and life-giving power that irrepressibly gripped the hearts of his listeners and overcame all interior opposition. All this success was not simply the result of study, labor, and skill; it was the natural overflowing of a soul filled with the spirit of God. “As my champion he shall rise to greatness.” What wonderful fruit of the grace of God!

3. The fact that Vincent effected such remarkable conversions was due, next to the power of God working through him, largely to the seriousness with which he urged people to repent and the vividness with which he described the punishments of eternal hell-fire. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31). “Let us not run away from sermons on hell; then we shall be able to run way from hell itself” (St. John Chrysostom). “No sin can remain unpunished. Punish it yourself [by penance] so that you will not have to be punished for it” (St. Augustine). Do not all of us need to do penance and render satisfaction for our sins?

There is consolation in the fact that God sends saints, in times of danger and confusion, to preserve His people from ruin. Thus, He sent St. Vincent as a powerful apostle and preacher of penance to his age. God does not forsake His Church.

Collect: God, who wast pleased to enlighten Thy Church with the virtues and preaching of Thy confessor blessed Vincent, grant that we Thy servants may be schooled by his example and freed by his protection from all harm. Amen.

MARRIAGE AND PARENTHOOD

The Catholic Ideal

By the Rev. Thomas J. Gerrard

(1911)

CHAPTER VII

CONJUGAL RESTRAINT

ALL who look forward to marriage do so as to a state of ideal happiness. Yet how many fail to realize their ideal! It makes you jump, as Chesterton would say, when you think of what you expected, and compare it with what you have got. So we come round again to the same old theme: if you want to enjoy the Catholic ideal of a perfect marriage you must follow the Catholic rules. He who wishes for the end wishes also the means to the end.

Now one of the chief means to happiness proposed by the Church is conjugal restraint. It would be very strange if in all the other animal tendencies she counselled moderation, and in this allowed unlimited indulgence. Yes, there can be debauchery in the pleasures of married life just as in the pleasures of eating and drinking. Such excess is a violation of the law of nature, and inevitably brings on nature’s punishment. In this, as in all other functions of man, virtue, happiness, /82/and well-being are to be found in moderation, and moderation is secured by rational restraint.

The question before us is not so much as to what is sin or no sin, but rather as to what helps to a higher happiness. The Church allows a wide freedom in the enjoyment of conjugal pleasures. She never for a moment forgets that one of the ends for which marriage was instituted was that it should be a remedy for concupiscence. In order therefore that there shall be no danger of indulgence outside lawful matrimony, the widest possible exercise is permitted within matrimony. The Church goes, hand in hand with nature, to the furthermost of nature’s limits before she says that such or such an act is sin. She counsels the married pair, however, not to avail themselves of the whole range of nature’s freedom. She declares that rational restraint is the way to the highest and fullest happiness in married life.

The root reason of this counsel is to be found in the fact that by restraint the sexual appetite is brought under control of the will. The will is guided by reason, and reason in its turn is illumined by divine wisdom. Thus, restrained and controlled, the sexual appetite can be directed to the three great ends for which it was made, and thus can it be prevented from abuse, for which it was /83/ not made. The order and higher satisfaction thus secured constitute the essence of happiness.

Let us see now how this higher satisfaction is reached. There are three ends for which marriage was instituted, and consequently three reasons which make the marriage act lawful and holy. The first and chief is the begetting of children. The second is the calming of concupiscence, and consequent avoiding of incontinence. The third is the fostering of conjugal love and affection. But all these minister to the perfection both of the individual and of the race. The married pair see in their offspring the continuance of their own life. Their joy is to know that a child is born to them, to see the child grow up and become settled in life, to hear that their own son is making his mark in the world, or that their own daughter is married well and happily.

The second and third reasons minister to the first. Unless there were a remedy for concupiscence, incontinence would follow, and with it all the evils of jealousy, quarrels, illegitimacy, separation, or divorce. Further, the fostering of conjugal love tends both to the increase of offspring, and to its good bringing up when born.

Sensual pleasure for its own sake is not amongst the recognized reasons for the exercise of the /84/ marriage act. It passes away with its own satisfaction, and if indulged merely for that purpose has neither use nor dignity. As a matter of fact it was made to minister to higher ends. It is a mere adjunct to the marriage act, intended to make it attractive for the benefit of the race. If, therefore, it is perverted and made an end in itself, and if its higher ends are excluded, then it defeats the aim of matrimony, it kills the love between husband and wife, it shirks the burden of children.

In order that sensual pleasure may be the servant and not the master of man it must be restrained. It must not be crushed or destroyed. That was the error of Manicheism and Buddhism. But it must be moderated so that it may remain as long as possible a help towards conjugal love, towards the normal satisfaction of the sexual appetite, and towards the procreation of a large and healthy family of children. To let it have its full fling is to lessen its keenness, to destroy its power, and to render it disgusting.

There can be no general law for everybody. What is excess for one pair may be moderation for another. What is moderation for one partner may be excess for the other. Each case must be judged according to its own circumstances.

In deciding this, the existence and the welfare /85/ of the offspring is the first consideration. Incontinence tells against the interests of the offspring. Each partner then has the duty of seeing that, as far as possible, the other shall not be exposed to this danger. For the sake of home and family, therefore, each one is bound to render the debt as often as reasonably asked.

For such a sacred purpose either

…

[Message clipped]  View entire message