Vol 8 Issue 23 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier ~ June 6, 2015 ~ Saint Norbert

1. Baptism: Means of Salvation (19)
2. Second Sunday after Pentecost
3. St Norbert
4. Marriage and Parenthood (23)
5. Articles and notices

Dear Reader:

What are Catholics expected to do when diabolical forces from all sides flood the senses and the mind with lies? First, there must be an acknowledgement that these are lies and that it is useless for the senses and the mind to entertain any doubt that these lies have any value other than to test one’s faithfulness to Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The Israelites were surrounded by pagans and unfortunately imbibed the pagan cultures of idol worship, not putting the Lord God first. The Prophets repeatedly warned them of their sin—remember, sin—and the act of God in abandoning them to their sin:

And [the Spirit of God] saying: Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious people, that hath revolted from me, they, and their fathers, have transgressed my covenant even unto this day. And they to whom I send thee are children of a hard face, and of an obstinate heart: and thou shalt say to them: Thus saith the Lord God: [5] If so be they at least will hear, and if so be they will forbear, for they are a provoking house: and they shall know that there hath been a prophet in the midst of them.  And thou, O son of man, fear not, neither be thou afraid of their words: for thou art among unbelievers and destroyers, and thou dwellest with scorpions. Fear not their words, neither be thou dismayed at their looks: for they are a provoking house. And thou shalt speak my words to them, if perhaps they will hear, and forbear: for they provoke me to anger. But thou, O son of man, hear all that I say to thee: and do not thou provoke me, as that house provoketh me: open thy mouth, and eat what I give thee. And I looked, and behold, a hand was sent to me, wherein was a book rolled up: and he spread it before me, and it was written within and without: and there were written in it lamentations, and canticles, and woe. (Ezechiel 2:3-9)

In this light, and appropriate today for those who are faithful Catholics, St. John directs these words:

I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them that are evil, and thou hast tried them, who say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And thou hast patience, and hast endured for my name, and hast not fainted. But I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first charity. Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen: and do penance, and do the first works. Or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance. (Apoc. 2:2-5)

One must remember that if there is no faith in God, Who is absolute Truth, than there is no absolute Truth in their lives, which means that the hypothetical possibilities they present are void of absolute Truth, which follows that even if these explanations may have some truth, they are still based upon un-Truth. The limitations of error are only bounded by Truth, therefore error itself has no limitations except Truth, of which there is only One Truth though error is many. It can be expected that those who refuse to accept the Truth are in error: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them. (2 Cor. 4:4); And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. (John 3:19)

There is an article by Charles Pope addressing the zeitgeist of today. I would that the source be from clergy of the traditional Catholic Faith, but unfortunately, as just quoted from St. John’s Apocalypse, their first charity has waned.

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

____________________

Baptism

Means of Salvation

Restoration of Grace

Waiting for the Redeemer (e)

Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas

Saint Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, teaches that Circumcision was a preparation for and a type of baptism, for:

Baptism is called th­­­­e Sacrament of Faith; in so far, to wit, as in Baptism man makes a profession of faith, and by Baptism is aggregated to the congregation of the faithful. Now our faith is the same as that of the Fathers of old, according to the Apostle (2 Corinthians 4:13): “Having the same spirit of faith . . . we . . . believe.” But circumcision was a protestation of faith; wherefore by circumcision also men of old were aggregated to the body of the faithful. Consequently, it is manifest that circumcision was a preparation for Baptism and a figure thereof, forasmuch as “all things happened” to the Fathers of old “in figure” (1 Corinthians 10:11); just as their faith regarded things to come. (ST III, q. 70, a. 1)

He then goes on to explain that circumcision symbolized physically (the removal of flesh) what baptism was able to do spiritually, to remove carnal behavior. Although the outward symbolism wasn’t as apparent as the Hebrews passing through the cloud and through the water (cf. 1 Cor. 10:2), the inward symbolism was perceptible in circumcision as St. Paul says: You are circumcised with circumcision, not made by hand in despoiling the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in Baptism. (Col. 2:11-12)

Further, the institution of circumcision corresponded to what God expected from those who were believers in the Old Testament just as Baptism corresponds to what Christ expects from those who are believers in the New Testament:

[C]ircumcision was a preparation for Baptism, inasmuch as it was a profession of faith in Christ, which we also profess in Baptism. Now among the Fathers of old, Abraham was the first to receive the promise of the future birth of Christ, when it was said to him: “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 22:18). Moreover, he was the first to cut himself off from the society of unbelievers, in accordance with the commandment of the Lord, Who said to him (Genesis 13:1): “Go forth out of thy country and from thy kindred.” Therefore circumcision was fittingly instituted in the person of Abraham.

Saint Thomas also explains that circumcision kept the believers in a unity of faith, which would also be a quality of Faith in the New Testament, as Christ says repeatedly in in His discourse at the Last Supper: That they may be one(John 17:11, 21, 22, and 23). Saint Paul therefore reminds the early Christians: 

Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. (Eph. 4:3-6)

St Thomas then sets circumcision as wholly dependent on the male and not the female to signify the role of Abraham, who was to be the father from whom descended the Redeemer, and to also signify original sin as passing on from Adam, the father of all mankind, through generation therefore the sign of faith was to be manifested in the male until the Promise came and the Gospel was to be preached to all mankind:

Baptism contains in itself the perfection of salvation, to which God calls all men, according to 1 Timothy 2:4: “Who will have all men to be saved.” Wherefore Baptism is offered to all nations. On the other hand circumcision did not contain the perfection of salvation, but signified it as to be achieved by Christ, Who was to be born of the Jewish nation. For this reason circumcision was given to that nation alone. (ibid.)

There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28)

Again, drawing from Augustine, Saint Thomas recognizes the eighth day as fitting for circumcision within the Old Testament context as a sign within the wisdom of God, taking the verse of Romans (4:11), And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith, which he had, being uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe, being uncircumcised, that unto them also it may be reputed to justice, coupled with Psalm 146 (v. 5), Great is our Lord, and great is his power: and of his wisdom there is no number. The Angelic Doctor then succinctly summarizes:

It was fitting for circumcision to be performed on the virile member. First, because it was a sign of that faith whereby Abraham believed that Christ would be born of his seed. Secondly, because it was to be a remedy against original sin, which is contracted through the act of generation. Thirdly, because it was ordained as a remedy for carnal concupiscence, which thrives principally in those members, by reason of the abundance of venereal pleasure. (III, q. 70, art. iii)

Of note, also, St. Thomas writes as to the allowance of circumcising before the eighth day as follows:

[I]t is better to say with Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacram. i) that the eighth day was never anticipated for any motive, however urgent. Hence on Proverbs 4:3: “I was . . . an only son in the sight of my mother,” a gloss says, that Bersabee’s other baby boy did not count because through dying before the eighth day it received no name; and consequently neither was it circumcised.

There is not a question that circumcision was administered after, since even Abraham was first circumcised in his old age and his son, Ismael, was thirteen (Gen. 17:1ff). The incident of Moses’ son being circumcised by Sephora (Exod. 4:24) and Josue re-instating circumcision (Josue 5:2ff) have already been related.

As to the effect of circumcision, the bestowing of sanctifying grace, the Angelic Doctor rebuttals the arguments of those who objected. He states the position of Augustine:

Augustine says, writing to Valerius in answer to Julian (De Nup. et Concup. i.): “From the time that circumcision was instituted among God’s people, as ‘a seal of the justice of the faith,’ it availed little children unto sanctification by cleansing them from the original and bygone sin; just as Baptism also from the time of its institution began to avail unto the renewal of man.” (ST III, q. 70, a. iv.)

And then provides a lengthy explanation of his position:

All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision. But some said that no grace was conferred, and that the only effect was to remit sin. The Master holds this opinion (Sent. iv, D, 1), and in a gloss on Romans 4:11. But this is impossible, since guilt is not remitted except by grace, according to Romans 3:2: “Being justified freely by His grace,” etc.

Wherefore others said that grace was bestowed by circumcision, as to that effect which is the remission of guilt, but not as to its positive effects; lest they should be compelled to say that the grace bestowed in circumcision sufficed for the fulfilling of the precepts of the Law, and that, consequently, the coming of Christ was unnecessary. But neither can this opinion stand. First, because by circumcision children received the power of obtaining glory at the allotted time, which is the last positive effect of grace. Secondly, because, in the order of the formal cause, positive effects naturally precede those that denote privation, although it is the reverse in the order of the material cause: since a form does not remove a privation save by informing the subject.

Consequently, others said that grace was conferred in circumcision, also as a particular positive effect consisting in being made worthy of eternal life; but not as to all its effects, for it did not suffice for the repression of the concupiscence of the fomes [carnal movements of the flesh], nor again for the fulfilment of the precepts of the Law. And this was my opinion at one time (Sent. iv, D, 1; 2, 4). But if one consider the matter carefully, it is clear that this is not true. Because the least grace can resist any degree of concupiscence, and avoid every mortal sin, that is committed in transgressing the precepts of the Law; for the smallest degree of charity loves God more than cupidity loves “thousands of gold and silver” (Psalm 118:72).

We must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in circumcision as to all the effects of grace, but not as in Baptism. Because in Baptism grace is bestowed by the very power of Baptism itself, which power Baptism has as the instrument of Christ’s Passion already consummated. Whereas circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ’s future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith; whether, being an adult, he made profession for himself, or, being a child, someone else made profession for him. Hence, too, the Apostle says (Romans 4:11), that Abraham “received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith”: because, to wit, justice was of faith signified: not of circumcision signifying. And since Baptism operates instrumentally by the power of Christ’s Passion, whereas circumcision does not, therefore Baptism imprints a character that incorporates man in Christ, and bestows grace more copiously than does circumcision; since greater is the effect of a thing already present, than of the hope thereof.

Saint Thomas has, by delving into the question of sanctification, digressed into the universal question of those who did not receive circumcision after its institution in the Old Testament whether or not they could find sanctification and be saved. In this matter he takes an objection of circumcision bestowing salvation (of course in light of Christ’s Redemptive act). Here is the objection:

Further, we read (Joshua 5:5-6) that “the people that were born in the desert, during the forty years . . . were uncircumcised.” If, therefore, original sin was taken away by circumcision, it seems that all who died in the desert, both little children and adults, were lost. And the same argument avails in regard to those who died before the eighth day, which was that of circumcision, which day could not be anticipated, as stated above (3, ad 3).

Gives this answer:

It seems, however, that none of the uncircumcised died in the desert, for it is written (Psalm 104:37): “There was not among their tribes one that was feeble”: and that those alone died in the desert, who had been circumcised in Egypt. If, however, some of the uncircumcised did die there, the same applies to them as to those who died before the institution of circumcision. And this applies also to those children who, at the time of the Law, died before the eighth day. [i.e., they were still saved by a living faith.]

To this may be added his understanding about faith justifying in reply to the second objection:

Just as before the institution of circumcision, faith in Christ to come justified both children and adults, so, too, after its institution. But before, there was no need of a sign expressive of this faith; because as yet believers had not begun to be united together apart from unbelievers for the worship of one God. It is probable, however, that parents who were believers offered up some prayers to God for their children, especially if these were in any danger. Or bestowed some blessing on them, as a “seal of faith”; just as the adults offered prayers and sacrifices for themselves.

Finally, as to sanctifying grace and entrance into heaven, he reminds the student of theology:

Original sin was taken away in circumcision, in regard to the person; but on the part of the entire nature, there remained the obstacle to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven, which obstacle was removed by Christ’s Passion. Consequently, before Christ’s Passion not even Baptism gave entrance to the kingdom. But were circumcision to avail after Christ’s Passion, it would give entrance to the kingdom.

May it also be added, since circumcision was taken to be a reflection of baptism but was not baptism, Saint Thomas stresses the likeness between Baptism and circumcision and also the difference. It was already pointed out that circumcision remitted original sin and actual sin as a necessary consequence of sanctifying grace. It was also shown that circumcision was operative through the faith of the parent or one circumcising (if a child) or the person circumcised (if adult); whereas Baptism sanctifies of itself. Circumcision received its operative power in view of the Redemptive act of Christ, whereas Baptism is the application of the Redemptive act. Finally, circumcision did not remit temporal punishment due to sin, whereas Baptism remits all punishment due to sin.

When adults were circumcised, they received remission not only of original, but also of actual sin: yet not so as to be delivered from all debt of punishment, as in Baptism, in which grace is conferred more copiously. (ibid.)

This overview of circumcision is necessary in understanding not only the effects of Baptism, but also how the Fathers and Doctors of the Church would perceive the condition of those who were unable to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.

(To be continued)

————————–

Week of Second Sunday after Pentecost

Benedict Baur, O.S.B. 

“This do in commemoration of Me”

1. “Do this in commemoration of Me.” At the Last Supper, Christ offered Himself to the Father under the appearance of bread and wine. To the apostles He gave the command: “Do this in commemoration of Me”; that is, He commanded them to do precisely as He had done. By this command He appointed and ordained them to the priesthood conferring on them the power to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice. This they were to do, not for themselves alone, but with us and for us in the name of the whole Christian community. We, too, are to offer and participate in this sacrifice. For that purpose we were baptized. Participation in the Eucharistic sacrifice is the most fundamental act of Christian life and Christian piety. “Do this in commemoration of Me,” is a command given us by the Lord which applies to all Christians, although not in the same measure and in the same sense.
2. “Glory to God in the highest” (Luke 2:14). Nothing in this world is more important than the glorification of God. This was the primary purpose of the creation of the world, the redemption of man, the incarnation of the Son of God, and our eventual glorification in heaven. But who can glorify God in a manner worthy of Him, and in the measure that is His due? No one but the incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ. Although He was the Son of God, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death. Since His human nature is united to the divinity in the unity of one person, Christ can offer homage to God that is authentically human. How can other men fulfill the commandment laid upon them to glorify God? How can they ever hope to glorify Him in a becoming manner? They can so glorify Him by offering to the Father, His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, together with His flesh and blood, His heart, His merits, His adoration of the Father, His subjection to the will of the Father, His love of the Father. We can glorify God by offering Him ourselves in union with Christ, our head, with complete subjection to him and with unselfish dedication to Him. He gave Himself to us that we might give Him back to His Father with a childlike love as our gift to God, thus supplying for our own nothingness, our abject poverty, our complete unworthiness. He made it possible for us to hallow eternally the name of God.

“Do this in commemoration of Me.” We fulfill our priestly function of honoring the name of God most perfectly when we offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. There, through the consecration performed by the priest, Christ becomes the victim of our sacrifice. He is given to us that we may consecrate him to the Father. “Through Him, and with Him, and in Him, is to Thee, God the Father Almighty, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honor and glory, forever and ever.” “Do this.” We do the very same thing that Jesus did. We take Him in our hands as He took bread and wine, and offer Him to the Father, His flesh and blood, His life, His sufferings, His death, all that He did, all that He is. We offer to the Father this victim of inexhaustible worth, a victim which renders to God infinite praise and honor. We assist at the celebration of Mass, not primarily to venerate the Lord who has appeared on our altar or to be enriched and enlivened by Him, but first of all that we may offer Him to His Father. Similarly, He comes down upon our altar, not primarily that He Himself may be glorified or that He may be of assistance to us, but principally to glorify the majesty of God. If we were to confine our participation in the Mass to the adoration of Christ or to the quest of some grace for ourselves, we should demonstrate clearly that we misunderstand the purpose of Christ’s coming, the true meaning of the Eucharist, and we should not be fulfilling that command of the Lord, “Do this in commemoration of Me.” In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass the Father and the Blessed Trinity are the principal objects of our worship. Christ is the intermediary, and He desires that we offer Him to His Father.

3. Many Christians believe they have discharged their obligations at Mass when they say their prayers, either orally or mentally, when they express their love for Christ, when they prepare themselves properly for the reception of Holy Communion. But that is not sufficient. That which is most essential in the eyes of Christ and in the mind of God appears to us to be so unimportant that we often forget it or neglect it altogether. On the other hand, that which is in no way essential, we make the most important. How, then, can we manage to approach the celebration of Mass with the proper spirit and with the joy that should characterize our participation? We are burdened with the realization that we are incapable of offering to God the homage that is His due, and we bewail our impotence. We strive for a greater love for God, and make great efforts to overcome our deficiency. We may be willing even to sacrifice everything for this purpose. And yet, all our efforts would amount to practically nothing. We live in a fool’s paradise if we hope to be able to honor God properly with anything that is entirely our own, with anything that we can accomplish by our own effort. If we are so disposed, we can make very little progress; and if we do manage to make some progress, it is without joy. But once we understand what has been given to us in the person of Christ, what an infinite power for good was placed at our disposal when Christ commanded us, “Do this in commemoration of Me”; then we will be able to participate in the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass worthily and with the proper spirit.

PRAYER

O Lord, may the sacrifice which we offer to Thy name purify us and confirm us more each day in a truly heavenly life. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

THURSDAY OF THE SECOND WEEK

Holy Communion

1. “He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him” (Gospel). The Holy Eucharist is the sacrament of union.
2. “He abideth in Me, and I in him.” Through the reception of the Holy Eucharist, a living and fruitful union of Christ with the soul is accomplished. “When melted wax is poured into melted wax, both portions become perfectly intermingled. When we partake of the body and blood of Christ, something very similar occurs. Christ becomes part of us, and we become part of Him” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem). “The fellowship of the body and blood of Christ, of Holy Communion, aims at nothing else but that we be transformed into that of which we partake, and that we bear the spirit and the flesh of Him in whom we have died, with whom we have been buried, and with whom we have risen” (St. Leo the Great). By partaking of this food we become incorporated in Christ, and for this reason it is necessary that we be taken up to where Christ is, there to be associated with Him in a community of life inexpressibly rich in its spirit and possessions, since He is the Son of God. He will be in us, and we in Him.

Now we are the object of the eternal and supernatural love of the Father, which makes us, more than ever before, children of God, which sweeps us up to the bosom of the Blessed Trinity. Now we are enveloped by the fullness of the godhead, by the life of God, and at the same time made partakers of the glory which the Son has received from the Father. Now the words of Christ are fulfilled, “And the glory which Thou hast given Me, I have given to them” (John 17:22). Now we become one in body and blood with Him. Now we become “Christophers,” bearers of Christ, since we have partaken of His flesh and blood, and thus become partakers of the divine nature and possessors of the divine life. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem.) This participation in the life of God accomplishes at the same time our perfect possession of the Holy Ghost, who dwells in a special way in the body of Christ, of which we have partaken. He diffuses Himself in the richest measure in those who are united to Christ as one body. Since we have been bound to our Lord so as to form one body, we shall be filled with His Spirit and with His divine life. We shall become one in spirit with Him just as truly and as intimately as we have become one in body with Him in the Holy Eucharist.

“And as I live by the Father, so he that eateth Me, the same also shall live my Me” (Gospel). This is the mystery of the Eucharistic union. This union does not consist merely in the fact that we subject our wills and make them conform to the will of Christ; nor is it merely that the spirit of Christ dominates our spirit. It consists rather in the fact that our innermost spirit is possessed and penetrated completely by the life of Christ. God Himself penetrates our souls and fills them with His life. He seizes upon our souls like a consuming fire so that He can flood it with His light and warmth, and clothe it with His glory. By means of Holy Communion the Son of God gives us His divine life and continues His life in us. “I live, now not I; but Christ liveth in me” (Gal. 2:20). His life and our lives, His thoughts and our thoughts, His will and our will are mingled like the smoke from two kernels of incense which ascends to heaven in one fragrant cloud. Christ destroys in our souls our purely natural modes of thinking and acting and causes us to think, act, and feel as He would. He strips us of our blindness and makes us understand how we can share in His love of poverty, His love for His Father, in His humility, in His obedience, and in His love for the cross. We begin now to rid ourselves of all natural and selfish attitudes and to live, feel, and act according to His spirit. “He that eateth Me, the same shall live by Me.”

3. “If thou didst know the gift of God” (John 4:10). How inestimably precious is the wealth of the soul that has received Holy Communion! But such a soul must indeed be pure if it presumes to receive this sacrament. “But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord” (Epistle).

The oftener we receive Holy Communion, the more we must die to the natural man, the more we must be possessed by the spirit and the sentiments of Christ. The oftener we receive, the more we must love, treasure, and seek what He loves, treasures, and seeks. Christ loves poverty, prayer, insignificance in the eyes of the world, humility, simplicity, the cross, and sacrifice.

PRAYER

O God, who in this wonderful sacrament has left us a memorial of Thy passion, grant us, we beseech Thee, so to reverence the sacred mysteries of Thy body and blood that we may ever perceive within us the fruit of Thy redemption. Who livest and reignest world without end. Amen.

____________________________________________

JUNE 6

St. Norbert, Bishop and Confessor

1. At Xanthus, in Asia Minor, [actually Xanten, Germany] Norbert was born in 1080. He possessed a cheerful disposition and extraordinary gifts of mind, but when a deacon he found himself still so fond of the pleasures of the world that he hesitated to take the holy orders of priesthood. One dark day, when he and a group of pleasure bent young men were riding to a celebration, a flash of lightning frightened his horse, and he was thrown to the ground. He lay unconscious for an hour, and when he came to his senses frivolity had vanished from his nature. Like St. Paul he asked: “Lord, what wilt thou have me do?” (Acts 9:6.) The answer came: “Avoid evil, do good, seek peace.” From that moment on Norbert devoted his life to prayer and penance. Ordained at the age of thirty, he preached against the worldliness of the clergy, and as a result was slandered, cursed, persecuted, and condemned by verdict of ecclesiastical authority; but he accepted the correction humbly. Soon after this his innocence became apparent, and he was thus free to dispose of all his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. He then began to labor zealously for the salvation of souls, at the same time undertaking many sacrifices and works of penance. In the hope of being able to preach the gospel more effectively and to devote himself wholly to the saving of souls, Norbert founded the Order of Premonstratensians, which spread quickly over all of Europe. On a journey to the city of Speyer in 1126, he was named Bishop of Magdeburg by King Lothar II. By the humility of his own priestly life, he greatly bettered the lives of both priests and laity in this diocese. He died on June 6, 1134, and was canonized in 1582.
2. “Here was a great priest, whose life was acceptable to God, and proved ever faithful; to him; when the day of retribution came he made amends for all. Where shall we find another to keep the law of the Most High as he kept it? So it was the Lord took an oath that he should be the father of his chosen people. The Lord gave him the blessing which should extend to all nations . . . ratified the blessings he uttered and singled him out for favor, such grace he found in the eyes of the Lord. . . . He made a covenant with him, entrusting him with the great office of the priesthood and enriching him with high honor” (Lesson: Ecclus. 44:16-45:20). This description fits St. Norbert after divine grace turned him from a life filled with vanities and made him a great preacher of penance, the founder of an Order, and a zealous priest and bishop. He was snatched from perdition and claimed for Christ, led by the way of repentance through solitude and prayer, and by his severe penitential practices in a Cologne monastery, until he had atoned for past sins and obtained God’s pardon.

By these proofs of a sincere conversion, St. Norbert prepared the ground on which the grace of God would erect an edifice of sanctity. At his first Mass he preached, with tears flawing, about the shortness of life, the emptiness of worldly pleasures, and the consequence of a sinful life. The next day, at Xanthus [Xanten], he addressed the canons so forcefully, pointing out the abuses prevailing among them, that some began to lead a new, more perfect life. Upon receiving from Pope Gelasius II a commission to preach the gospel of penance everywhere, he promptly set out clad in a coarse, penitential garb, and traveled about France, undaunted by severe weather, fatiguing labors, and numerous sacrifices. In Orleans he was joined by three companions, but they bore only briefly the rigors of his way of life. His path became a stream of blessings: enemies were reconciled, ill-gotten goods restored, and hardened sinners set on the path of virtue. Here, truly, was a “great priest,” fruit of the grace of God.

3. St. Norbert’s conversion is a shining miracle of God’s mercy which pursues men’s souls, devising numberless means of rescuing them and preserving them, and leading them to eternal salvation. In some cases, God grants consolations and special lights; in others, He employs spiritual darkness and remorse of conscience; sometimes, a happy experience; very often it is a misfortune, sickness, or accident that He sends; finally, He may show His hand plainly by means of mysterious circumstances, as He did in the case of St. Norbert, in which a seemingly blind action of nature served. Norbert understood, and reaped grace and salvation from the experience—for his own soul and countless others.

Equally effective graces would come to each of us, in all the trials, hardships, misfortunes, humiliations, and ailments of our daily lives, as well as in the routine problems and ordinary events, if we learned to recognize in them the merciful love of Him who came to seek and to save those who were lost. In so doing, we would take a much more correct and calm view of life; we would treasure the sufferings that assail us as a rich source of blessing, just as St. Norbert did. May he intercede for us!

Collect: God, who didst make Thy blessed bishop and confessor Norbert an outstanding preacher of Thy word, and through him didst cause Thy Church to bring forth a new offspring; grant, that by Thy help and with his merits pleading for us, we may be enabled to practice what he taught by word and deed. Amen,

MARRIAGE AND PARENTHOOD

The Catholic Ideal

By the Rev. Thomas J. Gerrard

(1911)

CHAPTER XI 

SEXUAL INSTRUCTION FOR THE YOUNG

WHEN the question is asked point blank whether children should be taught at least the chief facts of the sexual life, the answer is hard to give. Nearly everybody’s instinct shrinks from saying, “Yes.” All right-minded parents and teachers feel a reticence in speaking to children on a matter which from its very nature is so private. Yet, on the other hand, nearly everybody’s reason declares that children should have such instruction. The great majority of young girls who go wrong do so simply out of ignorance of the tendencies, dangers, and responsibilities of the sexual life. Moral depravity in boys, too, arises chiefly from the fact that they acquire their first information from older boys already depraved. What must parents do in the face of this dilemma? A universal healthy instinct counsels silence, whilst a universal healthy reason counsels speech. Evidently there must be a compromise. And the compromise is this: there must be speech, but it must be reticent and discreet.

The mind and the senses, the brain and the nerves, are so related to each other that they act and react on each other. So intimate and organic is this relationship that conversation or reading about sexual matters tends to excite the sexual functions. Even though the conversation and the reading may be justified and done with a right intention, it is, nevertheless, fraught with certain dangers. It emphasizes images in the imagination which may become temptations to sin, when the brain is tired or the mind off its guard.

There can therefore be only one reason for enlightening children with sexual knowledge. There can be only one reason for adults discussing sexual topics amongst themselves. There can be only one reason for the writing of this and similar chapters. And the reason is necessity.

In 1905 a conference on the subject was held at Mannheim. An almost unanimous vote declared that the chief laws of sex should be taught to boys in the higher classes of secondary schools. But the widest diversity of opinion was expressed as to the manner in which the instruction should be given; and also as to the extent of the matter; nor yet was there any unanimity as to who should give the instruction. In Germany experiments have actually been made. But the result has not been satisfactory to the Catholic conscience. Complaints have been raised both as to the information given and the way of giving it. Indeed, very little reflection is wanted to show that, in a matter so personal and private, class instruction is not the desirable thing.

The first principle that may be laid down with safety is that the duty of giving the first instruction in these matters belongs to the parents of the children. Even in the more general parts of education the school is but a supplement to the family. The school-teacher is only supposed to do what the parents cannot efficiently do themselves. But the parent can teach the laws of sex, and ought to be able to do so even more efficiently than the school-teacher. Moreover, the teacher has a right to presuppose such knowledge if in the course of his lessons questions involving sexual laws should incidentally arise.

It has been frequently said that the mother should teach the girls and the father the boys. This rule becomes more appropriate as the children grow older. Girls between the ages of thirteen and seventeen would more naturally turn to their mother, whilst boys of the same age would more naturally turn to their father. Parents may take this as a healthy instinct and use their judgment accordingly to direct it.

But questions begin to arise in the child mind long before the age of thirteen. As the mother is occupied almost entirely with the children during their earlier years, it is her duty rather than the father’s to watch for the signs of awakening intelligence. Knowledge should never be thrust into the child’s mind before it is asked for. The state of innocence or ignorance, whichever we like to call it, is better kept untouched as long as possible. If a boy or girl can be kept in a state of innocence, without fear of being smirched by other and more precocious children, say up to the age of thirteen or fourteen, he will be all the better for it both in health of mind and health of body. To put sexual images into a child’s mind before due time is to start a tendency towards precocity and moral depravity. The arrival of a new baby is best explained by saying that it is a present from God, and has come in God’s good way.

Together with this protection from the unripe fruit of knowledge there should be a corresponding observance of sex hygiene. Irritation due to uncleanliness, or to tight and hot clothing, may easily cause undue sexual development and so become the source of moral difficulty in the future. If any signs of abnormal sexual development appear a doctor should be consulted. Under no circumstances whatever should children be allowed the taste of alcohol. It leads both to drunkenness and impurity.

There comes at length a time when explicit knowledge is in order and must be given. The dawn of a more intelligent interest begins to glimmer. It comes so innocently, so naively, that it is just as likely to express itself in the presence of the mother as in the presence of other and older children. That is the mother’s opportunity. Then, and not until then, may she give the information. If, as is frequently done, she silences the question by saying that it is one that ought not to be asked, or if she ignores it by talking of something else, then she has missed the opportunity given to her by God through nature. The child’s interest has not been crushed, but has even been accentuated and probably directed into a dangerous channel. He will ask the question again, and perhaps when he does get an answer it will be adorned with the attractions of vice. The impression will come to him that somehow the facts of sex are very wicked, but at the same time very alluring.

No! When the right moment has arrived, when the mother judges that if she does not speak some one else will, then she must say the word solemnly and plainly. The fact of sex is something holy and mysterious. If the child wants to know anything about it, it must ask mother and not other people. Children grow in the mother’s body and when the time comes they are born.

If the matter be thus solemnly but openly treated there will be no need to go too much into details. The child will make its own inferences, which will be substantially correct. At any rate, they will be enough for the time being. As the child grows older it will want to know more. Here again no exact rule can be laid down. The parents will be guided by their judgment, which will partake rather of the nature of an instinct. As more details are required so will the mother speak to the girls, and the father to the boys. To the parents and not to the schoolmaster, nor still less to boys and girls, belongs the duty of explaining what is meant by being born.

This knowledge is sought for, and possessed, long before the knowledge of how children are begotten. The latter is one of the most difficult things to teach. Parents are inclined to be too reticent about it, with the result that children invariably get their first knowledge from undesirable sources. Let reason, then, decide that the parents shall say what is essential, and at the same time let instinct decide that they shall not say more than is essential.

There is no need, whatever, for a full and particular description of the sexual act. Much less is there need of diagrams and pictures of the human body.

The best way is to begin with the lower forms of life. The description of the fertilization of a plant is most admirable. The plant excites no harmful images in the imagination. The poultry yard, too, may be taken as a convenient object lesson. If plants and poultry are understood, then the parent may go further and say that in the higher animals and in human beings the young are produced in a similar way.

The manner of giving this information is more important than the matter. There must, on the one hand, be no tendency to laugh and joke about it, whilst there must, on the other, be no attempt to suppress it as if it were something wicked. The inquiring mind at this stage is alert and receptive. Moreover, it works in harmony with a natural instinct. Thus of its own nature it readily makes the right inferences and draws the necessary conclusions. The aim of the parent is to keep these conclusions as ideal as possible, and to prevent them from becoming topics of conversation and reading. The more they act on the senses so much the more likely are they to induce an indulgence of the senses, and thus lead to acts of impurity.

(To be continued)

These arguments are perennial, but, as always, the world wants to crucify the Truth. Remember the saying, A rose is a rose no matter what other name you call it?—The Editor

http://blog.adw.org/2015/06/the-body-god-gave-us-doesnt-lie-a-meditation-on-the-sexual-confusion-of-our-day/

The Body God Gave Us Doesn’t Lie – A Meditation on the Sexual Confusion of Our Day

By: Msgr. Charles Pope

The latest tragic twist in the “Bruce Jenner saga” (more on that below) illustrates yet again one of the great errors of our day: the rejection of the truth that our bodies have something to tell us about who we are and what we are called to do and be. Most moderns see the body as merely a tool of sorts. Assertions are made that one can do as one pleases with one’s own body, and that a person’s sex (male or female) is purely incidental—merely an arbitrary quality one “happens to have.” Many say that our sex should not speak to anything deeper than genitals and that other “mere” physical differences are to be set aside to one degree or another. In effect, it would seem that our bodies have little or nothing to say to us. According to modern culture they are incidental.

The rejection of the body as instructive or in any way determinative has reached its zenith in the attempted normalization of homosexual activity, the redefinition of marriage, and now, sexual “reassignment” surgery.

…

[Message clipped]  View entire message