Vol 13 Issue 35 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier August 29, 2020 ~ Beheading of John the Baptist
1. What is the Holy Eucharist
2. Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost
3. Saint Rose of Lima
4. Family and Marriage
5. Articles and notices
Divine Providence brings about that today Catholics are celebrating the Feast of the Beheading of John the Baptist. The scene is presented by Saint Matthew:
But on Herod’s birthday, the daughter of Herodias danced before them: and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath, to give her whatsoever she would ask of him. But she being instructed before by her mother, said: Give me here in a dish the head of John the Baptist. And the king was struck sad: yet because of his oath, and for them that sat with him at table, he commanded it to be given. And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison. (Matt. 14:6-10; cf. Mark 6:16ff)
Herod was a debased man, already willing to cohabitate with his brother’s wife because he had no control of his sensuality that even common dignity evaded him. John the Baptist pointed out the scandal he was giving his subjects, for by public adultery he was legitimizing the adultery among his subjects. The Zealots would stone the woman, but the man was left unscathed as seen in the episode of the woman caught in adultery.
And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou? And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst. Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more. (John 8:3-11)
Both John the Baptist and John the Evangelist knew that it was not the weakness of the woman that caused man to sin, but the man himself. John the Baptist doesn’t address Herodias, he addresses Herod. Matthew and Mark do not place the blame of John the Baptist’s death on the women, but on Herod. Just as God does not place the blame on Eve, but on Adam. (cf. Gen. 3:9ff) This does not mean the woman is not without blame, but it is that man does not have an excuse and is responsible that that which God desires is fulfilled. But man is like Adam in the neglect of his responsibility, where he will place the blame on the woman. Therefore, Adam says: The woman, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat. (Gen. 3:12) Herod: Yet because of his oath, and because of them that were with him at table, he would not displease her. (Mark 6:26). And the woman caught in adultery: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. (John 8:4-5) That which Moses wrote was for both (Deut. 22:24) and condemned by two or three witnesses.
Speaking to men, Christ, as the Ninth Commandment imposes, declares: But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt. 5:28)
What is the conclusion? That despite all the complaints of the immorality within the world today it is present because “Catholic” men are excusing themselves and blaming it on the woman for exposing herself. One must accept responsibility that one is choosing to deliberately offend God by viewing the exposure to lust after her even with the excuse that if she did not do so one would not have seen her. No, one is like David who looks—when he shouldn’t for he should have been elsewhere—falling into adultery and murder. (cf. 2 Kings 11)
Saint John Baptist Marie Vianney felt so compelled in having the name of John the Baptist that he could not tolerate dances. This stance is not one that can be imposed as dancing is within nature just as singing. We find dancing mentioned throughout scripture in both positive and negative descriptions. But the head of John the Baptist was placed on a plate (disco) and definitely discotheques or dancehalls fit in perfectly with the negative descriptions to warn one going there their reason can only be to sin. Therefore our young people must avoid these places period or recognize they are going purposely into an occasion of sin.
A more dire vice is the “addiction” to pornography. It is not really an addiction, it is an evil Spirit of impurity one has allowed to possess oneself and one must drive that evil spirit out or realize one is willfully in the power of the devil.
We seem to adopt the Jewish and non-Christian perspective that if it doesn’t physically or materially harm one’s neighbor then we can engage in the thought and desire, daydream of fulfilling our wicked desires. But there is harm done and it is seen in the children abused, human trafficking, broken families or no families, abortion and sterilization, STD’s and psychological sickness that follows (besides loss of heaven). There is no justice that if I pay for it, I should have it—as our body belongs to God who created the body for doing good, not evil and I stole it from Him.
May we not behead John the Baptist for a dance, for an immodest look. And, if I am a woman, may I never be the one so vain as to seek to be a goddess, to seduce, to destroy a family, to offer my body to the devil for wickedness, to behead John the Baptist with a dance, to be the contributor to the fall of a man.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us!
As always, enjoy the readings provided for your benefit.—The Editor
WHAT IS THE HOLY EUCHARIST
By Rev. Courtney Edward Krier
The Real Presence
Transubstantiation (transsubstantiatio; μετουσίωσις) is not found in theology until about the year 1097, when Hildebert of Lavardin (also of Tours) (+1134) used it to denote the change. He speaks in his Short Tract on the Sacrament of the Altar of the substance of bread and wine changed into the substance of the body and blood of the Lord—substantia panis et vini in substantiam corporis et sanguinis Domini conversa (De Sacra. Altar., 1104) and then, in a poetic Sermon, he preaches:
When Antiochus placed an idol in the temple, they were not allowed to offer sacrifice in the temple until it has been cleansed. In the same way, if I am incontinent and sensual I place next to the Son of the Virgin an altar to the son of Venus. When I utter the words of the canon and the word of transubstantiation, yet my mouth is full of contradiction, and bitterness, and deceit, although honor may be on the lips, I spit in the face of the Savior. When I presume to receive my Lord and the bread is polluted in my mouth, it is worst than I threw it into the mire of the streets. . . . (Sermones xciii; P.L., CLXXI, 776.)
It was during a time when Berengarius (+1088) claimed that the bread and wine were indeed a sacrament, but not the true Body and Blood of Christ and several Councils were called to defend the teaching that the Holy Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ, and not just spiritually. The persistence of Berengarius in rejecting the profession of faith after the Council of Tours in 1055 would only cement the teaching of the Church that after consecration there is no longer bread, but only the Body and Blood of Christ, and the change was a change of substance. After being condemned again and again, finally Pope Saint Gregory VII (1073-1085) called a for the Roman Council VI (1079) to once and for all demand Berengarius, who wrote a book defending his errors, to accept the faith of the Church. The wording of Hildebert is found in the following oath demanded of Berengarius:
I, Berengarius, in my heart believe and with my lips confess that through the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of our Redeemer the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are substantially changed [substantialiter converti] into the true and proper and living flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, our Lord, and that after consecration it is the true body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and which, offered for the salvation of the world, was suspended on the Cross, and which sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and the true blood of Christ, which was poured out from His side not only through the sign and power of the sacrament, but in its property of nature and in truth of substance, as here briefly in a few words is contained and I have read and you understand. Thus I believe, nor will I teach contrary to this belief. So help me God and these holy Gospels of God. (Cf. DB 355)
The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) adopted the word in its Chapter on the Catholic Faith defined against the Albigensians and other heretics:
One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, * in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours. And surely no one can accomplish this sacrament except a priest who has been rightly ordained according to the keys of the Church which Jesus Christ Himself conceded to the Apostles and to their successors. (Cf. DB 430.)
Even though the English is translated as changed into, the Council of Lyons (1274), the profession of faith for the Greek Emperor Michael Palæologus uses transsubstantiatur: The same Roman Church prepares the sacrament of the Eucharist from unleavened bread, holding and teaching that in the same sacrament the bread is changed into the body, and the wine into the blood of Jesus Christ. (Cf. DB 465)
Saint Thomas Aquinas (+1274) incorporates the word in his Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 75, article 4:
For it is evident that every agent acts according as it is in act. But every created agent is limited in its act, as being of a determinate genus and species: and consequently the action of every created agent bears upon some determinate act. Now the determination of every thing in actual existence comes from its form. Consequently, no natural or created agent can act except by changing the form in something; and on this account every change made according to nature’s laws is a formal change. But God is infinite act, . . . hence His action extends to the whole nature of being. Therefore He can work not only formal conversion, so that diverse forms succeed each other in the same subject; but also the change of all being, so that, to wit, the whole substance of one thing be changed into the whole substance of another. And this is done by Divine power in this sacrament; for the whole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of Christ’s blood. Hence this is not a formal, but a substantial conversion; nor is it a kind of natural movement: but, with a name of its own, it can be called “transubstantiation.”
As stated above, the Council of Lyons (1274) repeated the use of the word transubstantiation as the act substantially changing the bread into the Body of Christ and substantially changing the wine into the Blood of Christ without changing the accidents. The Council of Trent, during the Session covering the Holy Eucharist, once more place the word, transubstantiation, as what Catholics are to believe happens when the priest says the words of Consecration:
But since Christ, our Redeemer, has said that that is truly His own body which He offered under the species of bread, it has always been a matter of conviction in the Church of God, and now this holy Synod declares it again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a conversion takes place of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood. This conversion is appropriately and properly called transubstantiation by the Catholic Church. (Sess. XIII, chapter 4; Cf. DB 877)
And solemnizes the definition with the Canon that follows:
Canon 2. If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema. (Cf. DB 884)
According to Pohle,
The dogma of Transubstantiation comprises three separate and distinct heads of doctrine, to wit:
(1) that Christ is really and truly present under the appearances of bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist;
(2) that, though the accidents of bread and wine continue, the respective substances no longer exist; and,
(3) that both these changes are produced by virtue of a substantial conversion. (Op. cit., 112)
Regarding the first, in appearance, the Holy Eucharist has all the accidents of bread. In substance the Holy Eucharist is Jesus Christ with His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the unity of concomitance.
Regarding the second, though the Holy Eucharist appears to be bread, there is no substance of bread, the bread has ceased to exist and in its place is the substance of the God-man, Jesus Christ in His totality, that is, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. In Scripture there are several occasions to consider as reference.
1. In Genesis there is the account of God taking earth and forming Adam: And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7) What was once the substance of dirt or mud was now the substance of a man.
2. Also, in Genesis, is the creation of the first woman from a rib of Adam: And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman (Gen. 2:22) What was once the substance of a man’s rib was now the substance of a woman.
3. In the Book of Numbers, Moses was ordered to strike a rock with the rod of Aaron, upon which water flowed: And when Moses had lifted up his hand, and struck the rock twice with the rod, there came forth water in great abundance, so that the people and their cattle drank. (Num. 20:11) Before it was a rock, now it was a spring issuing forth water. It should be noted that God commanded Moses first to speak to the rock before them (cf. 20:8). Saint Paul comments: And did all eat the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink; and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them,—and the rock was Christ. (1 Cor. 10:3, 4) Psalm 77, verses 15 and 20, read: He struck the rock in the wilderness: and gave them to drink, as out of the great deep. . . Because he struck the rock, and the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed, can he also give bread, or provide a table for his people? Certainly a prophesy concerning the Holy Eucharist.
4. When tempted in the desert, Satan told the Christ to change stones into bread: And the tempter coming said to him: If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. (Matt. 4:3) Satan knew that the Christ, as God, could change one substance into another substance: the substance of a stone into the substance of bread.
5. At the Marriage Feast of Cana Christ changes water into wine:
And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine, and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water; the chief steward calleth the bridegroom, and saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now. (John 2:9-10)
Here we have the substance of water changed into the substance of wine.
6. In speaking to the Pharisees and Sadducees, John the Baptist gives testimony in his belief that God can change stones into humans: For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham. (Matt. 3:9; cf. Luke 3:8)
The above examples in Scripture, with Chapter 6 of John, prove the words of Christ, This is My Body. . . . This is My Blood . . . . were not to be taken in a spiritual sense. Transubstantiation is the doctrine of the Church that holds to the truth that Christ changed the bread into His Body and the wine into His Blood. To deny would be to accept each and all of the errors that all lead to a symbolic presence and that the bread is really bread and the wine is really wine. There is the second miracle believed in that the accidents do not change, but remain so that Christ may be received as food. Also, the elicitation of faith in the words of Christ. Saint John provides, in Chapter Six, the call for faith when Christ offered to give His Body and Blood as food:
Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not. (John 6:61-65)
Christ rebuked His disciples for not believing the announcement of His Resurrection until they had seen Him: And he upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, because they did not believe them who had seen him after he was risen again. (Mark 16:14). Again, Christ admonishes the Apostle Thomas with these words: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed. (John 20:29)
Regarding the third, it follows from the first two that Transubstantiation is the doctrine of the Church that holds to the truth that Christ truly changed the bread into His Body and truly changed the wine into His Blood. To deny would be to accept each and all of the errors which actually lead to a symbolic presence of Christ and that, therefore, the bread is really bread and the wine is really wine.
The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers
M. F. Toal
THE GOSPEL OF THE SUNDAY
LUKE xvii. 11-19
At that time: As Jesus was going to Jerusalem, he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. And as he entered into a certain town, there met him ten men that were lepers, who stood afar off and lifted up their voice, saying: Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. Whom when he saw, he said: Go, shew yourselves to the priests. And it came to pass, as they went, they were made clean. And one of them, when he saw that he was made clean, went back, with a loud voice glorifying God. And he fell on his face before his feet, giving thanks. And this was a Samaritan. And Jesus, answering, said: Were not ten made clean? And where are the nine? There is no one found to return and give glory to God, but this stranger. And he said to him: Arise, go thy way; for thy faith hath made thee whole.
EXPOSITION FROM THE CATENA AUREA
Men driven from towns and cities, as unclean, under the Mosaic law.TITUS: Because their common affliction had made them of one mind, they were wont to live together; and they waited about for Jesus’ passing, restless till they saw Christ approaching. Then follows: who stood afar off; because Judaic law held leprosy unclean; but the law of the Gospel holds that it is not outward leprosy, but inward that is unclean. THEOPHYLACTUS: They stood afar off, as though ashamed of the uncleanness imputed to them. For they thought that like others Christ also would be repelled by them. So they stood afar off from Him in place, but they were brought close to Him by their prayer. For, the Lord is nigh unto all that call upon him; to all that call upon him in truth (Ps. cxliv. 18). Hence follows:
And lifted up their voice, saying: Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.
TITUS: They plead in the name of Jesus, and gain the reality it stands for: for Jesus means Saviour. They say: Have mercy on us; knowing through experience of His power. They asked neither silver nor gold, but that they might receive a body that could be seen to be sound.
St. Rose of Lima, Virgin
1. The first blossom of sanctity that the Church put forth in newly discovered America was Rose of Lima, in Peru. Having renewed paradise in her own soul, as it were, she tried to renew it about her. Born on April 20, 1586, of poor parents, she received the name of Isabella in baptism; on account of the delicate rose-color of her face, however, she was usually called Rosa. As a child she had already conceived the desire of pleasing Christ alone, the Bridegroom of souls, and she had begun a life of renunciation and prayer. Her mother, proud of the child’s beauty, continually tormented her by insisting that she primp and paint, bind her hair with flowers and adorn her neck with coral. Though Rose reluctantly obeyed, she never lost her abhorrence for these things. She worked with tireless diligence at spinning and sewing in order to relieve the poverty of her parents; always amiable, she concerned herself about others, ever ready to fulfill their wishes, encourage them or give them joy. The parents were determined to have her marry a certain rich young man, and her mother even went so far as to supplement her pleading with threats and maltreatment. Rose suffered intensely but could not be dissuaded from her intention to consecrate her heart entirely to God
Finally, when she was twenty, Rose obtained permission to enter the Third Order of St. Dominic. As a tertiary she continued to live with her family; she now increased her fasts, nocturnal vigils, and other austerities, despite the fact that this manner of life brought all kinds of insults, abuse, and slights from her acquaintances. But God showered graces upon her particularly the grace of prayer. At the age of thirty-one she fell seriously ill; her death occurred on August 24, 1617. She was beatified in 1668 and canonized in 1671.
2. “I have betrothed you to Christ, so that no other but he should claim you, his bride without spot” (Epistle). St. Paul found it necessary to defend himself against those in Corinth who were casting suspicion on him by attributing ignoble motives. He therefore had recourse to the argument that zeal for the glory of God working in him was urging him to lead his Christians to the heights of betrothal with Christ. What St. Paul was trying to do for his flock was an accomplished fact in Rose. Even as a child she had grasped the mystery of virginity and of spiritual marriage to Christ, according to the Apostle’s words: “There are some eunuchs, who. . . have made themselves so for the love of the kingdom of heaven. . . . That conclusion. . . cannot be taken in by everybody, but only by those who have the gift” (Matt. 19:11, 12); or, again: “He who is unmarried is concerned with God’s claim, asking how he is to please God. . . . So a woman who is free of wedlock, or a virgin, is concerned with the Lord’s claim, intent on holiness, bodily and spiritual; whereas the married woman is concerned with the world’s claim, asking how she is to please her husband” (I Cor. 7:32, 34). Rose chose virginity in its highest form, that is, betrothal with Christ She knew no earthly lover, and for Christ’s love she had to endure bitter accusations and hard, cutting remarks, even from her own mother. All through the years of trial her one thought was to be a pure, worthy spouse of her Lord the Savior. He had called her to this: “Rose of my heart, you are to be my bride.” And she responded; “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; let it be unto me according to thy word” (Luke 1:38).
“Behold; the bridegroom is on his way; go out to meet him” (Gospel). “You are to be my bride.” That is why our Lord put her in the school of suffering and humiliation of every sort. Her withdrawal from the world, her mysterious abstention from food and drink, her frequent raptures and ecstasies, all were declared by many to be hypocrisy, hysteria, or the work of the devil. In addition to the sufferings from without, Rose had to endure all kinds of painful physical ailments: lameness, fainting spells, attacks of weakness. She bore these ills patiently, recognizing in them the hand of God punishing her for sins. She considered herself unworthy to live and breathe, and continually cried to God for mercy. Her most painful trial in this process of preparing for the sublime privilege of betrothal with Christ came in the form of spiritual dryness; for years she was subject to hours of frightening emptiness of spirit and aridity of heart, during which she had no inclination to prayer, no consolation, no ability to conceive pious thoughts and aspirations, no perception of the nearness of God. She was oppressed by the thought that God had rejected her on account of her sins, had excluded her from the bliss of heaven, doomed her to join the damned in hell. Such thoughts tormented her day and night.
Thus she reached the maturity required of a spouse of Christ. Suddenly there was light in her soul; the refreshing dew of grace fell on her in abundance; the peace of God flooded her heart. The ardor of her love grew so strong, that nothing was ever able to separate her from Christ again. The Lord now blessed her with a wonderful prayer-life, so that, at all times, whether she was asleep or awake, always and everywhere God was present to her spirit. In spite of all these favors, Rose went about her work and associated with other people in such a normal way that nobody suspected the enraptured state of her soul. Yet all could detect the force of her love for God in her many-sided, active charity, and in her desire to suffer with Christ and for His sake. Her union with Him was so intimate that she shared His life more and more and became ever more fruitful in good works. The words of Isaias were fulfilled in her: “The Lord will give thee rest continually, fill thy soul with comfort, thy body with ease. Not more secure the well-watered garden, the spring whose waters never fail” (58:10- 11 ). “Behold, the bridegroom is on his way; go out to meet him” (Gospel). A holy death perfected Rose’s betrothal with Christ. It was for her the ardently longed-for homecoming of the beloved to the heavenly bridal chamber. “Rose of my heart, you shall be my bride.”
3. We congratulate St. Rose today on the holy union to which our Lord so graciously called her and so wonderfully led her. All her sacrifices and conflicts were a part of her vocation to divine espousals. She was a rose among thorns, indeed.
We praise the heroic fortitude with which she endured the numerous trials at the hands of men and God until she was ready for complete oneness with Him. As always, the struggle to preserve purity and to acquire the treasures of Christian virginity, the sacrifices demanded in the entire dedication to love of God, brought their reward.
May St. Rose be our model and our intercessor with God, so that we may acquire the strength to follow her example and be true to the vocation which He has given us in the Church. St. Rose, draw us in your path toward Christ!
Collect: Almighty God, giver of an good gifts, who didst will that blessed Rose, a flower of purity and patience, nourished betimes with the dew of Thy grace, should blossom in the Indies, grant, that we, Thy servants, may hasten to follow where the fragrance of her passage beckons us, and so deserve to become a perfume offered to the Father by Christ, who is God. Amen.
Boys and Girls!
REV. THOMAS J. HOSTY, M.A., S.T.B.
LITTLE ORPHAN ANNIE
GOOD MORNING, BOYS AND GIRLS!
You all look so bright, this lovely spring morning, that I can’t resist the temptation to ask you a question. This won’t be an easy question, though, like “How many days of school are left, before the summer vacation begins?” I think almost everyone in the school knows the answer to that one, except the Sisters. (Sometimes I have a suspicion that even they know, too!) No, this question is a lot harder. Are you ready for it? Here it is!
What is an orphan?
Gosh, I never thought that you’d guess it so quickly. You must have learned all about orphans from Little Orphan Annie in the comics. (By the way, I wonder what she eats for breakfast to keep looking so young. She looks the same now as she did when I was a youngster, and, believe me, that’s a long time ago!)
Yes, an orphan is a child whose mother and father are dead. Did you ever stop to realize how lucky you are, not to be an orphan? An orphan doesn’t have a good father to go out and work for him every day, so that he can have a nice home and good clothes and health-giving food and spending money. An orphan doesn’t have a wonderful mother, either, who is always watching out for him, and who takes care of him when he’s sick, and who does so many other things for him that I couldn’t even begin to name them all.
I wonder if this question has ever occurred to you—who takes care of the orphans? If the orphans are not Catholic, they are cared for by the city or the state, or by the religious organization to which their mother and father belonged while they were alive. Only in very unusual cases does the Catholic Church provide for non-Catholic orphans, as she has all that she can do to take care of her own Catholic children. Over in China and other countries like that, however, the Catholic Church frequently provides for all the little pagan children that are brought to her.
If the orphans are Catholic, they are taken to a big building which is called an orphanage. There they are taken care of by priests and nuns who have freely given up any chance of ever having a family of their own, so that they can be mother and father to hundreds and thousands of other poor children; The Catholic Church has orphanages all over the world, but I’m just going to tell you about the orphanages in Chicago, because I know a great deal more about them. If you want to find out about orphanages in other parts of the United States, or in any other part of the world, just ask one of the Sisters or the priests. They’ll get the information for you.
Let’s get back to Chicago, now. Here we have nine orphanages and last year they took care of over five thousand children! Think of how much it must have cost to feed and clothe all those children, and to take care of them! I don’t think any of you could even come close to guessing, so I’ll tell you. It costs millions of dollars a year—thousands of dollars a day! Do you know who pays the bill?—The Catholic Church in Chicago.
Where does the Catholic Church get the money to pay such tremendous bills? The Church gets it from the generous people of Chicago and its suburbs, who all chip in, every year, to keep things going. Once a year the Bishop has a special collection (I think every Bishop in the United States does this) taken up in every church to give everyone a chance to help out.
In Chicago, that collection is always taken up on Pentecost Sunday. Why do you think the Bishop picked Pentecost Sunday for the collection? I think I can tell you one of the chief reasons—on Pentecost Sunday, God the Holy Ghost, the third Person of the most Blessed Trinity, showed His love for us by coming down upon the Apostles; He entered into their souls and filled them with an extraordinary love for Him. Now, on Pentecost Sunday, we have a chance to show our love for God, by contributing to the care of his little ones. Our Lord said, “As long as you did it to the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”
Next Sunday a collection will be taken for all the orphans. I have never spoken to you before about giving money to the poor, but I think you should know about this collection, and that you should do something about it. God has been very good to you. He has given you a swell Mother and Dad and a good home. You ought to show your gratitude to God for all these wonderful gifts by doing something for the children who are not as fortunate as you are. I want every one of you to give something extra in the collection next Sunday, and I want you to get this point clearly—I don’t want you to ask your Mother or Dad for it! I want you to go without something, so that you can put a little more in the collection box. For example, you could give the money which you ordinarily get for spending on Sunday; in other words, your weekly allowance. Don’t go to the movies next Sunday, and give the orphans the price of the movies.
Anyone who isn’t willing to give something to help other poor boys and girls is a piker, as far as I’m concerned. I certainly hope we haven’t got any pikers in our school. I want you to remember, too, what our Lord said. He said, “By this shall all men know that you are my followers, that you have love for one another.” If there is anyone whom you should have love for, it’s other boys and girls of your own age, who aren’t blessed with a good Mother and Father!
Father Krier will be in Pahrump September 10, Albuquerque September 11 and Los Angeles September 12. He will be in Eureka September 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: Donate
Or if you prefer send a check to
Catholic Tradition Newsletter
c/o St Joseph’s Catholic Church
131 N. 9th St
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Visit us on the Worldwide Web: http://stjosephlv.org
e-mail news and comments to: firstname.lastname@example.org