Vol 15 Issue 7 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
February 12, 2022 ~ Holy Founders, opn!
1. Sacrament of Penance
2. Septuagesima Sunday
3. Saint Polyeuctus and Saint Martinian
4. Family and Marriage
5. Articles and notices
Dear Reader:
In a time when the State is forcing the Faithful to choose between God and itself as the basis of reality and punishing the faithful for refusing to choose the state, which has the opinion that the state is the so-called evolving point of humanity receiving a purpose, it is proper to provide another time when the state forced its populace to make that decision. Saint Thomas More was chosen to be Chancellor of England by Henry VIII because of friendship and intellectual ability. Henry the VIII, like Henry II, in the concept of absolute monarch, needed a moral authority to support his life of immorality and injustice. There was already the example for the English in Saint Thomas Becket, who was chosen by Henry II to be Archbishop of Canterbury, which was confirmed by the Pope. Thomas Becket let Henry II know that now as he, Thomas, was Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Church in England, he was obliged to defend the rights of the Church—a decision that would ruin their friendship and eventually led to Thomas being martyred. Henry VIII did not choose Thomas to be Archbishop, but as still as Chancellor, Henry VIII wanted Thomas More to consent to what no King had the right to: Divorce and be Head of the Church of England (a sign to anyone that there was a separation from the Catholic Church, always subject to the Chair of Peter—for one may say the Church in but not the Church of). Henry VIII wanted More, a most renowned legal lawyer, to justify an annulment of a true marriage, to say what isn’t is. He wanted Thomas to agree the king was head of the church and state—and could decide matters of religion instead of being bound to the Church’s Faith and Morals. It was a contradiction for the common people, because Henry VIII made another person, the compromised and opportunistic priest of Ann Boleyn’s family—Thomas Cranmer—Archbishop of Canterbury. Cranmer should have defended the rights of the Church but betrayed the Church, while Thomas More found he could not defend a king who was going against English Law which he was to defend. Saint Thomas More chose to refuse to support the King leading England to eternal perdition due to the king’s immoral depravity and refused to work with those cooperating in the betrayal of the English by charlatans, such as Cranmer and Cromwell—the masterminds behind the Emperor’s New Clothes scheme. Thomas More, John Fisher, and the Holy Maid of Kent were the only ones pointing to the naked reality of the plot. More was trusted by the people for his wisdom and justice; but Cranmer and Cromwell were like the enemies of Daniel who crafted a paper to secure the death of Daniel by having him cast into the Lion’s den (Dan. 6:6), for they, too, drew up documents that all must acknowledge as legitimate what was illegitimate, knowing More would never put his name on the veracity of a false statement. That failing they had to invent stories that More was a traitor and bribed the Solicitor General to perjure himself to claim More said something he did not say. Christ was accused falsely to attain His death, and More joined His Lord and Savior in suffering the same fate: Rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s (cf. Matt. 22:21) Christ was crucified for giving to His Father the honor due His Father. More, too, rendered to Caesar the things that were Caesar’s but was beheaded for rendering to God the things that were God’s. What God has put together, let no man put asunder (Matt. 19:6). May we never deny the truth of what is and this is by the honesty of our words even in our daily speech and writing. If, in the small we are faithful, so will we be in greater (cf. Luke 16:10). A true marriage is indissoluble, a man is a man and a woman is a woman, a true family is the trinity—father, mother and child(ren)— from which all reference to and understanding of the family derive.
As always, enjoy the readings provided for your benefit.—The Editor
_______________
WHAT IS THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE
The Catechism of the Council of Trent
(Part II, Chapter 5)
ON THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE.
Aggravating circumstances when necessary to be mentioned in confession.
In confession we should employ all that care and exactness which we usually bestow upon worldly concerns of the greatest moment, and all our efforts should be directed to effect the cure of our spiritual maladies and to eradicate sin from the soul. With the bare enumeration of our mortal sins, we should not be satisfied; that enumeration we should accompany with the relation of such circumstances as considerably aggravate or extenuate their malice. Some circumstances are such, as of themselves to constitute mortal guilt; on no account or occasion whatever, therefore, are such circumstances to be omitted. Has any one imbrued his hands in the blood of his fellow man? He must state whether his victim was a layman or an ecclesiastic. Has he had criminal intercourse with any one? He must state whether the female was married or unmarried, a relative or a person consecrated to God by vow. These are circumstances which alter the species of the sins: the first is called simple fornication; the second adultery; the third incest; and the fourth sacrilege. Again, theft is numbered in the catalogue of sins; but if a person has stolen a guinea, his sin is less grievous than if he had stolen one or two hundred guineas, or a considerable sum; and if the stolen money were sacred, the sin would be still aggravated. To time and place the same observation equally applies; but the instances in which these circumstances alter the complexion of an act, are so familiar and are enumerated by so many writers, as to supersede the necessity of a lengthened detail. [When unnecessary.] Circumstances such as these are, therefore, to be mentioned; but those, which do not considerably aggravate, may be lawfully omitted.
Concealment of a sin in confession a grievous crime: the confession is to be repeated.
So important, as we have already said, is integrity to confession, that if the penitent wilfully neglect to accuse himself of some sins which should be confessed, and suppress others, he not only does not obtain the pardon of his sins, but involves himself in deeper guilt. Such an enumeration cannot be called sacramental confession: on the contrary, the penitent must repeat his confession, not omitting to accuse himself of having, under the semblance of confession, profaned the sanctity of the sacrament. [Omission of a sin thro’ forgetfulness does not render it necessary to repeat the confession.] But should the confession seem defective, either because the penitent forgot some grievous sins, or because although intent on confessing all his sins, he did not explore the recesses of his conscience with extraordinary minuteness, he is not bound to repeat his confession: it will be sufficient, when he recollects the sins which he had forgotten, to confess them to a priest on a future occasion. We are not, however, to examine our consciences with careless indifference, or evince such negligence in recalling our sins to our recollection, as if we were unwilling to remember them; and should this have been the case, the confession must be reiterated.
Confession should be plain, simple, undisguised.
Our confession should also be plain, simple, and undisguised, not clothed in that artificial language with which some invest it, who seem more disposed to give an outline of their general manner of living, than to confess their sins. Our confession should be such as to reflect a true image of our lives, such as we ourselves know them to be, exhibiting as doubtful that which is doubtful, and as certain that which is certain. If, then, we neglect to enumerate our sins, or introduce extraneous matter, our confession, it is clear, wants this quality.
Prudent, and modest.
Prudence and modesty in explaining matters of confession are also much to be commended, and a superfluity of words is to be carefully avoided: whatever is necessary to make known the nature of every sin, is to be explained briefly and modestly.
Secrecy to be observed by priest and penitent.
Secrecy should be strictly observed as well by penitent as priest, and, hence, because in such circumstances secrecy must be insecure, no one can, on any account, confess by messenger or letter.
Frequent Confession
But above all, the faithful should be most careful to cleanse their consciences from sin by frequent confession: when oppressed by mortal guilt, nothing can be more salutary, so precarious is human life, than to have immediate recourse to the tribunal of penance; but could we even promise ourselves length of days, yet should not we who are so particular in whatever relates to cleanliness of dress or person, blush to evince less concern in preserving the lustre of the soul pure and unsullied from the foul stains of sin.
The minister of the sacrament of penance.
We now come to treat of the minister of this sacrament—That the minster of the sacrament of penance must be a priest possessing ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, the laws of the Church sufficiently declare: whoever discharges this sacred function must be invested, not only with the power of orders, but also with that of jurisdiction. Of this ministry we have an illustrious proof in these words of the Redeemer, recorded by St. John: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins you shall retain they are retained;” [John xx. 23.] words addressed not to all but to the Apostles only, to whom, in this function of the ministry, priests succeed. This admirably accords with the economy of religion, for as the grace imparted by this sacrament emanates from Christ the head, and is diffused through his members, they who alone have power to consecrate his true body, should alone have power to administer this sacrament to his mystical body, the faithful; particularly as they are qualified and disposed by means of the sacrament of penance, to receive the Holy Eucharist. The scrupulous care which, in the primitive ages of the Church, guarded the right of the ordinary priest, is very intelligible from the ancient decrees of the Fathers, which provided, “that no bishop or priest, except in case of necessity, presume to exercise any function in the parish of another without the authority of the ordinary;” a law which derives its sanction from the Apostle, when he commanded Titus to ordain priests in every city, [Tit. i. 5.] to administer to the faithful the heavenly food of doctrine and of the sacraments. [Any priest, the minister in an extreme case.] But in case of imminent danger of death, when recourse cannot be had to the proper priest, that none may perish, the Council of Trent teaches that, according to the ancient practice of the Church of God, it is then lawful for any priest, not only to remit all sorts of sins, whatever faculties they might otherwise require, but also to absolve from excommunication. [Sess. 14. c. 6. de pœnit.]
Qualifications of the minister.
Besides the power of orders and of jurisdiction, which are of absolute necessity, the minister of this sacrament, holding as he does, the place at once of judge and physician, should also be gifted with knowledge and prudence. [Knowledge.] As judge, his knowledge, it is evident, should be more than ordinary, for by it he is to examine into the nature of sins, and, amongst the various sorts of sins, to judge which are grievous and which are not, keeping in view the rank and condition of the person. [Prudence.] As physician, he has also occasion for consummate prudence, for to him it belongs to administer to the distempered soul those sanative medicines, which will not only effect the cure of her present malady, but prove preservatives against its future contagion. [Ex Basil, in reg. brevibus, q. li. 29.] [Integrity of life.] The faithful, therefore, will perceive the great importance to be attached to the choice of a confessor, and will use their best endeavours to choose one who is recommended by integrity of life, by learning and prudence, who is deeply impressed with the awful weight and responsibility of the station which he holds, who understands well the punishment due to every sin, and can also discern who are to be loosed and who to be bound.
The seal of confession.
But as all are anxious, that their sins should be buried in eternal secrecy, the faithful are to be admonished that there is no reason whatever to apprehend, that what is made known in confession will ever be revealed by any priest, or that by it the penitent can, at any time, be brought into danger or difficulty of any sort. All laws human and divine guard the inviolability of the seal of confession, and against its sacrilegious infraction the Church denounces her heaviest chastisements.[Ex Leonis Papæ epist. 80.] “Let the priest,” says the great Council of Lateran, “take especial care, neither by word nor sign, nor by any other means whatever, to betray, in the least degree, the sacred trust confided to him by the sinner.” [Cap. 21.]
Negligence of sinners.
Having treated of the minister of this sacrament, the order of our matter requires, that we next proceed to explain some general heads, which are of considerable practical importance with regard to confession. Many, to whom, in general, no time seems to pass so slowly as that which is appointed by the laws of the Church for the duty of confession, so far from giving due attention to those other matters, which are obviously most efficacious in conciliating the favour and friendship of God, are placed at such a distance from Christian perfection, as scarcely to recollect the sins, which are to be the matter of their confession. [The confessor will observe if the penitent be truly contrite.] As, therefore, nothing is to be omitted, which can assist the faithful in the important work of salvation, the priest will be careful to observe, if the penitent be truly contrite for his sins, and deliberately and firmly resolved to avoid sin for the future. [How to be treated if contrite.] If the sinner is found to be thus disposed, he is to be admonished and earnestly exhorted, to pour out his heart in gratitude to God for this invaluable blessing, and supplicate unceasingly the aid of divine grace, shielded by which he may securely combat the evil propensities of corrupt nature. He should also be taught, not to suffer a day to pass, without devoting a portion of it to meditation on some mystery of the passion, in order to excite himself to an imitation of his great model, and inflame his heart with ardent love for his Redeemer. The fruit of such meditation will be, to fortify him more and more, every day, against all the assaults of the devil; for, what other reason is there, why our courage sinks, and our strength fails, the moment the enemy makes even the slightest attack on us, but that we neglect by pious meditation, to kindle within us the fire of divine love, which animates and invigorates the soul? [If not contrite:] But, should the priest perceive, that the penitent gives equivocal indications of true contrition, he will endeavour to inspire him with an anxious desire for it, inflamed by which he may resolve to ask and implore this heavenly gift from the mercy of God.
(To be continued)
————————–
The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers
M. F. Toal
THE GOSPEL OF THE SUNDAY
MATTHEW XX. 1-16
At that time: Jesus spoke to His Disciples the following parable: The kingdom of heaven is like to an householder, who went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And having agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
And going out about the third hour, he saw others standing in the market place idle. And he said to them: Go you also into my vineyard, and I will give you what shall be just. And they went their way. And again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did in like manner. But about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing, and he saith to them: Why stand you here all the day idle? They say to him: Because no man hath hired us. He saith to them: Go you also into my vineyard. And when evening was come, the lord of the vineyard saith to his steward: Call the labourers and pay them their hire, beginning from the last even to the first.
When therefore they were come, that came about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first also came, they thought that they should receive more: and they also received every man a penny. And receiving it they murmured against the master of the house, saying: These last have worked but one hour, and thou hast made them equal to us, that have borne the burden of the day and the heats.
But he answering said to one of them: Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny? Take what is thine, and go thy way: I will also give to this last even as to thee. Or, is it not lawful for me to do what I will? Is thy eye evil, because I am good? So shall the last be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.
ST JOHN CHRYSOSTOM: ON PREPARING FOR SALVATION
What does this parable mean? For that which is said at the end is not in agreement with what is said in the beginning, but announces something wholly contrary. For in the first part He shows all men as receiving the same rewards; not some being excluded, and others admitted to enter. And both before the parable and after, the Lord has said something that is contradictory: The first shall be last, and the last first; that is, that those who came later shall be placed before the very first; these now ceasing to be first, and being placed after those others.
What this may mean He then makes known, saying: For many are called, but few are chosen, so that He may at one and the same time urge onwards the former, and comfort and console the latter. But the parable however does not say this: but that the chosen ones shall be made equal with those who have been proved just, and have laboured much: for these latter say: Thou hast made them equal to us, that have borne the burden of the day and the heats.
What then is the meaning of this parable? This we must first make clear; then we shall consider the other question. The vineyard, He says, is the particular injunctions of God, and His Commandments: the time of labouring is our present life; the labourers are all those who, in different ways, are called to the fulfilment of these commands. The morning early, the third hour, the sixth, the ninth, the eleventh, hour stand for those who at different periods of their lives have drawn near, and have done a good work.
But now the question arises: if those first called were so worthy in their lives and pleasing to God, and have shone out in the midst of all their trials throughout their days, how is it that they now have turned to evil feelings, namely: to envy and to jealousy? For seeing the others profiting equally with themselves they say: These last have worked but one hour, and thou hast made them equal to us, who have borne the burden of the day and the heats.
And even though they would lose nothing, nor would their own wage be lessened, from envy and jealousy they were resentful of what the others received. And furthermore, the Master of the vineyard answering in regard to these latter, and, as it were, justifying Himself to those who had so spoken, adjudged them guilty of envy and jealousy by these words: Didst thou not agree with me for a penny? Take what is thine and go thy way: I will also give to this last even as to thee. Is thy eye evil because I am good?
What is to be understood from these words? For the same appears in other parables also. For the son that was worthy is shown to have fallen into the same evil state of mind, when he saw his prodigal brother about to receive more and greater honour than he had ever received (Lk. xv. 28). For as the last were more honoured in being paid the first, so was he more honoured by this abundance of gifts; and to this the older brother gives testimony. What then are we to say? In the kingdom of heaven there is no one disputing or accusing in this manner. Far from it. For there is neither envy nor any jealousy. For if in this life the sanctified give up their lives for sinners how much more will they rejoice when they behold them dwelling amid the joys of heaven, which they believe to be equally the possession of all.
Why then did He use this form of speech? His discourse was a parable, and accordingly it is not fitting to take literally every word spoken. But when we have learned the purpose of the parable, we should gather in this, and not be too concerned as to the rest. Why was this parable composed, and what does He mean to lay down for our instruction? He wishes to make more eager those converted in later life, and to convince them that they should not think that their reward will be less. So he shows others as taking badly their good fortune; not that He may show the former as touched by envy; far from it, but that He may make plain that these who came last enjoy such honour that it can cause envy to others. Just as we sometimes say: he criticised me because I so honoured you. Not that we wish to accuse this person of a fault, but to show how great was the courtesy shown.
But why did He not hire them all together immediately? As to His own will, He has done so; and if all have not obeyed, it was the will of those called that made the difference. And so some are called early in the morning, some at the third hour, some at the sixth and the ninth, some at the eleventh: when they would be disposed to answer the call. This Paul also says: When it pleased him, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace (Gal. i. I 5). When did it please Him? When he was ready to obey. For the Lord willed it from the beginning, but because Paul would not have been obedient, then it pleased Him only when Paul was disposed to obey. In like manner He called the Good Thief, though He could have called him earlier; but he would not then have answered the call. For if Paul would not have obeyed earlier, much less would the Good Thief.
And that these say: No man hath hired us; here, as I have said, we must not examine with too close scrutiny all that may be included in the parable. It is they, not the Master of the vineyard, that say this. Neither does He go into that with them, as He seeks not to confuse them, but to bring them to Himself. That He, for His part, has called all, and from the first hour, the parable itself declares, saying: that he went out early in the morning to hire.
From everything that is said it seems to us therefore, that the parable is directed to those who have embraced the way of virtue in their early youth, and to those who embraced it in later age. To the former so that they might not become proud, nor scornful of those coming in later life, to the latter that they may learn that it is possible in a brief while to earn the whole wage. Because, prior to this, He had been speaking (Mt. xix) of great fervour, and of rejecting riches, and of contempt of the world. For this there was need for great courage of soul, and of youthful fire. To kindle a flame of eager love, and form in them the will to endure, He showed that it is possible, even for these last come, to receive the wage of the whole day. But He does not say this, lest they be tempted to pride, but He shows that the whole wage comes from His own kindness and bounty, and that by His help they will not be lost, but will attain to ineffable joys. And this principally is what He means to lay down for our instruction in this parable.
That He adds: So shall the last be first, and the first last, and, that: many are called, but few chosen, need not cause wonder. For this is not something which He, as it were, inferred from the parable, but means this: as the former has happened, so shall the latter; for in the parable the first did not come last, but all, beyond hope and expectation, received the same wage. And as that happened contrary to hope and expectation, and they who came late were made equal to the first comers, so shall this which is yet more wonderful come to pass, namely: that the last comers shall be placed even before the first, the first being placed after the last. Here we are speaking of two different things. To me He here seems to be hinting at the Jews, and at those believers who first shone forth in virtue, and then, turning aside from doing good, fell away, and also to those who, having risen up from evildoing, soon outstripped others in virtue. For daily we see many transformations of this kind, both in believing and in the conduct of life. Accordingly, Dearest Brethren, I entreat you, let us use all diligence that we may remain steadfast in our holy faith, and show ourselves worthy in our daily lives. Unless we lead a life that is in harmony with our faith we shall be grievously punished. And this the Blessed Paul declared from the beginning, when he said: And did all eat the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, but adding that not all were saved, but many of them were overthrown in the desert (I Cor. x. 3-5). And in the Gospel Christ has declared this same truth for He made reference to many that had cast out devils, and had prophesied, and yet were dismissed into darkness (Mt. vii. 22, 23). And all these parables, such as that of the virgins, that of the fisherman’s net, that of the thorns, of the tree that failed to bring forth fruit, demand the virtue that comes from good works. . . .
———————–
13: ST POLYEUCTUS, MARTYR (A.D. 259)
THE city of Melitene in Armenia, which was a station of Roman troops, is illustrious for the large number of its martyrs. Of these the foremost in rank was Polyeuctus, a Roman officer of Greek parentage. While still a pagan he made friends with a zealous Christian named Nearchus who, when news of persecution reached Armenia, prepared himself to lay down his life for his faith. His only regret was that Polyeuctus was still a heathen, but he had the joy of winning him over to the truth and of inspiring him with an eager desire to die for the Christian religion. Polyeuctus openly declared himself a Christian, and was apprehended and condemned to cruel tortures. When the executioners were tired of tormenting him, they began to argue and persuade him to renounce Christ. The tears and entreaties of his wife Paulina, of his children and of his father-in-law might well have shaken a less resolute man. Polyeuctus, however, strengthened by God, only grew firmer and received the death sentence with joy. On the road to execution he exhorted the bystanders to renounce their idols, and spoke so eloquently that many were converted. He was beheaded during the persecution of Decius or Valerian.
ST MARTINIAN THE HERMIT (DATE UNKNOWN)
MARTINIANUS was born at Cæsarea in Palestine, during the reign of Constantius. At eighteen years of age he retired to a mountain near that city, called, The place of the Ark, where he lived for twenty-five years, among many holy solitaries in the practice of all virtues, and was endowed with the gift of miracles. A wicked strumpet of Cæsarea, called Zoe, hearing his sanctity much extolled, at the instigation of the devil undertook to pervert him. She feigned herself a poor woman, wandering in the desert late at night, and ready to perish. By this pretext she prevailed on Martinianus to let her remain that night in his cell. Towards morning she threw aside her rags, put on her best attire, and going in to Martinianus, told him, she was a lady of the city, possessed of a large estate and plentiful fortune, all which she came to offer him with herself. She also instanced, in the examples of the saints of the Old Testament, who were rich and engaged in the conjugal state, to induce him to abandon his purpose. The hermit, who should have imitated the chaste Joseph in his flight, was permitted, in punishment perhaps of some secret presumption, to listen to her enchanting tongue, and to consent in his heart to her proposal. But as it was near the time that he expected certain persons to call on him to receive his blessing and instructions, he told her he would go and meet them on the road and dismiss them. He went out with this intent, but being touched with remorse, he returned speedily to his cell, where making a great fire, he thrust his feet into it. The pain this occasioned was so great, that he could not forbear crying out aloud. The woman at the noise ran in and found him lying on the ground, bathed in tears, and his feet half burned. On seeing her he said: “Ah! if I cannot bear this weak fire, how can I endure that of hell?” This example excited Zoe to sentiments of grief and repentance, and she conjured him to put her in a way of securing her salvation. He sent her to Bethlehem to the monastery of St. Paula, in which she lived in continual penance, and lying on the bare floor, with no other sustenance than bread and water. Martinianus, as soon as his legs were healed, which was not till seven months after, not being able all that time to rise from the ground, retired to a rock surrounded with water on every side, to be secure from the approach of danger and all occasions of sin. He lived here exposed always to the open air, and without ever seeing any human creature, except a boatman, who brought him twice a year biscuit and fresh water, and twigs wherewith to make baskets. Six years after this, he saw a vessel split and wrecked at the bottom of his rock. All on board perished, except one girl, who, floating on a plank, cried out for succour. Martinianus could not refuse to go down and save her life: but fearing the danger of living on the same mountain with her till the boatman should come, as was expected in two months, resolved to leave her there to subsist on his provisions till that time, and she chose to end her days on this rock in imitation of his penitential life. He, trusting himself to the waves and Providence, to shun all danger of sin, swam to the main land, and travelled through many deserts to Athens, where he made a happy end towards the year 400, being about fifty years old. His name, though not mentioned in the Roman Martyrology, occurs in the Greek Menæa, and was in great veneration in the East, particularly at Constantinople, in the famous church near Sancta Sophia.
(Butler’s Lives of the Saints)
_______________
CANA IS FOREVER
COUNSELS FOR BEFORE AND AFTER MARRIAGE
By Charles Hugo Doyle (1949)
Romantic love is such a subtle thing that human intelligence must be assisted by divine grace to be able to discern the true from the false. Few realize that true love is, as defined by Webster, “a desire for and earnest effort to promote the welfare of another,” and not simply another name for external manifestations of affection and sex satisfaction. Nuptial love that is built on passion alone is doomed to failure. Almost all passions are temporary by nature. We know from experience that the passion of anger, for instance, is rarely able to be sustained at a high pitch. Once we “get even” with our enemy, the force of the rage is spent. The same is true of love as a passion, for from this point of view the chief pleasure is in anticipation and once its object is attained it may wane and even pall. Marriage must be built on a much firmer basis.
A happy marriage depends on one’s early education in what real love is and what it is not, and what its end and object are. A happy marriage depends too on one’s capacity during courtship to discern true love from mere infatuation. Love whets the appetite; infatuation leaves hunger still.
“Love hath its seat
In reason and is judicious,”
says Milton, while infatuation directs action without reason and precludes judgment. Love is a learned quality; infatuation is a play of humor in the blood. Infatuation can even be a one-sided affair, but not so, love, for as the Italian proverb says, “To love and not be loved is time lost.” One strives in vain to light a cigarette from a dead coal.
A doctor of medicine, a close friend of mine, and I were discussing a young man, a problem child, in whose case we had both become concerned. I ventured to suggest that what really ailed the boy was that “he had a touch of love.” “You ought to know better than that,” said the doctor. “Love is like diabetes. There is no such thing as a touch of it. You have it or you don’t have it.”
Granted that one knows when he or she is in love, is there no infallible way of telling the genuine from the unreasonable facsimile? I’m afraid not, but I hasten to say that you can be morally certain your love is true and genuine if you find gentleness, beauty, refinement, generosity and intelligence and a reciprocal love made up of all these qualities and one that outdistances your love, day by day, month by month. What? No sex? Yes, indeed, but when two persons are really in love and that love is genuine, the sex feelings are so controlled that, without realizing it, they find great pleasure merely in being in one another’s company.
Newell W. Edson of the American Social Hygiene Association, in a pamphlet entitled “Love in the Making,” has listed the following signs as indicative of true love:
1. A genuine interest in the other person and all that he or she says or does.
2. A community of tastes, ideals, and standards with no serious clashes.
3. A greater happiness in being with this one person than with any other.
4. A real unhappiness when the other person is absent.
5. A great feeling of comradeship.
6. A willingness to give and take.
7. A disposition to give fair consideration to the other party’s judgment.
8. A pride in the other person when comparisons are made.
9. A wealth of things to say and do together.
Mr. Edson neglected to mention something that I consider a most indicative sign of love, and that is a willingness to sacrifice oneself for another—to sacrifice something prized by the giver. Sacrifice stimulates love while expressing it. It was Antoine de Saint-Exupery, I think, who said: “The mother gives nourishment from her own body for her child. By her giving she creates her love. To create love we must begin by sacrifice. Afterwards it is love that makes the sacrifices. But it is we who must take the first step.”
Emerson sums up the whole problem in his own inimitable way as follows: “All that is in the world, which is or ought to be known, is cunningly wrought into the texture of man and woman:
The person love does to us fit
Like Manna, has the taste of all in it.”
Upon parents, teachers, and clergy alike falls the grave obligation of forewarning and forearming teen-age youths against the folly of permitting themselves to “go steady” during high-school years. Youth must be taught the dangers of this procedure well in advance of its actuality, for once the love-bug gets them they become blind to reason and deaf to admonition. Teen-agers must be shown that the wisdom of nature must be respected and that ventures into love demand maturity—physical, intellectual, and emotional maturity. The bird does not leave the nest until its wings are grown strong enough to carry it. The chrysalis does not tear open until there are wings to take the tiny insect aloft. Teen-agers likewise ought to wait until they are of proper age before going steady or being allowed to do so.
My experience with adolescents has been that under ordinary circumstances, they react favorably to logic. For instance, few teen-agers would let themselves fall in love during their high-school years if they knew that more than sixty-nine per cent of those who were madly in love during that period of their lives did not marry the object of this youthful affection at or after the age of twenty-one. This proves simply that a person at twenty-one has a different sense of values than at, say, sixteen or seventeen.
No youth would fail to condemn the folly of a sixteen-year-old lad who had set his heart on a red convertible coupe and had gone so far as to have a car salesman give him several road demonstrations, but who at the same time had no money to buy a car, no money for its upkeep, no place to keep a car, and, lastly, couldn’t drive a car. Now, applying the same reasoning to steady company-keeping by minors, it is easy to point out the utter folly of permitting themselves to fall in love until they are old enough to distinguish real love from mere infatuation; until they are mature enough to assume the complex and responsible duty of parenthood; and until they have the income sufficient to establish and maintain a home. Teenagers should ponder the wisdom of the words of Owen Felltham, who warns that “love is never lasting which flames before it burns.”
A person may not vote until his twenty-first birthday has been reached. Now, this legislation was enacted simply because the politicians felt that anyone younger lacked mature judgment. Anyone who is too immature to vote is too immature to choose a life partner. There are physical reasons also involved in such a decision. The Germans, according to Julius Caesar, ruled that the act of reproduction in marriage was not permitted to anyone under twenty-one without incurring infamy: and to this he attributed the great strength and fine stature of that simple people.
But is it possible to keep from falling in love? It is, if kissing and petting are not indulged in, no endearing terms expressed through little intimacies, no gifts exchanged, and no confession of love made. It’s just as simple as all that. Ovid, a writer in ancient times, said “Love gives place to business. Attend to business and you will be safe.”
It is a wise thing to have a few, good, well-founded principles to guide you when about to choose a mate. One of those principles should be that beauty of face and figure will not be the sole motivating factor in your choice. Remember that “you can never tell the depth of the well by the length of the handle on the pump.” A ready smile, a bright mind, a pleasing personality, a courteous manner are all more important than a pretty face. All the flaunted beauty of certain screen actresses and actors has not served so well in keeping them happily married.
To those who are intellectually, physically, vocationally, and emotionally mature enough to fall in love, we say emphatically that enduring love is ever built on virtue which cannot be seen in the other person at once. Long acquaintanceship—one to five years—has better prospects than “love at first sight.” Above all, we remind them that many more qualities than the severely practical go into the composition of married life and home building. Abstract traits are beautiful and indispensable, but:
Will the love that you are rich in
Build a fire in the kitchen
Or the little god of Love turn the spit, spit, spit?
Flour is the chief and most quantitative ingredient in a good cake, but flour alone won’t make a cake. You also need baking powder, salt, sugar shortening, eggs and milk, a lot of sifting and mixing, a smooth batter, and just the right amount of heat. Love is the chief ingredient requisite for a happy marriage but not the only one. A good many other things go into the making of a happy marriage, especially in these modern times with changing attitudes. Speaking of recipes, here is an old grandmother’s recipe that has a lot of wisdom in it:
“When once you have made your selection, let it remain forever settled and give your entire thoughts to preparation for domestic use. Some wives keep their husbands in pickle, others in hot water. Even poor varieties may be made sweet, tender and good by garnishing with patience, well sweetened with smiles and flavored with kisses. Wrap in a mantle of charity, keep warm with a steady fire of domestic devotion. Serve often with peaches and cream. When thus prepared, husbands will keep for years.”
But getting back to our main topic–love–most readers will agree wholeheartedly with what we have stated thus far. There will be perfect agreement with the tenet that a person ought to know what real love is and be so well grounded in the knowledge that the true can be easily detected from the false. Sound advice, all this is, for those who have not yet entered holy wedlock, but what about those already married who find the fires of love reduced to but smoldering embers, if not, as some protest, gone out completely?
To such persons we say that were it not within the power of man to “will to love,” there would be no solution to such a problem and most marriages would rarely remain happy for more than a few years at best. That it is not impossible to foster love for one’s husband or wife is being proven daily by thousands of thoughtful men and women who, while disillusioned as to the fitness of their match, nevertheless have forced themselves to look for the good and noble in each other, with the amazing result that a new understanding and respect has grown up between them.
No matter who it is, there is some loveliness in everyone that lurks undiscovered, and patient, kindly exploration will render it easily discernible and upon this a new comradeship can be born and fostered. Always remember that the great bridge that now spans Niagara Falls first began with the spreading from side to side of a tiny wire. The wire was used to haul across a rope and at the end of the rope was a heavy cable, and so on until a bridge was begun that today supports the traffic of trains, cars, and honeymooners. The point is that someone had to will that a bridge be built across Niagara Falls and from that will flowed the determination that provided the means for overcoming what appeared at first to be insurmountable obstacles. The same holds true in marriage, and while one or both parties may not experience all the rapturous moments of happiness that they might have had had they chosen their life partner more wisely, consider that few marriages are a tale of uninterrupted bliss.
That everyone has within him the power “to will to love” is proved by the fact that in certain countries, in the past, there was no free choices of mates, and yet such a deep sense of the duty of loving was taught in the home–and not only a great and high sense of duty but the grandeur of loving—that the husband and wife usually managed to make a good job of mutually respecting one another. So successful was this sort of thing that some wag—Littleton or Shaftesbury, I think—said: “Marriages would be happier if they were all arranged by the Lord Chancellor.”
The person who says, “I do not love my wife or my husband anymore,” acknowledges simply that “the will to love” is absent. Such a person lacks good sportsmanship too, for a good sport will take pride in succeeding in every adventure, and marriage is one of life’s chief adventures. Morton puts it this way: “In love, as in religion, faith worketh miracles.”
Whatever you do, give love time. “Love,” says Blucher, “is the river of life in this world. Think not that ye know it who stand at the little tinkling rill, the first small fountain. Not until you have gone through the rocky gorges and not lost the stream; not until you have gone through the meadow and the stream has widened and deepened until fleets could ride on its bosom; not until beyond the meadow you have come to the unfathomable ocean, and poured your treasures into its depths—not until then can you know what love is!”
And the measure of love? Mrs. Browning gave the world a wondrous formula:
How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of Being and Ideal Grace.
I love thee to the level of everyday’s
Most quiet need, by sun and candlelight.
I love thee freely, as men strive for Right;
I love thee purely, as they turn from Praise.
I love thee with the passion put to use,
In my old griefs, and with my childhood’s faith;
I love thee with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints,—I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life!—and, if God choose,
I shall but love thee better after death.
There is every reason to believe that all the ancient Jewish customs were observed at the marriage in Cana. If that be true, Our Blessed Lord and His Virgin Mother witnessed a most significant reminder of the fragility of love. According to custom, from time to time during Jewish wedding feasts, someone would put somewhat of a check on the joyous festivities by shattering the wine glasses of the happy pair. The idea was to remind the bride and the groom that all felicity is subject to instability, and that love, like a glass once dashed to the ground, could be shattered into a thousand pieces—and were repair possible, the cracks would always show.
In this, as in so many other ways, the lessons of Cana are tremendous and Cana Is Forever.
(To be continued.)
————————-
Father Krier will be in Eureka, Nevada (Saint Joseph, Patron of Families) on February 17.
————————-
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: tcatholicn@yahoo.com