Idolatry and Superstition

Twenty-Fifth in a Series on Catholic Morality

 by
 Fr. John H. Stapleton

The first and greatest sinner against religion is the idolater, who offers God-worship to others than God. There are certain attributes that belong to God alone, certain titles that He alone has a right to bear, certain marks of veneration that are due to Him alone. To ascribe these to any being under God is an abomination, and is called idolatry.

The idols of paganism have long since been thrown down, their temples destroyed; the folly itself has fallen into disuse, and its extravagances serve only in history to point a moral or adorn a tale. Yet, in truth, idolatry is not so dead as all that, if one would take the pains to peruse a few pages of the current erotic literature wherein people see heaven in a pair of blue eyes, catch inspired words from ruby lips and adore a well trimmed chin-whisker. I would sooner, with the old-time Egyptians, adore a well-behaved cat or a toothsome cucumber than with certain modern feather-heads and gum-drop hearts, sing hymns to a shapely foot or dimpled cheek and offer incense to "divinities," godlike forms, etc. The way hearts and souls are thrown around from one to another is suggestive of the national game; while the love they bear one another is always infinite, supreme, without parallel on earth or in heaven.

No, perhaps they do not mean what they say; but that helps matters very little, for the fault lies precisely in saying what they do say; the language used is idolatrous. And a queer thing about it is that they do mean more than half of what they say. When degenerate love runs riot, it dethrones the Almighty, makes gods of clay and besots itself before them.

What is superstition and what is a superstitious practice? It is something against the virtue of religion; it sins, not by default as unbelief, but by excess. Now, to be able to say what is excessive, one must know what is right and just, one must have a measure. To attempt to qualify anything as excessive without the aid of a rule or measure is simply guesswork.

The Yankee passes for a mighty clever guesser, outpointing with ease his transatlantic cousin. Over there the sovereign guesses officially that devotion to the Mother of God is a superstitious practice. This reminds one of the overgrown farmer boy, who, when invited by his teacher to locate the center of a circle drawn on the blackboard, stood off and eyed the figure critically for a moment with a wise squint; and then said, pointing his finger to the middle or thereabouts: "I should jedge it to be about thar." He was candid enough to offer only an opinion. But how the royal guesser could be sure enough to swear it, and that officially, is what staggers plain people.

Now right reason is a rule by which to judge what is and what is not superstitious. But individual reason or private judgment and right reason are not synonyms in the English or in any other language that is human. When reasoning men disagree, right reason, as far as the debated question is concerned, is properly said to be off on a vacation, a thing uncommonly frequent in human affairs. In order, therefore that men should not be perpetually at war concerning matters that pertain to men's salvation, God established a competent authority which even simple folks with humble minds and pure hearts can find. In default of any adverse claimant, the Catholic Church must be adjudged that authority. The worship, therefore, that the Church approves as worthy of God is not, cannot be, superstition. And what is patently against reason, or, in case of doubt, what she reproves and condemns in religion is superstitious.

Leaving out of the question for the moment those species of superstition that rise to the dignity of science, to the accidental fame and wealth of humbugs and frauds, the evil embraces a host of practices that are usually the result of a too prevalent psychological malady known as softening of the brain. These poor unfortunates imagine that the Almighty, who holds the universe in the hollow of His hand, deals with His creatures in a manner that would make a full-grown man pass as a fool if he did the same. Dreams, luck-pieces, certain combinations of numbers or figures, ordinary or extraordinary events and happenings - these are the means whereby God is made to reveal to men secrets and mysteries as absurd as the means themselves. Surely God must have descended from His throne of wisdom.

Strange though it may appear, too little religion - and not too much - leads to these unholy follies. There is a religious instinct in man. True religion satisfies it fully. Quack religion, pious tomfoolery, and doctrinal ineptitude foisted upon a God-hungry people end by driving some from one folly to another in a pitiful attempt to get away from the deceptions of man and near to God. Others are led on by a sinful curiosity that outweighs their common-sense as well as their respect for God. These are the guilty ones.

It has been said that there is more superstition - that is belief and dabbling in these inane practices - today in one of our large cities than the Dark Ages ever was afflicted with. If true, it is one sign of the world's spiritual unrest, the decay of unbelief; and irreligion thus assists at its own disintegration. The Church swept the pagan world clean of superstition once; she may soon be called upon to do the work over again.

In Assumptione Beatae Mariae Virginis

The Assumption of the Virgin
Guido Reni (1575-1642)

Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui Immaculatam Virginem Mariam, Filii tui Genitricem, corpore et anima ad caelestem gloriam assumpsisti: concede, quaesumus; ut ad superna semper intenti, ipsius gloriae mereamur esse consortes.

Almighty and everlasting God, who hast taken up the Immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of Thy Son, with body and soul into heavenly glory: grant, we beseech Thee, that we may always, intent on higher things, deserve to be partakers of her glory.

The Choice of State

Third in a Series on Catholic Marriage and Parenthood

 by

 Fr. Thomas J. Gerrard

How is it that nearly the whole of the creative literature of the world has been made to center around the young girl? How is it that love stories about married people, widows, and widowers have such a prosaic savor and so often tend towards degeneracy? It is because there is something mysterious in virginity. There is a power hidden in the virgin mind which can change the destinies of men, of nations, of the race. Shall this power be divided, ministering to the procreation of body and education of soul? Or shall it renounce the carnal part and be devoted exclusively to the care of the spirit?

These questions are very old, perhaps as old as the human race itself; for there is some reason to believe that the sins of our first parents had something to do with the vow of virginity. At any rate, we know that in the earliest Roman times the problem faced the maidens of the family. Vesta was the goddess of the hearth. But family worship was not enough. A special sanctuary was needed where all the citizens of the State could worship as one great family. The goddess was there represented by an eternal fire burning on her hearth or altar. And virgins were set aside to keep alive this fire. The goddess was chaste and pure, as the fire symbolized. The virginity of the priestesses both figured and realized that purity. Thus, even in natural religion virginity was regarded as a higher type of spirit life.

When God became incarnate, He added a higher sanctity to virginity by choosing to be born of a Virgin. By the same act, too, he raised the dignity of motherhood. Both states of life were needed for the perfection of His plans. Some would be called to one state, others to the other. Christ Himself declared that renunciation of marriage was more blessed than fruition, provided it was done for the kingdom of heaven's sake. Not every one could receive that word, but he who could, let him.

St. Paul applied this doctrine when he said:

He that giveth his virgin in marriage doeth well, and he that giveth her not doeth better.

In biblical language the term virgin includes men as well as women. Thus, St. John, in the Apocalypse, says:

These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins.

In modern language we speak of the men as celibates. The Council of Trent uses both words in defining that single blessedness is the higher gift:

If anyone says that the married state is to be placed before that of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not a better and more blessed thing to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be joined in matrimony, let him be anathema.

The virginity or celibacy here spoken of is not necessarily that of the ecclesiastical or religious life. The Church recognizes three normal states of life: marriage, which is good; single blessedness in the world, which is better; single blessedness in religion, which is best.

This does not mean however that the single life is better for everybody, nor that the religious life is the best for everybody. These states are only good, better, and best, when regarded in themselves. If we look at them with regard to particular people, the order of good, better, and best may be reversed. Indeed, for the vast majority of people marriage is by far the best thing. The single life in the world would maim them, and perhaps life in religion would ruin them. Everything depends on the individual's circumstances, his temperament, his health, his ability, his desires, above all his graces. This, then, is the problem with which all young people are confronted: To what state of life am I called?

Let us say at the outset that the solution is love.

But what is love? Its mystic nature defies an exhaustive description. There is, however, a simple definition which may be applied to every kind of love. It is: To will good for some one. This is the essence of love, whether of father, mother, husband, wife, child, friend, or enemy. It may be accompanied by the passion of affection or by the passion of aversion. If I love my mother, affection is also present. If I love my enemy, aversion is probably present. I may feel a dislike to a man, yet at the same time will to do him good.

Further, love may be devoid, or almost devoid, of passion. I may have a love for the religious life, for instance, without having any affection for it. I may see that only by entering religion shall I be able to do the greatest good to my fellow men. Even though I have an aversion for common life and loss of liberty, yet I may see in those things my best chance of salvation and love them accordingly.

In the choice of a state of life, then, the leading question will be: Which state do I really love? Do I want to be married? Do I want to live singly in the world and devote myself to a special profession? Do I want to be a priest? Do I want to be a nun? Above all, is my desire constant, or do I waver between one thing and another, never knowing my own mind?

Marriage will be the choice of most. It is the state for which they are by nature fitted, and for them the highest and most perfect life which they can live.

In most cases, the choice is settled by a chance meeting and by the accident known as falling in love. Mutual passion for each other is the predominant attractive force. If this passion is consonant with reason and revelation, then it is all good and beautiful. If there are impediments to the proposed marriage, then the passion is out of place and must be checked. Passion cannot be good if it has for its object that which tends to the ruin of the end of marriage. But the impediments placed by God and by the Church are all arranged to protect the end of marriage, and therefore passion must never seek to override them.

The case, however, often arises in which only one of the pair feels the passion. What is the other to do? Suppose it to be the girl, and suppose her mind to be expressed by some such saying as this : "I like him, you know, but I cannot say that I am in love with him."

There is need here to distinguish between love and passion. Love is essentially an act of the will; passion is essentially a mere sensation. Let us repeat, though, that the most perfect love for married people is that in which the will is fired by passion and in which the passion is controlled by the will. But let us never forget that the lasting element in such love is that of the will. Passion burns out in time.

The girl, then, who is in every way fitted for marriage receives an offer from a young man who is in many ways suitable. She feels that she can honor and respect him, but hesitates about accepting him because she does not feel in love. If she is young and likely to have other chances, she may wait. But if she is likely to become an old maid then she may fortify herself with the philosophical distinction between love and passion. If she believes that the man will do all he can to make her happy, and she is determined to do all she can to make him happy, she will be well advised to marry him. Good will is the real stuff of which love is made, passion is but an added perfection. Moreover, the good will in such cases invariably rouses the passion before the days of courtship are ended.

On the part of the man the doubt is hardly ever as to whether he is in love or not, nor yet as to whether he is called to marriage or the Church. He usually knows quite well what he wants. He doubts only his power of fulfilling the obligations of the new state of life.

In regard to marriage, he is afraid he cannot afford to keep a wife. The number is growing of those young men who abstain from marriage in order that they may have the pleasure of trifling luxuries. They prefer to be free for the joys of cigarettes and billiards rather than undertake the burden of marriage with its greater joys. Such a choice is nothing but low, unworthy selfishness.

More important, however, is the case where the young man finds the single life a constant temptation to impurity. Then must he seriously turn his attention to marriage as to his salvation. "It is better to marry than to burn." And it is best of all to marry early, before bad habits are formed. The number of unhappy homes, caused through youthful indiscretion before marriage, is appalling. It were better, therefore, to marry, even with poverty in prospect, than to lead a single life continually tempted and perhaps continually falling.

Vocations to the celibate life usually begin to show themselves before the age adapted to marriage. Parents need to know that such a vocation is a special gift of God. Its chief sign is a spontaneous and constant desire. Two dangers are to be avoided. Parents must not force the idea of the priesthood or of the cloister on their children. Nor, on the other hand, must they suppress it when it appears. Indeed, they will be on the lookout for the signs of zeal and piety which accompany the desire, so that the vocation may have every chance of coming to maturity. It is a great privilege to be able to offer a child for the special service of God.

There is a prevalent impression in many Catholic families that there are only two callings for girls, either to get married or to become a nun. Now such is not Catholic teaching. There is an impression, too, that the single state outside marriage or religion is something lower than either. Neither is that Catholic teaching. On this point the Church is in full sympathy with the age. She sanctions and encourages a career for certain women in a life of single blessedness without the cloistral vows. And more, she provides the means in her Sacraments by which such a life is lived to its highest perfection.

I think the origin of confusion in regard to the Church's teaching comes from misunderstanding her practice as to the taking of vows. She strongly discourages the taking of any vow, and especially the vow of virginity, outside a religious order or congregation. There is not the same protection for it in the world as there is in religion. The Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, and the Eucharist are all-powerful against the temptation to incontinency, but they are by no means proof against the desire for the Sacrament of matrimony. The practice of spiritual directors therefore is to recommend not a vow but a resolution.

Thus, if a girl makes a resolution to lead a single life outside religion, and afterwards receives an offer of marriage which she wants to accept, then there is no difficulty whatever in changing her resolution. Whereas, if she were under a vow she would have to make serious efforts to keep the vow, and could only be dispensed from it on the understanding that she could not possibly keep it.

If, however, this single life in the world be adopted, it must be adopted for the kingdom of heaven's sake. Nor does this mean that it must be lived in continuous contemplation, or in continuous slumming. A certain amount of contemplative prayer will be included in it, and, if one has time and opportunity, a certain amount of slumming or similar charitable work will be helpful to it. What is meant, however, is that the life shall be lived at least in a state of grace and that effort shall be made towards spiritual perfection.

The renunciation of marriage implies the power to remain chaste, and involves the duty of availing one's self of the means to do so. Religion is the only reliable help. We carry our treasure in frail vessels. The flesh lusteth against the spirit. Therefore the spirit must be continually strengthened by renewed communion with the spirit world. In marriage, the flesh is to a certain extent satisfied. In virginity and celibacy the flesh is mortified. And this mortification is sustained just in proportion as the spirit satisfies its supernatural longing for God. Regular Confession and Communion therefore are the first normal conditions of a chaste life outside the marriage state.

In the natural order, the normal condition of chastity is work. Rene Bazin, in his exquisite story, Redemption, draws a fine picture of a young milliner who made her occupation a fascinating and consoling joy. But she was an exception, and ended, moreover, by taking the nun's veil. The occupation of women in workshops does not of its nature tend to keep them good. It is drab and uninteresting. Marriage, therefore, is their hope. And if they adopt the single life, either voluntarily or in willing submission to necessity, their hope lies almost solely in the regular use of the other Sacraments.

The single life is more easily chosen by the woman of the middle and upper-middle classes. She can enter the learned professions. An expert authority has said, though the statement has been questioned, that from twenty to thirty percent of women are by temperament adapted to single life in the world. Whatever the exact percentage may be, it would seem to pertain to the normal state of a healthy society that a certain number should be free from the cares of a family so as to be able to take a more active and independent part in the social and spiritual regeneration of the community.

It is well, in these days, to insist upon this phase of the Catholic ideal. Single blessedness, thus sanctified by the Church, has a social as well as an individual value. The restraint practiced in the single life reacts generally on the whole social organism. It reacts particularly on the marriage state, strengthening it and keeping it pure. We are all members one of another. The power of self-conquest which virginity implies is bound to tell in greater or less degree on every member of society.

Let no one, then, despair of being unable to find a vocation. Those who marry do well, for, without them, neither the Church nor the world could continue. Those who marry not do better, for they sacrifice themselves for the whole spiritual kingdom, bearing fruit to the extent of many souls. If they do not choose this state spontaneously, even so they can sanctify it by using it and dlrecting it to the higher claims of the spirit.

The Disciples of St. John

Reading N°28 in the History of the Catholic Church

 by
 Fr. Fernand Mourret, S.S.

John did not come alone to Ephesus. With him he brought companions and disciples, or at least he was visited and aided by several of them.

Among these brethren in the apostolate, we know especially the Apostle Philip.^[1] Like John, he was born on the shores of Lake Tiberias, and a particular bond of friendship seems to have united the two Apostles. It was to Philip that Christ had addressed those profound words: "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?"^[2] The earliest traditions tell us that he preached the gospel in Phrygia; all the records agree that he spent the last years of his life at Hierapolis. He had three daughters: one of them, who was married, was buried at Ephesus; the other two remained virgins and aided the Apostle by devoting themselves to works of charity.^[3]

John's three principal disciples, whose names are handed down to us, were Ignatius, Polycarp and Papias. Ignatius was probably a native of Syria. This, at least, is the conjecture of several scholars.^[4] We have very little information about his life or his labors in the Church of Antioch, of which he was bishop.^[5] But the letter he wrote to the Christians of Rome, on his way to martyrdom in that city, enables us to penetrate the depths of his great soul. History can boast of none more courageous in the face of death.

Polycarp is likewise known to us by his glorious martyrdom, but we are ignorant both of his family and birthplace. Tertullian relates that Polycarp was made bishop of Smyrna by St. John.^[6] It is by his authority, often appealed to by his disciple St. Irenaeus, that the Church of Gaul glories in having received the pure ApostolIc tradition. St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, in his old age, wrote as follows to the heretic Florinus:

These opinions [that you teach], O Florinus, that I may speak sparingly, do not belong to sound doctrine. These opinions are inconsistent with the Church. [...] I can speak even of the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and disputed, how he came in and went out, the character of his life, the appearance of his body, the discourses which he made to the people, how he reported his intercourse with John, and with the others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words, and what were the things concerning the Lord which he had heard from them, and about their miracles, and about their teaching, and how Polycarp had received them from the eyewitnesses of the word of life. [...] I listened eagerly even then to these things through the mercy of God which was given me, and made notes of them, not on paper, but in my heart. [...] I can bear witness before God that if that blessed and Apostolic presbyter had heard anything of this kind he would have cried out and shut his ears. [...] He would have fled even from the place in which he was seated or standing when he heard such words.^[7]

We saw Papias' testimony in connection with the question of the composition of the Gospels. Of his life we are as uninformed as in the cases of Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. We know that he was bishop of Hierapolis. Eusebius calls him "a man of varied education and notably well versed in the Holy Scripture." He took great pains to gather the oral traditions regarding the Savior's life and words; for this purpose he visited several churches and summed up what he learned in five books entitled Exegesis of the Words of the Lord. The extant fragments of this work are of the highest value for the history of Christian origins.^[8] Although conscientious in what he relates, Papias seems to have lacked tact and discernment in the interpretation of doctrine. Eusebius says: "I suppose that he got these notions by a perverse reading of the Apostolic accounts, not realizing that they [the Apostles] spoke mystically and symbolically."^[9] Thus it happened that his work, undertaken to preserve the most genuine traditions, was later used by the millenarians, who appealed to his authority in behalf of their fanciful views.

Among the "disciples of the Lord" whom Papias had seen and consulted, he mentions Andrew, Peter, Thomas, James, and Matthew.^[10] These Apostles must have visited their brethren in Asia only in passing. The two chiefs in whom the East gloried were John and Philip. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, writes:

Two great stars have set in Asia, but they will rise at the last day: Philip, one of the Twelve, whose remains lie at rest at Hierapolis, and John the Apostle, who slept upon the Savior's breast, and who, martyr and doctor, has his tomb at Ephesus.^[11]

The real head of the churches of Asia was John the Apostle. We shall presently see the proof of this in the Letter to the Seven Churches. When St. John reached Asia, the churches founded by St. Paul were about to assume the definite form generally adopted later; one after the other, they were abandoning that assembly of ancients which had governed them, under the direction of a resident bishop or under that of an Apostle, and were placing themselves directly under the authority of a bishop. John, while not attaching himself particularly to any one see, exercised over them all that universal jurisdiction vested by Christ in His Apostles, a jurisdiction that was to end only with the last of them. 

Footnotes

[1] Eusebius seems to confuse the Apostle Philip with Philip the deacon. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus in the latter part of the second century, who had every means of being well informed, says positively that St. John's companion in Asia was the Apostle Philip. The fragment from Polycrates is in Eusebius, III, xxxi.

[2] John 14:10.

[3] Eusebius, H. E., III, xxxi.

[4] But their arguments are contested by the Maronite Assemani, Bibl. orient., vol. III, part 1, p. 16.

[5] Cf. Eusebius, Chron., 11th year of Trajan.

[6] Tertullian, De praescr., 32.

[7] Eusebius, H. E., V, XX, 4-1.

[8] They were published by Harnack, Patrum apostolicorum opera, and by Funk, Patres apostolici. In the thirteenth century, the Exegesis of Papias was still extant. Mention is made of it in a catalogue of the cathedral of Nimes dating from that century.

[9] Eusebius, H. E., III, xxxix, 12. Eusebius calls him "a man of very little intelligence." (Ibid., no. 13.)

[10] Eusebius, H. E., III, xxxix.

[11] Idem, III, xxxi, 3.

***

Join the discussion at:

Devotions

Twenty-Fourth in a Series on Catholic Morality

 by
 Fr. John H. Stapleton

There is in the Church an abundance and a rich variety of what we call devotions - practices that express our respect, affection and veneration for the chosen friends of God. These devotions we should be careful not to confound with a thing very differently known as devotion - to God Himself. This latter is the soul, the very essence of religion; the former are sometimes irreverently spoken of as "frills."

Objectively speaking, these devotions find their justification in the dogma of the Communion of Saints, according to which we believe that the blessed in heaven are able and disposed to help the unfortunate here below. Subjectively they are based on human nature itself. In our self-conscious weakness and unworthiness, we choose instinctively to approach the throne of God through His tried and faithful friends rather than to hazard ourselves alone and helpless in His presence.

Devotion, as all know, is only another name for charity towards God, piety, holiness, that is, a condition of soul resulting from, and at the same time, conducive to, fidelity to God's law and the dictates of one's conscience. It consists in a proper understanding of our relations to God - creatures of the Creator, paupers, sinners and children in the presence of a Benefactor, Judge and Father; and in sympathies and sentiments aroused in us by, and corresponding with, these convictions. In other words, one is devoted to a friend when one knows him well, is true as steel to him, and basks in the sunshine of a love that requites that fidelity. Towards God, this is devotion.

Devotions differ in pertaining, not directly, but indirectly through the creature to God. No one but sees at once that devotion, in a certain degree, is binding upon all men; a positive want of it is nothing short of impiety. But devotions have not the dignity of entering into the essence of God-worship. They are not constituent parts of that flower that grows in God's garden of the soul - charity; they are rather the scent and fragrance that linger around its petals and betoken its genuine quality. They are of counsel, so to speak, as opposed to the precept of charity and devotion. They are outside all commandment, and are taken up with a view of doing something more than escaping perdition quasi per ignem.

For human nature is rarely satisfied with what is rigorously sufficient. It does not relish living perpetually on the ragged edge of a scant, uncertain meagerness. People want enough and plenty, abundance and variety. If there are many avenues that lead to God's throne, they want to use them. If there are many outlets for their intense fervor and abundant generosity, they will have them. Devotions answer these purposes.

It is impossible to enumerate all the different practices that are in vogue in the Church and go under the name of devotions. Legion is the number of Saints that have their following of devotees. Some are universal, are praised and invoked the world over; others have a local niche and are all unknown beyond the confines of a province or nation. Some are invoked in all needs and distresses; St. Blase, on the other hand, is credited with a special power for curing throats, St. Anthony, for finding lost things, etc. Honor is paid them on account of their proximity to God. To invoke them is as much an honor to them as an advantage to us.

If certain individuals do not like this kind of a thing, they are under no sort of an obligation to practise it. If they can get to heaven without the assistance of the Saints, then let them do so, by all means; only let them be sure to get there. No one finds devotions repugnant but those who are ignorant of their real character and meaning. If they are fortunate enough to make this discovery, they then, like nearly all converts, become enthusiastic devotees, finding in their devotions new beauties, and new advantages every day.

And it is a poor Catholic that leaves devotions entirely alone, and a rare one. He may not feel inclined to enlist the favor of this or that particular Saint, but he usually has a rosary hidden away somewhere in his vest pocket and a scapular around his neck, or in his pocket, as a last extreme. If he scorns even this, then the chances are that he is Catholic only in name, for the tree of faith is such a fertile one that it rarely fails to yield fruit and flowers of exquisite fragrance.

Devotions are not based on historical facts, although in certain facts, events or happenings, real or alleged, they may have been furnished with occasions for coming into existence. The authenticity of these facts is not guaranteed by the doctrinal authority of the Church, but she may, and does, approve the devotions that spring therefrom. Independently of the truth of private and individual revelations, visions and miracles, which she investigates as to their probability, she makes sure that there is nothing contrary to the deposit of faith and to morals, and then she gives these devotions the stamp of her approval as a security to the faithful who wish to practise them. A Catholic or non-Catholic may think what he likes concerning the apparitions of the Virgin at Lourdes; if he is dense enough, he may refuse to believe that miracles have been performed there. But he cannot deny that the homage offered to Our Lady at Lourdes, and known as devotion to Our Lady of Lourdes, is in keeping with religious worship as practised by the Church and in consonance with reason enlightened by faith, and so with all other devotions.

A vase of flowers, a lamp, a burning candle before the statue of a Saint is a prayer whose silence is more eloquent than all the sounds that ever came from the lips of man. It is love that puts it there, love that tells it to dispense its sweet perfume or shed its mellow rays, and love that speaks by this touching symbolism to God through a favorite Saint.

Swiss Bishop to be Charged with Public Incitement of Violence

His Excellence Vitus Bishop Huonder
(Photo: Bistum Chur)

On Friday, 31. July, Bishop Vitus Huonder of Chur (Switzerland) delivered a speech to a group of faithful German Catholics (yes, they do exist) on the topic of marriage, sexuality and family entitled "Marriage: Gift, Sacrament and Commission" (Original: Die Ehe: Geschenk, Sakrament und Auftrag). In that speech, the good Bishop quoted several relevant passages from Sacred Scripture, including the following:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

"If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

Bishop Huonder went on to describe the passages as continuing to exert influence upon the Christian understanding of sexual morality. He said:

These two passages, taken together with several others in Sacred Scripture - particularly in the Book of Leviticus - demonstrate the divine order which governs our understanding of sexuality. In the present case, same-sex practices are dealt with. The quoted passages alone would be enough to answer the question of homosexuality from the perspective of our Faith. Their import thus has meaning for the definition of marriage and the family. There is no plurality of models for marriage and family. To even speak of such is already an attack on the Creator, as well as on the Savior and Sanctifier, that is, on the trinitarian God. Pastoral care must orient itself according to the divine order. It's mission, undertaken in awareness of the salvation of souls, that is, in pastoral love - and in contradistinction to pure Humanism -  is to free mankind from the condition of a fallen nature and raise it to life as children of light (Eph. 5:8). The Faith is to everyone, even to those with homophile tendencies, a source of comfort and can lead to a redirection of such an orientation, to a governing of sexual urges, and to a ordering of one's own life according to the divine command.

As was to be expected, the progressive elements in the Church were not pleased with Bishop Huonder's statement. Almost on cue, Twitter exploded with horrified denouncements. Theologians felt obliged to respond. Bishop Markus Büchel of St. Gallen even felt the need to demonstrate to the world how pleased he is to see sodomites in stable relationships, arguing that "our present knowledge of homosexuality as a trait and not as a freely chosen sexual orientation was unknown in biblical times." All par for the course, really.

However, now things have been taken to a new level. The Swiss pro-sodomy activism group Pink Cross has announced that it will be filing criminal charges against Bishop Huonder on Monday. Apparently, they plan to charge the good Bishop with a violation of Swiss Penal Code Article 259: Public incitement to commit a felony or act of violence. In other words, by quoting Leviticus, Bishop Huonder was approving of the killing of homosexuals, and indirectly encouraging others to do so. If found guilty, the good Bishop could face up to three years in prison.

The case is, of course, frivolous and without legal merit. But even if this case fails, we can already imagine the day when quoting certain parts of Sacred Scripture will be classified as hate speech.

Persecution is coming, folks. Get prepared.

The Sanctity of Marriage

Second in a Series on Catholic Marriage and Parenthood

 by

 Fr. Thomas J. Gerrard

It is part of God's providence that, when He sets before us an end to be attained, He provides us also with the means of attaining that end. So in the case of marriage, having ordained it for the high purpose of preparing souls for heaven, God has endowed it with qualities which make it an apt instrument for the purpose for which it was instituted. These qualities are revealed in the truth of Christ and the Church. Christ's Church was to be one only, and it was to last until the end of time. The bond of Christian marriage must likewise be one only and must last until broken by death. Unity and perpetuity are the qualities which make the marriage state specially fitted for the great object of bringing children into the world, of nourishing them in body, mind, and spirit, of bringing them to the final perfection for which man was created. If the bringing of children into the world is attended with great pain and labor, the bringing of their souls to perfection is attended with still greater pain and labor. It requires nothing else than the united life and love of both parents.

Now, such is the nature of man and woman that they cannot love effectually with a divided love. Let either partner give the other the slightest cause for jealousy and there is an end of that perfect love and harmony in the family which is so needful for the well-being of the children. The archtype of perfect love is the mutual love of the three Persons of the blessed Trinity. One of the fairest created reflections of that love is the triple love of family life: the love of husband, wife, and child. It will brook no intrusion from without. It cannot bear the prospect of it coming to an end. This is a fundamental and universal law of nature, a law of nature which is accentuated, ennobled, and made perfect by a law of grace. The Sacrament of Matrimony implies a special divine sanction to the laws of unity and perpetuity in the marriage bond.

The need of the higher sanction and help is seen from the passing nature of the merely natural charms. The mere physical pleasures pass away with their satisfaction. Youthful ardor burns out before the mature part of life is reached. In the course of a life so intimate as that of husband and wife, many faults of character become exposed. Marriage certainly brings a revelation of many new beauties of character, but it also brings a revelation of many faults of character. It is fraught with disappointments even as with agreeable surprises. The fading of bodily beauty also tends to weaken the natural bond. When the hair turns gray, and the eye loses its luster, and the features fall into wrinkles; when the general buoyancy and ardor of youth tones down into the prose of middle age; then, indeed, is there need of something more sustaining, something more lasting than the mere tie of natural affection or natural contract. It is found in the unity and perpetuity of the Sacrament. The Sacrament imparts all the courage, the energy, the refreshment, and the love needful to make the bond strong and lasting. It renews the youth of married life and makes it satisfying even in spite of years.

The Church claims to have the care of this Sacrament. The Church, therefore, has ever insisted on its unity and perpetuity. The Church regards the sin of adultery as something infinitely more heinous than any sin possible among the unmarried. The father who has to provide for his children must be certain that they are his own. He cares for them only on the supposition that they are his offspring. Any infidelity, therefore, on the part of the woman must of necessity tend to break up these sacred family relationships. A father cannot love and care for children who may be those of the man who has done him the greatest possible injury. And if a woman gives unswerving fidelity to her husband she has a right to claim an equal fidelity in return. Infidelity on the part of the man, although it does not act directly in rendering the offspring of the family uncertain, yet it strikes at the root of conjugal love, and thus almost directly at the foundations of family life. A violation of the sanctity of marriage, then, by either party is a double violation of God's law, a violation of chastity, and a violation of justice. Hence, we have the most stringent laws against adultery, against polygamy, and against divorce.

Among the Jews the penalty of adultery was death by stoning. In the most savage races of the earth, its punishment is immediate death. The law of Christ makes the law of nature and the law of Moses more perfect. This it does by all the conditions and rules which it lays down for the prevention of polygamy and divorce. By polygamy we usually understand the possession of two wives at the same time. The possession of two husbands at the same time is known as polyandry. Both are equally condemned by the Christian law.

The cases of polygamy among the Jews are frequently quoted by those who want an excuse for disregarding the laws of Christian marriage. Attention must be paid to the circumstances of time and race. If polygamy was permitted, then it was for a special reason. And the permission was mere toleration. The circumstances of the times required that it should be permitted in order to avoid greater evils. Nevertheless, God did not cease to give signs to His people as to what was the great ideal. The most wondrous love song ever sung by man was that inspired by the Holy Spirit, the song of songs, which tells of the love between one bridegroom and one bride, the love which lasts till death.

One is my dove, my perfect one is but one. [...] I to my beloved and my beloved to me, who feedest among the anemones. [...] Put me as a seal upon thy heart, as a seal upon thy arm, for love is strong as death, jealousy as hard as hell, the lamps thereof are fire and flames. [...] My beloved to me and I to him who feedeth among the lilies, till the day break and the shadows flee away.

So the young Tobias could say to his wife Sara: "For we are the children of saints, and we must not be joined together like heathens that know not God." In praying to God for a blessing on his marriage he referred back to its original conditions: "Thou madest Adam of the slime of the earth, and gavest him Eve for a helper. And now, Lord, thou knowest that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which Thy name may be blessed forever and ever." And Sara prayed with him: "Have mercy on us, and let us grow old both together in health."

Further, the Church, although she insists that the marriage bond lasts only till death, although she allows remarriage after the death of one of the partners, yet she looks upon such remarriage as something less perfect. Her ideal is that a marriage should be so distinctly one and perpetual as to exclude any other marriage even after the first has been dissolved by death. A marriage is not merely a union of two in one flesh, but also of two in one spirit. The more perfect thing, therefore, would be to consider the bond of love lasting right through death. The reason why the Church allows remarriage after the death of one of the partners is because there are other ends of matrimony besides mutual love. To give expression to her wish, however, and to mark the distinction between the more perfect state and the less perfect state, the Church does not give the nuptial blessing in cases where the bride is a widow if she has received it in a previous marriage. She gives It where the bride is being married for the first time, even though the bridegroom be a widower. Having regard to the dignity of the bride, the Church in this case overlooks the defect in the bridegroom. Her end is achieved by withholding the blessing only in the case of the marriage of widows, as stated above.

This brings us to the all-important question of divorce. If both the natural and divine laws maintain the unity and perpetuity of the marriage bond, then no power on earth, not even the Church, has power to grant a divorce. "What, therefore, God hath joined together let no man put asunder." Here, on the threshold of the question, it is necessary to make a clear distinction of terms.

When it is said that no power on earth can grant a divorce, divorce must be understood in a particular and strict sense of the word. Let us distinguish then between three kinds of separation. First, there is a separation which implies that the husband and wife are allowed to live apart. It is called, in juridical language, a judicial separation. It is called, in theological language, separatio a mensa et thoro, or "separation from bed and board". Its meaning is that, although the parties are separated from each other, yet they are not free to marry again. If they were allowed to marry again the separation would be said to be a vinculo, or "separation from the bond". The actual contract or tie would be broken. Now, the first kind of separation is allowed by the Church whenever there is a grave reason, such, for instance, as the misconduct of one of the parties. But the second kind the Church allows never. The bond which has been made by God may not be broken by man. One of the parties may forfeit certain rights of marriage through infidelity to the partner, but can never thereby acquire the freedom to marry again.

And further, the Church makes no distinction in this respect between the innocent party and the guilty. A bond is a bond, the contract is a two-sided one, and, therefore, as long as the bond or contract remains, it must bind both the parties. However unfair it may seem to the innocent party, yet it is God's law and God will see to it that those who observe His law, will, in the final balancing, receive their just reward.

Then there is another kind of separation which is frequently believed to be a divorce and which is a source of much perplexity to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. It is called a declaration of nullity. It means that that which has appeared to be a marriage is declared never to have been a marriage from the beginning. The parties have gone through the ceremony, but there has been some obstruction in the way which has prevented the knot from being tied and so the supposed marriage must be declared null and void.

Let us take an instance. A Jew married to a baptized Christian wife seeks for a divorce in the law courts. He is successful in his suit. Then, he becomes a Catholic, falls in love with a Catholic girl, and wishes to be married to her in the Catholic Church. There is no difficulty, the Church approves of the marriage. What has happened? The undiscerning public think that the Church has approved of divorce and of the remarriage of a divorced person. And if the man happens to have been a wealthy Jew, the undiscerning public is not slow to attribute unworthy motives to the Church. But again, what has really happened? The Jew's first marriage was really no marriage at all in the sight of the Church. Baptism is the first Sacrament and the door of the other Sacrament. The Jew had not received the Sacrament of Baptism and so was incapable of receiving the Sacrament of Marriage. And, being unbaptized, he was furthermore incapable of making the contract of marriage, for the Sacrament is the contract. Therefore, the marriage which, by the law of the land, was declared to be dissolved was, by the law of the Church, declared never to have existed, to have been null and void from the beginning. Consequently, when the Jew became a Catholic and received the Sacrament of Baptism, he was quite free and capable of uniting himself with the partner of his choice.

There are three exceptions to the law of indissolubility. The first two concern marriages ratified but not consummated. Such may be dissolved either by papal dispensation for some grave reason, or by the solemn, religious profession of one of the parties. The third is known as the Pauline privilege. It may happen only in a marriage between unbelievers, and this even when consummated. If one of the parties is converted to the Christian faith, and the other refuses to live peaceably, or shows contempt for God and religion, or tries to pervert the faithful partner, then the faithful one has a right to a real divorce (1 Cor. 7:15).

Within these limitations, the Church is absolutely inexorable against any attempt at separation from the bond. She has suffered the loss of whole nations from the faith rather than sacrifice one jot or tittle of her principle. The care of the Sacrament has been committed to her keeping, and to have condoned a denial of the sacramental nature of the matrimonial bond, even in one case, would have been to renounce the divine charge given to her. For the English-speaking world, the Pope's firmness in refusing to grant a divorce to Henry VIII must ever be a monument of the fidelity of the Church to the sanctity of the marriage state. And the famous Encyclical of the late Sovereign Pontiff, Leo XIII, must ever remain the character of woman's dignity and safety as to her marriage right. He wrote:

The great evils, of which divorce is the spring, can hardly be enumerated. When the conjugal bond loses its immutability, we may expect to see benevolence and affection destroyed between husband and wife; an encouragement given to infidelity; the protection and education of children rendered more difficult; the germs of discord sown between families; woman's dignity disowned; the danger for her of seeing herself forsaken, after having served as the instrument of man's passions. And as nothing ruins families and destroys the most powerful kingdoms like the corruption of manners, it is easy to see that divorce, which is only begotten of the depraved manners of a people, is the worst enemy of families and of States, and that it opens the door, as experience attests, to the most vicious habits, both in private and in public life.

Views subversive of the Catholic ideal are now very prevalent, and are becoming day by day more prevalent. In the matter of the sanctity of marriage, as in many other things, it is the Catholics who are the salt of the earth. Whilst other religious bodies are prepared to give way under any specious pretext which may arise, the See of Peter proclaims the principle of no compromise. And when the churches which ought to guard the sanctity of marriage show themselves weak and accommodating to the lower pleasures of man, we must not be surprised if non-religious bodies speak openly in favor of divorce and, all unashamed, make profession of free love. This, indeed, has come to pass.

High time is it, then, for Catholics to make their voice heard in protest. Nay, absolutely imperative is it that Catholics should rally themselves anew with even greater loyalty around the Holy Father who watches the marriage Sacrament so anxiously and sees its dangers so clearly. Legislation is made which may be irksome; but the irksomeness thereby suffered is trifling compared with the irksomeness thereby avoided. Let us admit boldly that the marriage state is fraught with difficulties, that love is liable to grow cold, that childbearing is a burden, that the education of many children is a tax on the family's resources, that a drunken husband is an almost intolerable nuisance, that a gossiping wife is a plague of a life; let us admit all this, but at the same time insist that the Sacrament of Marriage has power either to prevent or mitigate the evils. It restrains the passions. But let the idea of divorce once get established, and there is an end of restraint. The passions are let loose and fall victim to every little counter-attraction to family life. The half-hearted partner who realizes that there is an easy escape from the burden of married life makes no serious attempt to bear it. Then comes the sad spectacle of a mother left alone with a house full of children and no father to provide for them; or what is perhaps even more sad, a father with a house full of children and no mother to take care of them. The Church's laws may be hard to bear at times. They are, however, as the yoke of Christ, sweet and easy to bear, if only we spread them out over the short run of life.