Vol 9 Issue 21 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
May 21, 2016 ~ Ember Saturday

1. Baptism: Means of Salvation (69)
2. Trinity Sunday
3. St. Rita of Cascia
4. Christ in the Home (43)
5. Articles and notices

Dear Reader:

It is surreal to realize that with the Rainbow House and the leader of the United Sodomites of Antichrist forcing children to be exposed to its perversion that one can actually visualize that the world destroyed by God before Christ comes would be worse than Sodom and Gomorra. It is difficult to imagine that such evilness can be within the nature of man, but it is being witnessed in these very days—for only evilness can compel innocent children to witness and or partake in their perversity. It comes to mind also why Our Lord, in Matthew and Luke, tell the faithful as Lot of Old to flee to the mountains (cf. Matthew 24:16 and Luke 21:21.) At least parents should be intelligent enough to realize that their children cannot be in public schools if they don’t want to subject them to direct perversion. May Our Lady protect these our dear children in a world that has lost any sense of human dignity and love of neighbor.

Sunday, the Feast of the Blessed Trinity, reminds Catholics of a Divine mystery that the Faithful believe in through Divine Revelation. The Sacraments of Baptism, Holy Eucharist and Confirmation reminds the Faithful that everyone must nurture their relationship with each of the Divine Persons, as a child of our heavenly Father, with His Son Our Lord Jesus Christ Who comes in Communion and with the Holy Ghost Who works in the soul through His sevenfold gifts.

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

____________________

Baptism

Means of Salvation

Sacrament of Baptism

Post Trent

The unity of faith can be seen when one considers that one of the obstacles to union was the proposal by the Orientals of a faith that was not one with the Roman Church. The Maronites were brought back to unity by the acceptance of a Profession of Faith approved by Benedict XIV (1740-1758). Benedict XIV strove to keep the Catholic Melkite Churches of the Levant in Communion, as well reconcile the separated Maronites by settling differences. There could not be a compromise on the Faith, and one can observe this clearly. For the full text, one can read the Constitution, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743. Here is that which pertains to Baptism:

Likewise, I profess that there are seven sacraments of the New Law instituted by Christ, our Lord, for the salvation of the human race, although not all of them are necessary for each individual: namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony; and (I profess) that these confer grace, and that of these, baptism, confirmation, and orders cannot be repeated without sacrilege.

Likewise (I profess) that baptism is necessary for salvation, and hence, if there is imminent danger of death, it should be conferred at once and without delay, and that it is valid if conferred with the right matter and form and intention by anyone, and at any time. . . . (Cf. DB 1470)

Benedict XIV also addressed the Baptism of Jewish children by overly zealous but indiscrete Catholics. Thomas Aquinas had addressed this in his Summa Theologica (III, 68, 10; cf. Baptism, Means of Salvation, n. 56). Gaspar Calderini (+ 1390), a Canonist of Bologna, addressed the issue in the Fourteenth century as follows:

Whether the children of Jews, under the age of twelve, may be baptized against their parents’ will, and if in fact are so baptized, whether they ought to be raised by Jews or by Christians.  It seems that the answer to the first question is yes, because of the advantage of the faith, for which many thing are done against the rules of common law (Ius commune). That such children be baptized is to the advantage of the faith, since the soul of the boy would be saved.  Hence it seems an act of spiritual charity to which all are obliged. Likewise, if a wrong has good consequences, it is to be commended, as is violence by which one is led to do good.  .  . But the truth seems to be otherwise, because Jews are not to be coerced into the faith .  .  . although this is said about adults, it is equally true of children .  .  . Hence it can be concluded that Jewish children are not to be baptized against the will of their parents .  .  .

With whom should a baptized Jewish child live?   Jewish parents are to offer a suitable and sufficient surety .  .  . and they will let him go freely when he reaches legal age .  .  . If the Jewish parents will not offer a surety, the child should not be returned to them. (Translation based on Aviad M Kleinberg,“Depriving Parents of the Consolation of Children:  Two Legal Consilia on the Baptism of Jewish Children,” De Sion exhibit lex et verbum domini de Hierusalem:  Essays on Medieval Law, Liturgy, and Literature in Honour of Amnon Linder, ed. Yitzhak Hen;  Turnholt:  2001, 129-144)

The Jews have been virulent against having their children baptized and give accounts that are notorious but not completely factual. One that caused international attention in the Nineteenth century during the reign of Pius IX was the baptism of Edgardo Montara that Spielberg is now making into a movie to be released in 2017 (cf. The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara, Kertzer, 1998). In his epistle, Postremo menses to the Viceregent in the City of Rome, February 28, 1747, Benedict XIV writes:

. . . The first point to be considered is whether Hebrew children can be lawfully baptized, if the parents are unwilling and reluctant. Secondly, if we say that this is unlawful, then we must consider whether any case might occur, in which this could not only be done, but would be even lawful and clearly fitting. Thirdly, we must consider whether the baptism bestowed on Hebrew children at a time when it is now lawful, should be considered valid or invalid. Fourthly, we must consider what must be done when Hebrew children are brought to be baptized, or when it is discovered that they have been admitted to sacred baptism; finally, how it can be proved that these same children have already been purified by the saving waters. (Par. 3a; cf. DB 1480.)

If there is any discussion of the first chapter of the first part, whether Hebrew children can be baptized if the parents object, we openly assert that this has already been defined in three places by St. Thomas, namely, in Quodl. 2, a. 7; in II-II ae, q. 10, a. 12. where, recalling for examination the question proposed in the Quodlibeta: “Whether the children of Jews and of other unbelievers should be baptized against the will of the parents,” he answered thus: “I reply that it must be said that the custom of the Church has great authority, which should always be followed in all things, etc. Moreover, the usage of the Church never held that the children of Jews should be baptized against their parents’ wishes. . . ,” and in addition he says this in III a, q. 68, a. 10: “I reply that it must be said that children, sons of unbelievers. . ., if they do not yet have the use of free will, are, according to the natural law, under the care of their parents, as long as they cannot provide for themselves. . ., and, therefore, it would be against natural justice, if such children were baptized without the parents’ consent; just as if someone having the use of reason should be baptized against his will. It would even be dangerous. . . (Par. 3b; cf. DB 1481.)

Scotus in 4 Sent. dist. 4, q. 9, n. 2, and in questions related to n. 2, thought that a prince could laudably command that small children of Hebrews and unbelievers be baptized, even against the will of the parents, provided one could prudently see to it that these same children were not killed by the parents. . . . Nevertheless, the opinion of St. Thomas prevailed in courts . . . and is more widespread among theologians and those skilled in canon law . . . . (Par. 3c; cf. DB 1482.)

Therefore, this having been established, that it is unlawful to baptize Hebrew children against the will of their parents, now, following the order proposed in the beginning, we must take up the second part: namely, whether any occasion could ever occur in which that would be lawful and fitting. . . . (Par. 7; cf. DB 1483.)

. . . Since this may happen, that a child of Hebrew parentage be found by some Christian to be close to death, he will certainly perform a deed which I think is praiseworthy and pleasing to God, if he furnishes the child with eternal salvation by the purifying water. . . . (Par. 8; cf. DB 1484.)

If, likewise, it should happen that any Hebrew child had been cast out and abandoned by its parents, it is the common opinion of all and has also been confirmed by many decisions, that the child ought to be baptized, even if the parents protest against this and demand the child back. . . . (Par. 9; cf. DB 1485.)

After we have explained the most obvious cases in which this rule of ours prohibits the baptizing of Hebrew children against the wishes of their parents, we add some other declarations pertaining to this rule, the first of which is this: If parents are lacking, but the infants have been entrusted to the guardianship of a Hebrew, they can in no way be lawfully baptized without the assent of the guardian, since all the authority of the parents has passed to the guardians. . . .

The second is this, if the father should enlist in the Christian militia and order his infant son to be baptized, he should be baptized, even though the Hebrew mother protests, since the child must be considered to be, not under the power of the mother, but under that of the father. . . .

The third is this, that although the mother does not have her children under her own right, nevertheless, if she belongs to the Christian faith and offers her child for baptism, although the Hebrew father protests, nevertheless, the child should be cleansed by the water of baptism. . . .

The fourth is that, if it is a certainty that the will of parents is necessary for the baptism of children, since under the name of parent a paternal grandfather also is included . . . , then it necessarily follows that, if the paternal grandfather has embraced the Catholic faith and brings his grandchild to the font of saving water, although the Hebrew mother objects, when the father is dead, nevertheless, the child should be baptized without hesitation. . . . (Par. 9, 15, 16, 17; cf. DB 1486.)

It is not an imaginary case that sometimes a Hebrew father says that he wants to embrace the Catholic religion and presents himself and his infant sons to be baptized, but afterwards regrets his intention and refuses to have his son baptized. This happened at Mantua. . . . The case was brought for examination in the Congregation of the Holy Office, and the Pope on the 24th day of September in the year 1699 decreed that action should be taken as follows: “His Holiness, having listened to the wishes of the Cardinals, decreed that two infant sons, one three years old, the other five, be baptized. The other children, namely a son of eight years and a daughter twelve, should be placed in the house of catechumens, if there is one at Mantua, but if not, at the home of a pious and honorable person for the purpose of finding out their will and of instructing them. . . .” (Par. 18; cf. DB 1487.)

Also some unbelievers are accustomed to bring their children to Christians to be washed with the saving waters, not however that they may merit the satisfactions of Christ, nor that the guilt of original sin may be washed from their soul, but they do this, motivated by some base superstition, namely because they think that by the benefit of baptism, these same children may be freed from malignant spirits, from infection, or some illness. . . . (Par. 19; cf. DB 1488.)

Some unbelievers, when they have represented this idea to themselves, that by the grace of baptism their children will be freed from illnesses and the persecution of the demons, are brought to such a pass of madness that they have also threatened Catholic priests with death. . . . But, in opposition to this belief, the Congregation of the Holy Office in the presence of the Pope on the 5th day of September, 1625, contested: “The Sacred Congregation of the general Inquisition held in the presence of His Holiness, having read the letters of the Bishop Antibarensis, in which he made supplication for a solution of the doubt written below: Whether, when priests are compelled by Turks to baptize their children, not that they may make them Christians, but for their bodily health, so that they may be freed from infection, epilepsy, the danger of bewitchment, and wolves, whether in such a case they could pretend to baptize them, making use of the matter of baptism without the prescribed form? He replied in the negative, because baptism is the door of the sacraments and a profession of faith, and that in no way can it be simulated. . . . ” (Par. 21; cf. DB 1489.)

And so our discourse comes now to those who are presented for baptism neither by their parents nor by others who have any right over them, but by someone who has no authority. In addition, there is a question about those whose cases are not comprehended under the dispositions which permits baptism to be conferred, even if the consent of their elders is withheld. In this case, indeed, they ought not to be baptized, but be sent back to those in whose power and trust they are lawfully placed. But, if they have been already admitted to the sacrament, either they must be detained or recovered from their Hebrew parents and handed over to the faithful of Christ, so that they may be piously and religiously trained by them; for this is the effect of baptism, which, though it be unlawful, nevertheless is true and valid. (Par. 29; cf. DB 1490.)

Canon 750 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law legislates:

• 1. The infant of infidels, even over the objections of the parents, is licitly baptized when life is so threatened that it is prudently foreseen that death will result before the infant attains the use of reason.
• 2. Outside of danger of death, provided provision is made for Catholic education, [an infant] is licitly baptized if:

1.° If the parents or guardians, or at least one of them, consents;

2° If the parents, that is, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, or guardians are no more, or have lost their rights over [the infant] or cannot in any way exercise it.

Henry Ayrinhac, in Legislation on the Sacraments in the New Code of Canon Law (1928), explains:

20. 6. Children of Infidels. (Can. 750.) 1°, In the Middle Ages it occurred occasionally that Christians more zealous than discreet would baptize children of infidels, particularly of Jews, with. out consulting the parents. St. Thomas condemned this practice as contrary to the Church’s tradition, involving violation of parental rights and leading to profanations of the sacramental character. (2^a 2^ae., q. x, art. 12.) Theologians generally followed his teaching; but Scotus and a few of his disciples claimed for Christian princes the right of compelling their infidel subjects to have their children baptized. With the opening of the New World to missionary activity the question became a very practical one. The Popes and Congregations solved all the cases referred to them in the traditional sense. Pope Julius III even punished with a heavy fine persons who would baptize the children of Jews without the consent of the parents. (July 16, 16:39.) Still the controversy went on till Benedict XIV, having discussed the problem under its various aspects in several Constitutions (lnter Omnigenas, Feb. 2, 1744; Postremo mense, Feb. 28, 1747; Probe te meminisse, Dec. 15, 1751), officially laid down the rule forbidding to force baptism on the children of infidel parents. (Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Baptême, coll. 341.)

2°. This rule admits of two exceptions: (a) The Pope permitted, as the Code now does, the baptizing of children in danger of death without consulting the parents. The danger does not have to be immediate; it suffices to have a good reason to believe that the child will not reach the age of discretion. The H. O. approved the /27/ action of a missionary who, when visiting a certain district, would give baptism to all children whom he found in such condition of health that he did not expect them to live till his return. (July 18, 1894.) In such cases the danger of perversion for these children does not exist practically and the slight injury done to parents has its full compensation in the great benefit conferred upon the children.

(b) It is also permitted to give baptism to children without consent of their parents when there are neither parents nor grandparents nor guardians, or when these have forfeited their rights or can not exercise them. Under such circumstances the sacrament can be administered and the faith of the children protected afterwards without violation of parental rights.

3°. If the parents themselves present their children for baptism the sacrament may be administered to them, provided there is a sufficient guarantee that they will receive a Christian education.

This rule holds also when one only of the parents or tutors presents the child and the other opposes the baptism. The right of the one who asks for the sacrament, as more in conformity with the law of God and the interests of the child, prevails over that of the other. Benedict XIV supposed the parent who made the request for baptism to be himself a Christian, but the Code has no mention of this; nor does it affirm the right of grandparents to have children baptized against the will of the parents, as the Pope did.

(To be continued)

————————–

Pentecost Sunday

Benedict Baur, O.S.B.

FRIDAY AFTER TRINITY SUNDAY

The suffering of Christ

1. “O God, who in this wonderful sacrament has left us a memorial of Thy passion!” (Collect.) The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Blessed Sacrament are the memorial of the passion of Christ.
2. The Holy Eucharist recalls the suffering and death of Christ. “This is My body, which is given for you …. This is … My blood, which shall be shed for you” (Luke 22:19 f.). The Holy Eucharist is the fruit of the suffering and death of Christ. It embraces the bloody sacrifice on the cross and all the actions and all the suffering that went to make up His passion. The Eucharist commemorates the suffering in the Garden of Olives, the scourging, the crowning with thorns, the, unjust condemnation, and the bitter journey to Golgotha. It includes especially the salutary offering with which our Lord and Savior consummated His sacrifice on the cross. It embraces His perfect obedience to the Father, His thirst for humiliations, His acceptance of suffering and death, His love for the Father and for sinners, whom He seeks to redeem and reconcile with the Father. All these were the price at which the Eucharist was bought, the price He paid in order to remain near us in the Eucharist and to offer on the altar the Holy Sacrifice to the Triune God. With the eyes of faith we should see all these sufferings of Christ in the Eucharist.

The Holy Eucharist commemorates the suffering and death of Christ. In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the death of Christ on the cross is commemorated and renewed through the separation of the bread and wine, the visible species under which He offers Himself up to the Father. After His resurrection Christ could no longer suffer or die. As the risen and glorified Christ on the altar, He is entirely incapable of suffering or of death. But through the celebration of the Mass, He renews before our eyes in an unbloody manner His death on the cross. He appears personally among us, the same divine being who offered Himself up for us on the cross. He appears with the sacrificial intention and with the same inward disposition which made His offering on the cross a perfect sacrifice, and which makes perfect also the sacrifice which He now makes upon the altar. Just as He expressed His complete submission to the Father through His death, that is, through the separation of His body and blood on the cross; so now He renews daily that perfect disposition of soul in a visible manner through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Just as His blood was separated from His body on the cross, so now the visible elements of His sacrifice, the bread and wine, are separately consecrated upon the altar. Thus the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass becomes a visible representation and a commemoration of the suffering and death of Christ.

The Eucharist is not a mere empty symbol that simply reminds us of the suffering of the Lord. It is a symbol which embraces the entire reality of the passion: Christ, His true body and blood, His soul, His sacrificial purpose, His internal and constant will to sacrifice. It is both a representation and a type given to us that, by considering it in remembrance of the suffering and death of our Lord, we also may learn to become a daily and perfect sacrifice to the Father. Daily we should unite ourselves to Christ our head, and offer ourselves up in union with the sacrificial action of Christ.

3. The celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with Christ is the center of all true Christian piety. This sacrifice points to the bloody sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The devout participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass necessarily produces in us a deeper understanding of the sacrificial life of Christ and makes us conscious of our Christian duty of participating in that sacrificial life. Here in the Sacrifice of the Mass we shall learn that sacrifice is the root of all that is great, the heart of all that is noble, and the crown of all that is worthwhile in the life of a Christian. Here we obtain the knowledge, the courage, and the strength to make a complete offering of ourselves to God. Unless we gain from our celebration of Mass the strength, the courage, and spirit of sacrifice necessary to make our lives a joyful and uninterrupted holocaust for the love of God, we have not yet learned to celebrate Mass fruitfully.

For Christ the Eucharist is a sacrament which offers Him an opportunity for perfect self-immolation and self-sacrifice. Can it be anything less for us? Should not the Eucharistic Lord be the very soul of my existence also? Should not I become unreservedly His, filled with His spirit of sacrifice, an integral part of His offering to the Father? An Eucharistic soul is of necessity a soul consumed with the desire of sacrificing itself for the love of God and of Christ.

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.

SATURDAY AFTER TRINITY SUNDAY

Holy Mass

1. “The priests of the Lord offer incense and loaves to God, and therefore they shall be holy to their God and shall not defile His name, alleluia” (Offertory). The Holy Eucharist is the sacrifice of the New Testament, the holy sacrifice of the Church.
2. The essence of Christianity and all Christian piety lies in the fulfillment of the prayer, “Hallowed be Thy name.” The first duty of the Christian is to sanctify the name of God, to worship Him, to acknowledge His dominion, and serve Him perfectly, as is His due. But who is capable of honoring God and serving Him in a manner that is truly worthy of Him? There is only one who is capable of this: the Son of God made man, Jesus Christ, our Lord. He is one in essence with the Father. He is at the same time one of us. Since He is both God and man, He can offer to the Father an adoration and homage which is of infinite value and worthy of Him. This same homage, the divinity of Christ, we can and must pay to the Father. Christ’s divinity is the reflection of the glory of the Father; it is an eternal and perfect hymn of praise to the Father; it is the means by which God has honored Himself from all eternity. Only through Christ and in Christ can we sanctify the name of God and pay Him an homage that is truly worthy of Him. The very essence of our religion, then, consists in our offering of Christ to the Blessed Trinity, an offering that is of infinite value. “Through Him, and with Him and in Him, be unto Thee, O God the Father Almighty all honor and glory, world without end.” “Our Father … hallowed be Thy name.”

In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass we offer up Christ. What we do by our own strength alone, is valueless in the sight of God, and can never rise above the level of our own insignificance. And yet we have the duty of offering to God an eternal homage. In view of our nothingness, how can we offer such a homage? “Through Him [Christ], and with Him, and in Him is to Thee, God the Father Almighty, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honor and glory.” Through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass it becomes possible for us to offer Christ to His Father-the acme of the eternal and perfect worship of the divinity. God gave us His Son through the mystery of the Incarnation, not that we should retain Him for ourselves, but that we should give Him back to the Father in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as an expression of our filial love. In the Mass we offer Christ as our gift to the Father. His heart, His body, His soul, His most precious blood, His infinite merits, His adoration and veneration of the Father, His love, His obedience, His humility, we lay at the feet of the Father as part of our gift. With outstretched hands we offer up to the Father everything Christ has that is pleasing to the Father to supply for all those things in which we ourselves are lacking, so that we may praise and thank God for His favors in a manner that is worthy of Him. This offering is the most noble action of a Christian.

By virtue of our baptism are we able to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Only we the baptized have the precious privilege of making this unique offering to God our own personal gift. “Receive, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host…. 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.”

3. The sum and substance of all Christian piety is contained in the devout celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Through our baptism we become capable of taking an active part in the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice, which is our first and most solemn duty, the most important and most meritorious act of our lives. In assisting at Mass we exercise that participation in the priesthood which is conferred upon us through our baptism. Therefore the participation in Mass is the most precious and the most significant function of our spiritual life.

But it is not enough, as Pope Pius XII explains in his Encyclical Letter, Mediator Dei, on the Sacred Liturgy, “to offer the divine victim in this Sacrifice to the Heavenly Father,” but it is necessary “that the people add something else, namely the offering of themselves as a victim” (Mediator Dei, II, 98). This offering of one’s self as a victim must not be confined to an offering made in connection with the Mass, but it must be carried over into all the actions of our life. Faith must be inspired by love to undertake good works, and piety must be bolstered up by a zeal for the honor and glory of God, and by the desire to become conformed to the image of the crucified Christ. This is truly the most fruitful way of offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with the priest. The Holy Sacrifice is our most precious possession and our most priceless treasure. How grateful we should be to have it; how we should treasure its possession!

PRAYER

Graciously receive, O Lord, this offering which we Thy servants and Thy entire family make unto Thee. Grant peace in our day, and deliver us from eternal damnation, and count us in the number of Thy elect. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

ST RITA OF CASCIA, WIDOW (A.D. 1457)

IN the year 1381 there was born in a peasant home at Roccaporena in the central Apennines a little girl who, as an exemplary daughter, wife and religious, was destined to attain to great heights of holiness in this life, and afterwards to merit from countless grateful souls by her intercession in Heaven the title of “the saint of the impossible and the advocate of desperate cases”.

The child of her parents’ old age, Rita—as she was named—showed from her earliest years extraordinary piety and love of prayer. She had set her heart upon dedicating herself to God in the Augustinian convent at Cascia, but when her father and mother decreed that she should marry, she sorrowfully submitted, deeming that in obeying them she was fulfilling God’s will. Her parents’ choice was an unfortunate one. Her husband proved to be brutal, dissolute and so violent that his temper was the terror of the neighbourhood. For eighteen years with unflinching patience and gentleness Rita bore with his insults and infidelities. As with a breaking heart she watched her two sons fall more and more under their father’s evil influence, she shed many tears in secret and prayed for them without ceasing. Eventually there came a day when her husband’s conscience was touched, so that he begged her forgiveness for all the suffering he had caused her: but shortly afterwards he was carried home dead, covered with wounds. Whether he had been the aggressor or the victim of a vendetta she never knew. Poignancy was added to her grief by the discovery that her sons had vowed to avenge their father’s death, and in an agony of sorrow she prayed that they might die rather than commit murder. Her prayer was answered. Before they had carried out their purpose they contracted an illness which proved fatal. Their mother nursed them tenderly and succeeded in bringing them to a better mind, so that they died forgiving and forgiven.

Left alone in the world, Rita’s longing for the religious life returned, and she tried to enter the convent at Cascia. She was informed, however, to her dismay that the constitutions forbade the reception of any but virgins. Three times she made application, begging to be admitted in any capacity, and three times the prioress reluctantly refused her. Nevertheless her persistence triumphed: the rules were relaxed in her favour and she received the habit in the year 1413.

In the convent St Rita displayed the same submission to authority which she had shown as a daughter and wife. No fault could be found with her observance of the rule, and when her superior, to try her, bade her water a dead vine in the garden, she not only complied without a word, but continued day after day to tend the old stump. On the other hand, where latitude was allowed by the rule—as in the matter of extra austerities—she was pitiless to herself. Her charity to her neighbour expressed itself especially in her care for her fellow religious during /369/ illness and for the conversion of negligent Christians, many of whom were brought to repentance by her prayers and persuasion. All that she said or did was prompted primarily by her fervent love of God, the ruling passion of her life. From childhood she had had a special devotion to the sufferings of our Lord, the contemplation of which would sometimes send her into an ecstasy, and when in 1441 she heard an eloquent sermon on the crown of thorns from St James della Marca, a strange physical reaction seems to have followed. While she knelt, absorbed in prayer, she became acutely conscious of pain—as of a thorn which had detached itself from the crucifix and embedded itself in her forehead. It developed into an open wound which suppurated and became so offensive that she had to be secluded from the rest. We read that the wound was healed for a season, in answer to her prayers, to enable her to accompany her sisters on a pilgrimage to Rome during the year of the jubilee, 1450, but it was renewed after her return and remained with her until her death, obliging her to live practically as a recluse.

During her later years St Rita was afflicted also by a wasting disease, which she bore with perfect resignation. She would never relax any of her austerities or sleep on anything softer than rough straw. She died on May 22, 1457, and her body has remained incorrupt until modern times. The roses which are St Rita’s emblem and which are blessed in Augustinian churches on her festival refer to an old tradition. It is said that when the saint was nearing her death she asked a visitor from Roccaporena to go to her old garden and bring her a rose. It was early in the season and the friend had little expectation of being able to gratify what she took to be a sick woman’s fancy. To her great surprise, on entering the garden, she saw on a bush a rose in full bloom. Having given it to St Rita she asked if she could do anything more for her. ” Yes “; was the reply. “Bring me two figs from the garden.” The visitor hastened back and discovered two ripe figs on a leafless tree.

(Butler’s Lives of the Saints)

CHRIST IN THE HOME

BY RAOUL PLUS, S.J.

(1951)

…

[Message clipped]  View entire message