|
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
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.
|
