|
ACW Review No 89 September 2011
Proving that Faith and Science can co-exist
James Hastings in an interview with Fr Andrew Pinsent
ACW Review No 88 March 2011
Living within the Truth - Archbishop CHARLES CHAPUT
Encourage Trust Newsletter (April 2003)
ACW Review No 87 December 2010
The Popes’s Visit
The True Role of Guardian Angels - Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Women and the Priesthood - Fr Stephen Wang
ACW Review No 86 Sept 2010
Eliza Vaughan: A Remarkable Convert - John Beaumont
‘Collective Shout’ against a sexual culture - Catherine Sheehan
ACW Review No 85 June 2010
Answering Scandal with Personal Holiness - Fr Roger Landry
Our Lady of Europe - Ruth Rees
ACW Review No 84 March 2010
Manhattan Declaration
Convert of Calvary
ACW Review No 83 December 2009
The Priest - St Jean Vianney
Vera's Death - Felicity Smart
ACW Review No 82 September 2009
Thou art a Priest Forever - Fr Leo Straub
Religious freedom is under attack in England today - Neil Addison
ACW Review No 81 June 2009
The Curse of Broadmindedness - Bishop Fulton Sheen
A Searchlight on the "Enlightenment" - Fr George Duggan, S.M.
Full Texts
ACW Review No 89
Proving that Faith and Science can co-exist
James Hastings in an interview with Fr Andrew Pinsent
He is as interested in the mysteries of the rosary as those of the universe.
Fr Andrew Pinsent was still very young when his faith was influenced watching his grandmother praying daily from a set of old beads. It was around the same time he started looking into the night sky and asked the question that has puzzled theologians, scientists and the simply curious for centuries—what is out there?
Fr Pinsent is a man with more than just letters after his name, more like a whole alphabet. He is research director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University, a Research Fellow of Harris-Manchester College and a member of the Faculty of Theology at Oxford. He is also a priest of the diocese of Arundel and Brighton.
But there is more. He has a doctorate in particle physics from Oxford, a degree in theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and a doctorate in philosophy from St Louis University. He is a named author on 31 papers of the DELPHI experiment at CERN, Geneva, and a member of the United Kingdom Institute of Physics. His full CV provides yet more erudite details, however, his Catholic faith is not simply academic, with its roots lying in a traditional English Catholic family.
“Although my family moved several times when I was young, we generally lived in the south-east of England, an area of the country that has been surprisingly fruitful for vocations in recent years. I attended a variety of schools, but my secondary education was entirely at a secular comprehensive, Charters School in Sunningdale. My family attended a local church run by a missionary order, the Verona Fathers.” “My parents, my two sisters and most of my relations are Catholic. The fact that my parents went to Mass even when it was inconvenient made a deep impression on me as a child, as did my grandmother’s habit of praying the rosary every day.”
In scientific terms, his priestly vocation was not something that grew over a long period like a fledgling universe. It was more like an asteroid smash—sudden and definite.
“Put simply, I knew suddenly that I had to become a priest. I am grateful to the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton for testing my vocation and accepting me for training.”
“At the time of the call, I was working as a senior advisor to Itautec, the computing subsidiary of a major Latin American company, the Itau group based in Sao Paulo. I had worked previously in scientific research, having been a particle physicist with a team from Oxford University at the CERN laboratory in Switzerland.”
“The influences that encouraged me to accept God’s call included the witness of many holy priests among the Verona Fathers in Sunningdale, and my parents, who made the love of God the foundation of their lives. My sister Jane also gave me great encouragement. When I said that I thought I had a vocation, she answered: ‘That’s great news, Andrew. What have you got to lose? We’ll all be dead in 40 years.’ Remembering one’s mortality is a great help in deciding one’s priorities.”
“My interest in science began when I was quite young, and I have since noticed that an interest in science is not uncommon among children. The reason, I think, is that children are natural philosophers and science at its best always touches on philosophical questions. Albert Einstein’s breakthroughs in physics, for example, began with the kind
of questions a child might ask, such as what it would be like to ride on a beam of light.”
In many ways, Fr Pinsent might seem to be unique for this age, or, as far as the new atheists—such as Professor Richard Dawkins—would consider, odd for this age. While they insist that science and religion can never be bedfellows, this is one Catholic priest who takes a different view.
He crosses over with ease from speaking at Sunday Mass about God’s love, to writing a paper on the latest scientific research, such as that on the Large Hadron Collider currently making earth-shattering discoveries somewhere deep below Geneva.
“A particle physicist studies particles, the smallest elements of material reality,” he explains “Particle physicists usually start taking an interest when objects are smaller than about one ten-thousandth of an atomic diameter, roughly ten orders of magnitude smaller than the diameter of a human hair. While such sizes might seem unimaginably small, we think space could support substructures down at least another 20 orders of magnitude, so plenty of exploration remains to be done. For a variety of reasons,however, we need very large machines to study very small objects. The work of particle physicists therefore tends to focus on a small number of extremely large, complex and expensive machines, such as the new Large Hadron Collider.”
How would he answer those such as Dawkins and Hawking, who argue that
science and religion do not mix?
“Science and faith should not be mixed indiscriminately, since they address different aspects of reality and attain to their respective truths in different ways. For this reason, I think one should be extremely cautious about anyone claiming to offer a synthesis of faith and science within some unified theory or cosmic law. Persons, rather than theories,are the principal point of contact of science and faith.” “While Dawkins, Hawking and so on are often called ‘new atheists’, there is, in fact, nothing particularly new about their views. Materialism, the philosophical view that only material things exist, was quite
common at the time of the French Revolution and has always been part of the official ideology of Communism.” “The lesson of history, however, is that every time atheist principles have been enforced as the basis of a state, the state has ended up worshipping a substitute ‘god’. Notorious examples include Stalin in the Soviet Union, Mao Zedong in China and Kim Il-Sung in North Korea, absolute leaders who appropriated, as far as possible, the divine attributes of omnipotence and omniscience. Therefore, I have no fear that atheism will lead to the abandonment of religion, since belief in what philosophers call a ‘First Cause’ appears to be natural for human beings. I am concerned, however, about what atheists choose to worship instead of God.”
It is not just in the halls of academia but also in pubs and workplaces across the country where Fr Pinsent believes the Church is maligned with some very unscientific historical observations. He is quick to counter claims such as the Church used to believe the Earth was flat, or the Bible is full of scientific errors and the Church has always persecuted scientists. He is concerned that even quite intelligent critics of Christianity are often surprisingly ill-informed about these questions.
"The myth that the Church used to believe that the world is flat is a ‘black legend’, the origin of which lies in a popular book by Andrew Dickson White, a kind of Richard Dawkins of the 19th century,” he explains.
“In reality, the spherical nature of the Earth was well-known and defended by many patristic writers. With regard to the Bible, Cardinal Baronius (d. 1607), one of the greatest Catholic historians, said:
`The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.’
“BBC programmes quite frequently discuss the Big Bang, the best current theory about the early universe, but such programmes rarely mention the fact that the inventor of the theory, Georges Lemaitre, was a Catholic priest. You will also find almost no mention of this fact on the vast BBC website, whereas there is a great deal of material on Galileo. This kind of selective reporting reinforces constantly the paradigm of the conflict metaphor of the Catholic faith and science in the public mind.” “Finally, the notion that the Church has always persecuted scientists
is simply nonsense. Genetics was invented by a monk, Gregor Mendel.
The Royal College of Physicians owes its existence chiefly to another
Catholic cleric, Thomas Linacre, and the first woman to be appointed
as a professor of mathematics, Maria Agnesi, was appointed by a Pope
in 1750.”
“The Galileo case is cited so often because it is so exceptional.
To read a straightforward and balanced account of the history and
context, I recommend a Catholic Truth Society (CTS) booklet by Dr
William Carroll, also based in Oxford, called Galileo: Science and
Faith.”
To help counter these popular if ill-informed attacks on the Church,
Fr Pinsent has been one of the key figures of a new Catholic project
called Evangelium.
He describes the group’s main aim as principally a catechetical course
developed along with Fr Marcus Holden to share the riches of the Catholic
Faith with adults.
“In a broader sense, the Evangelium project covers a growing range
of complimentary products, including the Credo pocket catechism, Apologia
handbook of answers to difficult questions and Lumen, a new booklet
summarising the contribution of the Catholic faith to civilisation.
All these products are published by the CTS, which also sponsors our
summer weekend conference for young people at the Reading Oratory
School.”
“The strategy adopted in Evangelium products draws on best practice
in the business world, namely to be as concise as possible and to
make use of the finest possible presentation and artwork. In terms
of the teaching philosophy, we have tried to avoid personal commentary,
aiming to let the faith speak for itself. In metaphorical terms we
aim to be windows rather than mirrors, transmitting the faith rather
than reflecting on it.”
“In recent weeks, we are delighted that Evangelium has been adopted
as the standard course for those joining the new Ordinariate.”
Finally, I ask what all of the above means, what is its relevance,
to a poorly educated, unemployed, middle-aged, overweight, sometime
Catholic, living in a rundown inner-city council estate who is just
trying to live their life, put food on the table and find some kind
of happiness?
“Materialism often leads us to regard problems of poverty simply in
material terms.”
“When I asked a priest working in a Third World country what he most
needed, however, he asked me for books. In other words, once quite
basic material needs are met, the poor quickly need intellectual and
spiritual resources, just like anyone else.”
“Furthermore, Catholics of past centuries lived for the most part
under much poorer conditions than can be found on rundown council
estates today.”
“Nevertheless, these Catholics built cathedrals, wrote sonnets, invented
new forms of language, music and art, explored the world, established
the principles of our laws and founded our most ancient universities.”
“The malaise, of modern poverty is as much spiritual as material,
and that is why a rekindling of faith and cultivation of the mind
are important for everyone.”
This article was published in the Catholic Tmes 27/2/2011
Fr Pinsent’s latest book, LUMEN: The Catholic Gift to Civilisation,
co-authored with Fr Marcus Holden, has just been published by the
Catholic Truth Society. .
(www.cts-online.org.uk)
LIVING WITHIN THE TRUTH Archbishop CHARLES CHAPUT of Denver, Colorado A talk given on 24/8/10 to the Canon Law Association of Slovakia
TERTULLIAN once famously said that the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church. History has proven that to be true. And Slovakia is the perfect place for us to revisit his words today. Here, and throughout central and eastern Europe, Catholics suffered through 50 years of Nazi and Soviet murder regimes. So they know the real cost of Christian witness from bitter experience―and also, unfortunately, the cost of cowardice, collaboration and self-delusion in the face of evil.
I want to begin by suggesting that many Catholics in the United States and Western Europe today simply don’t understand those costs. Nor do they seem to care. As a result, many are indifferent to the process in our countries that social scientists like to call “secularisation”―but which, in practice, involves repudiating the Christian roots and soul of our civilisation.
American Catholics have no experience of the systematic repression so familiar to your Churches. It’s true that anti-Catholic prejudice has always played a role in American life. This bigotry came first from my country’s dominant Protestant culture, and now from its “post-Christian” leadership classes. But this is quite different from deliberate persecution. In general, Catholics have thrived in the United States. The reason is simple. America has always had a broadly Christian and religion-friendly moral foundation, and our public institutions were established as non-sectarian, not anti-religious.
Biblical realism
At the heart of the American experience is an instinctive “biblical realism”. From our Protestant inheritance we have always―at least until now―understood that sin is real, and men and women can be corrupted by power and prosperity. Americans have often been tempted to see our nation as uniquely destined, or specially anointed by God. But in the habits of daily life, we have always known that the “city of God” is something very distinct from the “city of man.” And we are wary of confusing the two.
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote: “Despotism can do without faith, but liberty cannot...” Therefore, “What is to be done with a people that is its own master, if it is not obedient to God?”1
America’s founders were a diverse group of practising Christians and Enlightenment deists. But nearly all were friendly to religious faith. They believed a free people cannot remain free without religious faith and the virtues that it fosters. They sought to keep Church and state separate and autonomous. But their motives were very different from the revolutionary agenda in Europe. The American founders did not confuse the state with civil society. They had no desire for a radically secularised public life. They had no intent to lock religion away from public affairs. On the contrary, they wanted to guarantee citizens the freedom to live their faith publicly and vigorously, and to bring their religious convictions to bear on the building of a just society.
Obviously, we need to remember that other big differences do exist between the American and European experiences. Europe has suffered some of the worst wars and violent regimes in human history. The United States has not seen a war on its soil in 150 years. Americans have no experience of bombed-out cities or social collapse, and little experience of poverty, ideological politics or hunger. As a result, the past has left many Europeans with a worldliness and a pessimism that seem very different from the optimism that marks American society.
Unpleasant details
But these and other differences don’t change the fact that our paths into the future are now converging. Today, in an era of global interconnection, the challenges that confront Catholics in America are much the same as in Europe: We face an aggressively secular political vision and a consumerist economic model that result-in practice, if not in explicit intent, in a new kind of state-encouraged atheism.
To put it another way: The Enlightenment-derived worldview that gave rise to the great murder ideologies of the last century remains very much alive. Its language is softer, its intentions seem kinder, and its face is friendlier. But its underlying impulse hasn’t changed―i.e., the dream of building a society apart from God; a world where men and women might live wholly sufficient unto themselves, satisfying their needs and desires through their own ingenuity.
This vision presumes a frankly “post-Christian” world ruled by rationality, technology and good social engineering. Religion has a place in this worldview, but only as an individual lifestyle accessory. People are free to worship and believe whatever they want, so long as they keep their beliefs to themselves and do not presume to intrude their religious idiosyncrasies on the workings of government, the economy, or culture.
Now, at first hearing, this might sound like a reasonable way to organise a modem society that includes a wide range of ethnic, religious and cultural traditions, different philosophies of life and approaches to living. But we’re immediately struck by two unpleasant details.
First, “freedom of worship” is not at all the same thing as “freedom of religion.” Religious freedom includes the right to preach, teach, assemble, organise, and to engage society and its issues publicly, both as individuals and joined together as communities of faith. This is the classic understanding of a citizen’s right to the “free exercise” of his or her religion in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It’s also clearly implied in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In contrast, freedom of worship is a much smaller and more restrictive idea.
Second, how does the rhetoric of enlightened, secular tolerance square with the actual experience of faithful Catholics in Europe and North America in recent years?
In the United States, a nation that is still 80 percent Christian with a high degree of religious practice, government agencies now increasingly seek to dictate how Church ministries should operate, and to force them into practices that would destroy their Catholic identity. Efforts have been made to discourage or criminalise the expression of certain Catholic beliefs as “hate speech.” Our courts and legislatures now routinely take actions that undermine marriage and family life, and seek to scrub our public life of Christian symbolism and signs of influence.
Vindictive thuggery
In Europe, we see similar trends, although marked by a more open contempt for Christianity. Church leaders have been reviled in the media and even in the courts for simply expressing Catholic teaching. Some years ago, as many of you may recall, one of the leading Catholic politicians of our generation, Rocco Buttiglione, was denied a leadership post in the European Union because of his Catholic beliefs.
Earlier this summer we witnessed the kind of vindictive thuggery not seen on this continent since the days of Nazi and Soviet police methods: the Archbishop’s palace in Brussels raided by agents; bishops detained and interrogated for nine hours without due process; their private computers, cell phones, and files seized. Even the graves of the Church’s dead were violated in the raid. For most Americans, this sort of calculated, public humiliation of religious leaders would be an outrage and an abuse of state power. And this is not because of the virtues or the sins of any specific religious leaders involved, since we all have a duty to obey just laws. Rather, it’s an outrage because the civil authority, by its harshness, shows contempt for the beliefs and the believers whom the leaders represent.
My point is this: These are not the actions of governments that see the Catholic Church as a valued partner in their plans for the 21st century. Quite the opposite. These events suggest an emerging, systematic discrimination against the Church that now seems inevitable.
Today’s secularisers have learned from the past. They are more adroit in their bigotry; more elegant in their public relations; more intelligent in their work to exclude the Church and individual believers from influencing the moral life of society. Over the next several decades, Christianity will become a faith that can speak in the public square less and less freely. A society where faith is prevented from vigorous public expression is a society that has fashioned the state into an idol. And when the state becomes an idol, men and women become the sacrificial offering.
Inhuman humanism
Cardinal Henri de Lubac once wrote that “It is not true ... that man cannot organise the world without God. What is true, is that without God, [man] can ultimately only organise it against man. Exclusive humanism is inhuman humanism.” 2
The West is now steadily moving in the direction of that new “inhuman humanism.” And if the Church is to respond faithfully, we need to draw upon the lessons that your Churches learned under totalitarianism.
A Catholicism of resistance must be based on trust in Christ’s words: “The truth will make you free.”3 This trust gave you insight into the nature of totalitarian regimes. It helped you articulate new ways of discipleship. Rereading the words of the Czech leader Vaclav Havel to prepare for this talk, I was struck by the profound Christian humanism of his idea of “living within the truth.”4 Catholics today need to see their discipleship and mission as precisely that: “living within the truth.”
Living within the truth means living according to Jesus Christ and God’s Word in Sacred Scripture. It means proclaiming the truth of the Christian Gospel, not only by our words but by our example. It means living every day and every moment from the unshakeable conviction that God lives, and that his love is the motive force of human history and the engine of every authentic human life. It means believing that the truths of the Creed are worth suffering and dying for.
Two big lies
Two of the biggest lies in the world today are these: first, that Christianity was of relatively minor importance in the development of the West; and second, that Western values and institutions can be sustained without a grounding in Christian moral principles.
Before I talk about these two falsehoods, we should pause a moment to think about the meaning of history.
History is not simply about learning facts. History is a form of memory, and memory is a foundation stone of self-identity. Facts are useless without a context of meaning. The unique genius and meaning of Western civilisation cannot be understood without the 20 centuries of Christian context in which they developed. A people who do not know their history, do not know themselves. They are a people doomed to repeat the mistakes of their past because they cannot see what the present―which always flowers out of the past―requires of them.
People who forget who they are can be much more easily manipulated. This was dramatised famously in Orwell’s image of the “memory hole” in his novel 1984. Today, the history of the Church and the legacy of Western Christianity are being pushed down the memory hole. This is the first lie that we need to face.
Downplaying the West’s Christian past is sometimes done with the best intentions, from a desire to promote peaceful co-existence in a pluralistic society. But more frequently it’s done to marginalise Christians and to neutralise the Church’s public witness.
The Church needs to name and fight this lie. To be a European or an American is to be heir to a profound Christian synthesis of Greek philosophy and art, Roman law, and biblical truth. This synthesis gave rise to the Christian humanism that undergirds all of Western civilisation.
On this point, we might remember the German Lutheran scholar and pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He wrote these words in the months leading up to his arrest by the Gestapo in 1943: “The unity of the West is not an idea but a historical reality, of which the sole foundation is Christ.” 5
Only reliable foundation
Our societies in the West are Christian by birth, and their survival depends on the endurance of Christian values. Our core principles and political institutions are based, in large measure, on the morality of the Gospel and the Christian vision of man and government. We are talking here not only about Christian theology or religious ideas. We are talking about the moorings of our societies-representative government and the separation of powers; freedom of religion and conscience; and most importantly, the dignity of the human person.
This truth about the essential unity of the West has a corollary, as Bonhoeffer also observed: Take away Christ and you remove the only reliable foundation for our values, institutions and way of life.
That means we cannot dispense with our history out of some superficial concern over offending our non-Christian neighbours. Notwithstanding the chatter of the “new atheists,” there is no risk that Christianity will ever be forced upon people anywhere in the West. The only “confessional states” in the world today are those ruled by Islamist or atheist dictatorships-regimes that have rejected the Christian West’s belief in individual rights and the balance of powers.
I would argue that the defence of Western ideals is the only protection that we and our neighbours have against a descent into new forms of repression whether it might be at the hands of extremist Islam or secularist technocrats.
But indifference to our Christian past contributes to indifference about defending our values and institutions in the present. And this brings me to the second big lie by which we live today ―the lie that there is no unchanging truth.
Relativism is now the civil religion and public philosophy of the West. Again, the arguments made for this viewpoint can seem persuasive. Given the pluralism of the modern world, it might seem to make sense that society should want to affirm that no one individual or group has a monopoly on truth; that what one person considers to be good and desirable another may not; and that all cultures and religions should be respected as equally valid.
A new barbarism
In practice, however, we see that without a belief in fixed moral principles and transcendent truths, our political institutions and language become instruments in the service of a new barbarism. In the name of tolerance we come to tolerate the cruellest intolerance; respect for other cultures comes to dictate disparagement of our own; the teaching of “live and let live” justifies the strong living at the expense of the weak.
This diagnosis helps us understand one of the foundational injustices in the West today-the crime of abortion.
I realise that the abortion license is a matter of current law in almost every nation in the West. In some cases, this license reflects the will of the majority and is enforced through legal and democratic means. And I’m aware that many people, even in the Church, find it strange that we Catholics in America still make the sanctity of unborn life so central to our public witness.
Let me tell you why I believe abortion is the crucial issue of our age.
First, because abortion, too, is about living within the truth. The right to life is the foundation of every other human right. If that right is not inviolate, then no right can be guaranteed. Or to put it more bluntly: Homicide is homicide, no matter how small the victim.
Here’s another truth that many persons in the Church have not yet fully reckoned: The defence of new-born and pre-born life has been a central element of Catholic identity since the Apostolic Age.
I’ll say that again: From the earliest days of the Church, to be Catholic has meant refusing in any way to participate in the crime of abortion―either by seeking an abortion, performing one, or making this crime possible through actions or inactions in the political or judicial realm. More than that, being Catholic has meant crying out against all that offends the sanctity and dignity of life as it has been revealed by Jesus Christ.
Totalitarian democracy
The evidence can be found in the earliest documents of Church history. In our day when the sanctity of life is threatened not only by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, but also by embryonic research and eugenic temptations to eliminate the weak, the disabled and the infirm elderly this aspect of Catholic identity becomes even more vital to our discipleship.
My point in mentioning abortion is this: Its widespread acceptance in the West shows us that without a grounding in God or a higher truth, our democratic institutions can very easily become weapons against our own human dignity.
Our most cherished values cannot be defended by reason alone, or simply for their own sake. They have no self-sustaining or “internal” justification.
There is no inherently logical or utilitarian reason why society should respect the rights of the human person. There is even less reason for recognising the rights of those whose lives impose burdens on others, as is the case with the child in the womb, the terminally ill, or the physically or mentally disabled.
If human rights do not come from God, then they devolve to the arbitrary conventions of men and women. The state exists to defend the rights of man and to promote his flourishing. The state can never be the source of those rights. When the state arrogates to itself that power, even a democracy can become totalitarian.
What is legalised abortion but a form of intimate violence that clothes itself in democracy? The will to power of the strong is given the force of law to kill the weak.
That is where we are heading in the West today. And we’ve been there before. Slovaks and many other central and eastern Europeans have lived through it.
I suggested earlier that the Church’s religious liberty is under assault today in ways not seen since the Nazi and Communist eras. I believe we are now in the position to better understand why.
Writing in the 1960s, Richard Weaver, an American scholar and social philosopher, said: “I am absolutely convinced that relativism must eventually lead to a regime of force.” 6
He was right. There is a kind of “inner logic” that leads relativism to repression.
This explains the paradox of how Western societies can preach tolerance and diversity while aggressively undermining and penalising Catholic life. The dogma of tolerance cannot tolerate the Church’s belief that some ideas and behaviours should not be tolerated because they dehumanise us. The dogma that all truths are relative cannot allow the thought that some truths might not be.
The Catholic beliefs that most deeply irritate the orthodoxies of the West are those concerning abortion, sexuality and the marriage of man and woman. This is no accident. These Christian beliefs express the truth about human fertility, meaning and destiny.
These truths are subversive in a world that would have us believe that God is not necessary and that human life has no inherent nature or purpose. Thus the Church must be punished because, despite all the sins and weaknesses of her people, she is still the bride of Jesus Christ; still a source of beauty, meaning and hope that refuses to die and still the most compelling and dangerous heretic of the world’s new order.
Temptation in every age
Let me sum up what I’ve been saying.
My first point is this: Ideas have consequences. And bad ideas have bad consequences. Today we are living in a world that is under the sway of some very destructive ideas, the worst being that men and women can live as if God does not matter and as if the Son of God never walked this earth. As a result of these bad ideas, the Church’s freedom to exercise her mission is under attack. We need to understand why that is, and we need to do something about it.
My second point is simply this: We can no longer afford to treat the debate over secularisation-which really means cauterising Christianity out of our cultural memory-as if it’s a problem for Church professionals. The emergence of a “new Europe” and a “next America” rooted in something other than the real facts of our Christian-shaped history will have damaging consequences for every serious believer.
We need not and should not abandon the hard work of honest dialogue. Far from it. The Church always needs to seek friendships, areas of agreement, and ways to make positive, reasoned arguments in the public square. But it’s foolish to expect gratitude or even respect from our governing and cultural leadership classes today. Naive imprudence is not an evangelical virtue.
The temptation in every age of the Church is to try to get along with Caesar. And it’s very true: Scripture tells us to respect and pray for our leaders. We need to have a healthy love for the countries we call home. But we can never render unto Caesar what belongs to God. We need to obey God first; the obligations of political authority always come second. We cannot collaborate with evil without gradually becoming evil ourselves. This is one of the most vividly harsh lessons of the 20th century. And it’s a lesson that I hope we have learned.
Community of resistance
That brings me to my third and final point today: We live in a time when the Church is called to be a believing community of resistance. We need to call things by their true names. We need to fight the evils we see. And most importantly, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that by going along with the voices of secularism and de-Christianisation we can somehow mitigate or change things. Only the Truth can set men free. We need to be apostles of Jesus Christ and the Truth he incarnates.
So what does this mean for us as individual disciples? Let me offer a few suggestions by way of a conclusion.
My first suggestion comes again from the great witness against the paganism of the Third Reich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: “The renewal of the Western world lies solely in the divine renewal of the Church, which leads her to the fellowship of the risen and living Jesus Christ.” 7
The world urgently needs a re-awakening of the Church in our actions and in our public and private witness. The world needs each of us to come to a deeper experience of our Risen Lord in the company of our fellow believers. The renewal of the West depends overwhelmingly on our faithfulness to Jesus Christ and his Church.
We need to really believe what we say we believe. Then we need to prove it by the witness of our lives. We need to be so convinced of the truths of the Creed that we are on fire to live by these truths, to love by these truths, and to defend these truths, even to the point of our own discomfort and suffering.
We are ambassadors of the living God to a world that is on the verge of forgetting him. Our work is to make God real; to be the face of his love; to propose once more to the men and women of our day, the dialogue of salvation.
No cheap grace
The lesson of the 20th century is that there is no cheap grace. This God whom we believe in, this God who loved the world so much that he sent his only Son to suffer and die for it, demands that we live the same bold, sacrificial pattern of life shown to us by Jesus Christ.
The form of the Church, and the form of every Christian life, is the form of the cross. Our lives must become a liturgy, a self-offering that embodies the love of God and the renewal of the world.
The great Slovak martyrs of the past knew this. And they kept this truth alive when the bitter weigh of hatred and totalitarianism pressed upon your people. I’m thinking especially right now of your heroic bishops, Blessed Vasil Hopko and Pavel Gojdic, and the heroic sister, Blessed Zdenka Schelingova.
We need to keep this beautiful mandate of Sister Zdenka close to our hearts:
My sacrifice, my holy Mass, begins in daily life. From the altar of the Lord I go to the altar of my work. I must be able to continue the sacrifice of the altar in every situation ... It is Christ whom we must proclaim through our lives, to him we offer the sacrifice of our own will.8 Let us preach Jesus Christ with all the energy of our lives. And let us support each other-whatever the cost-so that when we make our accounting to the Lord, we will be numbered among the faithful and courageous, and not the cowardly or the evasive, of those who compromised until there was nothing left of their convictions; or those who were silent whey they should have spoken the right word at the right time.
Thank you. And God bless all of you.
Endnotes
1. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 1, pt. 2, chap. 9 (New York: Library of America, 2004), 340.
2. Henri de Lubac, The Drama of Atheist Humanism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1998), 14.
3. John 8:32.
4. See Vaclav Havel, “The Power of the Powerless” (1978), in Open Letters: Selected Writings 1965-1990 (New York: Knopf, 1991), 125-214.
5. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics (London: SCM, 1983), 72-73.
6. Richard Weaver, “Relativism and the Crisis of our Times” (1961), in In Defence of Tradition: Collected Shorter Writings of Richard M. Weaver 1929-1963 (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2001), 104.
7. Bonhoeffer, Ethics, 95.
8. See “Novena to the Blessed Zdenka Schelingova at www.holycrosssisters.org/s zdenka.html.
_______________________
EnCourage is a group of homosexuals who strive to live according to the Church's teaching
Encourage Trust Newsletter (April 2003)
Easter is a joyful time. A time for celebration. Spring is in the air. Birds are chirping. Local grasslands are carpeted by daffodils Days are lighter longer. Our preparation through Lent to Good Friday is always repentance, resignation and conviction thus facilitating the Holy Spirit to guide us to acts of love and help and surrender, to God, our neighbour and ourselves. We found fasting was good but not as good as giving. I pray that you will all experience a great Eastertide.
Where are You today? It is an important question. We need a vision, a map or a plan for life, where we are, where we have come from and where we are going. We have to renew and recommit ourselves daily, monthly and annually. If we fall we pick ourselves up off the ground, brush off the dirt and continue along the path through the green valleys and up the rocky mountain. It can be hard, very hard, and at times a painful slog. We follow proudly the great saints of our Church, the folk we admire and our ancestors who were martyred for their faith. We walk, we climb, singing to the Lord. We are the most fortunate of folk in that we belong to the Catholic Church. The Church was born of Jesus Christ. We follow the Son of God ―Jesus our leader and friend, our Saviour and Redeemer. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ―the Church Christ began and remains with and within. If we do not believe that then we only have a man made and centred club, It could be called Catholic, but in reality it would be anything but! The way we connect with our fellow Christians is in the local faith community, the parish church. We know and are known by many people in the parish. It is the parish priest who leads the worshippers in Mass and administers the sacraments. The sacraments are miraculous in that through the intercession of the Holy Spirit and elements and the produce of man―bread, wine, oil and water and the hands of the priest, we can actually be touched and healed by the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Fantastic; every Eucharist is an Epiphany. Many of us are involved in the ministries and groups in our parishes. Isn’t it amazing that in any large town you can hear Mass almost morning, noon and, well not quite, night?
And yet as I continue to read through the postbag there remain the repeated difficulties many of you receive from some local clergy. Members of the church do sometimes show a lack of concern and fail to understand our problems―for instance living the life, for most of us as a single person. Every year I am upset by personal testimonies of inappropriate advice given by seeming good priests during a time of confession. This is always confidential and I say no more here. There have been times that I almost wanted to cry. For I love my Church. I don’t want to be anything but a Catholic.
On the other hand the vast majority of priests are good and helpful men, many overburdened. Like us they fail and fall. On the whole in this country we can be most grateful for the help and guidance our members receive. I have been most fortunate in this respect. I believe we must continue to have faith in our priests, faith in God, faith in our friends and perhaps for us faith in ourselves most of all. With a vision, with a good conscience in tune with the commandments and statutes of the Church, which we in EnCourage love, we can live a good life and be an example to others. Hope can put a spring in our step. With grace and guidance and the sacraments we know the life Jesus Christ wants us to follow. We must keep away from compromising our faith and morals; it is not easy, but we can have the joy of Christ while picking up our cross daily. If we are with Jesus he will always help us. With Christ by our side we will want to open up to other Catholics, family and friends also colleagues at work or wherever. Let us renew our mission to spread the good news. A major step to life would be to discard to the dustbin of our history the gay lifestyle wherever its debauchery touched us. This may have been in public or private groups and clubs, the publications found in such venues and lifestyles of their followers. Initially it will be very difficult to wrench oneself away from an accepted familiarity. Much prayer and help from others will lead us to escape from the repeating groove of this culture. Begin to move away from immodesty and gay attire including clinging clothing and wandering around known “local” haunts. To a Christian this is hell on earth and we should pray for those who still believe in the lie. With the grace of God I pray that you will be able to discard that heavy and unnecessary old horse harness and don’t forget to remove the blinkers too! Be like butterflies that have broken out of their cocoon. Fly unencumbered to the skies, to music, to nature, open the eyes of your mind to God’s freedom, to joy in the spirit. To have freedom is to love and follow Jesus as He leads us. He will help us find a place in his church, He will help find out about friendship and to know more about each other and find each other in His love.
THE GOALS OF ENCOURAGE:
1. To live chaste lives in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality!
2. To dedicate our entire lives to Christ through service to others, spiritual reading, prayer, meditation, individual spiritual direction, frequent attendance at Mass, and the frequent reception of the Sacraments of Penance and of the Holy Eucharist.
3. To foster a spirit of fellowship in which we may share with one another our thoughts and experiences and so ensure that none of us will have to face the problems of homosexuality alone.
4. To be mindful of the truth that chaste friendships are not only possible but necessary in a Christian life, and to encourage one another in forming and sustaining them.
5. To live lives that may serve as good examples to other homosexuals.
The Pope’s visit to the UK - isn’t it all wonderful !
Popes Visit - Joanna Bogle reports
All the gloomy predictions in the media and the strident voices of the Protest the Pope group faded into the background when once the Holy Father arrived on British soil. The Queen and Prince Philip welcomed him in Scotland with smiles and warmth; there were bands and all the splendour of a State greeting; then, he was taken to the Popemobile and out into the city of Edinburgh. And what a joyful procession it became. Cheering crowds were lining the streets, babies were held up for him to kiss and bless, groups surged forward to call out greetings, everything erupted into the most wonderful of welcomes. Then on to Glasgow, where thousands attended a glorious Mass at Bellahouston Park.
It was another triumph in London. History was made as the Pope spoke in Westminster Hall, a gathering that included Members of Parliament, leading figures in public life, of the nation's charities, church organisations, and community groups. As he arrived, trumpets were sounded; the trumpeters standing in the niches of the stained-glass window through which radiant light poured into the great Medieval hall. The arches of the hammer-beam roof have echoed to the great events of British history, notably the trial of St Thomas More, the most significant event of the reign of King Henry VIII. For a Pope to speak here, having just come from Westminster Abbey, where he prayed alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury, is something of huge, almost indescribable, significance . The sorrows, tensions, cruelties, and passions that have marked the division of Christianity in Britain since the events of the reign of Henry VIII have defined our history. As Benedict XVI stood there, a slight, humble figure, speaking about faith and reason, about truth, human value and the common good, a great healing was taking place, and something gigantic was happening. In the streets, people with anti-Papal placards were hugely outnumbered by the joyful and enthusiastic crowds of well-wishers, and by the exuberant young Catholics who carried banners saying "We love U Papa Benedict" and "Welcome to Britain, Holy Father!"
Then the attention was focused on Hyde Park in the centre of London, people flocking there from every direction. Lots and lots of young people, talking and laughing and enjoying themselves. There were family groups with picnics, snatches of singing and an air of excitement. In the midst of all this, two of the Association of Catholic Women struggled to erect the brand-new ACW banner, while greeting friends, and enjoying the fun, and occasionally collapsing into laughter. The assistance of various cheerful Knights of St Columba achieved the glory of the banner being held aloft on its frame – it looked terrific!
We were part of the wonderful Vigil of Prayer held in Hyde Park to mark the visit of the Holy Father to our country and to prepare for the beatification of John Henry Newman. A major feature of the afternoon was the parade of Catholic parishes, groups, and organisations - Patti and I were honoured to be chosen to represent ACW. As we carried our banner across the stage, in front of the vast crowd (by now some 70,000 were present – with more coming in all the time) I said to Patti: "This is on behalf of all our ACW members!"
The afternoon had featured songs, dancing, and presentations by various groups - the Irish dancing and the Polish dancing were particularly impressive. Then the mood became more serious and there were talks and displays about aspects of the Church's work in Britain. And there were some personal testimonies, of which by far the most touching and impressive was a talk from Mr and Mrs Barry Mizen, whose son Jimmy was murdered in a random attack when he was just 16, and who have been touring Britain with a profound and challenging message: we must have a fresh spirit in the land, a spirit of love, neighbourliness, and forgiveness. Their message, rooted in their Catholic Faith, was immensely powerful. We learned that Jimmy was at Mass every Sunday, and that the family's strength and hope comes from their faith. "Be proud of your Catholic Faith!" Mrs Mizen told the young people present. The Mizen family were given a standing ovation, and not a few people were in tears...
When the Holy Father arrived, there was glorious singing, and roar after roar of applause. The crowd, by now some 80.000 strong, was overwhelmingly young - and the exuberance and enthusiasm swept everyone together. There was also beauty, reverence, and a profound sense of this being a moment of history. When the Holy Father spoke, he addressed the young specifically, inviting them to open their hearts to God's message, to the unique call made to each one of them. The Church needs families, showing the joy of Christian marriage and family life. The Church needs men and women committed fully to his service, especially in the education of the young. And the Church needs priests, good and holy priests, ready to give their lives for the people committed to their care. You could have heard a pin drop during this talk - there was a sense of great intensity, of open and receptive listening. It was broken only by applause, as when the Holy Father invited the young people to join him next year for World Youth Day in Madrid.
And then we prayed. Before the Blessed Sacrament, in great reverence, under a sky now glittering with stars, 80,000 people knelt in silence, led by the successor of St Peter. When he raised the Blessed Sacrament in the monstrance, and a great bell rang out, it was as if all of London held its breath. It was an unforgettable moment, and one that will stay with me all the rest of my life.
Then, more glorious singing, and a slow and reluctant leave-taking in the park as hordes of people gradually, noisily, melted away. Some of us who had been at this vigil stayed awake all night, travelling on by buses to Birmingham to join the crowds gathering in the early hours of Sunday morning for the great Mass marking the beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman. Gentle rain fell as dawn arrived, but this is Britain: our "pilgrim packs" included plastic macs, and there were hot drinks available, and the mood was cheerful and upbeat. When morning broke and the hillside of Cofton Park was filled with pilgrims, the sight was a splendid one. The Holy Father arrived to resounding cheers and applause, as the sun broke through, and a delicate rainbow arched across the sky.
As long as I live, I will never forget these days. To be in Westminster Hall, where history is written into every inch of the stone-flagged floor and rounded Norman arches, listening to the successor of St Peter speak, was thrilling. To follow this with joyful prayer with young Catholics in the heart of London was glorious, and to stand singing John Henry Newman's wonderful hymns on an English hillside at a Papal Mass was beyond glorious.
Deo gratias. Benedict XVI's visit to Britain has been wonderful.
The True Role of Guardian Angels - Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
WHILE the role of Guardian Angels is to guard men, institutions, cities, nations, and religious communities, we often have a distorted image of the role of these angels. Our modern day optimism easily tends to believe nothing is a struggle, nothing presents a difficulty or a danger; it tends to see everything as having a happy ending.
Christian teaching shows us the contrary. Life is full of struggles and dangers, both material and spiritual. Because of this, Divine Providence has placed an angel to watch over each and every one of us. God has done this with such magnificence that, in addition to one angel for every person, there is also an angel for every city and every nation. There are angels to watch over groups, families of souls, societies, and other institutions, so that everything that exists is guided by angels. This, incidentally, is part of the role of the angels, for they maintain the whole material universe, executing all of the decrees of God.
Therefore, since life is an intense struggle with dangers and difficulties, each of us has an angel to guide him because we would otherwise not be able to make it on our own.
The first lesson to draw from this is that one must have a supernatural spirit or outlook. The Cistercian abbot Dom Chautard condemned the erroneous attitude of one who thinks, “I am very capable, very intelligent, resourceful, and, above all, very proud. I can fend for myself with my great qualities, as long as God keeps away from me those very large obstacles. I do not need God’s help in my spiritual or material life.
I can take care of myself and accomplish what I need to do by myself.” There is something very wrong in this attitude. It is so wrong that God Himself delegated an angel to accompany and protect each of us precisely because we are not capable of taking care of ourselves. The fact that we are given an angel is proof that we need God’s help at every moment, in everything we do. Notwithstanding, the Guardian Angel is usually presented as the protector of little children. Sentimentality has distorted all devotions, holy cards, and pictures by showing the angel watching over a small child. What is implicitly conveyed is that, first, only children need angels; and second, only children believe in angels. Those with a more freethinking or liberated mindset neither need nor believe in angels.
Such characterisations of the holy angels convey another message. These sentimental holy cards often show a very beautiful little stream with a fat, rosy-checked child walking over a bridge. The child is crossing the bridge with a broken board, about to step in the hole with his little foot. We see the Guardian Angel is watching over him.
One has the impression that this is a child’s imaginary world, and this is the child’s state of spirit as he crosses the bridge. At best we could imagine that the Guardian Angel does the same with adults. This may give us the idea that it is very good to pray to our Guardian Angels to avoid car crashes, illnesses, and small accidents. No doubt, Guardian Angels do help us with such material needs, but that is not their only task. No one speaks of Guardian Angels helping with spiritual necessities.
This attitude is consistent with a certain piety that many people exhibit when going on pilgrimage to special sanctuaries. What do they ask for? It’s often such things as the healing of a sore throat or some wound. The testimonials and petitions compiled in these places of pilgrimage show requests for help for all kinds of strange symptoms, wounds, and material requests. Naturally the pilgrims also ask for money, reconciliation in families, avoiding bad luck, and many other things of the same nature, yet with little or no reference to spiritual needs.
It’s evident that many have not a clue that Guardian Angels are there to help us with the most important matters: the needs of our soul. The greatest function of our Guardian Angel is to watch over our soul and to obtain graces for us so we can overcome our spiritual difficulties! What a great comfort we would have in the hours of tribulation and temptation or at those times when we feel all alone, weighed down with the problems of our spiritual life, if we would have the certainty that our Guardian Angel is right next to us. Though we cannot see or hear him, he does not leave us even for a second. He is waiting for our prayers to go into action for us. He often acts without our asking, but will act much more if we ask. He is well within our reach.
What a joy it would be to have this in mind when we are involved in doing apostolate with others. When we suffer with spiritual problems, annoyances, struggles, abandonment, and diffculties of all kinds, we would know that this solitude is an illusion. Our Guardian Angel is right beside us. Even if we have the impression that the distance between our Guardian Angels and us is greater than between Heaven and Earth, the truth is that they are extremely close to us. As we pray to them and ask for their help, they will watch over and protect us.
Having this present in our thoughts at every moment should encourage us in our spiritual life. We would feel a great satisfaction and sense God’s hand accompanying us at each step. This illustrates the affirmation of Our Lord in the Gospel:
“Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And not one of them shall
fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your
head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: better are you than many
sparrows.” (St. Matthew 10:29-31)
Such a perspective about the angels corresponds admirably to Christian teaching on Divine Providence and we should hear this in mind. Because our Guardian Angel is providing and asking for everything we need, we can practise better the virtue of confidence. The assistance the angel provides for us in the hours of danger and trial is not the only assistance he renders. He also prays for us. There is, for example, the famous vision of Daniel in which he sees angels from the ancient empires as if fighting for their respective people before God’s throne. (Daniel 10:13-14)
Our angel is our intercessor, advocate, and mediator. He is continuously praying for us. Therefore the most logical thing for us to do is to ask continuously our Guardian Angel to fulfil this function of intercessor to obtain graces for us and drive away temptations and chastisements.
This is something we should be doing constantly. Our forbears had a profound notion of the presence and intercession of the Guardian Angels. They built churches in their honour. There were also places of pilgrimage to spots where angels appeared such as St. Michael the Archangel, the guardian angel of the French nation, at the abbey of Saint Michel (France); and the holy angel of Rome who appeared over Hadrian’s tomb (Castel Sant’Angelo), etc.
Much could be said of the role of angels, whether in the Bible or in the history of Christendom! While much of this is forgotten today, it is especially in these difficult days that we should have this well in mind for our own encouragement and the comfort of our souls!
In conclusion I would like to mention something that seems very plausible and reasonable to me. Of course, this is a personal opinion. God does everything in due measure and in an orderly fashion. Thus it is improbable that the designation of our Guardian Angel is done haphazardly. It can hardly be like a taxi rank of Angels waiting to be assigned to men as they are born!
While bearing in mind that God has His Own will, liberty, and unfathomable designs, everything He does has a certain relation. I strongly believe that God delegates a Guardian Angel that has an affinity with the soul God has just created and whose sanctity is related to the primordial light of that soul.*
Consequently there is a form of master-disciple relationship whereby our Guardian Angel is the heavenly model of the virtues we should practise. If we could see our Guardian Angel, we would probably see the personification of the primordial light of each one of us. In other words, we would see that which is best in our- selves taken
to the highest degree.
In this way we can more easily sympathize and have an affinity with our Guardian Angel and, reciprocally, our Guardian Angel’s special link with us. He is as if our heavenly alter ego. This makes it easier for us to understand how our Guardian Angel is ever ready to protect and help us.
These are some considerations that should help us to increase our love for our Guardian Angels, as well as to invoke their patronage with greater devotion.
*For more on primordial light cf: The Christian Institution of the Family: A Dynamic Force to Regenerate Society, Tradition, Family, Property Association, p. 47-48 (£5.50) ea., incl. p&p)
Women and the Priesthood - Fr Stephen Wang
Last year the religious slogans on London’s buses were hesitant, and ended with gentle exhortations: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Now they end with a shout: “Pope Benedict - Ordain Women Now!” The latest posters, timed to coincide with the Papal visit, are funded by the campaigning group Catholic Women’s Ordination. It’s unlikely that Pope Benedict will be using his Oystercard, but the hope must be that if his Popemobile gets stuck in traffic, one of these buses will glide by and catch his attention.
The Catholic insistence that only men can be ordained as priests isincomprehensible to many people, and the cause of much personal anger and ecumenical heartache. Pope John Paul II seemed to close the door to any revision when he wrote in 1994 that this teaching “is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful”. He took a surprising approach. He didn’t stamp his feet and shout: I won’t! Instead he said: I simply can’t. I don’t have the authority to change something that has been such a fundamental part of Christian identity from the very beginning. The argument is not about holding onto the past for its own sake, but trying to be faithful to what Jesus wanted for his Church.
In the New Testament, Jesus chose twelve men to represent him as his first priests, as the Twelve Apostles. Every generation of Catholics (and Orthodox) since then has understood this to have been a choice that was deliberate and significant, not just for that first period of history, but for every age.
Some argue that Jesus couldn’t have done otherwise in the Jewish society of his time. This doesn’t stand up, as he was quite willing to involve women in other aspects of his mission and ministry, in ways that would have seemed revolutionary. Others say that women’s ordination, even if Jesus had wanted it, simply wasn’t conceivable in the pre-feminist religious cultures of the last 2000 years. But this ignores the staggering diversity of cultures in which Christianity has been embedded. Even in societies that have been broadly matriarchal (with rich Roman matrons running the early Christian house churches, or powerful medieval abbesses ruling ‘double’ monasteries of men and women); even when women ‘priestesses’ were an established part of the surrounding religious milieu—Christians still took for granted the idea of the male priesthood.
This is why Pope John Paul II, and now Pope Benedict, are saying that this is much more than a time-bound cultural norm that needs updating. It’s something deeper that touches on the very meaning of priesthood.
This teaching is not at all a judgment on women’s abilities or dignity or rights. It says something about the specific role of the priest in Catholic understanding—which is to represent Jesus, to stand in his place. The Church is saying something quite radical. On the one hand, there is a fundamental equality between all human beings, between men and women. On the other hand, this does not mean that our sexual identity as men and women is interchangeable. Gender is not just an accident.
People sense this. If I announced that I was making a film about Jesus or King Arthur or Wayne Rooney, no-one would be surprised if I said I wanted a male actor to play the lead. It’s a weak analogy, but it shows how the notion of `representation’ can only be stretched so far. A woman, as much as a man, can reflect the love of Jesus, and help others to know his presence through her faith and witness. But it shouldn’t surprise us if we expect a man to stand `in the person of Christ’ as a priest, to represent Jesus in his humanity—a humanity that is not sexually neutral.
Where does this leave women in the Catholic Church? In the same position as the majority of men (that is, all those who are not priests). It leaves them to live their faith passionately in the service of others, to use their many gifts to the full, and to realise that ordination is not the measure of an individual’s worth in the Church. The young Catholic women I know, especially those with a strong sense of vocation in the Church, are channelling their energies into all sorts of creative projects and life choices. Some of these choices are very humble and hidden; others involve more public responsibilities - in politics, education, social work, Christian mission, the media, etc. Most are working `in the world’, but some have very significant roles within the Church itself.
These young women seem less interested in internal debates about ordination, and more concerned with rolling their sleeves up and putting their faith into practice. They are Christian feminists, whether they like the title or not. But it is a feminism that is untroubled by this Catholic understanding of the male priesthood.
-------------------------------------------------
Eliza Vaughan: A Remarkable Convert - John Beaumont
The present writer has just completed a book on notable converts from Britain and Ireland between the period of the Reformation and the present day. There are entries for 947 individuals, containing a synopsis of their lives and quotations from their writings, especially those setting forth their actual reasons for joining the Catholic Church, the one ark of salvation. Many of these accounts come from women who have embarked on the experiment of faith and finally made what many have referred to as the “journey home” to this one true Church. In the secular society in which we live today it is good to look again at some of these redoubtable women, especially those who can reinvigorate the role of the traditional family, so much under attack in these days. It is difficult to think of a more valuable witness in this respect than that provided by one particular nineteenth century convert, Eliza Vaughan member of a famous Catholic family.
She was born Elizabeth Louisa Rolls on 8th October 1810, but was always known as Eliza. She was brought up in an atmosphere of “earnest evangelical piety” in a family that originally came from Penrose in Monmouthshire. The family were described as yeoman farmers in the eighteenth century, but by the time of Eliza’s birth they had made a considerable fortune from building houses in the London area. However, they lost much money in the depression following the Napoleonic wars and eventually went to live in France at St Omer between 1820 and 1826. Whilst there the family attended an Anabaptist chapel on Sundays, but Eliza did come into close contact with Catholicism as well. On occasions they went to Catholic ceremonies and processions, and we know that she attended at a convent on once to see a young woman take the veil. After their return to England in 1827 the family’s finances revived greatly and much of their fortune was restored.
Eliza was to become the first wife of a Catholic, Lieutenant-Colonel John Francis Vaughan (1808-1880) of Courtfield, Ross, Herefordshire. The Vaughans were a longstanding recusant family, many of whom suffered for their faith during the centuries following the Reformation. It is not known how John and Eliza met, but we do know that they often attended Mass together before their marriage. The marriage itself took place on 12th July 1830 at St. Mary’s Anglican church in Bryanston Square, London. It must be remembered that the civil law in 1830 still required all marriages to take place in the established Church. The couple appear to have been devoted to each other, something that continued throughout their married life. Eliza soon converted to the Catholic faith, being conditionally baptized on 31st October 1830 at Courtfield by the chaplain, Fr. Francis Joseph Daniel.
After her marriage Eliza continued to be impressed by seeing the Catholic faith in action on the Continent. In 1837 she wrote to her husband as follows from Bruges during a stay there:
Really, the more I see of the churches, of the piety, the ceremonies of this town, the more edified I am... Last night we went to Benediction at Notre Dame and we both agreed that we had never felt such devotion―the lights, the incense, the dear devout women in their mysterious black cloaks, some with arms extended in silent adoration, all conspired to elevate one’s heart above this world.
She also had access to the authentic Catholic tradition in the excellent library at Courtfield, which she herself supplemented. She is reported as having bought every book she heard about on the subject of prayer, her two favourites being The Spirit of Prayer by St Alphonsus and Pensées Pieuses. She loved also to read the lives of the saints. In relation to prayer she benefited by having as an adviser her sister-in-law, Sister Frances Angela, a Visitation nun, and another sister-in-law, Sister Mary Chantal of the same Order.
Eliza’s character, in addition to one particularly remarkable aspect of her prayer life, is brought out very well by the biographer of one of her children:
[S]he consecrated herself heart and soul to the service of God. Her religion coloured her whole outlook upon the world. It was a favourite saying of hers that she had received all from God, and so must be ready to give everything back to Him. And what more precious had she to give and surrender than her own children? She wanted them all to become priests and nuns. It was not a case of thinking that it would be nice if some younger son made up his mind to study for the priesthood, or one of the daughters went to a convent, there to pray for the rest; she besought God to send vocations to them all, to Herbert, her eldest born, no less than to the others. For nearly twenty years it was her daily practice to spend an hour from five to six in the afternoon in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament asking this favour that God would call every one of her children to serve Him in the Choir or in the Sanctuary (John G. Snead-Cox, The Life of Cardinal Vaughan (1911), Vol. 1, p.11).
Eliza’s prayers were certainly answered. She became the mother of thirteen children who lived to maturity (one other child died shortly after birth). In the event all her five daughters entered convents and six of her eight sons became priests. To take them in turn, starting with the sons: Herbert Cardinal Vaughan (1832-1903) was the second Bishop of Salford, then Archbishop of Westminster and founder of St. Joseph’s College for Foreign Missions at Mill Hill, London, Most Rev. Roger William Bede Vaughan (1834-1883) became a Benedictine monk of Downside and later Archbishop of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, Fr. Kenelm Vaughan (1840-1908) was a priest of the Archdiocese of Westminster, Fr. Joseph Vaughan (1841-1896) (Dom Jerome in religion) was a Benedictine who established St Benedict’s Abbey, Fort Augustus, Scotland, Fr. Bernard Vaughan, SJ (1847-1922) was a priest of the Society of Jesus and a renowned preacher, Right Rev. John S. Vaughan (1853-1925) was Bishop of Sebastopolis and Auxiliary of Salford. Even the other two sons entered ecclesiastical seminaries for a time to try their vocations. Colonel Francis Baynham Vaughan was Private Chamberlain to Pope Pius X and Reginald Vaughan was JP for Monmouthshire. It is a remarkable list.
Four of Eliza’s five daughters became nuns*. Gwladys (1838-1880) joined the Visitation Order in Boulogne; Helen (1839-1861) entered the Sisters of Charity in London and died shortly afterwards; Clare (1843-1862) became a Poor Clare in Amiens and died after nine months there; and Mary (1845-1884) became prioress of the Augustinian convent in Newton Abbot. The fifth daughter, Margaret, born in 1851, was handicapped.
As if this were not enough, Eliza was also grandmother of Fr. Herbert Vaughan, Catholic priest and Doctor of Divinity of Rome; of Fr. Francis Vaughan, Catholic priest; and of Rev. William Vaughan, lay-brother of the Society of Jesus.
An achievement of this kind does not come easily. A profound spirituality is its inevitable foundation. We are fortunate to be able to witness this through the entries that Cardinal Vaughan made in a diary he kept in his twenties:
After breakfast, an hour in the morning was always spent in meditation in the chapel, which was her real home. She generally knelt, slightly leaning her wrists against the prie-dieu. I do not recollect ever seeing her distracted on these occasions, or looking anywhere [other] than towards the Blessed Sacrament or on her book. She often remained with her eyes fixed on the Tabernacle, and while her body was kneeling at the bottom of the chapel, and her face beautiful and tranquil with the effects of Divine Love, her heart and soul were within the Tabernacle with her dearly beloved Saviour. Even in those days I was much struck with my sweet mother’s ardent love and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. I used to watch her myself when in the chapel, and love her and gaze upon her. I used often to watch her from the gravel walk in the flower garden, and marvel to see her so absorbed in prayer. Her love of the Blessed Sacrament was untiring (Snead-Cox, op cit, p.14).
Later on in his life, Cardinal Vaughan wrote a letter to his biographer in which he reminisced further about his mother and the childhood of his brothers and sisters:
She made Heaven such a reality to us that we felt that we knew more about it, and liked it in a way far better even than our home, where, until she died, her children were wildly, supremely happy. Religion under her teaching was made so attractive, and all the treasured items she gathered from the lives of the Saints made them so fascinating to us, that we loved them as our most intimate friends, which she assured us they most certainly were (ibid, p.25).
Eliza was also an example to her children in her works of charity, especially in numerous kindnesses shown to the poor. She was a friend of George Lawrence Bernard Burder, an Anglican curate, who lived nearby. He is considered to have converted under her influence. He later became the second Abbot of Mt. St Bernard’s Cistercian Monastery near Leicester from 1853 to 1858.
Eliza suffered much from ill-health, but her sudden death was still a shock. On 24th January 1853, a few hours after giving birth to her son John, later a priest and bishop of course, she complained of fatigue and then suffered much pain. After a few hours, conscious and “praying fervently to the last”, she died.
One may begin to appreciate the depth of the love in which the memory of their mother was held by all her children by one further fact. When, some years later, their father married, as his second wife, Mary, daughter of Joseph Weld of Lulworth, the children never during all the years she devoted to them greeted her with the name of mother. The word had become too sacred from its associations ever again to be used in common speech, and so the second mother was always spoken of and addressed by them all, even by the younger children, simply as Mary.
There are all sorts of ways in which a Catholic apostolate can prosper. Many women have evangelized to great effect in the public forum. Three women are recognized as Doctors of the Church. But we must never forget the Catholic home and hearth, the central importance of the family, and the spiritual strength that comes from the domestic life. Eliza Vaughan is a great witness to that vital role. Her contribution is wisely summed up in a more recent biography of Cardinal Vaughan:
Her prayer life was remembered, by those who knew her, as extraordinary. To a few who have read about her, and of her prayer on behalf of her children, she has seemed eccentric. The figure of a young woman praying an hour each day that her children follow a calling to the Church has been misleading. What emerges from her correspondence is the figure of an active mother of a large family, a person with a remarkable prayer life who was at the same time filled with love and affection for her husband and children, her family and friends (Robert O’Neill, MHM, Cardinal Herbert Vaughan (1995), p.17).
*John Beaumont is a lawyer by training and was formerly Head of the School of Law at Leeds Metropolitan University. He is now working as a legal consultant and freelance writer on Catholic issues.
__________________________________
‘Collective Shout’ against a sexual culture - Catherine Sheehan
The sexualisation of girls is one of the most important and pressing issues facing our culture today. Sexualised images of females are used in advertising, the media, films and music clips, encouraging girls to scrutinise their own bodies harshly and to behave in prescribed ways.
Those who stand to gain from this sexualisation include marketers and corporations who want girls and women to continue buying products to ‘improve’ themselves. This sexualised view of femininity can have devastating consequences for individual girls and women that may include mental and physical health issues and finding themselves in abusive and degrading situations. Men and boys are also conditioned to view females as sexual objects.
Many within the community are prepared to take a stand against this sexualisation of our culture but feel intimidated by the size of the problem. It is difficult to know where to start or how to get a response from advertisers and large corporations.
A new online initiative called ‘Collective Shout’ has recently been set up by Melinda Tankard Reist, an advocate for women and girls and the editor of Getting Real: Challenging the Sexualisation of Girls.
‘Collective Shout’ is essentially a 'one-stop shop’ for concerned people to make their voices heard. Those who want to be involved can sign up on the ‘Collective Shout’ website and then send images of billboards, advertisements they have seen in magazines or products in stores that sexualise women and girls. Ms Tankard Reist said that once something is sent to ‘Collective Shout’ it will “activate hundreds of members”. ‘Collective Shout’ will advise those who make a complaint of the best way to get offensive material or products removed, and will make “our displeasure known on a national scale”.
At the time of writing, ‘Collective Shout’ had 658 members. As Ms Tankard Reist points out, this has been achieved with “minimal publicity, just word of mouth, really”.
‘Collective Shout’ can already boast a triumph, with the recent removal of a push-up bra aimed at `tween’aged—that is ages six to 12—girls from all Best and Less stores around the country. This all happened within 24 hours of ‘Collective Shout’ getting involved with the complaint.
Ms Tankard Reist observed: “I think that shows the sort of power we have to take these issues up because corporations are very sensitive to the bottom line, to community opinion. Women especially have a word-of-mouth network. Women know what’s good and what’s not. That’s where we have power to effect real, positive change.”
Ms Tankard Reist explained how ‘Collective Shout’ came to be: “The history behind ‘Collective Shout’ is actually a conversation. A contributor to my book, Getting Real; Challenging the Sexualisation of Girls, described it as, a collective shout against the pornification of culture’.
I loved the phrase ‘collective shout’ so much I thought it deserved an organisation. I had actually at that time been thinking of a new movement that would specifically take up the issue of the objectification of women and the sexualisation of the media and popular culture. I thought it was time for a new grassroots movement that would name, shame and expose advertisers, corporations and marketers who basically trade in the bodies of women and girls to sell products and services. I had a conversation with a few friends and then a few others and in a very short time the organisation started up. We had our first meeting just before Christmas and its been all systems go since then.
The effects of the sexualisation of girls are far-reaching. There is solid research linking sexualisation to many of the ills that girls and women suffer. Ms Tankard Reist referred to a report produced by the American Psychological Association in 2007 entitled, Report of the APA Task force on the Sexualisation of Girls. She stated that the report found that “sexualising girls contributes to eating disorders, self-harm, depression, anxiety, low self-esteem and poor academic performance”.
She went on to say: “In Australia we know that one in a 100 girls is anorexic, one in 10 is bulimic, one in four 12 year old girls wants to have plastic surgery. We know that self-harm is the number one cause of hospital admissions of girls aged 13 to 19—deliberate self-harm.”
Of this self-loathing, common among girls today, Ms Tankard Reist said: “What the research tells us is that girls hate themselves, they despise their bodies. They can never be good enough, they have to go on diets. They have to act in very sexualised ways to get male attention. So they internalise those messages and think, well, I can’t attain that standard, and they turn that hatred in on themselves. It’s an extremely serious issue. The physical and mental health of girls around the world is at risk as a result of objectification and sexualisation.”
Sexualisation and objectification also has a silencing effect on girls and women. If they are constantly made to feel that they do not measure up, they will often withdraw into themselves.
Ms Tankard Reist confirmed this: “Younger girls don’t want to draw that much attention to themselves, so they’ll spend a lot of time on their own if they don’t like themselves. They’ll cut down on their social activities, they will not play sport—again, the research shows that— and they will just think they are not good enough to contribute. That is one of the aims of ‘Collective Shout’, to say, look, you’re more than the sum of your body parts; you have so much to contribute.”
Ms Tankard Reist hopes that young women will take up leadership of this campaign to reclaim their sexuality from the pimps and pornographers who are now influencing mainstream culture. “They’re the ones that can vote with their dollar and say, well, we are not going to buy into those messages, we are not going to support corporations and advertisers and marketers who trade in making us feel bad about ourselves.”
Sexualisation also has a negative effect on boys and men. Particularly disturbing is the recent trend of groups of boys sexually assaulting girls. Ms Tankard Reist said in many of these cases it was as if the boys were re-enacting scripts they had seen played out in pornography. Graphic video games which attract boys, also merge sex and violence, encouraging players to rape females in the virtual world.
For Catholics there is an added dimension to this urgent issue, especially in light of Pope John Paul II’s writings on women and his theology of the body, which articulates the dignity of the human body and of human sexuality.
In his Letter to Women (1995), he wrote: “At the threshold of the third millennium we cannot remain indifferent and resigned before this phenomenon. The time has come to condemn vigorously the types of sexual violence which frequently have women for their object and to pass laws which effectively defend them from such violence. Nor can we fail, in the name of the respect due to the human person, to condemn the widespread hedonistic and commercial culture which encourages the systematic exploitation of sexuality and corrupts even very young girls into letting their bodies be used for profit.”
‘Collective Shout’ is a way to mobilise, galvanise and unify all people of good will in this fight against the sexualisation and pornification of our culture.
Thanks to Sr Clare Waddelove of St Cecilia's Abbey, Isle of Wight who sent us this article which was published in Kairos Catholic Journal an Australian Publication
Answering Scandal with Personal Holiness
Fr Roger Landry
A homily delivered in 2002The headlines were captured recently by the very sad news that perhaps up to seventy priests in the Archdiocese of Boston have abused young people whom they were consecrated to serve. It's a huge scandal, one
that many people who have long disliked the Church because of one of her moral or doctrinal teachings are using as an issue to attack the Church as a whole, trying to imply that they were right all along.
Many people have come up to me to talk about it. Many others have wanted to, but I think out of respect and of not wanting to bring up what they thought might be bad news, have refrained, but it was obvious to me that it was on their mind. And so, today, I'd like to tackle the issue head-on. You have a right to it. We cannot pretend as if it didn't exist. And I'd like to discuss what our response should be as faithful Catholics to this terrible scandal.
The first thing we need to do is to understand it from the point of view of our faith in the Lord. Before he chose his first disciples, Jesus went up the mountain all night to pray. He had at the time many followers. He talked to his Father in prayer about whom he would choose to be his twelve apostles, the twelve he would himself form intimately, the twelve whom he would send out to preach the Good News in His name. He gave them power to cast out demons. He gave them power to cure the sick. They watched him work countless miracles. They themselves in His name worked countless others.
Yet, despite all of that, one of them was a traitor. One, who had followed the Lord, who had had his feet washed by the Lord, who had seen him walk on water, raise people from the dead, and forgive sinners, betrayed the Lord. The Gospel tells us that he allowed Satan to enter into Him and then sold the Lord for 30 pieces of silver, handing him over by faking a gesture of love. "Judas," Jesus said to him in the garden of Gethsemane, "Would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?" Jesus didn't choose Judas to betray him. He chose him to be like all the others. But Judas was always free, and he used his freedom to allow Satan to enter into him, and by his betrayal, ended up getting Jesus crucified and executed.
So right from the first twelve that Jesus himself chose, one was a terrible traitor. SOMETIMES GOD'S CHOSEN ONES BETRAY HIM. That's a fact that we have to confront. It's a fact that the early Church confronted. If the scandal caused by Judas was all the members of the early Church focused on, the Church would have been finished before it even started to grow. Instead, the Church recognized that you don't judge something by those who don't live it, but by those who do.
Instead of focusing on the one who betrayed, they focused on the other eleven, on account of whose work, preaching, miracles, and love for Christ, we are here today. It's on account of the other eleven-all of whom except St. John was martyred for Christ and for the Gospel they were willing to give their lives to proclaim to us -that we ever heard the saving word of God, that we ever received the sacraments of eternal life.
We're confronted by the same reality today. We can focus on those who betrayed the Lord, those who abused rather than loved those whom they were called to serve, or we can focus, like the early Church did, on the others, on those who have remained faithful, those priests who are still offering their lives to serve Christ and to serve you out of love. The media almost never focuses on the good "eleven,"
the ones whom Jesus has chosen who remain faithful, who live lives of quiet holiness. But we, the Church, must keep the terrible scandal that we've witnessed in its true and full perspective.
Scandal is unfortunately nothing new for the Church. There have been many times in the history of the Church when it was much worse off than it is now. Its history is like a cosine curve, with ups and downs throughout the centuries. At each of the times when the Church hit its low point, God raised up tremendous saints to bring it to its real mission. It's almost as if in those times of darkness, the Light of Christ shone ever more brightly. I'd like to focus a little on a couple of saints whom God raised up in these most difficult times, because their wisdom can really guide us during this difficult time.
St Francis de Sales was one saint God raised up after the Protestant Reformation. The Protestant Reformation was not principally about theology, about the faith-although theological differences came later-but about morals. There was an Augustinian priest, Martin Luther, who went down to Rome just after the papacy of the most notorious pope in history, Pope Alexander VI.
This pope never taught anything against the faith-the Holy Spirit prevented that - but he was simply a wicked man. He had nine children from six different concubines. He put out contracts against those he considered his enemies. Martin Luther visited Rome just after Alexander VI's papacy and wondered how God could allow such a wicked man to be the visible head of his Church. He went back to Germany and saw
all types of moral problems. Priests were living in open relationships with women. Some were trying to profit from selling spiritual goods.
There was a terrible immorality among lay Catholics. He was scandalized, as anyone who loved God might have been, by such rampant abuse. So he founded his own Church.
Eventually God raised up many saints to combat this wrong solution and to bring people back to the Church Christ founded. St. Francis de Sales was one of them. At the risk of his life, he went through parts of what is now Switzerland, where the Calvinists were popular, preaching the Gospel with truth and love. Oftentimes he was beaten up on his way and left for dead. Once he was asked to address the
situation of the scandal caused by so many of his brother priests. What he said is as important for us today as it was for his listeners then. He didn't pull any punches.
He said, "Those who commit these types of scandals are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder," destroying other people's faith in God by their terrible example. But then he warned his listeners, "But I'm here among you to prevent something far worse for you. While those who give scandal are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder, those who take scandal-who allow scandals to destroy their faith-are guilty of spiritual suicide." They're guilty, he said, of cutting off their life with Christ, abandoning the source of life in the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist. He went among the people in what is now Switzerland trying to prevent their committing spiritual suicide on account of the scandals. I'm here to preach the same thing to you.
What should our reaction be then? Another great saint who lived in a tremendously difficult time can help us further. The great St Francis of Assisi lived in the 1200s, which was a time of terrible immorality in central Italy. Priests were setting horrible example. Lay immorality was even worse. St Francis himself while a young man even gave some scandal to others by his carefree ways. But eventually he was converted
back to the Lord, founded the Franciscans, helped God rebuild his Church and became one of the great saints of all time.
Once one of the brothers in the Order of Friars Minor asked him a question. The brother was very sensitive to scandals. "Br Francis," he said, "What would you do if you knew that the priest celebrating Mass had three concubines on the side?" Francis, without missing a beat, said slowly, "When it came time for Holy Communion, I would go to receive the Sacred Body of my Lord from the priest's anointed hands."
What was Francis getting at? He was getting at a tremendous truth of the faith and a tremendous gift of the Lord. No matter how sinful a priest is, provided that he has the intention to do what the Church does-at Mass, for example, to change bread and wine into Christ's body and blood, or in confession, no matter how sinful he is personally, to forgive the penitent's sins- Christ himself acts through that minister
in the sacraments.
Whether Pope John Paul II celebrates the Mass or whether a priest on death row for a felony celebrates Mass, it is Christ who himself acts and gives us His own body and blood. So what Francis was saying in response to the question of his religious brother that he would receive the Sacred Body of His Lord from the priest's anointed hands, is that he was not going to let the wickedness or immorality of the priest lead him to commit spiritual suicide. Christ can still work and does still work even through the most sinful priest. And thank God!
If we were always dependent on the priest's personal holiness, we'd be in trouble. Priests are chosen by God from among men, and they're tempted just like any human being and fall through sin just like any human being. But God knew that from the beginning. Eleven of the first twelve apostles scattered when Christ was arrested, but they came back; one of the twelve sinned in betraying the Lord and sadly never came back. God has essentially made the sacraments "priest-proof,"
in terms of their personal holiness. No matter how holy they are, or how wicked, provided they have the intention to do what the Church does, then Christ himself acts, just as he acted through Judas when Judas expelled demons and cured the sick.
And so, again, I ask, "What should the response of the Church be to these deeds?" There has been a lot of talk about that in the media. Does the Church have to do a better job in making sure no one with any predisposition toward pedophilia gets ordained? Absolutely. But that would not be enough. Does the Church have to do a better job in handling cases when they are reported? The Church has changed its
way of handling these cases, and today they're much better than they were in the 1980s, but they can always be perfected. But even that is not enough. Do we have to do more to support the victims of such abuse? Yes we do, both out of justice and out of love! But not even that is adequate. Cardinal Law has gotten most of the deans of the medical schools in Boston to work on establishing a center for the
prevention of child abuse, which is something that we should all support. But not even that is a sufficient response.
The only adequate response to this terrible scandal, the only fully Catholic response to this scandal - as St. Francis of Assisi recognized in the 1200s, as St Francis de Sales recognized in the 1600s, and as countless other saints have recognized in every century-is HOLINESS! Every crisis that the Church faces, every crisis that the world faces, is a crisis of saints. Holiness is crucial, because it is the real face of the Church.
There are always people-a priest meets them regularly, you probably know several of them-who use excuses for why they don't practise the faith, why they slowly commit spiritual suicide. It can be because a nun was mean to them when they were nine. Or because they don't understand the teaching of the Church on a particular issue. There will doubtless be many people these days-and you will probably meet
them-who will say, "Why should I practise the faith, why should I go to Church, since the Church can't be true if God's so-called chosen ones can do the types of things we've been reading about?" This scandal is a huge hanger on which some will try to hang their justification for not practicing the faith. That's why holiness is so important.
They need to find in all of us a reason for faith, a reason for hope, a reason for responding with love to the love of the Lord. The beatitudes which we have in today's Gospel are a recipe for holiness. We all need to live them more. Do priests have to become holier? They sure do. Do religious brothers and sisters have to become holier and give ever greater witness of God and heaven? Absolutely. But all people in the Church do, including lay people! We all have the vocation to be holy and this crisis is a wake-up call. It's a tough time to be a priest today.
It's a tough time to be a Catholic today. But it's also a great time to be a priest and a great time to be a Catholic. Jesus says in the beatitudes we heard today, "Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of slander against you falsely because of me. Be glad and rejoice, for your reward in heaven is great." I've been experiencing that beatitude first hand, as some priests I know have as well. Earlier this week, when I finished up my exercise at a local gym, I was coming out of the locker room dressed in my black clerical garb. A mother, upon seeing me, immediately and hurriedly moved her children out of the way and shielded them from me as I was passing. She looked at me as I passed and when I had gone far enough along finally relaxed and let her children go-as if I would have attacked her children in the middle of the afternoon at a health club!
But while we all might have to suffer such insults and slander falsely on account of Christ, we should indeed rejoice. It's a great time to be a Christian, because this is a time in which God really needs us to show off his true face. In bygone days in America, the Church was respected. Priests were respected. The Church had a reputation for holiness and goodness. It's not so any more.
One of the greatest Catholic preachers in American history, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, used to say, that he preferred to live in times when the Church has suffered rather than thrived, when the Church had to struggle, when the Church had to go against the culture. It was a time for real men and real women to stand up and be counted. "Even dead bodies can float downstream," he used to say, pointing that many
people can coast when the Church is respected, "but it takes a real man, a real woman, to swim against the current."
How true that is! It takes a real man and a real woman to stand up now and swim against the current that is flowing against the Church. It takes a real man and a real woman to recognize that when swimming against the flood of criticism, you're safest when you stay attached to the Rock on whom Christ built his Church. This is one of those times. It's a great time to be a Christian.
Some people are predicting that the Church in this area is in for a rough time, and maybe she is, but the Church will survive, because the Lord will make sure it survives. One of the greatest comeback lines in history happened just about 200 years ago. The French emperor Napoleon was swallowing up countries in Europe with his armies bent on total world domination. He then said to Cardinal Consalvi, "I will
destroy your Church." "Je détruirai votre église!" The Cardinal said, "No you won't." Napoleon, all 5'2" of him said, "Je détruirai votre église!" The Cardinal said with confidence, "No you won't. Not even we have succeeded in doing that!"
If bad popes, immoral priests and thousands of sinners in the Church haven't succeeded in doing so from the inside-he was saying implicitly to the general-how do you think you're going to do it? The Cardinal was pointing to a crucial truth. Christ will never allow his Church to fail. He promised that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against his Church, that the barque of Peter, the Church sailing through time
to its eternal port in heaven, will never capsize, not because those in the boat won't do everything sinfully possible to turn it over, but because Christ, who is in the boat, will never allow it to happen. Christ is still in the boat and he'll never leave it.
The magnitude of this scandal might be such that you may find it difficult to trust priests in the same way you have in the past. That may be so, and that might not be completely a bad thing. But never lose trust in Him! It's His Church. Even if some of those he chose have betrayed him, he will call others who will be faithful, who will serve you with the love with which you deserve to be served, just like after
Judas' death, the eleven apostles convened and allowed the Lord to choose someone to take Judas' place, and they chose the man who ended up becoming St. Matthias, who proclaimed the Gospel faithfully until he was martyred for it.
This is a time in which all of us need to focus ever more on holiness. We're called to be saints and how much our society here needs to see this beautiful, radiant face of the Church. You're part of the solution, a crucial part of the solution. And as you come forward today to receive from this priest's anointed hands the sacred Body of your Lord, ask Him to fill you with a real desire for sanctity, a real desire to show off His true face.
One of the reasons why I'm here in front of you as a priest today is because when younger, I was underimpressed with some of the priests I knew. I would watch them celebrate Mass and almost without any reverence whatsoever drop the Body of the Lord onto the paten, as if they were handling something with little value rather than the Creator and Savior of all, rather than MY Creator and Savior. I remember saying to the Lord, reiterating my desire to be a priest, "Lord, please let me become a priest, so I can treat you like you deserve!" It gave me a great fire to serve the Lord.
Maybe this scandal can allow you to do the same thing. This scandal can be something that can lead you down to the path of spiritual suicide, or it can be something that can inspire you to say, finally, "I want to become a saint, so that I and the Church can give your name the glory it deserves, so that others might find in you the love and the salvation that I have found." Jesus is with us, as he promised, until the end of time. He's still in the boat.
Just as out of Judas' betrayal, he achieved the greatest victory in world history, our salvation through his passion, death and resurrection, so out of this he may bring, and wants to bring, a new rebirth of holiness, a new Acts of the Apostles for the 21st century, with each of us - and that includes YOU - playing a starring role. Now's the time for real men and women of the Church to stand up. Now's the time
for saints. How do you respond?
Father Roger J. Landry was ordained a Catholic priest of the Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts by Bishop Sean O'Malley, OFM Cap. in 1999. After receiving a biology degree from Harvard College, Fr Landry studied for the priesthood in Maryland, Toronto, and for several years in Rome. After his priestly ordination, Father returned to Rome to complete graduate work in Moral Theology and Bioethics at the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family.
_____________________________________
OUR LADY OF EUROPE - Ruth Rees
Way back in the Spring of 2002, I was commissioned by a travel magazine
to cover an important international airline conference in Gibraltar - a
place I knew well as during the ten years I had worked in journalism and public relations across the border in Spain I often drove over to the famous Rock to buy such essentials as English tea and chocolate biscuits.
After three busy days attending the conferences and interviewing British and foreign delegates, I had a meeting with Gibraltar's Minister of Tourism, a delightful man, aptly named Joe Holliday. After discussing various aspects of tourism, I asked him what was the total population of Gibraltar. `Approximately 28,000' he said. And "Now many of them are Catholics?" I asked. `26,000', he replied, `Why? Are you Catholic?'
When I said yes he asked me whether I had visited their beautiful shrine yet. `Shrine? In Gibraltar? What shrine?', I asked. " The shrine of Our Lady of Europe, it's over 700 years old! Go and see it before you leave." But as I was flying back to London the following morning it wasn't possible. As I left his office he said `Don't forget-you must come back here soon and go to the Shrine.'
A few weeks later in London, I had a phone call from the Editor of Catholic Life magazine. "`We're going to do a series of articles on British shrines, is there one you'd like to write about?" My reply was swift: "Yes, Our Lady of Europe in Gibraltar". Taken aback, he said `But Gibraltar's not English.' So I reminded him that he had
specified British not English and Gibraltar was 100% British! And within a month of my recent trip to the famous Rock, I was on my way back there.
Joe Holliday had organised an excellent itinerary for me, but nothing prepared me for that first impact on arriving at Europa Point where high on a promontory overlooking the Mediterranean and facing the coastline of Morocco, the white shrine gleamed in the sun. Inside the shine the atmosphere of absolute peace is accentuated by a softly tinkling fountain. One large room is used as a museum with displays of historic documents, photographs, comments from visitors and full
information in various Shrine publications. And at the heart of the Shrine is the beautiful little chapel where I knelt in front of the Blessed Sacrament and, for the first time, looked at the historic statue of Our Lady of Europe-Mary holding the Infant Jesus on her lap, both of them crowned. This is something of a miracle in itself because for over seven centuries this statue has survived desecration and near destruction by numerous foreign enemies, including British troops in the 19th century.
The origins of Our Lady of Europe go back to the year 711. It was then that the North African Muslims intent on conquering and imposing Islam on Spain, and indeed the rest of Europe, used Gibraltar as their launch pad. They took the Rock and built a mosque there-the first in Europe. However, in 1309, the Spanish King Ferdinand IV, recaptured Gibraltar and pulled down the mosque. He then did something momentous-almost prophetic-in thanksgiving for his victory, he built a shrine with
a statue of Our Lady holding the Infant Jesus, and solemnly dedicated not just Spain but the whole of Europe to Our Lady.
Unfortunately, 24 years later, the Muslims again invaded Gibraltar and again destroyed the shrine, replacing it with a mosque. It was not until 1462, that King Henry IV, the grandson of Ferdinand, finally recaptured the famous Rock, got rid of the mosque and re-established the shrine with a newly carved and better statue of Our Lady of Europe. And this is the very one seen by present day visitors to the shrine. There is an identical copy-a gift from the Gibraltar diocese-in London at the Church of Our Lady of Dolours in Fulham.
How extraordinary that a Marian devotion, the inspiration of a 14th century Spanish monarch, is only now revealing its profound significance for our continent in our era.
In May 2009, I was invited as a guest of the Gibraltar diocese to the 700th Jubilee of Our Lady of Europe-a spectacular 3-day event. The Holy Father had sent a personal message to the gathering via the powerful delegation who came from Rome, led by the Pope's Special Envoy, Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins. From all over Europe, Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, and priests, came to the celebrations and joined the 3,000 people who had gathered for the wonderful Jubilee Mass in a huge white marquee erected within strolling distance of the Shrine.
Bishop Charles Caruana who has worked tirelessly for many years (together with his wonderful team of priests) to spread the devotion of Our Lady of Europe, gave a moving speech at the communal dinner following the celebrations. He quoted from a letter he had received from Pope Benedict XVI: `Blessed John Paul II wrote to me saying how suitable it is for us to have a shrine where people can again pray that the Christian values which they hold dear will be the foundation of Europe's spiritual renewal.' The Bishop also told the assembled guests that the Holy Father's personal message to him was that `In the present day, Our Lady of Europe's intercession is especially needed for the spiritual renewal of Europe, in order that its Christian heritage may continue to be properly valued and appreciated in this third millennium.'
Looking with near despair at the spiritual crumbling taking place throughout our continent, I am absolutely convinced that we should turn to Our Lady of Europe for her powerful intercession and help in the increasing spiritual battle against the enemies of Christian Europe. So I appeal to you, please try and spread this devotion, especially by praying the Rosary for this specific purpose.
__________________________________________________
An Encouraging new development
MANHATTAN DECLARATION A Summary
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their
faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly
to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning
with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united
at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the
common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers
alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are
(1) the sanctity of human life,
(2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife,
and
(3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the
well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because
they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture,
we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and
to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures
are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise
them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group
but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who
is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Human Life
The lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are ever more
threatened.
While public opinion has moved in a pro-life direction, powerful and
determined forces are working to expand abortion, embryo-destructive
research, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. Although the protection
of the weak and vulnerable is the first obligation of government,
the power of government is today often enlisted in the cause of promoting
what Pope John Paul II called "the culture of death." We pledge to
work unceasingly for the equal protection of every innocent human
being at every stage of development and in every condition. We will
refuse to permit ourselves or our institutions to be implicated in
the taking of human life and we will support in every possible way
those who, in conscience, take the same stand.
Marriage
The institution of marriage, already wounded by promiscuity, infidelity
and divorce, is at risk of being redefined and thus subverted.
Marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining
the health, education, and welfare of all. Where marriage erodes,
social pathologies rise. The impulse to redefine marriage is a symptom,
rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It
reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied
in our civil law as well as our religious traditions. Yet it is critical
that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning
the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and,
with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would
lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is
all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic
way, about the unique character and value of acts and relationships
whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion
and protection of life. Marriage is not a "social construction," but
is rather an objective reality the covenantal union of husband and
wife-that it is the duty of the law to recognize, honor, and protect.
Religious Liberty
Freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized.
The threat to these fundamental principles of justice is evident in
efforts to weaken or eliminate conscience protections for healthcare
institutions and professionals, and in anti-discrimination statutes
that are used as weapons to force religious institutions, charities,
businesses, and service providers either to accept (and even facilitate)
activities and relationships they judge to be immoral, or go out of
business. Attacks on religious liberty are dire threats not only to
individuals, but also to the institutions of civil society including
families, charities, and religious communities. The health and well-being
of such institutions provide an indispensable buffer against the overweening
power of government and is essential to the flourishing of every other
institution-including government itself-on which society depends.
Unjust Laws
As Christians, we believe in law and we respect the authority of earthly
rulers. We count it as a special privilege to live in a democratic
society where the moral claims of the law on us are even stronger
in virtue of the rights of all citizens to participate in the political
process. Yet even in a democratic regime, laws can be unjust. And
from the beginning, our faith has taught that civil disobedience is
required in the face of gravely unjust laws or laws that purport to
require us to do what is unjust or otherwise immoral. Such laws lack
the power to bind in conscience because they can claim no authority
beyond that of sheer human will.
Therefore, let it be known that we will not comply with any edict
that compels us or the institutions we lead to participate in or facilitate
abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, euthanasia,
or any other act that violates the principle of the profound, inherent,
and equal dignity of every member of the human family.
Further, let it be known that we will not bend to any rule forcing
us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or
the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know
it, about morality, marriage, and the family.
Further, let it be known that we will not be intimidated into silence
or acquiescence or the violation of our consciences by any power on
earth, be it cultural or political, regardless of the consequences
to ourselves.
We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's.
But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's.
Convert of Calvary - Mark Fellows
Rome may have ruled Israel during Our Lord's time on earth, but robbers
ruled the land. Nestled in the rugged hills, they patrolled the roads,
threatening travellers with robbery and mayhem. Herod's quick rise
to power was due to his father, of course, but the son's ruthlessness
in dealing with robbers was no hindrance.
"Guilty of blood"
A robber who eluded Herod for years was named Dismas, the thief who
was crucified next to Our Lord. What we know of Dismas prior to his
crucifixion is handed down from tradition. His father was a robber
chief, and the apple fell not far from the tree. Whether Dismas ever
considered a different way of life is unknown, but upon reaching adulthood
he became more infamous than his father.
He dwelt in the desert, St. John Chrysostom tells us, and robbed or
murdered anyone unlucky enough to cross his path. The thousands of
deaths attributed to Dismas may be hyperbole, but that Dismas was
a murderer is beyond dispute. According to St. Gregory the Great,
he "was guilty of blood, even his brother's blood (fratricide)." Dismas,
whose name in Greek means "sunset" or "death," spent his life sinking
to ever lower depths of corruption and wickedness.
First encounter
The one recorded good deed before this hardened criminal's crucifixion
also occurred in the desert. As he plodded under his cross, bleeding
from scourges, dizzy and weak, the memory of his good deed was probably
driven far from his mind, especially since it happened almost thirty-three
years previously, when he and his men came across a family travelling
across the desert and waylaid them.
It was like many other robberies, except for two things. This family,
unlike most travellers who carried supplies of food and money, had
almost nothing of material value. This was because the husband, Joseph,
had obeyed the Angel's message to leave for Egypt so promptly that
he and Mary left most of their possessions in Nazareth. Had they any
money they could have avoided the desert and travelled to a port with
boats for hire. Instead they made for Egypt overland, exchanging the
pursuit of Herod for the pursuit of wild animals and brigands.
It would have been a brutal journey. The holy travellers were not
spared from hunger, thirst, and fatigue. In one of her visions, Blessed
Anne Catherine Emmerich saw the Holy Family "exhausted and helpless,"
Mary in particular being upset because She had so little to feed Her
child. It was in these circumstances that-according to St. Augustine,
St. Peter Damian, and other Church Fathers-the Holy Family met Dismas.
That the Holy Family ran into robbers in the desert is not recorded
in Sacred Scripture, but given the times they lived in, such an event
may be regarded as inevitable rather than unusual. Which brings us
to the second unusual part of this robbery: the infant Jesus.
As the story goes, the robbers searched the Holy Family in hopes of
plunder, and came across a real Treasure. Something about the infant
stopped Dismas dead in his tracks. Not only did he stop looking for
plunder, he paid his comrades to do the same.
Stories concerning the desert robbery of the Holy Family vary in the
details. Some accounts, including the account of Sister Emmerich,
have the robbers taking the Holy Family back to their cave and feeding
them. Other versions omit this. What all agree on is the effect the
(perhaps nine month old) baby Jesus had on Dismas. When the Holy Family
departed, their meagre possessions intact, Dismas, according to St
Augustine, said to Jesus, "O most blessed of children, if ever a time
should come when I should crave Thy Mercy, remember me and forget
not what has passed this day."
Raw justice
It is unlikely Dismas recognized the infant Jesus as the Messiah,
for he was not a Jew. Several authors, including St John Damascene,
have stated he was an Egyptian. Consequently he was most likely a
pagan at the time he met the Holy Family. His encounter with Jesus,
Mary, and Joseph, however edifying it was for Dismas at the time,
does not appear to have moved him to change professions. He remained
a robber and a murderer until finally he was caught, perhaps around
the age of fifty.
That the justice meted out to Dismas was crucifixion confirms he was
a notorious criminal. Crucifixion was an excruciating (a word derived
from crux, or cross) and humiliating death penalty reserved for the
most grave crimes. One of the reasons the Jews clamoured for Christ
to be crucified was their assumption that such an ignoble death would
be proof against the Messiah's life of miracles for the afflicted
and admonitions for the comfortable.
The process of crucifixion included scourging and public cross carrying.
While Dismas and his fellow thief, Gestas, were spared the brutality
meted out to Christ, it is likely they were scourged and made to carry
their crosses to the place of their impending death. So they set off
under the weight of their doom, cursing their captors, their fate,
and any gods within earshot.
Second encounter
They probably arrived at Calvary before Christ, and waited as their
fellow "criminal" made His tortuous way of the Cross. Then the three
were fastened to their crosses, and raised on high for all to see
and revile. For Dismas and Gestas, their violence against the innocent
was at last avenged, and the ransom was their lives.
As they hung there with no one to mourn their passing, they saw a
holy group mourning the crucified Christ. In despair, impotent rage,
and perhaps force of habit, Gestas turned against another Innocent.
Dismas joined him in the mockery, according to St Mark: "They that
were crucified with Him reviled him." (Mark 15:32); and St Matthew:
"The thieves also, that were crucified with Him, reproached Him."
(Matthew 27:44)
It is hard to breathe when you are being crucified. Gestas' final
recorded words were hurled through choked breath like a curse: "If
Thou be the Christ, save Thyself and us!" (Luke 23:39) His words were
not an act of faith, but the spittle of mockery.
Then came the miracle. Dismas, hanging on the other side of the Saviour,
turned on his fellow thief: "Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou
art under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive
the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done no evil." (Luke
23: 40-41)
These are perhaps the most unlikely words ever recorded. Dismas was
hanging next to a Man whose body was horribly broken, on the verge
of death; too weak or beaten to even curse his tormenters; a fellow
criminal able only to rouse himself occasionally to utter words that,
though they were uttered in a clear voice, were difficult to comprehend.
Yet Dismas' change of heart came after Christ painfully raised Himself
up on the nails transfixing Him, and spoke to the Father of Mercies:
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
It was then that Dismas rebuked Gestas, then turned to the Lord and
said, "Lord, remember me, when Thou shalt come into Thy kingdom."
(Luke 23: 42)
Miraculous apostle
We are left to echo the words of St Leo: "Whence has Dismas received
his faith? Who has explained the mysterious doctrine? What preacher
has inflamed him? For he now confesses, as his Lord and King, One
who seems to be no more than his fellow sufferer?"
It is divine grace that removed the scales from Dismas' eyes, and
gave him the faith, hope, and charity not only to proclaim the Christ,
but to dare to ask to enter His Kingdom. This most generous of Kingly
gifts, eternal life, was swiftly bestowed by the Dying upon a most
miserable sinner with the blessed words: "Amen, I say to thee, this
day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise."
What was the agent of this grace? Some Fathers have speculated that
the prayers of the Virgin Mary to spare Dismas because of his kindness
to the Holy Family. Others say Christ Himself repaid Dismas, remembering
the thief's plea: "if ever a time should come when I should crave
Thy Mercy, remember me and forget not what has passed this day."
Still others, like St Vincent Ferrer, claim the shadow of Christ's
body touched Dismas, and that this, like the healing shadow of St.
Peter, effected his conversion.
Whatever the instrument, Dismas was transformed by a divine moral
miracle into a firmer apostle than the men who had for years seen
Christ perform miracles, drive out devils, and confound the evil.
They had fled, leaving Dismas to proclaim Christ as the Son of God,
even as He lay dying on the Cross.
Entry to Paradise
It is this faith that the Fathers say warranted Dismas' speedy entrance
into Paradise, that is, the extraordinary promise of Christ after
be heard Dismas' confession: "Amen, I say to thee, this day thou shalt
be with Me in Paradise." Paradise is not the same as Heaven, for Christ
would not ascend to Heaven for more than forty days. Paradise is interpreted
by the Fathers, including St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, to mean
Limbo. Aquinas says:
That word of the Lord (`This day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise')
must therefore be understood not of an earthly or corporeal Paradise,
but of that spiritual paradise in which all may be, said to be, who
are in the enjoyment of the divine glory. Hence, as to place, the
thief went down with Christ into hell, that he might be with Christ,
as it was said to him: `Thou shalt be with Me in Paradise'; but as
to reward, he was in Paradise, for he there tasted and enjoyed the
divinity of Christ, together with the other saints.
Courage, hope and perseverance
The Fathers agree that from the moment of his death Dismas enjoyed
the Beatific Vision uninterrupted. A number of Fathers even believe
that Dismas was the first of the saints to enter Heaven. Such an end
should give courage to the weary, hope to the sinners-that is, all
of us-and fervour to ask St Dismas to intercede for us so that we
may persevere until death with as lively a faith, hope, and charity
as he acquired in the last moments of his life. Truly has it been
said:
Suddenly, from being an enemy, he became a friend; a stranger, he
became a loving companion; coming from afar, he showed himself the
true neighbour; a robber, he was changed into a glorious confessor.
Great, indeed was the confidence of the thief. Conscious to himself
of every sort of guilt and sin, without a single redeeming good work,
he had passed his lawless life in taking the goods and even the lives
of men; yet, at the end of his days, at the very gates of death, when
all hopes of this present life were over, he conceived a hope of the
life to come, which he had so grievously forfeited, or rather which
he had never done anything to deserve. If the thief had cause to hope,
who shall henceforth despair?
Sources:
Life of the Good Thief, Msgr. Gaume, Loreto Publications, 2003;
The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the Visions of Ven. Anne
Catherine Emmerich, TAN Books, 1970.
Thanks to Catholic Family News, April 2006.
The feast of St. Dismas is 25 March.
The Priest - St Jean Vianney
What is a priest? A man who takes the place of God, a man invested with all the powers of God. “Go,” says Our Lord to the priest. “As my Father has sent Me, so I send you.”... “All power has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go ye, therefore, teach all nations. He who hears you, hears Me; he who despises you despises Me.”
When the priest absolves from sin, he does not say “God forgives you.” He says “I absolve you.” Saint Bernard assures us that everything comes to us through Mary. One might also say that everything comes to us through the priest; yes, all blessings, all graces, all celestial gifts.
If we had not the sacrament of Ordination we should not have Our Lord. Who has put Him there, in the tabernacle? The priest. Who received your soul at its entry upon life? The priest. Who feeds it, in order to strengthen it on its pilgrimage? The priest. Who will prepare it to appear before God, by washing it for the last time in the blood of Jesus Christ?
The priest, always the priest. And if this soul should die, who will revive it? Who will restore to it calm and peace? The priest again. You cannot call to mind a single one of God’s benefits without conjuring up at the same time the image of the priest.
Go and make your confession to the Blessed Virgin, or to an angel. Will they absolve You? No. Will they give you the Body and Blood of Our Lord? No. The Blessed Virgin has not the power to make her Divine Son descend into the sacred Host. Two hundred angels could not absolve you. A priest, however simple, can. He can say to you: “Go in peace;
I absolve you.” What a grand thing is a priest!
God’s other benefits would be useless without the priest. What use could you make of a house full of gold, if there was no one to open the door to you. Without the priest, the passion and death of Our Lord would be of no avail. After God, the priest - that is all! Leave a parish twenty years without a priest, and the inhabitants will worship beasts. When men wish to destroy religion, they begin by attacking the priest, because where there is no priest, there is no Sacrifice, and where there is no Sacrifice, there is no religion.
Vera's Death - Felicity Smart
The difficulty in deciding what to do when you suspect that someone’s life is being deliberately shortened in hospital can be compounded by conflicting information and the inability, or refusal, of medical staff to see it as wrong.
My friend, Vera, (not her real name) is 98 and she desperately wants to live to be a 100. I have known her for 20 years. She is frail, with poor eyesight and limited mobility, but she is definitely “all there”. Strongly independent and unmarried, she lives alone. She can wash and dress herself unaided, and still cooks. She goes shopping in a wheelchair. A cleaner comes once a week, but Vera finds it hard to accept help.
On Sunday afternoons I invariably phone her before visiting. There’s no answer at first, as it takes her several minutes to reach the phone — her poor eyesight prevents her from using a mobile. I try again a bit later. She usually answers then, but not this time. After two more tries, I am puzzled and anxious. Then I remember that her niece, Jo, (not her real name either) could have taken her out. She is her nearest relative. Her visits are infrequent, but maybe she has turned up. I leave a message.
On Monday the phone rings. It’s Jo, and what she tells me comes as a shock. Vera was found on Saturday evening by a neighbour, collapsed and in pain. She was rushed to a London hospital suffering from an acute abdominal inflammation. I ask if I can visit her. Yes, although she is unconscious. She says how sad it is that she won’t be coming out. Can she really be dying?
I go with my husband, Tim. We find her in a ward with curtains drawn round the bed. Another shock: she looks bloated and almost unrecognisable; her breathing is laboured. She is being given oxygen, but there is no drip to hydrate her. By the bed is a small sponge on a stick, stained by pink gel, and some water in a glass. These are used to moisten her mouth so that dehydration does not cause her tongue to stick to it. A tube is inserted in her arm, which must be for pain relief―not only for the inflammation, but probably to allay the pain of dehydration.
Pain relief is also a sedative. Dehydration and the additional painkillers for it could shorten her life.
Knowing nothing about her condition, I feel at a disadvantage, but as a supporter of the pro-life cause, I am concerned by what I see.
I am a Catholic; Vera and her niece are not, but I am in no doubt about her will to live. We go to the desk where there is a senior nurse. I ask her about treatment and say how much Vera wanted to live. She says there is no treatment for the condition, which can be fatal even in younger people. Vera is receiving only palliative care because she is dying. Her niece has agreed to this after discussion with the consultant. My impression is that the nurse is talking fast and seems on the defensive.
We return home not feeling reassured. I look up her condition on the internet. It does not say it is untreatable, although it can be very serious. Briefly, treatment is by intravenous infusion of fluids (nil by mouth) and pain relief. Surgery and antibiotics may be needed.
I phone a pro-life helpline, Patients First Network, for advice. This support service promotes good medical care for people at risk near the end of life―at risk, that is, under the Mental Capacity Act, of euthanasia by the omission or withdrawal of nutrition and hydration, and through medical and nursing care being stopped.
Having explained the situation, I am advised to ask more questions at the hospital. But have I the right to do this, given that what is happening to Vera has been agreed with her niece? Yes, because the Mental Capacity Act contains a clause stating that the person who determines what is in someone’s “best interests” must take into account the views of anyone interested in his or her welfare.
We decide that the best way forward would be to talk to Jo first. This might clarify the situation and possibly avoid causing her offence by our going directly to the hospital for information. I phone her.
When she realises I have rung to do more than commiserate, her voice changes. Like the nurse, she talks fast and sounds on the defensive, but she remains friendly. I ask if Vera was unconscious when taken to hospital. No, but she had made a “living will” saying that she did not wish to be resuscitated, so when she became unconscious, Jo agreed with the consultant that she should be allowed to die. I am very concerned about what this means, and whether Vera really understood what would happen.
I print out The Mental Capacity Act and we take it with us to thehospital the next day. The change in Vera is marked. She now looks emaciated, the oxygen has been removed and her breathing is rapid and shallow. Only pain relief and the pink sponge are being used.
We ask if we can speak to someone directly responsible for her care. Another nurse appears. I want to know why Vera is not being hydrated. I am told that she is―that’s what the pink sponge is for. I am astounded. I reply that it can only moisten her mouth.
I ask about intravenous hydration and almost hope to be told that there would be no benefit, because then withholding it would be justified and I could stop asking questions. But the nurse says that in a case such as this, hydration is only given if the relatives request it because it just prolongs a life that would otherwise end sooner rather than later. So Vera could benefit from it.
The Mental Capacity Act says that in considering whether life-sustaining treatment is in a patient’s best interests the person making the determination must not be motivated by a desire to bring about the patient’s death.
I say that I think Vera should be allowed a natural end and that it is wrong to hasten her death.
The nurse asks me to wait. She returns with a form headed Liverpool Care Pathway. She explains that this is the gold standard of care for the dying, and is being rolled out across the NHS. Vera’s care conforms to it. I am aware that there are serious pro-life concerns about it because it encourages the use of pain-relieving sedative drugs to ease the passage from life to death, opening the way for managed death or involuntary euthanasia. There is nothing in the ongoing care plan about food and fluids.
I press the question of hydration. She says that sticking a needle into someone to hydrate them is hardly natural. I come back with it being unacceptable to inflict the pain of dehydration on someone, which then has to be relieved with additional life-shortening painkillers. What is the point of a medical advance, such as intravenous hydration, if it isn’t used when needed?
The nurse has had enough of me, but she is careful. She asks if I would like to talk to a doctor. I say yes. A doctor duly appears. She invites us into a private room. A palliative care specialist will be joining us, she says. By this time I’m feeling the strain, so my husband asks for more information. She tells us that Vera was fully conscious when admitted to hospital. Treatment of her condition with fluids was tried, but failed. A “very difficult” discussion then took place with her, during which it was explained that no further treatment was possible, surgery being too risky for someone so frail. She had accepted that palliative care was the only option, and was consistent with her living will. We are stunned. What are we to believe?
I pull myself together and say that this is not our understanding of what had happened. We are simply told it is true and that her niece agrees with the decision. I ask if Vera knew that “treatment” now includes nutrition and hydration. Did she really want to be dehydrated to death? No answer. The palliative care specialist arrives to hear my question. She tries to tell me that very ill people don’t want fluids anyway, so withholding them is not unkind. But did Vera know that dehydration is painful? Ah, but pain relief can make her “comfortable” (a word used several times as a euphemism for this kind of death). And her life will be shortened, I say. The doctor then says that hydration couldn’t prolong it. Not what the nurse said earlier, I reply. We are going round in circles. I ask if this is the death they would want for themselves. Again, no answer.
My husband sums up our views. He says we haven’t been given a clear picture of what has happened and remain unconvinced that hydration has been justifiably withheld. He expresses our concern about the decreasing respect for life, which the law supports.
They make no comment and it is we who end the meeting. But afterwards Tim and I agree that their aim was to head us off. We are left with the impression that the collective view is that this very old lady should be hastened to her end as speedily and painlessly as possible, her life having become of little or no value.
We say our goodbyes to Vera. That evening, Jo phones. Vera has died. It took three days.
Did we achieve anything? At the very least, we were listened to. I hope we also made the point that not everyone thinks the Mental Capacity Act protects patients or that the Liverpool Care Pathway is being used appropriately―things which need saying repeatedly. Anti-life legislation is eroding trust in the medical profession.
Patients First Network telephone support service number is 0800 169 1719
This article was printed in the Catholic Herald 18 September 2009
ACW Review No 82 September 2009
Thou art a Priest Forever
The Sermon preached by Fr Leo Straub at St James’s Church, Spanish Place, on the day of his Diamond Jubilee of Ordination to the Roman Catholic Priesthood, 1st November 1997.
“Thou art a Priest for ever” - These words are taken from Psalm 109. Verse 4.
Notice the last two words, “for ever”: a Priest, not for this life only, but “for ever”, in the next life, as well. When ordained, a Catholic Priest becomes different from all men, and remains different from them all, “for ever”.
Why and How? First of all, Why?
Our Lord lived on this earth for 33 years: the last 3 years are known as this “Public Life”, when, as St Peter said “He went about doing good. You all know of His miracles, His healing and curing of all manner of diseases of the body, just by His words; for example, as when a leper came to Him, knelt before Him, and said, “Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean”; and Jesus said, “I will, be thou made clean”; and, at once his leprosy was cleansed.
But Jesus, also by His words, forgave people’s sins, saying “Thy sins are forgiven thee”, as He said to St Mary Magdalen. As He said that to them, something happened to their souls. By their sins, their souls had become diseased, corrupted; but at His words, their souls became pure and wholesome again, “full of grace” once more.
But also, again by His words, He did one most remarkable thing.
Some months before He died, speaking to a large gathering of people at Capharnaum, He said, “He that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me” And notice that He said, “He that eateth ME”! The Apostles hearing this, must have wondered how, and what exactly Jesus meant. They had to wait until the Last Supper for the answer. At the Last Supper Jesus changed bread into HIMSELF, and wine into HIMSELF; and gave to the Apostles, saying “Eat, drink”
As Jesus did this, at the Last Supper, He knew He would be alive on this earth for only a few more hours. Yet He wanted His Priesthood and His ability to do marvellous things, just by His words, to continue to be exercised on this earth, even after His Ascension into Heaven.
So what did He do to achieve this?
He chose certain men, the Apostles, and, at the Last Supper changed their souls in such a way that HE would be able to exercise HIS Priesthood through them: and especially that exercise of His Priesthood by which sins were forgiven, and also that by which bread and wine were changed into Himself. He changed their souls in such a way as would enable Him to use THEIR mouths, lips and tongues to utter HIS words. Instead of using His Own mouth, lips and tongue, to bring about these changes, He would, after His Ascension, use those of others.
Ordination of a Roman Catholic Priest, then, means that his soul has become changed, and changed in such a way, that Jesus is able to use that Priest’s mouth, lips and tongue, utter His words. So that when a Priest is administering the Sacrament of Penance, and the words “I absolve thee from thy sins”, comes from his lips, it is really Jesus Who is saying these words, using the Priest’s mouth, lips and tongue to do so. Similarly, when, in the Mass, the words, “This is my Body”, and “This is my Blood”, come from the mouth of the Priest, it is really Jesus who is saying these words, using, not His Own mouth, lips and tongue, but those of the Priest.
There is, then, only one Priesthood, that of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This Priesthood He exercises throughout Creation. He exercises it unceasingly in Heaven; for we are told, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that He is “ever living to make intercession for us”.
He also continues to exercise His Priesthood, on earth; and this he does by choosing certain men, through whom to do it.
These men, then, have no Priesthood, properly so-called, of their own; but they are called “Priests”, because there is a Priesthood exercised through them, namely, that of Jesus.
How is this change brought about?
We have seen WHY the soul of a Roman Catholic Priest is changed when he is ordained. But now, how is this change in his soul, brought about?
This change, as I have said, takes place in the soul of a man, when he is made into a Catholic Priest. But since this change takes place in his soul, it can’t be seen. You can’t tell, just by looking at a man, whether this change made in his soul, or not. So how can anyone know for certain, whether a man is, or is not , a Catholic Priest; is, or is not, someone whom Jesus uses to forgive sins, and to change bread and wine into Himself? Is there any outward sign which would make this clear? Fortunately, in the Providence of God there is: and it is this.
The Apostles had this change take place in their souls, at the Last Supper, when they were ordained by Jesus Himself, to be the first Catholic Priests; and the Apostles handed on this change in the souls of certain men, after Our Lord’s Ascension into Heaven. How did they hand it on? What was the outward sign which the Apostles gave, so that it could be SEEN that this particular man was being made into a Catholic Priest? The sign was this.
The man knelt before the Apostle; then the Apostle placed his hands on the man’s head; and at that precise moment, the change took place in the man’s soul, and he became a Catholic Priest―ready for Jesus to use him as one through whom He could continue to exercise His Priesthood here on earth, even though He Himself was in Heaven. So the Apostle, St Paul, wrote to St Timothy, whom he, himself, had ordained a Priest, “Neglect not the grace that is in thee, with the imposition of the hands of the Priesthood” (1 Tim 4.14).
And then it was handed on in the same way, by touch; this unceasing touch going on down all the centuries, from one generation to the next. There is nothing else like it, in the whole of human history: touch going on unceasingly for almost 2000 years!
Until it became my turn to have this marvellous change made in my soul; and on 1st November, All Saints Day 1937, I knelt in front of Cardinal Arthur Hinsley, in Westminster Cathedral. He placed his hands on my head, and at that precise moment, I became a Roman Catholic Priest, now different from all other men; and again, at that precise moment, Jesus became able to continue to exercise HIS Priesthood, using my mouth, lips and tongue, to do so.
The most wonderful thing
To me, the most wonderful thing about being a Catholic Priest, is when, during Mass (as later on in this Mass), Jesus uses me to say the words by which He changes bread and wine into HIMSELF. Remember, how He said “He that eateth ME ...”. So, in a very real way, I take the place of His Mother, Our Lady. It was through HER words to the Archangel Gabriel, when SHE said. “Be it done unto to me according to thy word”, that Jesus came into the world the first time. And it is now, by the words which Jesus says, using my mouth, lips and tongue, that He comes into the world again; and again and again, every time that I celebrate Holy Mass, as now.
And just as Our Lady, as His Mother, looked after Him in His weaknesses as a baby and a child, so it is my duty, having also brought Him into this world, to look after Him, to love Him, to care for Him, and especially to keep Him company, where He remains in the Tabernacle under the outward form of a wafer of bread. It IS Himself ―”He that eateth Me”. It has been well said, that there in the Tabernacle, is a PERSON, not a thing, as in this Tabernacle here.
And you, all you lay people, what of you? You know, Jesus loves you all, every one of you. And because he loves you so much, He longs, He just LONGS, to be with you; and especially does He long to be united with you, in the intimacy of Holy Communion. He comes to YOU; and then He remains within you for about FIFTEEN minutes, before He leaves you, so to say, to return to Heaven. So you have Him within you, for those few minutes, as really and truly as He was within His Mother, for the nine months before He was born, in quite a different way, of course, but just as really and truly.
A fantastic privilege
So what a fantastic privilege it is, to be a Roman Catholic to carry Jesus within you. Of course, Jesus longs, longs to be united in Holy Communion with EVERYONE, with every one of you, in this intimate way, for He loves each one of you, without exception, so deeply; and what a joy it is to Him, to be able to be united to you; IN Holy Communion; but sadly, He cannot have this joy, unless you become a Catholic.
Two weeks ago, we had the Feast Day of St Margaret Mary Alacoque. She was a nun in a Convent in France, at Paray-le-Monial... Our Lord visited her in the Chapel of the Convent, many times. Once when I was on holiday in France with my mother, we had the privilege of going into that very Chapel where Jesus had been, so many times; and I have offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in that same Chapel― again, a great privilege.
On one occasion when Jesus visited St Margaret Mary, He showed her His Sacred Heart, wounded, pierced and with a Crown of Thorns; and He said to her, “Behold this Heart, which has so loved men, and is loved so little in return”.
To me, that is terribly sad―“Behold this Heart which has so loved men, and is loved so little in return”. How much do YOU love Him, in return for His love of you?
Conclusion
I conclude with three things.
1. When you receive Holy Communion, and so receive Jesus, into yourself, He brings many spiritual blessings to you; but do not receive Him for that reason only. Receive Him for HIS sake: receive Him to give Him joy; the joy of coming to you, to be so intimately united with you, in Holy Communion, with you whom He loves so much.
2. Those of you who are blessed to have Benediction in your Church, do make a point of attending it, of attending it regularly, for Jesus’ sake for He is always delighted to see you. St Alphonsus Liguori, who founded the Redemptorist Order, wrote: “At night, when the Church is closed and the doors are shut, Jesus, in the Tabernacle longs for the morning, when the doors will be opened, and those He loves, will be coming in again, to visit him”. Lovely !
3. Finally, on this day of my Diamond Jubilee of Ordination to the Priesthood, I would ask you to reverence and respect your Priests. Remember, that by their Ordination, they become quite different, spiritually, from all other men, in order that Jesus may be able to continue to exercise HIS Priesthood here on earth, all days to the end of the world; and remember, that because of their intimate union with Him, they acquire a certain holiness, even though, sadly, they may not always live up to it. Then, reverence and respect them also, because they give their live to serve you, spiritually; and because they have given themselves to Jesus, for Him to continue, through them, His saving work for you; and thus to help you prepare yourselves for entry into the next life, where everything is so wonderful and marvellous, that as we read in the Bible, “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what wonderful things God hath prepared, for THEM THAT LOVE HIM”.
Religious freedom is under attack in England today
Neil Addison
On May 20th, barrister Neil Addison gave this talk to the Young Catholics Group at the Brompton Oratory. He is Director of the Thomas More Legal Centre.
I begin by referring to a story that some of you may have heard of a couple of years ago a crematorium in Devon removed its crosses on the basis that they did not want to cause Offence’ to non Christians and in particular to Muslims. The subject of this crematorium was subsequently discussed in the House of Lords during the debate on the 2006 Equality Bill when various speakers discussed ways of making crematoriums ‘Muslim friendly’.
Two points are worthy of note during this entire debate, firstly hardly anyone discussed the offence caused to Christians by the removal of the cross, and secondly absolutely nobody in the debate was aware or bothered to find out that Muslims do not use crematorium because cremation is against their religion.
The moral of this story is that one should never underestimate the ignorance of public officials when dealing with religious issues. When actions are taken against Christianity and Christian symbols in the name of a multi-faith society, invariably these actions are taken in the name of minority religions, but are not actually done at the request of those religions.
But let us look at some other stories in the media recently. A man who used to cut the grass outside his house has been told to stop because of ‘Health and safety fears’. A schoolgirl who asked her teacher if she could move to another group of girls because all the girls in her group were talking to each other in Urdu, ended up being arrested, yes arrested, for alleged ‘racism’. Finally a case I am sure you have all heard of: the nurse Caroline Petrie who was threatened with the sack for offering to pray for a patient.
In theory only one of those three stories involve religion, yet I would suggest that in fact they all demonstrate the same problem: petty minded officiousness, obsession with rules, a tendency to take offence at simple conversations, a lack of any sense of proportion, a lack of any desire to live and let live and in general a lack of simple old fashioned common sense.
And so the theme of my talk today is that the issue of religious freedom in this country cannot be considered in isolation from other issues of freedom in our society. I could regale you with tales of attacks on Christians and Christianity but to do so would, I believe, mask the real problem. The attacks on religious freedom are symptomatic of wider attacks on freedom and a lack of respect for the idea of freedom and so if we want to defend freedom of religion then we have to defend the idea of freedom itself. Whether it is fox-hunting, smoking, adoption agencies or microchips in rubbish bins, we are in a society which is increasingly intolerant, repressive, regulated and untrusting and in consequence we have officials who are dictatorial, interfering and untrustworthy.
One of the areas where I have become increasingly aware of this tendency is advising doctors, nurses and pharmacists who have conscientious objections to assisting in any way with abortion referrals or the giving out of the ‘morning after pill’. Their right to moral conscientious objection is simply being dismissed as ‘imposing your morality on others’, which ignores the fact that to make somebody do or participate in something they consider to be immoral, is in itself to impose a view of morality. It is strange that during the 2nd World War when our country was facing the danger of foreign invasion, we accepted the right of conscientious objection yet today we are increasingly unwilling to permit conscientious objection.
The example of the marriage registrar Lillian Ladelle is a case in point. She did not want to participate in same-sex civil partnerships and so she made arrangements that ensured that others who had no moral objections dealt with those ceremonies whilst she carried out traditional marriages. It was agreed by her employers that no same-sex couple had ever been disadvantaged by her actions and no civil partnerships were cancelled or delayed because of her; nevertheless her employers refused to allow this pragmatic solution to continue. In simple terms they had no respect for her conscience and were not willing to show any tolerance or compassion towards her. But this refusal to recognise the legitimacy of conscience and morality has consequences for our society that go far beyond the issues of abortion or homosexuality themselves. When we look at our current controversy over MP’s expenses the constant refrain that is coming back from so many MPs is that what they did was ‘in accordance with the rules’. But what is missing in this response is that they never considered whether what they were doing was morally right or wrong and that, I suggest, epitomises a broader problem in our society. We are not showing respect for conscience and the desire not to do that which is morally wrong because we are no longer acknowledging the importance of morality itself and are instead fixated on mere legalism and rule. As a lawyer I am constantly dealing with the efforts of government to legislate on everything and the consequence is that politicians are infantalising us as a society by removing our ability to think in moral terms. The result is that we have more criminal legislation than ever before and more crime, more financial regulation and more fraud, more interference by government officials in all aspects of life and more government failure and incompetence.
Contrary to what several Christian organisations are saying I do not consider that we are in an era of anti-Christian persecution. Indeed to suggest that we are demeans the word persecution and those many Christians who are suffering real persecution to the point of death. What we are in is an era of increasing government interference and regulation of what used to be regarded as private life and an increasing intolerance of those who disagree. We are in an increasingly authoritarian society and the Church is always the first victim of authoritarianism because the Church exists as an organisation that is, or should be, independent of the state and which has a basis for its motivation and thinking which is independent of the state.
That does not however mean that the Church does not respect or obey the laws of the state. On the contrary Christianity has always taught respect for the legitimacy of government and the civil authorities; ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is Gods’ is both a political and a theological principle. It is, however, a principle which depends on mutual recognition of mutual rights. What we have today is a governmental system which does not acknowledge the right of religion to have its own sphere, nor does it respect the right of religious organisations to defend their own identity and to preserve their own integrity.
The new Equality Bill currently before Parliament epitomises this tendency. Nearly every form of discrimination is banned even for private associations and churches. Or to put it another way, they are to lose the right to choose. Churches are to be banned from preferring Christians in their employment practices except in the employment of priests or religious teachers. They are not going to insist that employees live in accordance with the ideals or principles of the Church, and any employment or membership decision they take can be questioned and investigated by an unelected quango the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
All of this is done in the name of equality and with the clarion call by politicians that religions must not be allowed to discriminate; however there is a gross hypocrisy at the heart of the non-discrimination agenda because politicians are not imposing on themselves the principles that they insist on imposing on others. In simple terms it is perfectly legal to discriminate on the grounds of political opinion and political membership and political parties are free to discriminate in their recruitment policies. The Labour Party would not employ a member of the BNP in any capacity; the Conservative Party would not employ a card-carrying Communist. Why then should the churches be obliged to employ people whose religion or lifestyle is incompatible with the beliefs or principles of that church? I do not believe that political parties should be obliged to employ people whose political beliefs or activities are incompatible with their own. Political parties are entitled to preserve and defend their distinctive identity; I just make the point that religious organisations should be entitled to the same freedom to preserve their identity.
As the Government’s proposals stand I, as a Roman Catholic, would be entitled to apply for the post of General Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain and to sue if I was not appointed. And a member of the National Secular Society would be entitled to apply for the post of Secretary to the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales. It is lunacy ―and more than lunacy, it is dangerous to freedom and democracy because democracy requires not just individual freedom but also freedom of association. We need to defend the principle of civil society in which associations and organisations, as well as individuals, have rights and are allowed the freedom to preserve their distinctive nature and contribution to society as a whole. It is no coincidence that the first thing that any totalitarian state does is to regulate and control association, organisations and churches. We need to be alert to this danger and we need to defend the rights of churches and other organisations not simply in order to defendreligious freedom but in order to preserve freedom itself.
In addition to defending freedom of association we also need to defend freedom of speech and in particular the freedom of private conversation. Some years ago I had the privilege of representing Joe and Helen Roberts, a retired couple in Fleetwood in Lancashire, who rang up their local council to complain about its decision to put gay-friendly literature in public buildings. Instead of the local council regarding this as a legitimate expression of opinion the Diversity officer of the council reported Joe and Helen to the police who sent two large police officers equipped with stab vests and handcuffs to lecture Joe and Helen for 80 minutes and to threaten them with prosecution for a non existent ‘hate crime’.
Recently there was the case of a social worker in a care home who was suspended following a private conversation about homosexuality and of course there was the well known case of Carol Thatcher and her golliwog conversation. What happened to the idea of a private conversation? What happened to the idea that this is a free country where people are entitled to their own opinions?
As Christians we cannot separate ourselves from the society in which we live―nor should we want to do so. Similarly we cannot separate the defence of our religious freedom from the defence of freedom itself.
If you read the history of life in Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union, or under the East German Stasi, one point is very clear and consistent― totalitarian states do not recognise or respect the distinction between private and public life. In a totalitarian state there is no such thing as a private conversation. In George Orwell’s great novel Nineteen Eighty-four the hero, Winston Smith, describes how everyone lives with the knowledge that everything they say can be monitored; the smallest deviation from the official orthodoxy will be reported and everyone lives with the fear that one day they will be visited by the Thought Police. The novel is set in Britain 1984 but it too close for comfort to the reality of Britain 2009.
Nineteen Eighty-four was, of course. written in 1948, just after the war when people were aware of the price of freedom and the fact that freedom needed to be defended. In 1945, a film was released called A Matter of Life and Death; it starred David Niven as an RAF pilot who is supposed to die in his plane but who survives and who subsequently has to argue with God for his right to continue to live. Part of the film involves a trial in heaven with an argument about England and freedom. One of the main characters says “In England a man can think and speak as he likes on religion and politics”. The film was released in 1945. It was made at a time when British people were fighting and dying to defend an England where “a man can think and speak as he likes”. This is a noble vision of England as a nation of free people but, it is an England that we are allowing to die. It is an England we need to fight to defend because an England where freedom is protected and respected is an England worth fighting for.
This article was published in the Catholic Herald 16th July 2009.
It is reproduced with permission.
ACW Review No 81 March 2009
The Curse of Broadmindedness
Bishop Fulton Sheen
This is an extract from Moods and Truths (1932)
"The Catholic Church intolerant." That simple thought, like a yellow-fever sign, is supposed to be the one solid reason which should frighten away anyone who might be contemplating knocking at the portals of the Church for entrance, or for a crumb of the Bread of Life. When proof for this statement is asked, it is retorted that the Church is intolerant because of its self-complacency and smug satisfaction as the unique interpreter of the thoughts of Christ.
Such is, practically every one will admit, a fair statement of the attitude the modern world bears to the Church. The charge of intoleranceis not new. It was once directed against Our Blessed Lord Himself.
Failure at Jerusalem
Immediately after His betrayal, Our Blessed Lord was summoned before a religious body for the first Church Conference of Christian times, held not in the city of Lausanne or Stockholm, but in the city of Jerusalem. The meeting was presided over by one Annas, the primate and head of one of the most aggressive families of the patriarchate, a man wise with the deluding wisdom of three score and ten years, in a country in which age and wisdom were synonymous. Five of his sons in succession wore the sacred ephod of blue and purple and scarlet, the symbols of family power.
As head of his own house, Annas had charge of family revenues, and from non-biblical sources we learn that part of the family fortune was invested in trades connected with the Temple. The stalls for the sale of bird and beast and material for sacrifice were known as the booths of the sons of Annas. One expects a high tone when a priest goes into business; but Annas was a Sadducee, and since he did not believe in a future life, he made the most of life while he had it.
There was always one incident he remembered about his Temple business, and that was the day Our Lord flung his tables down its front steps as if they were lumber, and with cords banished the money-handlers from the Temple like rubbish before the wind.
That incident flashed before his mind now, when he saw standing before him the Woodworker of Nazareth. The eyes of Jesus and Annas met, and the first world conference on religion opened. Annas, ironically feigning surprise at the sight of the prisoner whom multitudes followed the week before, opened the meeting by asking Jesus to make plain two important religious matters. the question of His doctrine and the question of His ministry. Our Lord was asked by a religious man, a religious leader, and a religious authority, representative of the Common faith of a nation, to enter into discussion, to sit down to a conference on the all-important questions of religion-ministry and discipline-and He refused! And the world's first Church Conference was a failure.
He refused in words which left no doubt in the mind of Annas that the doctrine which He preached was the one which He would now uphold in religious conference, namely, His Divinity. With words, cut like the facets of a diamond, and sentences, as uncompromising as a two-edged sword, He answered Annas: "I have spoken openly to the world ... and in secret spoke I nothing. Why asketh thou Me? Ask them that have heard Me, what I spoke unto them: behold, these know the things which I said."
Uncompromising response
In so many words Jesus said to Annas:
"You imply by your questioning that I am not Divine; that I am just the same as the other rabbis going up and down the country-side; that I am another one of Israel's prophets, and at the most, only a man.
I know that you would welcome Me to your heart if I would say that I am only human. But no! I have spoken openly to the world. I have declared My Divinity; I say unto you, I have exercised the right of Divinity, for I have forgiven sins; I have left my Body and Blood for posterity, and rather than deny its reality I have lost those who followed Me, who were scandalized at My words. It was only last night that I told Philip that the Father and I are One, and that I will ask My Father to send the Spirit of Truth to the Church I have founded on Peter, which will endure to the end of time. Ask those who have heard Me; they will tell you what things I have said. I have no other doctrine than that which I declared when I drove your dove-hucksters out of the Temple, and declared it to be My Father's House; that which I have preached; that which angels declared at My birth; that which I revealed on Thabor; that which I now declare before you, namely, My Divinity. And if your first principle is that I am not Divine, but am just human like yourself, then there is nothing in common between us. So, why asketh thou Me to discuss doctrine and ministry with you?"
And some brute standing near by, feeling himself the humiliation of the high priest at such an uncompromising response, struck Our Blessed Lord across the face with a mailed fist, drawing out of Him two things: blood, and a soft answer: "If I have spoken evil bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou Me? " And that soldier in the court-room of Annas has gone down in history as the representative of that great group that bears a hatred against Divinity, the group that never clothes that hatred in any intellectual language, but rather in violence alone.
All that happened in the life of Christ happens in the life of the Church. And here in the court-room of Annas I find the reason for the Catholic Church's refusal to take part in movements for federation such as those inspired by present world conferences on religion.
The intolerance of Divinity
Happy the Church is that there should be a desire for the union of Christendom, but she cannot take part in any such conference.
In so many words the Church says to those who invited her:
"Why askest thou me about my doctrine and my ministry? Ask them that have heard me. I have spoken openly through the centuries, declaring myself the Spouse of Christ, founded on the Rock of Peter. Centuries before prophets of modern religions arose, I spoke my Divinity at Nicea and Constantinople; I spoke it in the cathedrals of the MiddleAges; I speak it today in every pulpit and church throughout the world.
I know that you will welcome me to your conferences if I say I am not Divine; I know Ritualists throughout the world feel the need of my ceremonials, and would grasp my hand if I would but relinquish my claim to be Divine; I know a recent writer has argued that the great organization of the Church could be the framework for the union of all Christendom, if I would give up my claim to be the Truth; I know the church doors of the world would rejoice to see me pass in; I know your welcome would be sincere; I know you desire the union of all Christendom-but I cannot. `Why do you ask me?' if your first principle is that I am not Divine, but just a human organization like your own, that I am a human institution like all other human institutions founded by erring men and erring women. If your first principle is that I am human, but not divine, then there is no common ground for conference. I must refuse."
Call this intolerance, yes! That is just what it is-the intolerance of Divinity. It is the claim to uniqueness that brought the blow of the soldier against Christ, and it is the claim to uniqueness that brings the blow of the world's disapproval against the Church.
It is well to remember that there was one thing in the life of Christ that brought His death, and that was the intolerance of His claim to be Divine. He was tolerant about where He slept, and what He ate; He was tolerant about shortcomings of His fish-smelling apostles; He was tolerant of those who nailed Him to the Cross, but He was absolutely intolerant about His claim to be Divine. There was not much tolerance about His statement that those who I receive not in Him shall be condemned. There was not much tolerance about His statement that any one who would prefer his own father or mother to Him was not worthy of being His disciple. There was not much tolerance of the world's opinion in giving His blessing to those whom the world would hate and revile. Tolerance to His Mind was not always good, nor was intolerance always evil.
Persons and principles
There is no other subject on which the average mind is so much confused as the subject of tolerance and intolerance.
Tolerance is always supposed to be desirable because it is taken tobe synonymous with broadmindedness. Intolerance is always supposed to be undesirable, because it is taken to be synonymous with narrow-mindedness.
This is not true, for tolerance and intolerance apply to two totally different things.
Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons. We must be tolerant to persons because they are human; we must be intolerant about principles because they are divine. We must be tolerant to the erring, because ignorance may have led them astray; but we must be intolerant to the error, because Truth is not our making, but God's. And hence the Church in her history, due reparation made, has always welcomed the heretic back into the treasury of her souls, but never his heresy into the treasury of her wisdom.
A Searchlight on the "Enlightenment"
Fr George Duggan, S.M.
"The Enlightenment" is the name that was given by its protagonists to an intellectual movement that flourished in the 18th century, an era to which they gave the name "The Age of Reason."
They called themselves "les philosophes" (the philosophers) and were so designated by others. But they hardly get a mention in any standard history of Philosophy. Thus in his excellent work Socrates to Sartre, Samuel Stumpf, President of Cornell College in the United States, devotes 36 of his 510 pages to Plato. Diderot, Voltaire and Rousseau are mentioned in a single line and we are told that Rousseau was among the friends whom Hume met in Paris.
These men, however, were skilful propagandists for an anti-Christian rationalism and they paved the way for the Revolution that overthrew the French monarchy and led to the wars that spread Enlightenment ideas across the Continent of Europe, for the mind of Napoleon was formed by the Enlightenment.
Recently, a member of the French Academy, writing in Le Figaro litteraire, a Parisian journal, declared that "Our world has been shaped by the Enlightenment. " He spoke truly, for the chickens hatched in the 18th century came home to roost in the 20th -the bloodiest, surely, in recorded history.
The Enlightenment thinkers were bitterly anti-Christian. It is told of Voltaire, for example, that he imitated the Roman senator, Cato the Elder. Cato (224 -149 B.C.) ended every speech in the Senate with the slogan "Delenda est Carthago" ("Carthage must be destroyed"). So Voltaire ended every letter with the slogan "Ecrasez l'infƒme" ("Crush the squalid monster"-by which he meant the Catholic Church). Like many of his associates Voltaire was a Freemason and in 1777, at the age of 83, he was seen entering the Lodge of the Seven Sisters in Paris, resting on the arm of Benjamin Franklin, then 71 and the recently appointed representative of the new American Republic at the court of King Louis XVI.
Xavier Martin, a professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Angers, has recently published a book-his third on the French Revolution-with the title L'Homme des droits de l'homme et sa compagne ("The Man of the Rights of Man and His Companion"). In 284 pages he provides a devastating critique of the Enlightenment thinkers-Diderot, Voltaire, d'Alembert, Holbach, and the rest. Martin's critique, historian Jean de Viguerie maintains in his review of the book, will be irrefutable, because Martin has read all the works of all these men, pen in hand, as well as those of their followers like Robespierre and Mirabeau, the ideologues who drafted the Code civil of 1800,1804, and their 19th century disciples such as B. Constant, Proudhon, Comte and Stendahl.
It is clear that a reasoned criticism of his work will be a herculean, indeed impossible task.
What Martin has discovered, for our enlightenment is that these Rationalists scoff at reason; these Humanists despise the vast majority of human beings and treat woman as no more than a provider of pleasure for men. "Women," wrote Denis Diderot, the editor of the famous 28-volume Encyclopaedia, "seem destined only to provide us with pleasure. When they can no longer do this, it is all up with them."
These Rationalists belittle the role of human reason in social life. In their view, instinct is a much better guide than reason. Their social ideal is the beehive or the anthill. Thus Robespierre tells us that he looks forward to the day when "every citizen will be led to do good and avoid evil by a rapid instinctive movement, not by any slow process of reasoning."
These men exhibit a super-elitism of truly Himalayan proportions. For them, the great mass of humanity consists of "bipeds called men" and the philosopher is "the one thinker among one hundred thousand brute beasts called men." They despise women, the poor, workingmen, peasants, blacks, Hottentots and Jews. The deputy Le Chapelier, famous for introducing the law which abolished the guilds and made it illegal for a century (1781-1891) to establish a trade union, dismissed with scorn the "so-called interests of the workers."
It is paradoxical, but true, that these Humanists hated man. The root of this hatred was metaphysical. They hated man because he has claimed to be made in the image of God, his Creator, and they hated the Creator.
"Oh man," Voltaire exclaims, "you who like to say you are the image of God, tell me if God eats, if he has a gut ending in a rectum." And again, this sarcastic comment with a touch of racism, "Our wise men have said that man is made in the image of God. What a pleasant image of the Eternal Being-with a flat black nose and little or no intelligence."
Martin tells us that at first he did not intend to devote any space to the Marquis de Sade (1740-1814), the man who has given his name to "sadism." But then he came to see that de Sade, with his rejection of marriage, contempt for virginity, praise of abortion (in the name of human rights, scientific progress and the struggle against Catholic obscurantism), vindication of sodomy (homosexual or otherwise), rejection of the death penalty, etc., was the one who had taken the principles of the Enlightenment with almost maniacal single-mindedness, to their logical conclusions. So he has devoted 15 pages to de Sade as being, as it were, "the cherry on the Enlightenment cake."
This book, the reviewer concludes, should lead to much rethinking, for it reveals how the leaders of the Enlightenment despised and even hated man-that is, the ordinary man or woman, anyone who was less enlightened than they. Nor can there be much doubt that the Enlightenment had much to do with the totalitarian political systems and the genocides that have plagued our time.
Martin shows that we must reject two opposite interpretations of the Enlightenment.
The first is the counter-revolutionary argument, put forward sometimes by ecclesiastics like Bishops Delassus and Gaume, that the Revolution, a product of the Enlightenment, would have "turned man into a god."
As one writer put it: "The Revolution would have claimed that it haddethroned God and put man in His place." The fact is, however, that what the Revolution put in the place of God was not man but a simulacrum, a deceptive likeness of man.
On the opposite side, we have the official picture of the Enlightenment, proposed for the admiration of the general public, the world of science, and the children in our schools. This account is bogus from beginning to end. Thus, in a book for schools on the "values" promoted by the Enlightenment was "a constant preoccupation with the dignity of man."
This is an appraisal, which, as Martin has conclusively proved, could not be more mistaken.
Martin's book is a masterpiece, and one could hope it will soon appear in an English translation. But this hope is tempered by the realisation that many who might wish to read it could do so in the original French. It is published by DMM editions, 21 rue du Docteur-Jardins, 53290 Bouere, France, and the price is 24 Euros (plus postage). Jean de Viguerie's review appeared in L'Homme Nouveau of 3 February 2002.
Letters
Letter to Mr Miliband (when he was Foreign Secretary) 1st May 2010
Dear Mr Miliband
The Association of Catholic Women consists of Catholic women who come together seeking to deepen their Catholic Christian faith with particular concern for the welfare of marriage and families and the defence of human life from conception to natural death. We have no official position in the Catholic Church.
As Catholic women, we were repelled to read the e-mails circulated within Government about the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI's visit to this country in September, at the invitation of the Queen and at the instigation of the Prime Minister. They were puerile and insulting beyond belief We cannot imagine that any other plead of State, let alone a spiritual leader of over one billion people world wide, would have been mocked in this way, by the servants of the government who had invited him. As tax-payers, we utterly reject the government's use of our taxes to fund these insults.
This cannot be viewed simply as a jape by a few ignorant young people. By selecting them to propose some sort of programme for the Pope's visit, the Foreign Office is implicated in a lack of seriousness and courtesy, along with an apparent ignorance of almost anything to do with Catholic Christianity. an ignorance which is disgraceful in the government of a country with a long Christian heritage. during which Catholic Christians suffered persecution and loss of civil rights for the best part of four centuries.
Since the responsibility for this debacle is ultimately your own, we wish you to know the sadness and distress this has caused not only our members but no doubt many other Catholic women and men, along with other people of good will, Christian, Muslims and those of no faith.
Yours faithfully
Reply from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
20 May 2010
Dear Ms Robinson,
Thank you for your letter of 1st May 2010 to David Miliband regarding the forthcoming visit by Pope Benedict XVI to the United Kingdom. I am replying from the department handling the Papal Visit at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
As the FCO has made clear publicly, the memorandum containing the offensive suggestions for the Papal Visit was a foolish document that did not in any way reflect FCO views. It was ill-judged, naive and disrespectful of some key tenets of the Catholic faith. It has caused great offence and done considerable reputational harm to the standing of the Diplomatic Service.
Having considered all the facts carefully, the FCO has taken the decision to ensure that the staff involved in the production of this memorandum undergo urgent diversity training and have no further involvement in the visit. In one case, a member of staff has been suspended pending a misconduct investigation. The FCO has taken robust action in this instance and it would do so again under similar circumstances irrespective of the religion involved.
The FCO very much regrets this incident and is deeply sorry for the offence which it has caused. We strongly value the close and productive relationship between the UK Government and the Holy See and look forward to deepening this further with the visit of Pope Benedict to the UK later this year.
I hope this addresses your reasons for writing.
Yours sincerely,
I Craig
Papal Visit Team
_____________________________________
Letter to Rt Rev Malcom McMahon
Chairman
Catholic Education Service of England and Wales
39 Eccleston Square
London SW1V 1BX
5 May 2010
Dear Bishop McMahon
You may recall that we wrote to you some weeks ago to express our concern that Miss Stannard had not replied to our earlier letter regarding the Sex and Relationships provisions of the Children, Schools and Families Bill then going through Parliament. As you may be aware, we subsequently received a reply from Miss Stannard, proclaiming her conviction that the provisions in the Bill were perfectly acceptable to Catholics.
With respect, that is not the point. The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council asserted the rights of parents, as the `primary and principal educators' of their children to act as the `authors of education'; it is the role of civil society `.to protect the duties and rights of parents and others who share in education and to give them aid; according to the principle of subsidiarity, when the endeavours of parents and other societies are lacking, to carry out the work of education in accordance with the wishes of the parents' (Gravissimum
Educationis, 3). We cannot understand, therefore, on what basis the CES presumed to negotiate away the right of parents to determine what Sex and Relationships Education their children should receive.
Catholics might have been forgiven for thinking that the CES would have shared their relief that these provisions were removed from the Bill prior to its passage at the end of the last Parliament. Now, however, we have been astonished and distressed to learn of the appointment of Mr. Greg Pope as Assistant Director of the Catholic Education Service.
How can an applicant who supports the abortion of human beings up to sixteen weeks gestation, when Catholic teaching defends all human life from conception to natural death, be employed by a Catholic institution where he will have influence on the Catholic education of schoolchildren?
It is public knowledge that he has endorsed numerous promotions of contraceptives in Parliament, voted for the Mental Capacity Bill, which passed into law and voted against adoptions limited to heterosexual and married couples. However sincerely he holds these views, the views themselves are incompatible with Catholic teaching. Why has the CES appointed someone whose record as an MP indicates far more sympathy with the government's position than that of the Catholic Church?
When we heard of this appointment, we felt we had no other option but to approach you. Most of our members are mothers or grandmothers, whose principal concern is to pass on the teaching of the Church to their children and grandchildren. They recognise in the Church's understanding of sexuality and marriage the most beautiful affirmation of God's love for men and women and the nurture that children need to grow in faith. They surely have the right to expect the CES, paid for by the contributions of the faithful, to defend that understanding. On what authority does an agency of the Bishops' Conference do otherwise?
Yours sincerely
________________________
Letter to Channel 4
Dear Mr Lee,
We write from The Association of Catholic Women, a group not part of the official structures of the Catholic Church, to express our surprise and dismay at the news that Channel 4 plans to broadcast a programme on Pope Benedict XVI during his visit to this country and has commissioned Peter Tatchell to make it.
Since you must know as well as we do that Peter Tatchell frequently expresses total hostility to the Holy Father and all he stands for, there is no chance at all of a balanced programme. Would you insult any other official guest of the Queen in a similar way? We very much doubt it and indeed hope that Channel 4 would not do so.
Pope Benedict is recognised as a man of holiness and integrity, a great spiritual leader of well over a billion Catholics, world wide. He is much loved. The comparatively few Catholics who choose to accept some Catholic teachings while rejecting others, are overwhelmingly outnumbered by Catholics who accept the successor of St. Peter with love and admiration and support him in prayer.
We would urge you very strongly not to go ahead with this insulting and distressing plan in order not to devalue the ethos of Channel 4 and allow a remarkable and utterly good man to be traduced.
Yours sincerely,
___________________________________
Letter to Advertising Standards Authority
Dear Director
We are an association of Catholic women, who are not a part of the Catholic Church’s structures. We want you to know of our dismay at the advertisement for Marie Stopes International on Channel Four. It is clear that when the Chief Executive of Marie Stopes International is reported as saying that she hopes the campaign, called, ‘Are you Late?’ will encourage women to speak openly about their anxieties, she is seeking to normalise further the idea that to abort a child in formation in the womb is often an acceptable solution to a problem. Abortion takes a life and often inflicts damage, physical and psychological, on the mother. Taking life is not a solution to a mother’s tremendous fears, concerns and anxieties.
Advertising is always intended to promote a product. The product in this case is abortion Any other advice proffered will cost little money – a few names and addresses. Marie Stopes International may not be profit-making, but since its income stands at £100million annually, (much of it from NHS contracts), it must be able to pay those who work for it handsomely. We are particularly surprised at this showing, since a recent public consultation on this issue revealed that TV advertising abortions, however carefully worded, was not supported by many people. Trivialising abortion misleads people as to its true nature and frequent negative consequences.
We find it hard to understand why this advertisement has been broadcast and we urge you to forbid any repetition.
Yours faithfully
_____________________________
Letter to The Prime Minister
20 January 2010
Dear Mr. Brown
We are an unofficial organisation of Catholic women.
We have read with great anxiety about the Human Equality bill and its likely implications for the Catholic Church and for other religious bodies.
If it becomes law, it will, in effect, oblige Christians to put obedience to the laws of the state above the long-upheld laws of Christian teaching, which we, as Christians, hold sacred and many others see as the bed-rock of liberty.
You, yourself, have often spoken of the direction given to your 'moral compass' by your upbringing and the influence of your father and the two great commandments that he taught - to love God and to love our fellow men and women. Our society has been far from perfect, but an individual's freedom to practise that individual's religion is at the forefront of a civilised constitution and has been upheld in this country since the penal laws were repealed.
The bill has implications for the authority of the Catholic Church to require celibate males to be priests and to demand their obedience to the requirements of the faith. It would have crippling indications in matters of recruitment and training of staff for charities and schools. Examples from the twentieth century in other countries show us what happens when this freedom is denied.
We very much hope that you will put your moral authority against this bill.
Yours sincerely
Josephine Robinson Patti Fordyce Ruth Real
Reply received 6 May 2010
Dear Ms Robinson
Thank you for your letter of 21st January 2010 to the Prime Minister about the Equality Act.
I should clarify that the Equality Act 2010 will not change the existing position regarding occupational requirements. Religious organisations such as a Jewish Care Home or an Anglican Pastoral Centre will still be able to require an employee to be a particular religion or belief if it is a requirement of the job. In addition, the requirement must be a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim.
For example a religious organisation may wish to require its chief executive to be of that faith because the post holder would need to have an in-depth understanding of the religion's doctrines. This could be lawful but other posts where there is no requirement which may include secretaries should be open to all people regardless of their religion or belief.
The Equality Act 2010 will not alter the scope of the current law which allows an exception in the case of employment for the purposes of an organised religion meaning Ministers of Religion plus a small number of posts outside the clergy, including those who exist to promote and represent religion.
The exception allows requirements to be made of these employees related to sex, being married or in a civil partnership, gender reassignment and sexual orientation. For example a church may require a priest to be unmarried and celibate but could not impose similar requirements on other employees such as accountants. The Equality Act 2010 will keep these existing exceptions.
Yours sincerely
|
