Evolving Obama

Is anyone honestly surprised that President Obama has announced his support for same-sex marriage?

The timing may be a bit unexpected; Obama might have preserved a bit of ambiguity about his stance until after the November elections. But when he said that his views were “evolving”—after having stated 4 years ago that he could not support same-sex marriage—everyone knew in which direction they would evolve. This is clearly a case of “directed” evolution, in which fashionable public opinion among American intellectuals substitutes for “intelligent design.”

Or maybe an entirely different force is at work. Maybe Obama’s position represents a victory for “survival of the fittest,” insofar as his re-election campaign has concluded that open endorsement of same-sex marriage will be a net political gain. By throwing his support to the gay-rights movement, the President will ensure even more enthusiastic support from a large and very effective lobby. Homosexual activists were already likely to vote for him, but now they will be campaigning (and donating) vigorously for him as well. And the President’s announcement costs him very little, politically speaking. Anyone seriously opposed to same-sex marriage was already a near-certainty to vote for his Republican opponent, because everyone already knew where his “evolving” progress would eventually take him.

…And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4: 12

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Pentecost%C3%A9s_%28El_Greco%2C_1597%29.jpg

El Greco‘s depiction of Pentecost, with tongues of fire and a dove representing the Holy Spirit’s descent.

4th SUNDAY OF EASTER

FIRST READING: Acts 4:8-12.

Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a cripple, by what means this man has been healed, be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well. This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, but which has become the head of the corner. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

This excerpt from Acts is a sequence of what was described in last Sunday’s first reading. Peter had cured a cripple-from-birth. He told the people that it was not by his own power that he did this, but through the power of Jesus of Nazareth, whom the Jews had, in ignorance, crucified. But the God of the Jews had raised Jesus from the dead. While the ordinary Jews were very impressed, and many of them accepted the faith of the Apostles, the leaders, the priests and Pharisees of the Sanhedrin, were anything but pleased. They had Peter and John arrested and kept in prison overnight. Next day they were interrogated and Peter answered for them both.

filled…Spirit: This was as Christ had promised his Apostles while he was still with them: “they will hand you over to the Sanhedrin . . . do not worry . . . the Spirit of your Father will be speaking in you” (Mt. 10:17-20). Before the highest authorities and in the highest courtroom of the Jews in Jerusalem Peter, who only a short while before had locked himself, together with the other Apostles, in the upper room “for fear of the Jews,” now fearlessly proclaims his belief in the Risen Christ.

done…cripple: This was the miracle that started it all. The healed cripple is evidently produced in court—”this man is standing before you healed.”

name…crucified: It was through the power of Jesus that this miracle was worked—through the power of one whom this Sanhedrin had thought was silenced forever when they forced Pilate to crucify him. Peter courageously tells this to the archenemies of Christ and of his followers, and he wants all the Jews of Palestine to hear of it.

whom God raised: Their plan to put an end to Christ was in vain, for God had raised him from the dead.

stone…builders: Peter says that by rejecting Christ as the true Messiah they had fulfilled the messianic prophecy of Psalm 108, verse 22. This stone, rejected by the builders, the leaders of the Jews, has become the cornerstone which would unite firmly the two walls of the house, the Gentiles and the Jews.

salvation…else: There is only one Savior, one Messiah, sent by God.

no other name: “Name” stands for person, and also the name Jesus, or Joshua in Hebrew, means “God saves.” There is no salvation for those who will not accept and follow Jesus.

As clear and logical as was this discourse of Peter, and moved as he was by the Holy Spirit to deliver it, it fell on deaf ears as far as the vast majority in that Jewish high court was concerned. They had long since desired a political Messiah who would set up a worldwide kingdom for them. Not only did they want to be free from the hated Romans, but they were ambitious to govern all the Gentile nations. Their ambitions and desires were of this world—worldly. Christ’s talk of repentance, mortification, and preparation for the world to come found no responsive chord in their hearts. He was not the Messiah they wanted; hence he was an impostor, a perverter of the people, and so they called on the hated Romans to nail him to a cross.

Now his followers were claiming that God had proved that he was the Messiah and, what was more, that he was divine, by raising him from the dead. They were working miracles to back up this claim, and surely it is well known that God does not work miracles for impostors and sinners (see Jn. 9:31). The reasonable attitude for them to take, even at this late hour, would surely have been to check the evidence. But no, they had already made up their minds and would not change them. No evidence could shift the wall of personal pride which they themselves had built. “There is none so blind as he who will not see,” was surely verified in the case of the leaders of the Jews.

Let us leave their judgement to God and turn our scrutiny on ourselves and on our acceptance of Christ. Do we ever allow temporal interests and worldly ambitions to come between us and our Savior? Are all our dealings with our neighbor strictly according to the commandments of God? Do we ever succumb to the temptation to make an easy dollar to the detriment of our neighbor, forgetting our Christian obligations? If we are employers, do we pay our workers a just wage and respect their rights as fellow men? If we are workers, do we work honestly and fairly, giving a right return for the wages paid us? Do we accept all men as our brothers, as sons of God, who like ourselves are on the road to heaven, and are we always ready to give them a helping hand when and if they need it? Finally, are we, by our faithful observance of the Christian life, a lamp shining brightly, helping the many unfortunate ex-Christians who have left the path of Christ to return to their Savior and to the true road to heaven?

“There is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved.” We Christians are dedicated to the sacred name of Jesus Christ by baptism, but it is only those who live up to the obligations of their Christian baptism who are worthy to bear that name and to share in the eternal salvation which it guarantees.

SECOND READING: 1 John 3:1-2.

See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

St. John here sets out in a couple of sentences the basic effect of the incarnation. Already in this life men are made children of God. Because we are God’s children here below we shall see him as he is in the future life.love…given us: The infinite love of God is beyond the comprehension of our finite minds. Why should God love us since he does not need us? Our love has always something of the selfish in it; that is, even we find it difficult to recognize absolutely unselfish love.

called children of God: “Called,” because we are. God decided, before creating us, to share his own eternal home with us—to adopt us. To do this he decreed the Incarnation of his Son: “Yes, God loved the world (mankind) so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not be lost but have eternal life” (Jn. 3:16). By joining our human nature to his divine person Christ united us all in a special relationship to God the Father. We are the adopted children of God, as John emphatically says.

would…know us: Christians need not be surprised that the world, that is, the forces of evil in the world, does not recognize them nor show any inclination to imitate or respect them, for this world (of evil) treats God in the same manner.

God’s…now: Already on this earth we are numbered among God’s adopted children. This we realize only through faith. When this life is over we shall have a more direct and intimate knowledge of our good fortune.

when he appears: John is referring to this perfect stage of our sonship here. When the Parousia, or the second coming of Christ, takes place, we too shall be glorified like Christ. We shall be raised to a higher supernatural state.

we shall…he is: Referring to God the Father, John says that in our glorified state we shall see God “as he is.” St. Paul expresses the same truth thus: “For our knowledge (of God) now is imperfect . . . once perfection comes all imperfect things will disappear . . . Now we are seeing a dim reflection in a mirror (the bronze mirrors used in those days) but then we shall be seeing face to face. The knowledge that I have now is imperfect, but then I shall know as fully as I am known” (1 Cor. 13:12). After our resurrection we shall see God as he is, face to face.

During this holy season of Easter, while our thoughts center on the glorious Christ who rose from the dead and returned to heaven, our thoughts should follow him there, and dwell for a while on that happy place for which we were prepared by God and elevated by the Incarnation of his divine Son. St. John gives us a little glimpse of that future home of ours in today’s reading: we shall be glorified like the Risen Christ, he tells us, and we shall see God as he is, not through the veil of faith as we now see him, but in reality. In another book, “Revelation,” John gives us a further glimpse into the heaven which awaits us: “Behold the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them and they shall be his people and God himself will be with them” as a Father among his children, “he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying, nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away” (Rev. 21:3-4).

Heaven, therefore, as St. John describes it, is a state wherein every happiness a man can desire will be attainable, the vision of the infinitely perfect God is the guarantee of this, and every sadness and cause of sadness will be forever removed. In heaven man will have no sorrow, no pain, no regrets; instead he will have everything that is pleasing, beautiful, and good. We all have experienced some moments of happiness in our lives, moments when everything was going smoothly and happily for us, when we had no pain or sorrow or fear. We knew, however, that these were but fleeting moments, they could not, and they did not, last, for that is of the very nature of our temporary life on earth. In heaven, however, these happy moments will be turned into an eternal state, a state that will have no end.

It is hard for us, in fact it is impossible, to form any complete concept of the joys of heaven. All our ideas, all our images are derived from our earthly surroundings. St. Paul, who was given a vision of heaven, tells us that he could not describe to his converts in Corinth what he had seen, because human language had no words or images to describe it. “I knew a man in Christ,” he says, “who fourteen years ago, was caught up into paradise and heard things which must not and cannot be put into human language” (2 Cor. 12:2-3). That vision of St. Paul, that glimpse of what awaited him, made him willing to sacrifice everything on earth, even his very life, in order to reach the heaven God had prepared for him. “For Christ I have accepted the loss of everything and I look on everything as so much refuse if only I can have Christ and be given a place in him . . . I have not yet won but I am still running, trying to capture the prize for which Christ Jesus captured me” (Phil. 3:8-12).

Without having the privileges which St. John and St. Paul had we have a sufficient idea of heaven to make us all desire it. But, like these Apostles, and all the other millions of saintly men and women, we know that we must “work our passage” to reach that abode of God. We must stay on the path of the Christian commandments, ever ready to count as nothing any earthly thing that would lure us off their path. During our earthly life we must keep God and Christ daily before our eyes if we hope to live in perfect happiness with them in the hereafter.

GOSPEL: John 10:11-18.

Jesus said to his disciples: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hireling and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”

The Jews were a pastoral people, and it was only natural that their literature, the Old Testament books, should have many references to pastoral life. Our Lord and his Apostles continued this tradition and used pastoral images familiar to the people to illustrate for their hearers the spiritual truths of Christianity. In today’s reading, St. John gives us Our Lord’s description of himself under the well-known image of the good shepherd who not only cares for his flock but is willing to die to protect the life of that flock.

I am…shepherd: He was the owner of the flock; they belonged to him, and he would prove himself a worthy leader and defender of his flock.

lay…life: In those days, wolves, lions and robbers often raided the sheepfolds. The true shepherd should and would defend them with his life. Jesus laid down his life for his flock.

hireling…flees: The hired hand who does not own the sheep will flee when danger threatens. He thinks only of his own safety; he leaves the helpless flock to its fate. It was in Jerusalem, the stronghold of the scribes and Pharisees, that Our Lord preached this sermon. His cure of the man born blind (mentioned in the previous chapter of John) had caused an uproar among the Pharisees. When they could not deny the miracle, they said that Jesus worked it by some demonic power. The blind man, now healed, answered this very tellingly: “We know that God does not hear sinners . . . if this man (Jesus) were not from God he could do nothing” (Jn. 9:31-33). The scribes and Pharisees were the legal shepherds of the Jews, but actually they were far more interested in their own gain and glory than in the spiritual welfare of their flock. The mass of the people were being attracted to Jesus; there was a danger that these leaders would lose their position and the substantial profit it entailed. Hence one of the reasons for their fierce opposition to Jesus. In this sermon, quoted by St. John, Jesus contrasts himself, the true, good shepherd, with these hirelings who were working only for personal gain.

I know my own: As the true shepherd knows every sheep in his flock, and every sheep knows him, Jesus knows each of his followers with a knowledge arising from love, and his followers likewise know him. Unless they do, they are not true followers.

Father…the Father: The mutual knowledge of the Father and Son is infinite, since each is a divine Person. The Christian’s knowledge of Christ can never be infinite, but it can and should be as great as possible. Based on true love, it will be as complete a knowledge as the finite mind is capable of reaching. On the other hand, Christ’s knowledge and love for his followers is infinite because of his divine nature.

I lay…sheep: He said the good shepherd would defend his flock with his life. Now to prove that he is such a shepherd, he states that he is about to do just that.

I have…sheep: Most of the Jews had the erroneous idea that they alone would be God’s flock always, that the messianic kingdom would be for them only. The universality of the promised messianic kingdom was frequently foretold in the Old Testament. Abraham was called to bring a blessing not only on his descendants but on all nations (Gen. 12:3). The Gentiles, therefore, were also to be part of the good shepherd’s flock.

will…voice: This prophecy of Christ began to be fulfilled within a short time after his resurrection. St. Peter received the first Gentile, Cornelius of Caesarea, into the Church within a year of the resurrection. Before the last of the Apostles died, the Church had been firmly established in the principal cities and towns of the Roman Empire.

one flock…shepherd: Allthe followers of Christ form one fold, one Christian Church. As St. Paul puts it to the Colossians: “here (that is, in the Christian Church) there is no Gentile and Jew, no circumcised and uncircumcised, no barbarian and Scythian, no slave and free man; but Christ is all things and in all” (Col. 3:11).

reason…loves me: The Father’s love is poured out upon the Son because, in obedient love, he lays down his life for mankind in fulfillment of the Father’s design.

I may…again: By his death he nailed our sins to the cross; by his resurrection he opened the door from death to heaven for us and proved that he was the Son of God and the Messiah.

no one…from me: He chose death freely, his enemies did not take his life from him (as they thought they were doing) against his will. This freedom is frequently emphasized by Jesus during his public life (17:4, 18:4, 19:30).

this…Father: His voluntary death followed by his glorification in his resurrection was the Father’s purpose in sending him on earth. He freely and willingly accomplished this mission.

The image of Christ as our Good Shepherd has always appealed to human nature. One of the earliest paintings of Christ in the Roman catacombs represents him as carrying an injured sheep on his shoulders. This is a manifestation of love which touches our innermost feelings. We do not mind being likened to sheep in this context. There is something innocent about a sheep, and at the same time a lot of foolishness. Does not this describe the vast majority of men, even many of those who openly oppose Christ? Is there not something very sheep-like about the man who, because God gave him a limited intellect, thinks he knows all things and needs no further help from God? The sheep who thinks it knows as much, and even more, than the shepherd and sets out to fend for itself is no more foolish than the man who thinks he can do without God’s revelation and God’s Church.

Indeed we all act like sheep on many occasions, when it comes to the things that concern our spiritual welfare. We often ramble off from the flock to nibble at little bits of forbidden pasture. However, we have a Shepherd who understands us, one whose patience and love are infinite. He is always ready to go after us when we stray too far; his voice is constantly reaching out to us—in missions, retreats, sicknesses, crosses, and other various ways. How many times have we already felt his loving grace calling and helping us back to the safety of his fold?

There are many who are not so fortunate as we, who either through no fault of their own or through their own fault do not hear his voice and do not know or follow him. This is an opportunity he gives us to show how we appreciate all he has done for us. He died on the cross for all men. He wills all men to profit by his death, and his statement “them also I must bring” is a direct appeal to us to cooperate with him in this work. Every Christian is a missionary. The very fact of living the Christian life in its entirety, in the midst of our fellow man, is of itself a powerful example to outsiders. It influences for good the lax Christian and the non-Christian. It makes them stop and think and look into their consciences. This is generally the first step on the road back to God.

The devout Christian will not stop at good example only. If he truly loves God, he must truly love his neighbor and must want him to have a share in his own good fortune. He knows there is welcome and room in heaven for all men, and he knows that the greater the number there the greater will be God’s eternal glory. He will strive then by every available means to help his neighbor into Christ’s fold.

After good example, prayer will be his most potent weapon. Day in and day out, the devout Christian must pray for the conversion of his fellow men who are wandering aimlessly in the barren desert of this life far from God. He must also learn all he can about the truths of his faith in order to be able to help honest enquirer’s. He must also cooperate with any parochial or diocesan societies for the propagation of the Faith, insofar as his family and financial state allow him.

The sermon preached by our Savior nearly two thousand years ago is still echoing and re-echoing around the world, calling on his faithful flock to do all in their power to help those other children of God who are still outside the fold. Do not shut your ears to this call of Christ today. Give him a helping hand by helping your fellow man to see the light of the true faith.-b182

 

 

+++

Fourth Sunday of Easter, Year B

Citazioni di
Ac 4,8-12: www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/9ammlod.htm
1Io 3,1-2: www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/9abrwoc.htm
Io 10,11-18: www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/9arb00j.htm

Today we celebrate the fourth Sunday of Easter, commonly called Good Shepherd Sunday. The Risen Lord is presented in the liturgy as the Shepherd of our souls, who “lays down his life for his sheep” (John 10:11). As we look at Christ the Good Shepherd we are called to pray especially for those who Jesus has placed as shepherds in His Church and also for young people who are called to this mission.

The verb ‘to know’ appears repeatedly in today’s readings. When the Holy Scriptures talk about knowledge – especially knowledge between people – it means something much deeper than our how we use the verb in everyday language.

This biblical ‘knowledge’ isn’t limited to the external or superficial information that we can know about another person. Instead, it refers to an intimate communion and mutual possession that engages the whole of our intelligence, freedom and will.

In the Gospel reading the Lord says “I know my sheep and my sheep know me” (John 10:14), and in the second reading St John says “the world refused to acknowledge him,therefore it does not acknowledge us” (1 John 3:1).

These verses written by St John speak of two different types of knowledge. There is the knowledge that is given to us and there is a knowledge that is not possible, and therefore fruitless, to search for or to pursue directly.

Let’s firstly consider that knowledge of Christ that was given to us by grace as Christians. That knowledge of Christ which is an intimate communion and reciprocal possession of Him is a gift that was granted to us and that inspired St John the Apostle to exclaim: “think of the love that the Father has lavished on us, by letting us be called God’s children; and that is what we are” (1 John 3:1). Knowing Christ cannot be reduced to a simple acquaintance with what the four Gospels narrate about Him, or even with the truth that the Church teaches. Although these things are necessary and also urgent especially in our epoch that is so marked by religious illiteracy. (c.f Pope Benedict XVI Homily Chrism Mass 2012)

The knowledge that Christ gives us is an intimate communion with His own life. It is a communion which transforms us and lifts us up to the reality of being the children of God, through the work of the Holy Spirit who we receive at Baptism. We are truly “called God’s children and that is what we are”. This knowledge, moreover, engages the whole of our person – but it doesn’t depend on us. In fact, it comes as a gift which is rooted in the sovereign initiative of God that takes flesh in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the true Good Shepherd who gives His life for us, His sheep (cf. John 10:17-18).

Christ laid down his life for us, and he took it up again. What does this mean that He ‘takes up’ his life again? There is the obvious meaning: Jesus offered Himself up voluntarily to death on the cross for us, and then He rose from death to live forever. But we can also see a further meaning. By rising, Christ take up the life He gave for us on the cross, bringing us to heaven with Him, and inviting us into His relationship of love with the Father. We become sons just as Christ is the Son, and participants in the same love that Christ has for the Father and for humanity.

This has a special significance for those called to the priesthood. Those who receive the gift of a Vocation are taken up into the life of Christ and made a partaker in His own saving work. The priest becomes a sharer in Christ’s love and mercy who is able to make present in his own person Jesus, the Good Shepherd.

As to that other knowledge, that of the world, St John tells us that it isn’t for us because the world “does not acknowledge us”. Those who have met Christ and possess knowledge of Him should know that this treasure is fundamentally incompatible with the acknowledgement of the world. The Lord himself taught us that we cannot serve two masters (cf. Luke 16:13). The only way to ensure that the world can acknowledge us is for us to attract it once more to the knowledge of Christ so opening itself to God.

Let us ask the Blessed Virgin Mary, Gate of Heaven and Queen of Apostles, that, like her, we will fully open ourselves to the true knowledge of Christ – the Shepherd who leads us to the pastures of heaven. Amen.

PRAYERS TO INSPIRE GRACE

PRAYERS TO INSPIRE GRACE

Pope John Paul II has written: “It is a beautiful and salutary thought that, wherever people are praying in the world, there the Holy Spirit is, the living breath of prayer.”

Whether it be done publicly in our liturgy or privately in those quiet moments of intimacy with God, the Holy Spirit helps us to pray and binds us to the Father and the Son in a deep communion of love. Through prayer offered to God in the Spirit, we find that peace which the Risen Lord gave to His Apostles, a peace which satisfies the deepest longings of our hearts. For this reason, the Church has, since ancient times, prayed to the Holy Spirit:

COME, HOLY SPIRIT

“Come, O Holy Spirit, send from heaven a ray of your light. Come, O giver of graces; come, O light of hearts. You are rest in our labor, peace in difficulties and solace in our grief. O most holy Light! Fill the inmost being of the hearts of your faithful. Grant to your children trust in your seven holy gifts. Give them reward for virtue; give them salvation; give them everlasting joy!

To Mary, Spouse of the Holy Spirit:

THE HAIL MARY

Hail, Mary, full of grace, our Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.Amen.

BREATHE IN ME

Breathe in me, O Holy Spirit, that my thoughts may all be holy, Act in me, O Holy Spirit, that my work, too, may be holy. Draw my heart, O Holy Spirit, that I may love only what is holy.
Strengthen me, O Holy Spirit, that I may defend all that is holy.
Guard me, O Holy Spirit, that I may always be holy.
A Prayer of St. Augustine

PRAYER FOR THE SEVEN GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

O Lord Jesus Christ, Who, before ascending into heaven did promise to send the Holy Spirit to finish Your work in the souls of Your Apostles and Disciples, please grant the same Holy Spirit to me that He may perfect in my soul the work of Your grace and Your love.

Grant me the Spirit of Wisdom that I may despise the perishable things of this world and aspire only after the things that are eternal. The Spirit of Understanding to enlighten my mind with the light of Your divine truth. The Spirit on Counsel that I may ever choose the surest way of pleasing God and gaining heaven. The Spirit of Fortitude that I may bear my cross with You and that I may overcome with courage all the obstacles that oppose my salvation. The Spirit of Knowledge that I may know God, know myself, and grow perfect in the science of the Saints. The Spirit of Piety that I may find the service of God sweet and amiable. The Spirit of Fear that I may be filled with a loving reverence towards God and may dread in any way to displease Him. Mark me, dear Lord with the sign of Your true disciples and animate me in all things with Your Spirit. Amen.

PRAYER TO THE HOLY SPIRIT BY ST. ANTIOCHUS

O Holy Spirit, most merciful Comforter: You proceed from the Father in a manner beyond our understanding. Come, I beseech You, and take up you abode in my heart. Purify and cleanse me from all sin, and sanctify my soul. Cleanse it from every impurity, water its dryness, melt its coldness, and save it from sinful ways. Make me truly humble and resigned, that I may be pleasing to You, and that You abide with me forever. Most blessed Light, most amiable Light, enlighten me. O rapturous Joy of Paradise, Fount of purest delight, my God, give yourself to me, and kindle in my innermost soul the fire of your love. My Lord, please instruct, direct, and defend me in all things. Give me strength against all immoderate fears and against despondency. Bestow upon me a true faith, a firm hope, and a sincere and perfect love. Grant that I always do your most gracious will.

Amen.

SAINT PATRICK’S BREASTPLATE

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through a belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
Of the Creator of creation.

I arise today
Through the strength of Christ’s birth and His baptism,
Through the strength of His crucifixion and His burial,
Through the strength of His resurrection and His ascension,
Through the strength of His descent for the judgment of doom.

I arise today
Through the strength of the love of cherubim,
In obedience of angels,
In service of archangels,
In the hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In the prayers of patriarchs,
In preachings of the apostles,
In faiths of confessors,
In innocence of virgins,
In deeds of righteous men.

I arise today
Through the strength of heaven;
Light of the sun,
Splendor of fire,
Speed of lightning,
Swiftness of the wind,
Depth of the sea,
Stability of the earth,
Firmness of the rock.

I arise today
Through God’s strength to pilot me;
God’s might to uphold me,
God’s wisdom to guide me,
God’s eye to look before me,
God’s ear to hear me,
God’s word to speak for me,
God’s hand to guard me,
God’s way to lie before me,
God’s shield to protect me,
God’s hosts to save me
From snares of the devil,
From temptations of vices,
From every one who desires me ill,
Afar and anear,
Alone or in a multitude.

I summon today all these powers between me and evil,
Against every cruel merciless power that opposes my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom,
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of women and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man’s body and soul.
Christ shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that reward may come to me in abundance.

Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me,
Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit down,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of every man who speaks of me,
Christ in the eye that sees me,
Christ in the ear that hears me.

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through a belief in the Threeness,
Through a confession of the Oneness

PRAYER TO THE HEART OF JESUS

Does our life become from day to day more painful, more oppressive, more replete with sufferings? Blessed be He a thousand times who desires it so. If life be harder, love makes it also stronger, and only this love, grounded on suffering, can carry the Cross of my Lord, Jesus Christ.”

“I believe, O Lord, but strengthen my faith… Heart of Jesus, I love Thee, but increase my love. Heart of Jesus, I trust in Thee, but give greater vigor to my confidence.

Heart of Jesus, I give my heart to Thee, but so enclose it in Thee that it may never be separated from Thee. Heart of Jesus, I am all Thine, but take care of my promise so that I may be able to put it in practice even unto the complete sacrifice of my life.”

Prayer of Blessed Miguel Pro, Jesuit Priest, and Mexican Martyr Executed By Firing Squad

The image “http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Miguel_Pro.gif” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Blessed Miguel Pro

COME HOLY SPIRIT, CREATOR BLEST

Come, Holy Spirit, Creator blest, and in our souls take up Thy rest.

Come with Thy grace and heavenly aid to fill the hearts which Thou hast made.

O Comforter, to Thee we cry, O heavenly gift of God Most High,

O fount of life and fire of love, and sweet anointing from above.

Thou in Thy sevenfold gifts are known; Thou, finger of God’s hand we own; Thou, promise of the Father, Thou Who dost the tongue with power imbue.

Kindle our sense from above, and make our hearts overflow with love;

with patience firm and virtue high the weakness of our flesh supply.

Far from us drive the foe we dread, and grant us Thy peace instead;

so shall we not, with Thee for guide, turn from the path of life aside.

Oh, may Thy grace on us bestow the Father and the Son to know;

and Thee, through endless times confessed, of both the eternal Spirit blest.

Now to the Father and the Son, Who rose from death, be glory given,

with Thou, O Holy Comforter, henceforth by all in earth and heaven.

Amen.

Pell, Dawkins wage battle of belief

Easter is for bishops what spinach is for Popeye, so you have to admire Richard Dawkins for accepting an invitation on Australia’s ABC TV (see the transcript) to debate Cardinal George Pell yesterday. Both have PhDs from Oxford and both are old hands with the media. It promised to be a clash of the Titans.

Dawkins is in Sydney for the 2012 Global Atheist Convention, which is like Sydney’s World Youth Day in 2008, but much, much smaller. And much older. He was jet-lagged and a bit tetchy, like a new teacher in front of a class laughing at a joke he doesn’t understand. “Why is that funny?” he asked his audience several times in genuine perplexity. He was beautifully coiffed and coutured but he was not in peak form.

Pell, a massive, imposing man, looked weary. But he had eaten his spinach and landed a few jabs to the solar plexus. At one point Dawkins denied vehemently that Darwin was a theist, but Pell was able to jab his finger at his notes and say, “It’s on page 92 of his autobiography.” Hell is a reality, said Pell in response to a question from the audience, but I hope nobody’s in it – a compassionate position for which Dawkins appeared to have no riposte.

On the other hand Pell’s grasp of evolution appeared sketchy. He said that its engine was random natural selection, whereupon Dawkins triumphantly trumpeted non-random natural selection as his own “life’s work”. Dawkins then gave Pell a lecture on Australopithecines and Neanderthals.

Neither landed a KO, but I would have awarded the belt, on points, to Pell. A clash of the Titans it was not.

It was a pity that the debate was too short to draw little more than shop-worn jests and caustic platitudes out of Dawkins. There were no surprises in what Pell had to say. After all, the Catholic Church’s stand on fundamentals has not changed in 2,000 years. But Dawkins, to my surprise, seemed brittle and vulnerable. After the debate I was left scratching my head: is this man really the world’s leading propagandist for atheism? At 71, is it time for a golden parachute? Perhaps they can pass the hat at the Convention.

First of all, to everyone’s astonishment, Dawkins admitted that he is not an atheist. This was jaw-dropping, at least for those who know him only by reputation. Dawkins has become famous for scoffing at God, mocking believers and comparing religious education to child abuse. Only the other day he addressed a “Reason Rally” in Washington DC at which he urged the cheering faithful to “ridicule and show contempt” for the Catholic Eucharist.

Yet he now says, with some hemming and hawing, that he is not a simon-pure unbeliever. On a scale of 1 to 7 of belief in God, he ranks himself at about 6 — because a scientist cannot prove the non-existence of anything, from the Easter Bunny to God.

So hasn’t he been invited to the Global Atheist Convention under false pretences? He’s only another mushy spread-your-bets agnostic, for heaven’s sake. If I had purchased a A$310 ticket to the convention (plus a $150 dinner), I would be as dismayed as a Christian who learns that Mother Teresa had a very large Swiss bank account, six kids, and a taste for Johnnie Walker Black Label.

Another revelation is that he is not a simon-pure Darwinian either. He believes “passionately” that natural selection explains the existence of life. But the struggle to move up the evolutionary tree involves unbearable, unacceptable, suffering and it would be unthinkable to take The Origin of the Species as his Bible. “Survival of the fittest” is no guide to politics and morality. “Very unpleasant” indeed, he said, even Thatcher-ite. So the source of his morality is something other than evolution.

Finally, Dawkins is literally a killjoy. Perhaps his central message was the morose assertion that life has no purpose whatsoever. None at all. Zero. Purposes are done and dusted after Darwin. “Why? is a silly question. What is the purpose of the universe? is a silly question,” he said in a moment of exasperation.

Whatever the truth of this, meaninglessness is not a meme which has survival value. Thousands of years of human culture show that man is the only animal who has ever asked Why? The key to a culture’s survival is how successfully it can answer that question. The joy for which we all long comes when we discover meaning, even in the midst of suffering. But Dawkins’s vision is one of unrelieved bleakness. It would come as no surprise if his car sports the famous bumpersticker, “Life’s a bitch and then you die”.

What the rather rambling conversation between the two tired men suggested to me was that Dawkins may be a gifted demagogue but he is a mediocre philosopher. “It’s a cop-out to say that anything exists outside of time and space,” he said testily. In this assumption are summarised all of his arguments and mockery. But it is no more than an unproved assumption. If only what can be touched and measured is true, there may be no God, but neither is there justice, or beauty, or love, or consciousness, or mathematics. As Cardinal Pell said, with great insight:

“If I get a chance to say to ask a question when I die I think I will ask the good God why is there so much suffering. That’s a problem for us… [But] I think it’s a much greater problem for the atheist to explain why there is goodness and truth and beauty. Our problem is to cope with suffering. One of the unique… features of Christian teaching is the value of redemptive suffering and that is the significance of Christ suffering with us and dying on the cross. That helps people.”

People fret more about coping with suffering than with how to make ever-more-vicious sneers at God. After last night’s debate, my chips are on Christianity rather than atheism as the philosophy most fit to bring humanity through the challenges of the 21st century.

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.

THE CROSS OF SOLIDARITY: WE ARE BROTHERS IN CHRIST

Cardinal Keith O’Brien. Picture: Jane Barlow/TSPL 

CHRISTIANS should wear a cross on their clothes every day as “a symbol of their beliefs”, according to the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland.

In his Easter Sunday homily on Sunday, Cardinal Keith O’Brien will call on Christians to make the cross “more prominent in their lives”.

Speaking at St Mary’s Cathedral in Edinburgh, he will tell them to “wear proudly a symbol of the cross of Christ on their garments each and every day of their lives”.

He will say: “I know that many of you do wear such a cross of Christ, not in any ostentatious way, not in a way that might harm you at your work or recreation, but a simple indication that you value the role of Jesus Christ in the history of the world, that you are trying to live by Christ’s standards in your own daily life.”

Two women who claim they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing the cross are fighting to get their cases heard at the European Court of Human Rights.

Nadia Eweida, 59, of Twickenham, south London, was suspended by British Airways for breaching BA’s uniform code in 2006.

Shirley Chaplin, 56, from Exeter, was barred from working on wards by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust after refusing to hide the cross she wore on a necklace chain.

During his Sunday sermon, Cardinal O’Brien will quote Pope Benedict XVI, who said Christians “need to be free to act in accordance with their own principles”. The cardinal will say: “I hope that increasing numbers of Christians adopt the practice of wearing a cross in a simple and discreet way as a symbol of their beliefs.

“Easter provides the ideal time to remind ourselves of the centrality of the cross in our Christian faith.

“A simple lapel cross pin costs around £1. Since this is less than a chocolate Easter egg, I hope many people will consider giving some as gifts and wearing them with pride.”

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Wearing a religious symbol is entirely a matter for individual members of staff. We have no policy as an employer.”

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Parliament said: “The Scottish Parliament does not have a specific policy for staff displaying religious symbols in their work attire.”

NHS Scotland advises individual health boards to “conduct a full risk assessment” to ensure that their local dress code policy “is appropriate for different categories of staff and should look to support staff in complying with both the needs of the service and any religious or cultural requirements”.

The Tyranny of Misunderstood Freedom

The word prove means not only to establish but to test, as in the famous expression that the “exception proves the rule”. Both meanings are certainly involved when it comes to “proving ourselves”.

In a similar way, seeking proofs for the existence of God can be a way of putting God to the test. Nonetheless, in the right spirit I hope, I review an excellent book that updates the scientific and philosophical proofs in my latest In Depth Analysis. See Proving God.

But acting contrary to God’s will is an even worse test. In the ongoing war for religious freedom in the United States, a number of allegedly Catholic senators have done just that. Phil Lawler provides the list in My conscience rules. Your conscience is ruled out.

The abuse of our freedom is certainly another test, and a proof of another sort. We’ve just added to our library an excellent article by James Kalb entitled The Tyranny of Misunderstood Freedom.

Rick Santorum and the media

The US Constitution (Article VI) explicitly provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” So the government cannot assign a formal religious test. But unless I am much mistaken, the America mass media are imposing an informal one. Santorum’s candidacy is questioned not because he is a Catholic, but because he’s that kind of Catholic. And if we could just eliminate that kind of Catholic, then we’d have… Do you see what we’d have? A political test for holding public office.

Of course New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd thinks of Sen. Rick Santorum as a religious fanatic. That’s what one expects from Dowd, whose contempt for the Catholic faith is as strong as her political liberalism. But for the past few days the Drudge Report, ordinarily friendly to conservative candidates, has been sending a similar message about Santorum. When I last checked, Drudge was giving top-of-the-page prominence to eight different stories about a speech that Santorum delivered three years ago, in which he said that “Satan is attacking the great institutions of America.”

Drudge does not make the point explicitly, but by giving the issue such saturation coverage, he is clearly conveying the impression that Santorum’s words were astonishing.

What makes the senator’s statement so remarkable? That he professed a belief in Satan? Tens of millions of American hold the same belief. That he believes Satan is active in American institutions? Well, if you believe in a malevolent being who seeks to harm mankind, wouldn’t you expect him to work his evil through existing institutions? Granted, we don’t expect to hear political candidates ascribe social problems to Satan. But at the time he delivered this speech—again, it was three years ago—Santorum was not a political candidate. He was speaking as a Catholic, to an audience of his fellow Catholics, at a Catholic university.

Applying a religion test to Rick Santorum’s candidacy for President: Santorum, the media, and the religious test.

And on the right side of the conflict, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has written all of his brother bishops in America to bring them up to date on the HHS Mandates, which pose such a distinct threat to both morality in general and religious liberty in particular.

Meanwhile, the very real conflict between Faith and the State has been demonstrated very nicely by the effort of twenty-four “leading” nuns to go to the Supreme Court in defense of Obamacare: The Sisters and Universal Health Care: Forgetting What Religion Is.

There is another side of the contraception debate, Phil Lawler’s inspiring report on the wildly popular message that priests don’t deliver.

Moving into a Lenten theme, see On Temptation, Sin, SIN…and Priests. I think you’ll find this thought-provoking.

THE HOLY FAMILY

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/HolyFamilybyGutierrez.jpg

Holy Family by Juan Simon Gutierrez

Christ, Himself, was the first devotee of His family. He showed His devotion to His mother and foster father by submitting Himself, with infinite humility, to the duty of filial obedience towards them. This is what St Bernard of Clairvaux said in this regard, ‘God, to whom angels submit themselves and who principalities and powers obey, was subject to Mary; and not only to Mary but Joseph also for Mary’s sake [….]. God obeyed a human creature; this is humility without precedent. A human creature commands God; it is sublime beyond measure.’ (First Homily on the ‘Missus Est’).

Today’s celebration demonstrates Christ’s humility and obedience with respect to the fourth commandment, whilst also highlighting the loving care that His parents exercised in His keeping. The servant of God, Pope John Paul II, in 1989, entitled his Apostolic Exhortation, ‘Redemptoris Custos’ (Guardian of the Redeemer) which was dedicated to the person and the mission of Saint Joseph in the life of Christ and of the Church. After exactly a century, he resumed the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, for who Saint Joseph ‘.. shines among all mankind by the most august dignity, since by divine will, he was the guardian of the Son of God and reputed as His father among men’ (Encyclical Quamquam Pluries [1889] n. 3). Pope Leo XIII continued, ‘.. Joseph became the guardian, the administrator, and the legal defender of the divine house whose chief he was.[…] It is, then, natural and worthy that as the Blessed Joseph ministered to all the needs of the family at Nazareth and girt it about with his protection, he should now cover with the cloak of his heavenly patronage and defend the Church of Jesus Christ.’ Not many years before, blessed Pope Pius IX had proclaimed Saint Joseph, ‘Patron of the Catholic Church’ (1870)

Almost intuitively, one can recognize that the mysterious, exemplary, guardianship enacted by Joseph was conducted firstly, in a yet more intimate way, by Mary. Consequently, the liturgical feast of the Holy Family speaks to us of the fond and loving care that we must render to the Body of Christ. We can understand this in a mystical sense, as guardians of the Church, and also in the Eucharistic sense. Mary and Joseph took great care of Jesus’ physical body. Following their example, we can and must take great care of His Mystical Body, the Church, and the Eucharist which He has entrusted to us. If Mary was, in some way, ‘the first tabernacle in history’ (John Paul II Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 55) then we the Tabernacle in which Our Lord chose to reside in person, in His Real Presence, was also entrusted to us. We can learn from Mary and Joseph! What would they ever have overlooked in the care of Jesus’ physical body? Is there something, therefore, that we can withhold for the right and adoring care of His Eucharistic Body? No amount of attention, no sane act of love and adoring respect will ever be too much! On the contrary, our adoration and respect will always be inferior to the great gift that comes to us in the Holy Eucharist.

Looking at the Holy Family, we see the love, the protection, and the diligent care that they gave to the Redeemer. We can not fail to feel uneasiness, perhaps a shameful thought, for the times in which we have not rendered the appropriate care and attention to the Blessed Eucharist. We can only ask for forgiveness and do penance for all the sacrilegious acts and the lack of respect that are committed in front of the Blessed Eucharist. We can only ask the Lord, through the intersession of the Holy Family of Nazareth, for a greater love for their Son Incarnate, who has decided to remain here on earth with us every day until the end of time.

From the Congregation for the Clergy

Lamentabili Sane

The Syllabus of Errors
(Condemning the Errors of the Modernists)
Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office
July 3, 1907

WITH TRULY LAMENTABLE RESULTS, our age, casting aside all restraint in its search for the ultimate causes of things, frequently pursues novelties so ardently that it rejects the legacy of the human race. Thus it falls into very serious errors, which are even more serious when they concern sacred authority, the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and the principal mysteries of Faith. The fact that many Catholic writers also go beyond the limits determined by the Fathers and the Church herself is extremely regrettable. In the name of higher knowledge and historical research, (they say), they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas.

These errors are being daily spread among the faithful. Lest they captivate the faithful’s minds and corrupt the purity of their faith, His Holiness, Pius X, by Divine Providence, Pope, has decided that the chief errors should be noted and condemned by the Office of this Holy Roman and Universal Congregation.

Therefore, after a very diligent investigation and consultation with the Reverend Consultors, the Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, the General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals have judged the following proposals to be condemned and proscribed. In fact, by this current decree, they are condemned and proscribed.

  1. The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament.
  2. The Church’s interpretation of the Sacred Books is by no means to be rejected; nevertheless, it is subject to the more accurate judgment and correction of the exegetes.
  3. From the ecclesiastical judgments and censures passed against free and more scientific exegesis, one can conclude that the Faith the Church proposes contradicts history and that Catholic teaching cannot really be reconciled with the true origins of the Christian religion.
  4. Even by dogmatic definitions the Church’s magisterium cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures.
  5. Since the Deposit of Faith contains only revealed truths, the Church has no right to pass judgment on the assertions of the human sciences.
  6. The “Church learning” and the “Church teaching” collaborate in such a way in defining truths that it only remains for the “Church teaching” to sanction the opinions of the “Church learning.”
  7. In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments she issues are to be embraced.
  8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations.
  9. They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred Scriptures.
  10. The inspiration of the books of the Old Testament consists in this: The Israelite writers handed down religious doctrines under a peculiar aspect which was either little or not at all known to the Gentiles.
  11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.
  12. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origins of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.
  13. The Evangelists themselves, as well as the Christians of the second and third generations, artificially arranged the evangelical parables. In such a way they explained the scanty fruit of the preaching of Christ among the Jews.
  14. In many narrations the Evangelists recorded, not so much things that are true, as things which, even though false, they judged to be more profitable for their readers.
  15. Until the time the canon was defined and constituted, the Gospels were increased by additions and corrections. Therefore there remained in them only a faint and uncertain trace of the doctrine of Christ.
  16. The narrations of John are not properly history, but a mystical contemplation of the Gospel. The discourses contained in his Gospel are theological meditations, lacking historical truth concerning the mystery of salvation.
  17. The fourth Gospel exaggerated miracles not only in order that the extraordinary might stand out but also in order that it might become more suitable for showing forth the work and glory of the Word Incarnate.
  18. John claims for himself the quality of witness concerning Christ. In reality, however, he is only a distinguished witness of the Christian life, or the life of Christ in the Church at the close of the First Century.
  19. Heterodox exegetes have expressed the true sense of the Scriptures more faithfully than Catholic exegetes.
  20. Revelation could be nothing else than the consciousness man acquired of his revelation to God.
  21. Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.
  22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.
  23. Opposition may, and actually does, exist between the facts narrated in Sacred Scripture and the Church’s dogmas which rest on them. Thus the critic may reject as false facts the Church holds as most certain.
  24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves.
  25. The assent of faith ultimately rests on a mass of probabilities.
  26. The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as perceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing.
  27. The divinity of Jesus Christ is not proved from the Gospels. It is a dogma which the Christian conscience has derived from the notion of the Messias.
  28. While He was exercising His ministry, Jesus did not speak with the object of teaching He was the Messias, nor did His miracles tend to prove it.
  29. It is permissible to grant that the Christ of history is far inferior to the Christ Who is the object of faith.
  30. In all the evangelical texts the name “Son of God” is equivalent only to that of “Messias.” It does not in the least way signify that Christ is the true and natural Son of God.
  31. The doctrine concerning Christ taught by Paul, John and the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus and Chalcedon is not that which Jesus taught but that which the Christian conscience conceived concerning Jesus.
  32. It is impossible to reconcile the natural sense of the Gospel texts with the sense taught by our theologians concerning the conscience and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ.
  33. Everyone who is not led by preconceived opinions can readily see that either Jesus professed an error concerning the immediate Messianic coming or the greater part of His doctrine as contained in the Gospels is destitute of authenticity.
  34. The critics can ascribe to Christ a knowledge without limits only on a hypothesis which cannot be historically conceived and which is repugnant to the moral sense. That hypothesis is that Christ as man possessed the knowledge of God and yet was unwilling to communicate the knowledge of a great many things to His disciples and posterity.
  35. Christ did not always possess the consciousness of His Messianic dignity.
  36. The Resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order. It is a fact of merely the supernatural order (neither demonstrated nor demonstrable) which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other facts.
  37. In the beginning, faith in the Resurrection of Christ was not so much in the fact itself of the Resurrection, as in the immortal life of Christ with God.
  38. The doctrine of the expiatory death of Christ is Pauline and not evangelical.
  39. The opinions concerning the origin of the Sacraments which the Fathers of Trent held and which certainly influenced their dogmatic canons are very different from those which now rightly exist among historians who examine Christianity.
  40. The Sacraments had their origin in the fact that the Apostles and their successors, swayed and moved by circumstances and events, interpreted some idea and intention of Christ.
  41. The Sacraments are intended merely to recall to man’s mind the ever-beneficent presence of the Creator.
  42. The Christian community imposed the necessity of Baptism, adopted it as a necessary rite, and added to it the obligation of the Christian profession.
  43. The practice of administering Baptism to infants was a disciplinary evolution, which became one of the causes why the Sacrament was divided into two, namely, Baptism and Penance.
  44. There is nothing to prove that the rite of the Sacrament of Confirmation was employed by the Apostles. The formal distinction of the two Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation does not pertain to the history of primitive Christianity.
  45. Not everything which Paul narrates concerning the institution of the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11:23-35) is to be taken historically.
  46. In the primitive Church the concept of the Christian sinner reconciled by the authority of the Church did not exist. Only very slowly did the Church accustom herself to this concept. As a matter of fact, even after Penance was recognized as an institution of the Church, it was not called a Sacrament since it would be held as a disgraceful Sacrament.
  47. The words of the Lord, “Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” (John 20:22-23), in no way refer to the Sacrament of Penance, in spite of what it pleased the Fathers of Trent to say.
  48. In his Epistle (Chapter 5:14-15) James did not intent to promulgate a Sacrament of Christ but only commend a pious custom. If in this custom he happens to distinguish a means of grace, it is not in that rigorous manner in which it was taken by the theologians who laid down the notion and number of the sacraments.
  49. When the Christian supper gradually assumed the nature of a liturgical action those who customarily presided over the supper acquired the sacerdotal character.
  50. The elders who fulfilled the office of watching over the gatherings of the faithful were instituted by the Apostles as priests or bishops to provide the necessary ordering of the increasing communities and not properly for the perpetuation of the Apostolic mission and power.
  51. It is impossible that Matrimony could have become a Sacrament of the new law until later in the Church since it was necessary that a full theological explication of the doctrine of grace and the Sacraments should first take place before Matrimony should be held as a Sacrament.
  52. It was far from the mind of Christ to found a Church as a society which would continue on earth for a long course of centuries. On the contrary, in the mind of Christ the kingdom of heaven together with the end of the world was about to come immediately.
  53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.
  54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.
  55. Simon Peter never even suspected that Christ entrusted the primacy in the Church to him.
  56. The Roman Church became the head of all the churches, not through the ordinance of Divine Providence, but merely through political conditions.
  57. The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural and theological sciences.
  58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.
  59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.
  60. Christian Doctrine was originally Judaic. Through successive evolutions it became first Pauline, then Joannine, finally Hellenic and universal.
  61. It may be said without paradox that there is no chapter of Scripture, from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocalypse, which contains a doctrine absolutely identical with that which the Church teaches on the same matter. For the same reason, therefore, no chapter of Scripture has the same sense for the critic and the theologian.
  62. The chief articles of the Apostles’ Creed did not have the same sense for the Christians of the first age as they have for the Christians of our time.
  63. The Church shows that she is incapable of effectively maintaining evangelical ethics since she obstinately clings to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with modern progress.
  64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.
  65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.

The following Thursday, the fourth day of the same month and year, all these matters were accurately reported to our Most Holy Lord, Pope Pius X. His Holiness approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers and ordered that each and every one of the above-listed propositions be held by all as condemned and proscribed. Peter Palombelli
Notary, Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith

Collect: O God, who were pleased to give us the shining example of the Holy Family, graciously grant that we may imitate them in practicing the virtues of family life and in the bonds of charity, and so, in the joy of your house, delight one day in eternal rewards. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Natural Law Revisited

Speaking at the University of Pennsylvania, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia argued for the recognition of fundamental human rights enshrined in natural law.

 

The American Founders presumed the existence of natural law and natural rights. These rights are inalienable and guaranteed by a Creator; by “nature’s God,” to use the words of the Declaration of Independence. Such ideas may be out of fashion in much of legal theory today. But these same ideas are very much alive in the way we actually reason and behave in our daily lives.

Being Human in an Age of Unbelief (Public Discourse)

As I wrote in my book Got Grace in 2004:

We live in an age where there is great emphasis on individual freedom. We live, in fact, in a secular age that has abandoned objective truth as understood through natural law. All the forefathers of our nation accepted natural law and objective truth. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America are premised upon this philosophy. But we have wandered far from truth, and, as a consequence, we are descending into social chaos and despair. We are deconstructing into an abyss, a hole that has no bottom except Hell.

More mention of the abandonment of this “founding philosophy” should be made by those in authority, especially our political leaders who guide our national direction. I look to Mitt Romney, who is certainly poised to be our next president, to address this fundamental principle of our society and indeed the entire human race.