The Choice of Mate

Fourth in a Series on Catholic Marriage and Parenthood

 by

 Fr. Thomas J. Gerrard

Asked by the priest what was the way of preparing for the Sacrament of matrimony, a little Irish girl naively replied: "A little courting, your reverence." The truth thereby unconsciously spoken needs to be well spread abroad in these days. Courting time is a preparation for a great Sacrament.

In speaking of this, even as of all other phases of Christian life, there is need of much common sense. On the one hand, the young people who have arrived at this interesting stage may be expected to take it seriously, but on the other hand, they must not be expected to deport themselves as if they were preparing for a funeral. Company-keeping is one of the happiest times of life, and if it is not attended with joy and brightness there is something wrong somewhere. At the outset, then, let it be known to all parents that there is nothing sinful in their grown-up children looking for partners. Let it be known to all nuns that there is nothing wrong in big children of Mary speaking to the young men of the congregation.  Let it be known to all young men and all young maidens that the affair of courtship is not something to be ashamed of. Of its nature it involves a certain amount of modesty and shyness. Still, from its earliest signs and movements, it is something which ought to be perfectly aboveboard, known to father and mother, acknowledged in the presence of the family. It is a preparation for a great Sacrament, and its verve and joy and delight can suffer no loss through being regulated by the claims of religion.

Now, although falling in love is something which ought to be controlled by reason, it is not entirely an affair of the reason. It is primarily an affair of the heart. If only such marriages took place as were the result of clear reasoning and mere reasoning from beginning to end, this would become a very dull and uninteresting world, and we might indeed have grave fears for the survival of our race.

But in addition to reason, God has given man and woman affection and love. The affection and the love have reason to guide them, but their action depends largely on their object. The light of intellect in the man cannot make a woman's face  look more beautiful. The light of intellect in a woman cannot make a man's form look more handsome. A case of real love between a man and woman is beyond adequate explanation. A man may love a woman for her good looks, for her domestic virtues, for her intellectual endowments; but the kind of love she likes best is that when he is obliged to say: "I do not know why I like you, I only know that I do."

So the problem to be solved by all young Catholics is this: How are the claims of this mysterious and inexplicable love and affection to be reconciled with the claims of stern reason and sublime religion? Let it not be supposed that these rival claims are incompatible with each other. They all come from one and the same Author, and so it is only a question of adjustment. In order to make this adjustment, then, both parents and children should know what are the rules of the Church and what are the rules of right reason. With this double guiding light, the young people may then frequent such places and cultivate such company as shall be likely to afford a fitting environment for the passion of love when it makes its appearance.

The rules of the Church come first. Marriage is a great Sacrament, and the Church, having the guardianship of all the Sacraments, claims the right to say what is the best preparation for marriage and what are the conditions under which it may be contracted. She has a right to say what conditions affect the validity, and what conditions affect the lawfulness, of the contract. The contract is the Sacrament, and, therefore, only the Church can say what impediments render the contract unlawful, and what impediments render the contract null and void. They will all be found to be eminently practical and possessed of a special aptitude to foster that pure and passionate love which the young people value so highly.

The first qualification that a Catholic would look for in a partner for life would be that the partner should also be a Catholic. Mere acquaintances feel that they have a common and lasting bond between them if they are both Catholics. This feeling must be indefinitely intensified between two who are to live together in the intimate life of holy matrimony. Indeed, the advantages of such a condition, together with the evil consequences following upon the neglect of it, need a separate treatment. It will be sufficient here to say that the Church regards the matter as of the most vital importance. The impediment is classified, with two others, under the title of " Prohibition of the Church." These two also will recommend themselves as obviously conducive to the safe-guarding of the Sacrament. The one is the proclamation of the banns, by which each party is protected against possible fraud or mistake. The other is that which requires the consent of parents. It is part of the solemn duty of parents to watch over the children in an affair of great consequence. And indeed parents, especially the mother, do watch their children most anxiously. The law of nature compels it, the law of the Church sanctions it. With reason, then, does the Church oblige children to consult their parents in the matter. Of course, cases may and do arise in which the consent of the parents is unjustly held back. Some parents out of mere selfish love dislike to lose their children, and act all regardless of the divine ordinance that for the sake of matrimony a man shall leave his father and mother. In case of dispute, however, the children will not go against the wishes of their parents without first consulting their confessor.

Again, since the Church regards marriage as a great Sacrament, she encourages her children to celebrate it with great pomp and festive joy. It happens as a rule only once in a lifetime and, therefore, is most fittingly accompanied with banquet and merry-making. All these things, however, would manifestly be out of place during times set about for the more solemn religious exercises. The Church ordains, therefore, that marriages shall be discouraged during the seasons of Advent and Lent; in Advent until the feast of the Epiphany, in Lent until Low Sunday inclusive. A marriage may, however, be permitted during these times, but it must be celebrated without any of that external display which would otherwise be so fitting on such an occasion.

A third condition for a lawful marriage is that neither party shall be engaged to any one else. There are three points of view from which a previous engagement must be regarded. It has a personal aspect, a legal aspect, and an ecclesiastical aspect.

No man of honor will enter into a new engagement until he has been formally released from any previous engagement in which he may have become involved. It would, perhaps, be needless to say that he ought not to make serious overtures to another partner until he has been released by the first; for, oftener than otherwise, it is the appearance of a new face which is the cause of dissatisfaction with the old one. A man in such a predicament owes it both to himself, to his previous partner, and to his prospective partner to arrange an honorable settlement as soon as possible. The claims of society demand that neither girl should be kept in a false position. The previous partner, too, may have legal rights to compensation for breach of promise.

Then again there is the ecclesiastical aspect of the matter. The law has recently been changed, and henceforth only those engagements hold good in ecclesiastical law which have been made in writing, signed by both parties and signed by the parish priest or ordinary, or at least two witnesses. Of course, couples may marry lawfully without such an agreement in writing, but without such an agreement the engagement will not be binding in conscience or produce any canonical effect. It would produce a legal effect and a social effect; it would hold good in the eyes of the law of the country and in the eyes of all respectable society. Nay, more, although there would be no obligation to marry, although the espousals were invalid, through want of proper formality, still those invalid espousals would render a person liable to all due restitution or damages just as if they were valid. Thus the Church protects the weaker party in two ways. First, she gives the warning and protects young people against imprudent engagements - engagements entered into without deliberation, and under circumstances when innocence and ignorance hinder the due consideration of the dignity of the Sacrament. Secondly, she obliges the guilty party to make fitting restitution for all the material loss which the innocent party may have suffered in consequence.

Another impediment, similar to that of previous betrothal, is the impedimental vows. Obviously, a vow to do one thing is a hindrance to the making of a vow to do something contrary. So rarely, however, does this impediment arise that it may be left for individual treatment. If there has been a vow of any kind, the matter should be mentioned to the confessor.

Further, there are a number of impediments which not only render a marriage unlawful and sinful, but also null and void. Let us clearly understand the difference between what is unlawful and what is invalid. If I burn down my neighbor's haystack, it is validly burnt down, for there is no haystack left; but it is unlawfully burnt down. My action is valid, but not lawful. If I shoot at my neighbor in the dark and miss him, my action is both unlawful and invalid. I have intended to take my neighbor's life, but have failed to do so.

Likewise, there may be certain attempts to get married which, on account of certain impediments, produce no effect. Such ceremonies are both unlawful and invalid. It is the duty of the priest to inquire whether there be any such impediments before he allows the celebration to take place. Most of them are so rare as not to need public treatment.

When the banns are published, the faithful are told that if they know of any impediment, either of consanguinity, affinity, or spiritual relationship, they are bound to declare the same as soon as possible. The impediment of spiritual relationship is that which arises out of the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. The chances of this relationship are reduced to a minimum by the custom of having a man as sponsor for the boys and a woman as sponsor for the girls.

The two great diriment impediments, therefore, which need to be carefully watched by young people are the impediments of consanguinity and affinity. Consanguinity is the connection of blood relationship; affinity is the connection of relationship by marriage. The Church excludes marriages between persons who may be related to each other within certain degrees of relationship. She thus forbids marriage between first, second, or third cousins; and also between a man and his deceased wife's sister. These are the more common cases in which difficulty arises and which need to be carefully guarded against. In some of them, of course, which are not involved in the primary law of nature the Church may grant a dispensation. Nevertheless, she regards them as evil, and only grants dispensations in order to prevent greater evils. The disastrous results of intermarriage are well known. It leads to deterioration of the race, to insanity, to physical deformity, and to a general weakening of the social bond. The Church, therefore, in setting her face against such marriages, proves herself to be the friend and guardian of the temporal, as well as of the spiritual well-being of her people.

Now, although the Church is very strict in limiting the freedom of her children whenever it is for their good, yet at the same time she leaves much to their own individual judgment. Those who look forward to a happy marriage, therefore, must avail themselves of that freedom which the Church allows, and use also their own sound judgment and common sense. In this sphere one cannot lay down hard and fast rules. What is good in England may be bad in America; what is permissible in one degree of society may be inadvisable in another. The custom of the country or of the particular sphere of Catholic society is a point which must always be considered. Nevertheless, a few general suggestions may be offered.

Character or virtue will be the first quality to be sought for in the choice of a mate. The predominant and essential virtues expected from the man are honesty and sobriety. These are especially manly virtues. In the natural order it is the sense of honor which will keep the husband faithful to his wife, and insure for her that respect, care, and protection to which she has a right. Sobriety, too, is absolutely necessary for the making of a happy home. The love may be there and the fidelity may be there, but they will be in constant peril if they are accompanied by drunkenness. And if drunkenness be a failing during the days of courtship, a reform after marriage cannot be expected. The pity of it is that girls are only too eager to find excuses for a lover addicted to this failing. "Oh, but he is as quiet as a lamb when he is sober!" The only reliable advice to give to a girl with an intemperate sweetheart is to break off the engagement at once. The predominant virtue expected from the woman is chastity. This will be measured by the care which she takes in avoiding occasions of sin. Here it is not a question of having sinned grievously, but of a constant observance of all those habits of modesty, reticence, sobriety of language and gesture, and, above all, utmost decorum in all necessary intercourse with members of the opposite sex. They are habits which can be observed and felt much more effectually than they can be described. In fact, every Catholic girl knows them, and no one is so observant of and sensitive to them as the honorable young man who comes to pay court to her.

Next, compatibility of temper must be examined. It is easy to discern. Quarrels during time of courtship may be reasonably excused from time to time. The proverb that true love never runs smoothly implies that, in the common estimation of mankind, lovers' quarrels are a part of the business of love-making among those who are not angels. But there are some lovers whose courtship seems to be one perpetual quarrel, one everlasting carping, jealous insinuation, and complaint. Obviously such a life would only be accentuated in the marriage state, and the sooner the engagement is broken off the better for both parties.

The question of health, too, ought not to be overlooked. In earlier days the Church spoke more explicitly on the matter, though now she leaves it to the parties themselves to decide. The cases in which the difficulty most frequently arises are those of insanity and consumption. As a counsel of perfection it is well in such circumstances to abstain from matrimony. But where this abstention is fraught with moral danger, then the advice of a medical expert should be sought. Parents have a duty toward their prospective offspring as well as to themselves. The science of heredity is anything but an exact science. As for consumption, the treatment of it has now been so vastly improved that very many consumptive people may now marry without serious danger either to each other or to their offspring. Those, however, who contemplate such a marriage ought always to consult a specialist previously.

The questions of age, social standing, and wealth may not be overlooked. Certainly many happy marriages have taken place between persons far removed from each other in age, fortune, and position. These, however, are exceptions rather than the rule. A young person will not naturally seek a much older one with a view to matrimony. But the cases of those hunting after a larger fortune and higher position are only too frequent. And it is these who come to grief in married life.

Lastly, there is the question of passion and personal beauty. Let it be said at once that passion is not a bad thing in itself. It is only bad when it overrides reason. Let it be said, too, that beauty of form and looks is not a thing in itself to be despised. The Church, in her office of virgins, applies to them the words of the psalmist: "With thy comeliness and thy beauty set out, proceed prosperously, and reign." So long as it is kept in due subordination to the gifts of character and virtue, then it may be prized for what it is worth. Only when opposed to the fear of God is beauty said to be vain, and form fallacious.

The great principle to be kept before one's mind, therefore, in the choice of a mate, is that the Sacrament of marriage is not a crushing or a cramping of human nature, but a perfecting and realizing of it. If limits have been placed by the law of God, by the law of the Church, by the law of reason, then those limitations of choice are the conditions of a wider and nobler freedom. If it seems hard to have one's choice limited to a partner of the same religion, remember that that law duly observed will be a safeguard against a multitude of more irksome limitations in the future. If it seems unfair to have one's choice limited to those who are not of blood relationship, remember that that law duly observed will probably mean salvation from some of the most horrible calamities which can befall the marriage state. If love seems to have limits set to it by reason, remember that those reasonable limits are the barriers which prevent love from degenerating into mere passion, and insure for it a strong and lasting endurance.

The Persecution under Domitian

Reading N°29 in the History of the Catholic Church

 by

 Fr. Fernand Mourret, S.S.

Domitian (AD 51-96)

About the year AD 95, the Apostle John's paternal governance of the churches of Asia was suddenly disturbed by the violent persecution of Domitian. The amazing extravagance of the last of the twelve Caesars had ruined the public treasury. There was no hope of filling the void by an increase of land-taxes or indirect taxes which already weighed so heavily on the commerce of Rome. The Emperor thought of the tax which, since the year 70, all those of Jewish birth paid their conqueror; he now extended it to those who "lived as Jews."^[1] The expression was vague; it opened the way to most odious searching and inquiring. At any rate, it applied to the Christians, and perhaps had them chiefly in mind. By means of countless official informers,^[2] Domitian was able to learn of the progress made by the new religion among the great Roman families. It was well known that the property of all persons condemned to death or proscribed went to the Emperor.

Many Christians refused to let themselves be taken for Jews. The separation of the two religions was by this time a fact. To pay the Jewish tax seemed to them a lie, nay, a kind of abjuration of the faith. The Emperor was angered. Who were these people, strangers to the religions officially sanctioned at Rome, who "lived as Jews," but repudiated the religion of the Jewish people? The epithets "innovators" and "atheists" were cast at them.

Inquisitorial proceedings increased. Domitian's fury was at its height when one of his informers pointed out to him, among the Judaizers and "atheists," his own cousin-german, Flavius Clemens, father of two children whom he intended for the imperial service. Flavius Clemens, the consul of that year (95), was the son of Vespasian's elder brother, Flavius Sabinus, who was prefect of Rome in the time of Nero and who in AD 64 witnessed the massacre of Christians. This Sabinus, it seems, had been deeply and painfully impressed. Tacitus relates that in Sabinus' last years his gentleness, moderation, and aversion for sanguinary contests were spoken of and even led some people of fiery temper to accuse him of cowardice.^[3] Sabinus' son and daughter-in-law courageously embraced the Christian religion. It was a case of death or proscription. Flavius Clemens was executed in the very year of his consulate. Flavia Domitilla, his wife, was exiled to the island of Pandataria. Another Flavia Domitilla, their niece, was interned on the island of Pontia. The historian Dion Cassius, relating their execution, says they were condemned for the crime of "atheism."^[4] Suetonius seems to allude to other executions of Christians of the highest station when he writes:

He put to death many senators, among them several exconsuls, including Civica Cerealis, at the very time when he was proconsul in Asia, Salvidienus, Ortus, Acilius Glabrio while he was in exile - these on the ground of plotting revolution [quasi molitores rerum novarum].^[5]

Besides need for money and hatred of the Christian name, another feeling entered the tyrant's soul: fear. Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius, tells that, "like Herod, he [Domitian] was afraid of the coming of Christ,"^[6] because throughout the East it was being noised abroad that the government of the world would belong to a scion of David. So he ordered a search to be made for all living descendants of that king. The grandsons of Jude, having come to Rome from the depths of Batanea, were sent back after a look at their calloused hands, which evidenced their life of manual labor. It is possible that John, so renowned for his close relations with Jesus, was summoned for the same reason. However this may be, we do know that, having come or been brought to Rome, he there was subjected to the terrible ordeal of boiling oil. We learn of this from Tertullian, who says: "The Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence sent back to his island exile."^[7] The traditional site where this event is supposed to have taken place is the Latin Gate or, more exactly, the open space later occupied by the Roman gate.^[8]

The Martyrdom of Saint John the Evangelist
Juan de Roelas (1570-1625)

The tyrant's persecution reached beyond Rome, even into Asia. The Apocalypse, written shortly after, speaks of "the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus." The angel of the Lord says to the angel of Smyrna: "I know thy tribulation," and to the angel of Pergamus: "I know thou hast not denied my faith."^[9] The Acts of the martyrdom of St. Ignatius of Antioch relate that "during the storms and persecutions, he diverted the danger by the firmness of his soul."^[10] Pliny, writing from Bithynia in AD 111 or 112, says that certain Christians avowed to him "that they had quit their faith twenty years ago,"^[11] very likely in this persecution of Domitian.

Footnotes

[1] Suetonius, Domitian, 12.

[2] Tacitus, History, IV, 50; Life of Agricola, 45; Pliny, Letters, I, 5; n, II; Juvenal, IV, 110-118.

[3] Tacitus, History, III, 65-75.

[4] Dio Cassius, LXVII, xiv. Cf. Suetonius, Domitian, 15. Fifty years after Clement's death, St. Justin wrote that the pagans still called the Christians "atheists". (First Apology, 6.) In the legal terminology of Rome, beginning in the second century, the word "atheist" does not, strictly speaking, signify the absolute denial of the Divinity, but rather a refusal to honor the gods of the Empire and to take part in public worship. Those were the only gods recognized by the State. Not only did it recognize them, but it incorporated their worship in the political institutions. While the sacra privata and gentilitia concerned only the family or the gens, the sacra publica were closely associated with the prosperity of the city. The State could compel participation in public worship. Such was the law of Rome. (Cf. Cicero, De legibus, II, 8-10; Livy, xxv, I.)

[5] Suetonius, Domitian, 2. Glabrio was consul in AD 61.

[6] Eusebius, H. E., III, xx, 1.

[7] Tertullian, De praescr., 36.

[8] Tillemont, Mémoires: St. John the Evangelist, art. 5.

[9] Apoc. 2:9 f., 13; 16:9-11; 20:4.

[10] Acta S. Ignatii (ed. by Funk), II, 260.

[11] Pliny, Letters, x, 96.

***

Join the discussion at:

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.