Vol 9 Issue 8 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
February 20, 2016 ~ Lenten Feria
1. Baptism: Means of Salvation (56)
2. Second Sunday in Lent
3. Saint Severian
4. Christ in the Home (31)
5. Articles and notices
Dear Reader:
As usual, Jorge Bergoglio always takes the opportunity to suggest a change in Catholic teaching while he is flying through the sky and always adds a revelation of past secretive change a la post Vatican II to support the change. One must consider that this is a matter of faith and morals, and when one pope quotes another it is to announce that it is a teaching of the Church that may be believed—even though not dogmatized. The rush of conservative Conciliar Catholics to say Bergoglio couldn’t have said what he said expresses that they recognize this unchangeable change since the use of an artificial contraceptive (not, for example, abstention, but, for example, the pill) as a contraceptive is absolutely forbidden by the Church. Now Bergoglio claims Paul VI allowed, of all people, Sisters, to take contraceptives specifically to prevent birth—and, however mean you may consider me, it is God who allows the child to come into the world and it is only God who can prevent it—lest, being raped, they have a child (not considering that having taken the pill, they will still not be able to have a child even if they are not raped. Here are the words of Bergoglio in response to Paloma García Ovejero, Cadena COPE (Spain), question: As regards avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of “the lesser of two evils?
Bergoglio:
Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil. On the “lesser evil,” avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment. Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.
Don’t confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy by itself, with abortion. Abortion is not a theological problem, it is a human problem, it is a medical problem. You kill one person to save another, in the best-case scenario. Or to live comfortably, no? It’s against the Hippocratic oaths doctors must take. It is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil in the beginning, no, it’s a human evil. Then obviously, as with every human evil, each killing is condemned.
On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. I would also urge doctors to do their utmost to find vaccines against these two mosquitoes that carry this disease. This needs to be worked on.
Therefore, he has taken the position and holds that it is the teaching of the Church (Conciliar—but which few distinguish from the Roman Catholic Church) that one can take contraceptives to prevent birth to prevent a child coming into the world with the Zika virus. Which, properly interpreted in the argument, means one can take contraceptives to prevent birth for any reason unless one intentionally wanted to bring the child into the world, i.e., that the act was done specifically to bring a child into the world—which few have this intention today. Perhaps this has been why Catholics who accept the Vatican II spirit have had no qualms using contraceptives because their moral theologians have justified the unjustifiable. There are links to articles that look at the words of Bergoglio below.
As always, enjoy the readings and commentaries provided for your benefit.—The Editor
____________________
Baptism
Means of Salvation
Sacrament of Baptism
Saint Thomas Aquinas
Having covered the need for the intention to receive the Sacrament of Baptism by adults and at least, within that, belief in Baptism, now comes the question of children who, it would seem, can neither have the intention of receiving baptism as they do not have freewill nor any faith as they seemingly have no knowledge. Nor, as the Protestants would say, have children sinned or repent of sin. Therefore, the perennial question raised especially by Protestants in opposition to the Catholic Church, whether children can be baptized? But Thomas replies with Apostolic Tradition: Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): “Our heavenly guides,” i.e. the Apostles, “approved of infants being admitted to Baptism.”
Then he comes back to the Scriptural teaching that Baptism is to remove all sin, first Original Sin and then all personal sin if there are any.
As the Apostle says (Romans 5:17), “if by one man’s offense death reigned through one,” namely Adam, “much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ.” Now children contract original sin from the sin of Adam; which is made clear by the fact that they are under the ban of death, which “passed upon all” on account of the sin of the first man, as the Apostle says in the same passage (Romans 5:12). Much more, therefore, can children receive grace through Christ, so as to reign in eternal life. But our Lord Himself said (John 3:5): “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Consequently it became necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth they incurred damnation through Adam so in a second birth they might obtain salvation through Christ. Moreover it was fitting that children should receive Baptism, in order that being reared from childhood in things pertaining to the Christian mode of life, they may the more easily persevere therein; according to Proverbs 22:5: “A young man according to his way, even when he is old, he will not depart from it.” This reason is also given by Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii). (Art. 9)
Original Sin is passed without the consent of the child, so also may it be removed without the consent of the child—who does not have actual sin. Those who have come to the age of reason and have actual sin would have to have the intention of receiving Baptism. If there is no need of consent from a child, would it be expedient to just baptize all children, even those of non-Catholics, so they would be saved? This is formulated in the next article, whether children of Jews or other unbelievers be baptized against the will of their parents?Despite this good will and knowing that God wills the salvation of all (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4), Thomas reminds us:
It is written in the Decretals (Dist. xlv), quoting the council of Toledo: “In regard to the Jews the holy synod commands that henceforward none of them be forced to believe: for such are not to be saved against their will, but willingly, that their righteousness may be without flaw.”
. . . The children of unbelievers either have the use of reason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to control their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural law. And therefore of their own accord, and against the will of their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract marriage. Consequently such can lawfully be advised and persuaded to be baptized.
If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients “were saved through the faith of their parents.” Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents’ will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will. Moreover under the circumstances it would be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers; for they would be liable to lapse into unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents. Therefore it is not the custom of the Church to baptize the children of unbelievers against their parents’ will.
If there is immediate danger of death, anyone may baptize and anyone may be baptized. Otherwise,
. . . [A] child, before it has the use of reason, is ordained to God, by a natural order, through the reason of its parents, under whose care it naturally lies, and it is according to their ordering that things pertaining to God are to be done in respect of the child.
And, what if there is danger of the child dying before birth? Can a child be baptized while yet in its mother’s womb? One must place this in perspective of the age in medical knowledge and ability when considering the answer of Saint Thomas, who says:
It is essential to Baptism that some part of the body of the person baptized be in some way washed with water, since Baptism is a kind of washing, as stated above (Question 66, Article 1). But an infant’s body, before being born from the womb, can nowise be washed with water; unless perchance it be said that the baptismal water, with which the mother’s body is washed, reaches the child while yet in its mother’s womb. But this is impossible: both because the child’s soul, to the sanctification of which Baptism is ordained, is distinct from the soul of the mother; and because the body of the animated infant is already formed, and consequently distinct from the body of the mother. Therefore the Baptism which the mother receives does not overflow on to the child which is in her womb. Hence Augustine says (Cont. Julian. vi): “If what is conceived within a mother belonged to her body, so as to be considered a part thereof, we should not baptize an infant whose mother, through danger of death, was baptized while she bore it in her womb. Since, then, it,” i.e. the infant, “is baptized, it certainly did not belong to the mother’s body while it was in the womb.” It follows, therefore, that a child can nowise be baptized while in its mother’s womb. (Art. 10)
Here, then, one sees two answers: Baptizing a woman with child does not affect the child or children in her womb as it is the person who is baptized, not the body (though Augustine clearly states—and contrary to those who claim: My body my choice—it is a separate body. Secondly, it was not possible to pour water, in utero, then—though it is now possible. Of course, it can only be as a last resort, for, as Saint Thomas inserts:Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan.): “No one can be born a second time unless he be born first.” But Baptism is a spiritual regeneration. Therefore no one should be baptized before he is born from the womb. (Ibid.) When it is the last resort because of possible death of the mother or the child:
. . . [T]he head, wherein the senses are rooted, appear first, it should be baptized, in cases of danger: nor should it be baptized again, if perfect birth should ensue. And seemingly the same should be done in cases of danger no matter what part of the body appear first. But as none of the exterior parts of the body belong to its integrity in the same degree as the head, some hold that since the matter is doubtful, whenever any other part of the body has been baptized, the child, when perfect birth has taken place, should be baptized with the form: “If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee,” etc. (Ibid.)
There is this added note by Thomas:
Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb. (Ibid.)
Considering, then, children who do not have the use of reason, comes next those who also do not have reason whether from birth or later through loss of mental health. Therefore he askswhether madmen and imbeciles should be baptized?
Thomas takes Augustine’s account in his Confessions of a friend who was baptized while delirious, as one reads:
. . . For, from the true faith (which he, as a youth, had not soundly and thoroughly become master of), I had turned him aside towards those superstitious and pernicious fables which my mother mourned in me. . . .
. . . What was it that Thou did then, O my God, and how unsearchable are the depths of Your judgments! For when, sore sick of a fever, he long lay unconscious in a death-sweat, and all despaired of his recovery, he was baptized without his knowledge; myself meanwhile little caring, presuming that his soul would retain rather what it had imbibed from me, than what was done to his unconscious body. Far different, however, was it, for he was revived and restored. Straightway, as soon as I could talk to him (which I could as soon as he was able, for I never left him, and we hung too much upon each other), I attempted to jest with him, as if he also would jest with me at that baptism which he had received when mind and senses were in abeyance, but had now learned that he had received. But he shuddered at me, as if I were his enemy; and, with a remarkable and unexpected freedom, admonished me, if I desired to continue his friend, to desist from speaking to him in such a way. (Confess. iv, 7, 8)
Thomas then places these circumstances when one may be baptized and when one may not be baptized:
In the matter of madmen and imbeciles a distinction is to be made. For some are so from birth, and have no lucid intervals, and show no signs of the use of reason. And with regard to these it seems that we should come to the same decision as with regard to children who are baptized in the Faith of the Church, as stated above (9, ad 2).
But there are others who have fallen from a state of sanity into a state of insanity. And with regard to these we must be guided by their wishes as expressed by them when sane: so that, if then they manifested a desire to receive Baptism, it should be given to them when in a state of madness or imbecility, even though then they refuse. If, on the other hand, while sane they showed no desire to receive Baptism, they must not be baptized.
Again, there are some who, though mad or imbecile from birth, have, nevertheless, lucid intervals, in which they can make right use of reason. Wherefore, if then they express a desire for Baptism, they can be baptized though they be actually in a state of madness. And in this case the sacrament should be bestowed on them if there be fear of danger otherwise it is better to wait until the time when they are sane, so that they may receive the sacrament more devoutly. But if during the interval of lucidity they manifest no desire to receive Baptism, they should not be baptized while in a state of insanity.
Lastly there are others who, though not altogether sane, yet can use their reason so far as to think about their salvation, and understand the power of the sacrament. And these are to be treated the same as those who are sane, and who are baptized if they be willing, but not against their will. (Art. 11)
Saint Thomas and Saint Augustine, as may have been observed, take a very liberal view of administering the Sacrament of Baptism to those who express any desire to receive because they know the necessity of baptism for salvation. The next series of questions will seek answers to the sacramental effects of Baptism.
(To be continued)
————————–
Week of Second Sunday in Lent
Benedict Baur, O.S.B.
FRIDAY OF THE SECOND WEEK OF LENT
The suffering Lord
- Four weeks from today will be Good Friday. In the Collect of the Mass today we pray that we may receive the grace to prepare ourselves for the coming solemnities with sincere minds. Thus our thoughts today are carried forward to the passion and death of our Lord. The atmosphere of Good Friday hovers over the liturgy today and takes possession of our soul.
- The liturgy furnishes us with an image of the suffering Savior in the person of Joseph in Egypt. Joseph is the favorite son of Jacob, but he is hated by his brethren. Jacob sends Joseph to his brothers in Sichem, where they have been pasturing their sheep. Joseph carries out the wish of his father and finds his brethren, not in Sichem but in Dothain. They see him coming from afar and say, “Let us kill him and cast him into some old pit, and we will say: Some evil beast hath devoured him” (Epistle). Ruben, one of the brethren, is opposed to this plan, and they are content to cast him into a dry cistern; later they decide to sell him as a slave for thirty pieces of silver, to a group of merchants who are making their way into Egypt. Then they tell their father that Joseph has been slain by a wild beast.
Meanwhile Joseph, who was rejected and sold into captivity by his brethren, is wonderfully exalted by the Lord in Egypt. He becomes the first minister to the king of Egypt and saves the country from famine. When his brethren come to pay their respects to the King and obtain grain, Joseph reveals his identity, and his aged father hastens to his son, whom he had thought to be dead, and finds a home and needed assistance. “In my trouble I cried out to the Lord; and He heard me. O Lord, deliver my soul from wicked lips and a deceitful tongue” (Gradual). Thus the liturgy wishes us to pray to the Savior, of whom Joseph is a figure.
“A householder . . . planted a vineyard, and made a hedge round about it, and dug in it a press, and built a tower [for protection], and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a strange country. And when the time of the fruit drew nigh, He sent his servants to the husbandmen that they might receive the fruits thereof; and the husbandmen, laying hands on his servants, beat one and killed another.” Again the householder sent other servants, who also were treated cruelly. “Last of all he sent to them his son, saying: They will reverence my son. But the husbandmen, seeing the son, said among themselves: This is the heir, come, let us kill him and we shall have his inheritance. And taking him, they cast him forth out of the vineyard and killed him” (Gospel). The householder is God, who sent His prophets and servants to His chosen people. But Israel rejected the messengers whom He sent to them, and even stoned them and put them to death. Then God sent His own divine Son. “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not” (John 1:11). Like Joseph, He is sold to His enemies by one of His own disciples for thirty pieces of silver. He has rendered nothing but good to His people, but they reject Him as their Savior, turn from Him, and shout to His judges, “Crucify Him; crucify Him . . . . His blood be upon us and upon our children” (Luke 23:21; Matt. 27:25). Betrayed, despised, disgraced, and burdened with the curse of His people, He staggers’ painfully toward the heights of Calvary. There He will be crucified and His blood will be shed. But on “the third day He shall rise again” (Matt. 20:19). “The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner. By the Lord this has been done and it is wonderful in our eyes” (Gospel).
- Today we gather in the sanctuary of St. Vitalis, who, like Joseph, was thrown alive into a pit and then covered with stones and earth. In this martyr Jesus continues His passion and death. In the passion of St. Vitalis, the Church participates in the passion, humiliation, and death of the Lord. Really the Church herself is a martyr and treads the path of Christ. She allows herself to be hated by the world, to be calumniated and crucified and abused by her enemies. In this way she proves that she belongs entirely to Christ, that she is His bride, His true Church. The word of the Psalmist is true of her. “The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner” (Ps. 117: 22).
When we celebrate Mass in the church of St. Vitalis, we likewise choose to follow the path of suffering with Christ. At the Consecration we will be sanctified and crucified with Him. In Holy Communion we receive the flames of the martyr’s love and the strength to share faithfully and steadfastly the way of the cross. With Him whose disciples we are, we may expect to be hated, calumniated and persecuted. “But if doing well you suffer patiently, this is thankworthy before God. For unto this are you called” (I Pet. 2: 20).
Through baptism we are called upon to suffer with Christ. We renew our choice in every Mass and Communion. Now is the time to share the sufferings of Christ, and we pray: “In my trouble I cried to the Lord” (Gradual). Now is the hour of suffering, but when that hour has passed, the day of exaltation will come. “Thou, O Lord, wilt preserve us and keep us from this generation for ever” (Communion); in virtue of Holy Communion, may we remain faithful to You in our suffering, and thus also arrive with You at a common glorification. Yes, we must be faithful to our suffering Savior, that we may be glorified with Him.
PRAYER
Grant we beseech Thee, O almighty God, that with the sacred fast to purify us, Thou mayest cause us to come with sincere minds to the holy things that are before us.
Grant unto Thy people, we beseech Thee, O Lord, health of soul and body, that by persevering in good works we may deserve to be defended by the protection of Thy power. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
SATURDAY OF THE SECOND WEEK OF LENT
Conversion
- The stational saints, Peter and Marcellinus, remind us of the two brothers of the Old Testament, Esau and Jacob, and of the two brothers who are mentioned in today’s Gospel. The story of Esau and Jacob reminds us of the mystery of our being called to membership in the Church. The parable of the prodigal son reminds us of our call to conversion. “The law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls . . . . The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of His hands” (Introit).
- By the mysterious operation of God, Jacob, the younger son, is preferred to Esau, the first-born. Jacob receives the great blessing of his dying father Isaac: “God give thee the dew of heaven and of the fatness of the earth, abundance of corn and wine; and let people serve thee, and all tribes worship thee. Be thou lord of thy brethren, and let thy mother’s children bow down before thee. Cursed be he that curseth thee, and let him that blesseth thee be filled with blessings” (Epistle). Here Jacob represents the Church, which comprises souls taken from the pagan nations. We are Gentiles; but we are preferred to the chosen people, Israel, without any merit on our part and in spite of our unworthiness. We have received the blessing of our heavenly Father in the possession of Christ and eternal salvation.
O blessed mercy of God! Without any merit on our part He has shown us mercy. Why have the first-born, the people of Israel, been rejected? Why has redemption been withdrawn from them and offered to the Gentiles? Why has God called me to membership in His Church, while passing by so many who are perhaps more worthy than I? “How incomprehensible are His judgments and how unsearchable His ways!” (Rom. 11:33.) How does it come about that “two women shall be grinding at the mill; one shall be taken [into the kingdom of God] and one shall be left” (Matt. 24:40)? Why is one man given light and another left in darkness? Whoever has the light of grace, has received it by an infinite, loving, and completely mysterious election. Jacob has been chosen instead of Esau. In gratitude the liturgy confesses: “It is good to give praise to the Lord, and to sing to Thy name, O Most High. To show forth Thy mercy in the morning and Thy truth at night” (Gradual). Let us consider this truth and give thanks to God. “What hast thou that thou has not received?” (I Cor. 4:7.)
How have we responded to this love of our Father? Have we proved worthy of our election? The Gospel gives us the answer. Like the younger of the two sons we come to our Father and ask, “Father, give me the portion of substance that falleth to me.” After a few days the younger son, the prodigal, takes all his possessions and goes into a far country. There he wastes his substance, living riotously. A famine comes, and he cleaves to one of the citizens of that country, who sends the prodigal to his farm to tend the swine. The foolish young man suffers great hardships and returns to his senses. He says to himself, “How many hired servants in my father’s house abound with bread, and I here perish with hunger? I will arise and go to my father’s house and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee. I am not worthy to be called thy son. And rising up he came to his father.” His father, recognizing him already from a distance, is moved with sympathy, hastens toward him, embraces him, and kisses him. The repentant son falls at his father’s feet. “Father, I have sinned . . . . I am not worthy to be called thy son.” But the father forgives him, and calling one of his servants, says to him, “Bring forth quickly the first robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet; and bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat and make merry; because this my son was dead, and is come to life again; he was lost, and is found.”
This story is repeated again today. It is the history of the Church; it is the history of our own desertion. In this Gospel we are given an urgent call to repentance and conversion. “Father, I have sinned.” Penance alone can save us. Our Father welcomes us with mercy. The sin and its eternal punishment are forgiven; the good works which we did before sin and the merits which we lost through sin are revived. The Father receives us again as His children, and celebrates a joyful banquet with us at Holy Communion.
- In the story of each human life, God’s mercy stands on one side and the unfaithfulness of man on the other. Will God have to cast us off as He did the people of Israel? Have we not fully deserved it? Sometimes it appears that God wishes to allow our faithless generation to go its own way. If He does, it will merit a well-deserved punishment.
What can save us from rejection? Only penance, self-examination, and conversion. “Be converted to Me with all your heart, in fasting and in weeping and in mourning” (Chapter at Tierce; Joel 2: 12). “Let the wicked forsake his way and the unjust man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and He will have mercy on him; and to our God, for He is bountiful to forgive” (Chapter at Sext; Isa, 55:7).
PRAYER
Grant salutary effects to our fasts, we beseech Thee, O Lord, that the chastisements of the flesh which we have undertaken, may bestow more life to our souls.
Keep Thy household, we beseech Thee, O Lord, with continual loving kindness, that as it relies only on the hope of heavenly grace, it may also be fortified by heavenly protection. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
————————–
21 : ST SEVERIAN, BISHOP OF SCYTHOPOLlS, MARTYR (A.D. 453)
IN the year 451 the fourth general council was called at Chalcedon to pronounce upon the Eutychian or monophysite heresy which was spreading very rapidly in the Eastern portion of the Church. Dioceses were being split into factions which, in some cases, elected rival bishops and refused communion to their opponents. The decision of the council, which totally condemned the heresy, was accepted at once by a great proportion of the Palestinian monks, but there were many exceptions. At the head of these was Theodosius, a violent and unscrupulous man who obtained sufficient following to enable him to expel Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, and to gain possession of the see for himself. He then raised so cruel a persecution in Jerusalem that he filled the city with blood, as we learn from a letter of the Emperor Marcian. At the head of a band of soldiers he then proceeded to carry desolation over the country, although in certain places he met with opponents who had the courage to stand firm in their orthodoxy. Of these no one showed more determination than Severian, Bishop of Scythopolis, who received as his reward the crown of martyrdom. The soldiers seized him, dragged him out of the city, and then put him to death.
BD PEPIN OF LANDEN (A.D. 646)
PEPIN OF LANDEN was never canonized, although his name appears as a saint in some of the old martyrologies. The wisest statesman of his time, he was mayor of the palace to Kings Clotaire II, Dagobert I and Sigebert III, and was practically ruler of their dominions. He was the grandfather of Pepin of Herstal, great-grandfather of Charles Martel, and the ancestor of the Carolingian dynasty. He has been well described as ” a lover of peace, the constant defender of truth and justice, a true friend to all the servants of God, the terror of the wicked, the father of his country, the zealous and humble defender of religion”. He associated with himself as counsellors two wise and holy bishops, St Arnulf of Metz and St Cunibert of Cologne, and though a most faithful minister to the king, he considered himself equally the servant of the people.
First and foremost he always placed his duty to the King of kings, and when King Dagobert, forgetful of the principles which had been instilled into him in his youth, gave himself up to a vicious life, Pepin boldly rebuked him and never ceased to show his disapproval until he became sincerely penitent. Dagobert, /384/ before his death in 638, had appointed Pepin tutor to his three-year-old son Sigebert, who under his guidance became himself a saint and one of the most blessed amongst the French kings. Pepin protected the Christian communities of the north against the invasions of the Slavs, worked hard for the spread of the Christian faith, and chose only virtuous and learned men to fill the bishoprics. His wife was Bd Itta, or Iduberga, by whom he had one son, Grimoald, and two daughters, St Gertrude and St Begga. Pepin died in 646 and was buried at Landen, but his body was translated to Nivelles, where it lies in the same tomb as that of his wife and close to the altar of St Gertrude. For many centuries their relics were carried every year in the Rogationtide processions at Nivelles.
CHRIST IN THE HOME
BY RAOUL PLUS, S.J.
(1951)
MARRIAGE
TRAINING
FROM THREE TO FIVE
AT THIS period of their life, children have not in general arrived at an awakening, at least not a complete awakening, of their moral sense. They are midway between the unawareness of their first years and a completely rational contact with life; their principal occupation is play—the little boy will be busy building and tearing down; the little girl will be busy scribbling away at indefinite designs or dressing and undressing her sawdust doll, the first in a series of many
dolls.
They will have just the beginning of a contact—depending upon their family, their mother particularly—with the invisible world. They will learn their prayers, know that there is a God who is good and they will hear about little Jesus. They will also know that there are things that are forbidden, but they will not as yet see the wickedness of sin; they take what belongs to mamma without knowing that they are stealing; they do not always tell the truth without knowing really that it is an evil thing to lie and when they do speak untruly it is much more through an instinct of self-defense than through innate perversion. They would go to the end of the world for a kiss and much further still for a piece of candy. But if they must give up the piece of candy to a little brother or sister, they will do it with not too bad a grace but they will see to it that they get a lick of it themselves before parting with it; after all, aren’t they being quite generous already? And if for Christmas mother has suggested that they sacrifice some of their sweets to little Jesus, they do it eagerly but see nothing wrong with coming back quietly later to eat up their sacrifices.
It is important to capitalize on this marvelous period of the child’s life.
Since the child loves to imagine, it is necessary to suggest images to its mind and since the child needs to be educated, these images should be elevating. That can be done very early by using the lives of the saints, the life of Mary and of Jesus. Why not? How many details of Scripture are most picturesque and quite within the grasp of the child’s mind; this is especially true if the Gospel episodes have first come by way of the mother’s heart; she will know how to awaken without straining, instruct without fatiguing, and adapt it all to the mentality of the child.
A prime guiding principle here is Never anything inexact! Children at this age are extremely docile. “Papa said it or Mamma said it,” makes it sacred. Therefore, great attention to the stories they are told, to the allusions made or the conversations held in their presence.
At this age the child is inclined to refer everything to itself, but very likely to be disinterested in goodness. By nature it is selfish; it has a terrific sense of ownership; will share nothing; wants everything. Since it has numerous needs and knows itself to be little, it seeks to surround itself with the greatest possible number of things to its own advantage. But if little by little it is taught to look about to see that there are others less privileged, that to give up things for love of another is something fine, it will be found capable of remarkable generosity.
The child at this age has not since the time of its baptism become incrusted with the shell of negligence and the faults an adult might commit; simplicity is inherent in it; it is pure; it has infused Faith and the Holy Spirit in its soul is at ease.
But it is essential to avoid scandalizing the least of these little ones, giving them the example of evil, of impurity even material impurity, of lying, of anger.
Further, the child is readily distracted, forgetful, has its head in the clouds. You speak to it and it listens or does not listen as fancy strikes; it follows its own thought and interior emotion. Your commands fall on its ears like water on marble. You must catch its attention, reiterate your suggestions or commands without impatience on your part or fatigue for the child.
Constant attention is necessary to train them in manners, in proper sleeping habits, in conduct at table; to check the first symptoms of greediness, laziness, lack of discipline, sensuality. The child is still thoughtless but the educator must not be. Long explanations are not needed; a word, simple look go a long way and speak volumes at times.
Parents should never lose courage even if the results are imperfect. Let them examine their methods and change them if necessary. Let them see in these little ones only Christ—”Whatsoever you do to these, the least of My brethren, you do unto Me.”
THE ART OF GIVING CHILDREN FAULTS
THERE are two great means of developing faults in children: First by giving them a bad example; second, by spoiling them.
- Giving them a bad example: All men are imitators; children are more exposed than others to the appeal of imitation; they love to imitate adults, and by preference those within their immediate circle particularly their parents who appear to them as exceptional beings in whom there is nothing reprehensible.
Is the mother vain? The daughter too will be vain; she will speak, act, dress, not for an ideal of beauty in keeping with her condition, her station, but for the favorable opinion of others. She will strive to surpass all her companions, her friends, by the cut of her clothes and the extremes of style; she will attach a considerable, yes even an exaggerated, importance to the tiniest details of her costume; she will suffer a severe attack of jealousy when she believes someone outshines her.
Is the father proud? Does he try to exaggerate his good points and belittle those of others or refuse to recognize them? His son will be a snob, disdainful of others, self-sufficient, pretentious, arrogant, obstinate and will manifest no understanding whatever as far as others are concerned.
Are the parents loquacious? Contentious? Sharp in their speech? Their children will be intemperate in speech, quarrelsome, envious.
Are the parents deceitful? The children are in danger of becoming liars. Are the parents generally indiscreet in conversation, passing judgments thoughtlessly? The children already too much inclined to judge everything from the height of their grandeur will pass snap judgments, unjust and untimely criticisms.
Do the parents manifest their love of ease, of wealth, even a thirst to acquire riches by any means? The children are likely to be selfish, attached to their own comfort, cheaters on occasion.
- Spoiling them: Some parents are too harsh and do not encourage their children at all. Others, by far the greater number, are too indulgent, flatter their children, satisfy all their whims.
Parents who spoil their children do not seek their good, love them for their sakes. No, it is a form of self-love; the parents seek themselves in the child. Such parents cannot put firmness into the education they try to give; they cannot punish when necessary; prevent escapades; secure obedience; they cannot defend themselves against any caprices.
“But if I lack kindness,” you say, “my child will withdraw from me; in difficult times he will avoid speaking to me; I shall not have his confidence. If on the contrary I have multiplied my kindnesses to him, he will remain open, I shall keep a hold on him.”
There is no question here of failing in kindness; it is a question of forbidding oneself any weakness. Far from having to fear the loss of the child’s confidence, if one is judiciously firm, the parents shall win the child’s confidence because they are wisely strong. When the children understand that in the marks of affection their parents bestow on them they are not seeking something personal but only the good of their children, they will be quick to realize that in the severity their parents inflict on them, there is likewise no trace of caprice but only the desire for their good as before.
It is precisely that realization which has educative force—this contact with strong and detached souls.
The following links are among the many that have arisen with another statement by Bergoglio to depart further from true Catholic teaching. —The Editor
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/what-did-pope-francis-actually-say-about-contraception-47196/
———————————
Father Krier will be in Touzim, Czech Republic on February 20-21 and 27-28. He will be in Nitra, Slovakia, February 22-26. He will be in Los Angeles March 1 and San Diego March 2. Pahrump, NV is scheduled for March 10 and Eureka, NV for March 17.
———————————
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
_________________________
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
Or if you prefer send a check to
Catholic Tradition Newsletter
…
[Message clipped] View entire message