A Response to Cardinal Dolan on "Gay Rights" Group in St. Patrick’s Parade

Hon. Robert G. Marshall

by
Hon. Robert G. Marshall

(The following letter was sent by Virginia Delegate Robert G. Marshall to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, on September 6, 2014 in response to Cardinal Dolan's appointment as Grand Marshal of the 2015 St. Patrick's Day Parade.)

Your Excellency Archbishop Vigano,

New York’s Cardinal Dolan, appointed as Grand Marshal of the 2015 St. Patrick's Day Parade, praised the decision to allow an openly gay group to march in the St. Patrick's Day Parade. "I have no trouble with the decision at all … I think the decision is a wise one," he said.

His action has left many Catholics, including elected officials like myself, puzzled and disheartened especially when we measure Cardinal Dolan's new policy with that of his predecessor, John Cardinal O'Connor.

In 1993, when LGBT groups and government officials demanded that openly homosexual groups be included in the Parade, Cardinal O'Connor vowed in a St. Patrick's Day sermon that he "could never even be perceived as compromising Catholic teaching. Neither respectability nor political correctness is worth one comma in the Apostles Creed." (New York Times, 1/20/93)

At that time, the New York Times also noted that, "The Hibernians and Cardinal O'Connor have said there is no place for a gay contingent in the parade because it is a Catholic Event and the Church teaches that homosexual acts are sinful."

Yet, Cardinal Dolan claimed, "Neither my predecessors as archbishops of New York nor I have ever determined who would or would not march in this parade," adding that "the parade would be a source of unity for all of us." (New York Times, 9/3/14)

Would Cardinal Dolan, as Parade Marshal, applaud the inclusion of Irish abortion clinic owners or Planned Parenthood employees in a Parade honoring Saint Patrick? On what logical grounds does he applaud openly LGBT marchers and reject openly pro-abortion Catholics, including some "Catholic" nuns?

Perhaps organizations which advocate to legalize prostitution and pornography should also be permitted to march? What about promoters of euthanasia for the elderly and disabled or advocates of physician-assisted suicide? Where does Cardinal Dolan draw the line?

The St. Patrick's Day Parade, sponsored by the Irish Catholic Ancient Order of Hibernians under the auspices of and with the blessing of the Catholic Archdiocese of New York, is not a purely secular event, despite the fact that secular politicians participate. It honors a Catholic saint who converted pagans in Ireland away from immoral behavior.

Promoters of homosexual behavior take part in many "gay pride" marches and parades, but these are not events sponsored by the Catholic Church or a Catholic organization. Therein lies the problem.

Same-sex "marriage" advocates say they feel marginalized by the Church, yet the Church has been very clear that it is a hospital for sinners, and no one is sinless. Jesus saves us from being "marginalized" by our sin, so long as we seek Him and seek to do His will.

Everyone who rejects God's word, or who ignores or violates the Ten Commandments (and we all are guilty of that) feel "marginalized" at times, but we don't re-write the Commandments to make us feel less marginalized.

News reports indicate that NBC which televises the Parade, New York's Mayor, Guinness Brewery and others were pressuring the Parade sponsors to include openly LGBT groups. Choosing money over truth is never a good choice.

This situation is not about judging individual souls. God loves all his children, and fortunately He is the only one who judges men's hearts, but we live in a world of actions that have individual, social and legal consequences.

Equality of persons is not the same as equality of behavior. What message does Cardinal Dolan's decision give? The US Supreme Court is considering whether to hear challenges to state laws allowing only one-man, one-woman marriage. Cardinal Dolan's statement and actions are most untimely.

I grew up in Washington DC, worked in Congress for six years, have been privileged to serve the people of Virginia as a member of the Virginia General Assembly since 1992, was chief co-sponsor of the 2006 Virginia Marshall-Newman, voter approved one-man, one-woman marriage Amendment and pro-life legislation. I have overridden Governors of VA on abortion and LGBT issues, beat the ACLU in federal court on pornography prohibitions, and in 2008 won a precedent setting law suit overturning a tax law supported and defended in court by the Governor, Attorney General and Speaker.

I know from a lifetime in and around politics that federal judges and Members of Congress read newspapers. They are influenced by the actions of moral leaders. They gauge what they can "get away with" by what Catholic prelates "tolerate."

We do our brothers and sisters no service by pretending that God’s teaching or the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" are not important today. No one can change Natural Law or the Word of God, written in the blood of Our Savior for our well-being and redemption.

I haven't talked to one Catholic who thinks that what Cardinal Dolan did was prudent or helpful in defending the Faith, marriage or morals. Converts, especially, are distressed.

Some contemporary American Catholics falsely think that "tolerance" is exercised by maintaining indifference towards ideas, opinion or even error, or holding that all points of view are equal. For a Church authority to embrace political correctness at such a time will have consequences which extend far beyond the parade route.

Cardinal Dolan's actions will make enacting legislation in conformity with the Natural Law immeasurably harder to defend especially for lay Catholics or Catholic legislators.

Please pass my letter on to the appropriate Church officials. Thank you. You can contact me at 703-853-4213, delbmarshall@house.virginia.gov or bob@delegatebob.com.

Sincerely,

Delegate Bob Marshall

Virginia House of Delegates

(Original: delegatebob.com)

In Exaltatione Sanctae Crucis

The Holy Trinity
Botticelli (1445-1510)

Deus, qui nos hodierna die Exaltationis sanctae Crucis annua solemnitate laetificas: praesta, quaesumus; ut, cujus mysterium in terra cognovimus, ejus redemptionis praemia in caelo mereamur.

O God, Who on this day dost gladden us by the yearly feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross: grant, we beseech Thee, that we, who on earth, acknowledge the Mystery of Redemption wrought upon it, may be found worthy to enjoy the rewards of that same Redemption in heaven.

The Trial and Triumph of Mariawald Abbey

Mariawald Abbey
(Photo: Daniel Tibi)

Situated on the northern edge of Germany's Eifel National Park and surrounded by gently sloping hills and dense forest, Mariawald Abbey is home to a small but resilient group of Cistercians of the Strict Observance, also known as Trappists. Every morning at 4:15 A.M., the monks rise for Laudes, the official morning prayer of the Church, and the Canticle of Zachary can be heard rising up through the arches of the Abbey's church, resounding well beyond the white walls of the monastery. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, celebrated daily, is said in Latin and follows the Tridentine form, virtually unchanged since it was promulgated by Pope St. Pius V (ora pro nobis) in the year A.D. 1570.  When the monks retire to private prayers, a profound stillness descends, broken only by the occasional whisper of leaves dancing in the gentle breeze, or by faint birdsong emerging from the depths of the surrounding forest. The kind of peace only Our Lord (miserere nobis) can give is palpably present. To the untrained eye, it would seem as though the Abbey has somehow managed to escape the ravages of the last 500 years. Yet the history of Mariawald Abbey has been anything but tranquil.

Heimbach Pietà
(Photo: eifelkirchen.com)

The story of Mariawald Abbey begins with Heinrich Fluitter, a simple and devout thacher from the village of Heimbach. In the year A.D. 1471, on pilgrimage to the Cathedral at Cologne - which, at the time, was still under construction - Fluitter purchased there a small Pietà for the princely sum of 9 Marks, which he had borrowed expressly for the purpose. Upon returning home with his newly acquired treasure, Fluitter installed the Pietà in the hollow trunk of a tree on the edge of the Eifel forest so that passers-by could spend a few moments adoring the Blessed Virgin and Our Lord before continuing on their journey. As the crowds of pilgrims grew in size, Fluitter built a small wooden chapel at a nearby crossroads, and re-installed the Pietà there for adoration. To ensure that pilgrims could visit the statue at any time of day, Fluitter added a small cell to the side of the chapel, where he took up a solitary residence, remaining until his death in 1478. The following year, Fr. Johann Daum of Heimbach replaced the little chapel with a wooden church and requested the Cistercians of the monastery at nearby Bottenbroich to assume the maintenance of the shrine and the care of the pilgrims. In exchange for these services, Fr. Daum signed over ownership of the church and the Pietà to the Cistercians in 1480. The monks immediately began with the construction of a new monastery. The church was completed in 1481, and the first monks took up residence on April 4, 1486, the official date of foundation. The monastery was given the name Nemus Mariae, literally "Mary's Grove", in German: Mariawald. As the monastery quickly flourished, it was decided to replace the wooden church with one of stone, which was completed in 1539.

This initial period of peace in the Abbey's history came to an abrupt end with the outbreak of the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), followed by the French Revolution (1789-1799). As the French army invaded German lands beyond the Rhine, Mariawald was made to suffer greatly, eventually being dissolved in 1795 by order of the French Occupation. Its land and all its moveable goods were auctioned off, though the Pietà was secreted away to the church of St. Clemens in Heimbach, where it remains today. For the next 65 years, Mariawald, reduced to ruins, remained empty.

In 1860, peace having returned to the land, the Abbot of the Cistercian monastery in Oelenberg bought the deserted property, and the following year, Cistercian monks began the work of restoring Mariawald. Though briefly interrupted by war in 1870, and despite the monks being forced by the Prussian government to abandon the monastery from 1875 to 1877, the work of restoration was finally completed in 1891. 18 years later, in 1909, the status of Mariawald was raised to that of abbey.

The period of the World Wars was particularly hard on the Abbey. During the First World War, 33 of the monks were drafted by the German army, several of whom died. During the reign of the National-Socialist government, the Abbey was again dissolved, this time for "activities enimical to the state". The priests were exiled, and the monks were forced to work the expropriated land. During the Second World War, the buildings were used to house a field hospital, where 414 soldiers died. The monks buried the dead in a nearby field, now known as the Ehrenfriedhof. Near the end of the war, as the Allies engaged the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge, the monastery and church were almost completely destroyed by heavy artillery, and the remaining monks were forced to flee. Once again, Mariawald was reduced to ruins.

The Restored Mariawald Abbey
(Photo: Natur Provence)

In 1945, Fr. Christopherus Elsen was given the task of attempting to locate the exiled priests and missing monks. It was discovered that three had died during the war, and four more were missing, never to be found. Gathering the remaining monks together, Fr. Elsen began anew the work of restoring the Abbey, which was finally completed in 1959. 

As the changes mandated in the wake of the Second Vatican Council swept through the Catholic Church, Mariawald Abbey was not spared. The church was renovated between 1962 and 1964, and the ancient liturgy of Popes St. Gregory the Great and St. Pius V was replaced by that of Cardinal Bugnini and Pope Paul VI. Abbot Otto, who had been drafted by the German army, wounded in battle on the Eastern Front, and interred in a Russian P.O.W. camp, guided the Abbey through this difficult period. The monastery continued in strict observation of the charisms of the order, though tensions over reforms were not entirely absent. Abbot Otto was succeded by Abbots Meinrad, Franziskus and Bruno.

Abbot Dom Josef and Pope Benedict XVI.
(Photo: kloster-mariawald.de)

Since 2007, Mariawald has been governed by Abbot Dom Josef. After a private audience with Pope Benedict XVI in 2008, Mariawald Abbey was granted permission to restore its liturgical tradition and return to the exclusive celebration of the Tridentine Latin Mass, making it the first monastic order in Germany to receive this privilege. Since then, it has become a bastion of traditional Catholic spirituality and a true blessing to the many pilgrims who seek the peace of Christ within its walls.

To learn more about Mariawald Abbey, visit their homepage (German) at: Kloster Mariawald

The Gero Crucifix

Gero Crucifix
(Photo: Elya) 

The Gero Crucifix, thought to have been carved sometime around A.D. 970, is the oldest surviving crucifix of its kind produced north of the Alps. It was commissioned by Archbishop Gero of Cologne (900-976) to adorn the Cathedral of Cologne, where it has remained to the present day. The life-sized 187 cm long corpus depicts the crucified Lord (miserere nobis) with an emphasis on His suffering and death - a marked contrast to the iconography of Byzantium - and is widely considered to represent a milestone of Western iconography. The Chronicon of Bishop Thietmar of Merseburg (975-1018) contains the story of a miracle associated with both Archbishop Gero and the crucifix bearing his name:

Meanwhile, Archbishop Gero of the See of Cologne died. As I have only spoken briefly about him, I will now relate a few things which I previously held back. He had a crucifix artfully made out of wood, which now stands above his grave, in the middle of the church. When he noticed a fissure in the crucifix's head, he healed it, trusting not in himself, but rather in the the healthy remedy of the Highest Artisan. He took a portion of the body of the Lord, our unique comfort in every necessity, and a part of the health-bringing cross, and placed them together in the crack. Then, prostrating himself, he tearfully invoked the name of the Lord. When he arose, he found that the damage had been healed through his humble benediction.

Containing as it does the Real Presence, the Gero Crucifix is a powerful visual presentation of Our Lord (miserere nobis) to the many thousands of pilgrims which visit Him each year.

Altar of the Gero Cross
(Photo: Frank Vincentz)

Will the Real Islam Please Stand Up?

In a prime-time speech to the nation aired on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks, U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama took a forceful, almost doctrinal stance on distinguishing the Islamic group ISIL from the religion of Islam in the mind of the American public. "ISIL is not Islamic," he opined. "No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim." The President's comment is merely one in a string to be issued by various Muslim authorities, such as Egypt's Grand Mufti Shawqi Allam, in recent days.

Former Muslims, however, disagree. Recently, a man using the alias "Brother Rachid" - as an apostate from Islam, he has to hide his identity due to the very real threat of being killed - wrote an open letter to President Obama imploring that he stop appeasing Muslims and expose the root of the problem threatening us all: Islam itself. 

A Message to President Obama from a Former Muslim 

by 

'Brother Rachid'

'Brother Rachid'
(Photo: exmuslim.com)  

Dear Mr. President, 

With all due respect, sir, I must tell you that you are wrong about ISIL. You say, "ISIL speaks for no religion." I'm a former Muslim. My dad is an imam. I spent more than 20 years studying Islam. I hold a bachelor's degree in religious studies, and I'm in the middle of my master's degree in terrorism studies. I can tell you with confidence that ISIL speaks for Islam.  

Allow me to correct you, Mr. President. ISIL is a Muslim organization. Its name stands for 'Islamic State'. So, even the name suggests that it is an Islamic movement. Their leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, holds a Ph.D. in Islamic studies. I doubt you know Islam better than he does. He was a preacher and religious leader in one of the local mosques in Baghdad. ISIL's 10,000 members are all Muslims. None of them are from any other religion. They come from different countries, and have one common denominator: Islam. They are following Islam's prophet Muhammad in every detail. They imitate him by growing their beards, shaving their mustaches, and in the way they dress. They follow his command in the Hadith to differentiate themselves from the 'infidels' by wearing their watches on the right instead of the left hand (Sahih Muslim, Book 2, Hadith 69). They implement sharia in every piece of land they conquer. They pray five times a day. They have called for a califate, which is a central doctrine in Sunni Islam, and they are willing to die for their religion. They are following the steps of Islam's prophet Muhammad to the letter. By the way, if you want to understand ISIL, read the oldest biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq. This is their model for action.  

You think that ISIL does not speak for Islam, because they beheaded an American and they killed those they consider infidels. In the same way, Islam's prophet Muhammad beheaded, in one day, between 600 and 900 adult males of a Jewish tribe called Banu Qurayza. In fact, beheading is commanded in the Quran, in Sura 47:4. It says, "When you meet the unbelievers and fight, smite at their necks." Ironically, this Sura is called "The Sura of Muhammad". Killing prisoners is also an order from Allah to Muhammad and to all Muslims. It says, "It is not for a prophet to have captives of war until he inflicts a massacre upon Allah's enemies in the land (Sura 8:67). And, by the way, three of Muhammad's wives were Jewish girls he kidnapped during his raids on religious minorities, just as ISIL is doing today. 

Mr. President, I grew up in Morocco, supposedly a 'moderate' country. Yet, I still learned at a young age to hate the 'enemies of Allah', especially Jews and Christians. These are represented today by Israel and the West, especially the 'Great Satan', America. I prayed five times a day, repeating Al-Fatiha, the first chapter of the Quran, asking Allah to lead me not in the way of those who 'went astray', and those who 'have the wrath of Allah upon them'. We all knew that it meant Jews and Christians. We have been brainwashed to hate all of you in our sacred texts, in our prayers, in our Friday sermons, in our educational systems.  We were ready to join any group that, one day, would fight you and destroy you, and make Islam the religion of the whole world, as the Quran says (Sura 9:39). 

This is what I and millions like me have been taught. Mr. President, this is an irrefutable fact. Fortunately, when I grew up, I chose to leave Islam and become a Christian, because I believe that God is love. Others also left, and still everyday they are leaving Islam and choosing different paths for their lives. All of them are suffering today because, again, Islam's prophet Muhammad says, "Whoever changes his religion, kill him" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 88, Hadith 5). I left Morocco under persecution. I was fortunate. Others throughout the Muslim world do not have the same opportunity. They are paying a heavy price, in different ways, in order to get their freedom one day. I ask you, Mr. President, to stop being 'politically correct', to call things by their names. ISIL, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, al-Shabaab in Somalia, the Taliban, and their sister brand-names are all 'Made in Islam'. Unless the Muslim world deals with Islam, and separates religion from the state, we will never end this cycle. Until you deal with the root of the problem, you will be just dealing with the symptoms. ISIL is just one symptom. If it disappears, others ISIL's will be born under different names. 

You might ask, "Then why does ISIL kill other Muslims?" The answer is that they consider them infidels, not Muslims. Do you know that all four schools in Islam agree that, if a Muslim stops praying, he should be asked to repent, and if he does not, he should be killed? Do you know that Muhammad tried to burn his own companions when they stopped coming to prayers (Sahih Muslim, Book 5, Hadith 321)? So, anything that qualifies a Muslim to be an infidel can be a reason for killing him, even neglecting to pray. If Islam is not the problem, then why is it that there are millions of Christians in the Middle East, and yet none of them has ever blown himself up to become a martyr, even though they live under the same economic and political circumstances, and even worse? Why have many Muslims in the West also joined ISIL if Islam is not the reason? Why have even new converts to Islam become terrorists?  

Mr. President, if you really want to fight terrorism, then fight it at the root. How many Saudi sheikhs are preaching hatred? How many Islamic channels are indoctrinating people and teaching them violence from the Quran and the Hadith? How many Friday sermons are made against the West, freedom and democracy? How many Islamic schools are producing generations of teachers and students who believe in jihad, in martyrdom, in fighting the 'infidels'? And, finally, how many websites are funded by governments - your allies - who have sheikhs who issue fatwas against basic human rights? If you want to fight terrorism, start from there.  

By the way, I do not give my full name because Islam is a "religion of peace". I'm known around the whole world as 'Brother Rachid', and I implore you to take a stand for international human rights and the future of democracy and to speak the truth about the real threat that is facing all of us.  

Best regards, 

'Brother Rachid'

The Spiritual Life

(Photo: Michael Kittell)

by
Archbishop Alban Goodier, S.J.

It is a truism to say that we all live two lives; but it may not be useless to examine what they are, and to see something of their relation to each other. There is the life which appears outside, which is seen and judged by others, and which occupies the chief, active part of our being; but there is also the other life, quite distinct from this, which seems to be forever sitting back within ourselves and never appearing, judging every thought, and word, and action of the other, and mercilessly and infallibly telling us whether it is really good or bad, right or wrong, commendable or the reverse, whatever others may say, or whatever we ourselves may try to think. We may affect to ignore it, but though it accepts the rebuff, it will not easily be ignored. We may call it all manner of names, but its very silence compels us to recognize our abuse to be no more than calumny. We may turn our whole attention to the outside, active life, to that which occupies our time, which brings us in contact with others, and which, we tell ourselves, is all that matters; still the silent gnawing at our hearts, speechless but eloquent, beaten down but ever persevering, lets us know beyond possibility of doubt that we are playing false, that we are not so convinced as we pretend, not so happy with ourselves as our words would signify, that we are turning to what we like, not to what we know to be the best, that we cannot deceive our real selves, though for a time we may deceive others, and even that outer self which we try to think is all that we are. Really, at heart, we are not deceived, and we know it; for to deceive ourselves into thinking that we are deceived is no deception.

Let us look at this fact a little more close at hand. Scarcely anything comes across my path, scarcely anything is seen with my eyes, or in any other way is borne in upon my mind, but I am conscious that at once, and almost at the same instant, I look on it from two points of view. I see it, perhaps, to be a thing beautiful in itself, or sweet and attractive to me, or something that will serve my purpose; or, on the other hand, it appears to me as something ugly, repulsive, injurious. But almost at the same moment, behind this first and clear apprehension, there is another onlooker within me, less impetuous but more discriminating, who begins to ask: "Is that thing wholly beautiful, or does it only appear so to me ? Is it really attractive, or does it only suit my palate here and now? Is it truly of use, or does it only serve my purpose for the moment?" Or, again: "Is it absolutely ugly, repulsive, injurious, or is this appearance only due to something discordant in myself? Is it more than an external coating, covering a wealth of real beauty, and loveliness, and blessing?"

Nor is it only at the first appearance of an object that this double self speaks. At every step we take, an echo of the footfall is heard within. We tell ourselves that a thing is good or bad; at once the voice's question is whether our judgment is sincere, whether it is not made to serve our purpose, declared good because we wish it so. We choose between one thing and another; the voice, heard only by ourselves, asks whether our choice is just, and is not rather the concrete expression of a desire long since entertained. We decide on a certain course of action; sometimes the voice dins in our ears that we are wrong and we know it, sometimes it merely reminds us that we have decided too quickly in a matter too momentous; sometimes, when we have made up our minds to have our way, there is heard no more than a distant wailing that haunts us like the lamentation of a ghost.

It is in vain for us to try to silence this inner voice. It is beyond our reach; we cannot gag it, we cannot shut it out for any length of time. We may argue with it and with ourselves, we may prove to verbal conviction that to listen to it is mawkish, scrupulous, paralyzing to all effort, undermining every action; in our hearts we know very well that the voice is right when it merely answers, without consenting to argue, that it is not true. We may affect not to hear it, we may effect to pity those who do, or to be interested in the psychological phenomenon they represent; we know that our affectation is that and no more, that our pity has been learnt at home, in practice upon ourselves, before it has shown itself abroad. We may proclaim against the tyranny, we may call it superstition, we may stigmatize it as the fruit of generations of priest-craft, we may call it every ugly name we like, and treat it with every kind of contempt or condescension; all the time it tells us, and we know it to be true, that in saying all this we are disloyal to ourselves and to mankind, that it is the safeguard of the noblest that is in us, that it is our one guarantee - to ourselves if not to others - that we are men, and living in a manner worthy of our manhood, that to stifle this voice, to use violence against it and throttle it, to be heartless and silently to defy it, is to inflict upon ourselves the murder of the best being that is in us.

No matter how we try, no matter how well we may play our part, we shall never succeed in deceiving ourselves altogether; if we did, we should have killed our very human nature. For a time, it is true, it is possible to forget and to ignore without adverting. We may, for a season, fill our lives with noise, with a whirl of tumult and excitement, with a temporary fascination, but after noise must come silence, excitement must rest to recuperate, every fascination has its awakening; then we return to ourselves, and deception is impossible, except, as we have said, that we may deceive ourselves into thinking that we are deceived. We appeal to our former convictions, we say we have these same convictions still; but with all our convictions we remain unconvinced. The voice that is unceasing within us is more true to us than we are to ourselves. It bides its time; it renews its wailing; it persists though we bid it to stop, though we close up our ears, though we abuse it, though we pervert its words, though before others, by word and action, we give it the lie; it persists, and in spite of all, if we will allow it, it will save us. Not only that, but will make of us the perfect creature that God and nature have both destined us to be.

And this, in our sober moments, when at last we acknowledge ourselves beaten, or when we are at peace and untroubled by any particular fascination, we see without any doubt. We may have revelled in the whirl of what we call life, whether it be the whirl of its joys or of its business, or of its interests, but in our hearts, when we are either free or compelled to judge, we know that there is a reality greater than all these. We know that the man whose life is wholly filled with these things misses the chief part of his manhood; he lives their life, he does not live his own. He may claim to be free, and to be living according to his own choice; but his freedom is subjected to them, and his choice is made at their dictation. The real man within him is dwarfed in his growth, and it is the knowledge of this, conscious and emphasized with time, however resented and denied, that gradually banishes the laughter from his face, and fills his latter days with a void, with a certain sense of self-contempt, with bitterness and failure. He fills the void with indulgence, but the indulgence rings of despair.

To anticipate and prevent this collapse, to guard against this self-deception and its consequences, is the aim and meaning of the spiritual life. The spiritual life is not a mere matter of devotion; not, at all events, of devotion as the word is commonly understood. Devotions in themselves are good, as all else in itself is good; but devotions are as liable to lead to self-deception as every other thing that attracts. The spiritual life goes deeper down; it aims at the making of the man, not on the surface only, but working outward from within. It would have a man first and foremost live according to the voice which in his heart he knows to be most true. It would have him learn to recognize the voice and listen to its teaching. It would have him weigh his judgments by what that voice suggests, and choose as that voice dictates, not as his meaner self demands. It would have him be free, and would make him free, not with that counterfeit freedom which must obey the dictate of indulgence, but with the freedom which can say "Yes" or "No" at will. It would have him be a man, not of mere flesh and blood, which are entirely slavish and dependent, but of spirit and soul, which are masters of themselves and all the world.

The Rosary

by
Joyce Kilmer

Not on the lute, nor harp of many strings
   Shall all men praise the Master of all song.
   Our life is brief, one saith, and art is long;
And skilled must be the laureates of kings.
Silent, O lips that utter foolish things!
   Rest, awkward fingers striking all notes wrong!
   How from your toil shall issue, white and strong,
Music like that God's chosen poet sings?

There is one harp that any hand can play,
   And from its strings what harmonies arise!
There is one song that any mouth can say, -
   A song that lingers when all singing dies.
When on their beads our Mother's children pray
   Immortal music charms the grateful skies.