Vortex of Plagiarism?

Yesterday, Church Militant's Michael Voris produced a Vortex episode entitled Schismatic Before God treating the issue of the canonical status of the SSPX. It's the second installment in a series focused on the SSPX, and Church Militant's coverage of the matter is scheduled to climax with the release of an in-depth, investigative journalism-style exposé this Friday. Why, exactly, Michael Voris has chosen to write "SSPX♥SCHISM" upon Church Militant's banner is anyone's guess. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I suppose he is concerned with exposing what he sees as a real danger to souls. It's a bit like lecturing on the importance of hand-washing while a chainsaw-wielding lunatic is on the loose, but ... whatever.

As a matter of editorial policy, I try to refrain from publicly engaging the thorny issue of the canonical status of the SSPX on this blog, as my work here is focused on presenting orthodox Catholic educational material from before Second Vatican Council and all the ugliness which transpired in its wake. I try to put into practice what Mr. Michael Matt of The Remnant has been pleading in favor of for some time now: bringing together traditionally-minded Catholics of various stripes for the advance of authentic Catholicism. And judging by the diverse backgrounds of the individuals who have reached out to me in private communication to express their support for what I do here, it's an effective policy.

Nonetheless, here I am, talking about Michael Voris and the SSPX. *sigh*

I will not comment in any way upon the factual accuracy of Mr. Voris' presentation. I really don't want to get into any of that. Why bring it up at all, then? For a completely different reason:

Like any Catholic with his wits about him, I really enjoy listening to the sermons hosted by AudioSancto, as well as its inheritors, Romans10Seventeen, Regina Prophetarum and Luke1128. I like them so much, in fact, that I've listened to many of them several times. They're often so dense that they warrant a second or even a third listening. One such sermon is entitled End Times, and was delivered in two installments towards the end of November 2014. I must have listened to that sermon at least four times now. It's a good one.

Michael Voris must have thought so, too.

Roughly six contiguous paragraphs of Mr. Voris' presentation from yesterday appear to have been lifted - nearly verbatim - from the second installment of that sermon, delivered on 30.11.2014. As far as I can see, no mention is made of this rather extensive and direct borrowing; the transcript lists only Michael Voris, S.T.B. as its author, and there is no indication that Mr. Voris is quoting someone else.

The sizable portion of the text in question is presented below. The audio file containing the original sermon can be found here. The lifted portion begins at 25:20 and runs to about 28:22.

Let's look at two sources. First, St. Augustine, then St. Alphonsus, before looking specifically at Canon 751. 

It is a manifest rule that one ought in no wise secede from the Catholic communion, that is from the body of Christians throughout the world, by the establishment of a separate communion, even on the admission of evil and sacrilegious men. 

Saint Augustine makes perfectly clear that even with evil and sacrilegious men present in the Church - and we certainly have an abundance of those now - we cannot and must not under any circumstances separate ourselves from the unity of the Church. Notice that St. Augustine is not citing canon law, and the reason for this is that schism is essentially a question of moral theology, not a legal question. Schism is not something that comes into being by a legal declaration. 

When speaking of heresy, St. Alphonsus speaks of "heretics before God" - in other words, of someone who is a heretic but has not been legally declared so by a solemn judgment of the Church. The idea here is that the sin of heresy precedes the judgment of the Church that the man actually is a heretic. And even if the Church never got around in a particular case of judging some man, he would still be a heretic before God - and how God views it is all that matters at the end of the day. 

The situation with schism is analogous. We could speak of "schismatics before God" - in other words, of people who are schismatic but have not been legally declared so by a solemn judgment of the Church. The sin of schism precedes the judgment of the Church, just as the evil of murder precedes the judgment of a court. 

If a group or even an individual, while keeping the True Faith, nevertheless voluntarily, knowingly and deliberately separated himself from the unity of the Church by refusing to submit to the authority of the Pope and/or to remain in communion with those who are subject to him, he or they would still be schismatic even if the Church never got around to making a solemn declaration; they would be schismatics before God.  

So schism at its heart, principally and essentially, is a question of moral theology, not of canon law. One notable aspect of the particular evil spirit behind the sin of schism is that it gives the adherents of this sin an impression, which is really an illusion, of purity and piety. It helps them feel holy and good about maintaining doctrinal and moral purity, and at the same time to feel justified in separating themselves from obedience to the Pope or communion with other Catholics, as if they might somehow become tainted by these sort of associations. This is exactly how the schismatic churches of the Orthodox community feel about Rome, for example.

Even a cursory comparison of the text of the transcript provided by Michael Voris and the text spoken on the sermon recording reveals that the two are nearly identical. And yet there is nothing in Mr. Voris' text to indicate that he has borrowed - rather extensively - from someone else's work.

I realize that to suggest that a journalist has committed an act of gross plagiarism is serious business. I do not want to unfairly damage the man's reputation. It is certainly possible that this was an honest oversight on the part of Michael Voris. In fact, given his extensive experience in the field of professional journalism, one is almost bound to assume that the plagiarism was inadvertent rather than gross, and that there was no real intent to deceive. And it might not be his work at all; it is conceivable that the script was prepared by one of the other reporters on the Church Militant staff, and Mr. Voris just read it off the teleprompter. It happens.

Regardless of how it happened, however, the situation needs rectifying. It is, after all, only fitting that the good and holy priests behind projects such as AudioSancto get at least some recognition for their hard work.

*** UPDATE ***

I just received notification from Church Militant that the following has now been added to the transcript in question:

Portions of this script were taken with permission from this sermon.

I understand that changing the actual video recording of the transcript to reflect the fact that a sizable chunk of it was taken from another source would represent some technical difficulty, so I suppose a disclaimer is as good a rectification as we can hope to see.

Vows

Twenty-Ninth in a Series on Catholic Morality

 by
 Fr. John H. Stapleton

Vows are less common than oaths, and this is something to be thankful for, since being even more sacred than oaths, their abuse incidental to frequent usage would be more abominable. The fact that men so far respect the vow as to entirely leave it alone when they feel unequal to the task of keeping it inviolate, is a good sign - creditable to themselves and honorable to God.

People have become accustomed to looking upon vows as the exclusive monopoly of the Catholic Church and her religious men and women. Such things are rarely met with outside monasteries and convents, except in the case of secular priests. It is true that one hears tell occasionally of a stray unfortunate who has broken away from a state voluntarily, deliberately, chosen and entered upon, and who struggles through life with a violated vow saddled upon him. But one does not associate the sacred and heroic character of the vow with such pitiable specimens of moral worth.

The besom of Protestant reform thought to sweep all vows off the face of the earth, as immoral, unlawful, unnatural or, at least, useless things. The first Coryphei broke theirs; and, having learned from experience what troublesome things they are, instilled into their followers a salutary distaste for these solemn engagements that one can get along so well without. From disliking them in themselves, they came to dislike them in others, and it has come to this that the Church has been obliged to defend against the change of immorality an institution that alone makes perfection possible.

First of all, what is a vow? It is a deliberate promise made to God by which we bind ourselves to do something good that is more pleasing to Him than its omission would be. It differs from a promissory oath in this, that an oath makes God a witness of a promise made to a third party, while in a vow there is no third party, the promise being made directly to God. In a violated oath, we break faith with man; in a broken vow, we are faithless to God. The vow is more intimate than the oath, and although sometimes the words are taken one for the other, in meaning they are widely different.

Resolutions or purposes, such as we make in confession never to sin again, or in moments of fervor to perform works of virtue, are not vows. A promise made to the Blessed Virgin or the saints is not a vow; it must be made directly to God Himself.

A promise made to God to avoid mortal sin is not a vow, in the strict sense of the word; or rather such a promise is outside the ordinary province of the vow, which naturally embraces works of supererogation and counsel. It is unnecessary and highly imprudent to make such promises under a vow. A promise to commit sin is a blasphemous outrage. If what we promise to do is something indifferent, vain and useless, opposed to evangelical counsels or generally less agreeable to God than the contrary, our promise is null and void as far as the having the character of a vow is concerned.

Of course, in taking a vow we must know what we are doing and be free to act or not to act. If then the object of the vow is matter on which a vow may validly be taken, we are bound in conscience to keep our solemn engagement. What we forbid ourselves to do may be perfectly lawful and innocent, but by that vow we forfeit the right we had to do it, and for us it has become sinful. The peculiar position in which a vow places a man in relation to his fellow-men concerning what is right and wrong, is the characteristic of the vow that makes it the object of much attention. But it requires something lacking in the outfit of an intelligent man to perceive therein anything that savors of the unnatural, the unlawful or the immoral.

Concerning those whom a vow has constituted in a profession, we shall have a word to say later. Right here the folly, to say nothing stronger, of those who contract vows without thinking, must be apparent to all. No one should dare take upon himself or herself such a burden of his or her own initiative. It is an affair that imperiously demands the services of an outside, disinterested, experienced party, whose prudence will well weigh the conditions and the necessity of such a step. Without this, there is no end to the possible misery and dangers the taking of a vow may lead to.

If through an act of unthinking foolishness or rash presumption, you find yourself weighed down with the incubus of a vow not made for your shoulders, the only way out is to make a clean breast of the matter to your confessor, and follow his directions.

Event: International Symposium: The Two Shall Become One

In anticipation of the re-opening of the Synod on the Family in October, an international symposium on the creation of Adam and Eve as the foundation of the Catholic doctrine on Holy Marriage will be held on September 26, 2015, at the Centro Congressi Cavour – Via Cavour 50/A (near Termini Station) in Rome. Experts in theology, philosophy, and natural science will demonstrate that the traditional doctrine of the Church on the divine creation of Adam and Eve harmonizes with the best arguments in theology and philosophy, as well as with sound natural science, including the latest findings in biology, genetics, and paleontology.  

At the end of the nineteenth century, the first wave of the modern assault on Holy Marriage began as social revolutionaries attempted to introduce divorce into Catholic countries.  In response to these coordinated attacks on Holy Marriage, Pope Leo XIII exhorted the Bishops and theologians of the Catholic Church to defend the divine institution of Holy Marriage on the foundation of the divine creation of Adam and Eve.  In his encyclical Arcanum he told the Bishops:

The true origin of marriage, venerable brothers, is well known to all. [...] We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. [...] And this union of man and woman [...] even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties [...] namely, unity and perpetuity. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, 5)

According to Monsignor Barreiro, long-time director of Human Life International in Rome:

The international symposium will demonstrate the timeless wisdom of Pope Leo XIII’s teaching while exposing the serious errors in theology, philosophy and natural science that beset alternative explanations for the origins of the first human beings.

Participants in the symposium include:

• Fr. Chad Ripperger, Ph.D., Philosophy (formerly professor of Dogmatic Theology at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary)
• D. Q. McInerny, Ph.D., Philosophy (professor of Philosophy at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary) 
• Fr. Thomas Hickey, M.A., Theology (Faculty, Holy Apostles Seminary)
• Mr. John Wynne, (author, A Catholic Assessment of Evolution Theory)
• Dr. John Sanford, Ph.D., Plant Genetics (author, Genetic Entropy)
• Bai Macfarlane, (Director, Mary’s Advocates)
• Fr. Francesco Giordano, STD (Director, Human Life International, Rome Office).

For further information in Europe, please contact, Fr. Francesco Giordano, STD, Director, Vita Umana Internazionale, Roma (vuiroma@tin.it); in North America and elsewhere outside of Europe, please contact Hugh Owen (howen@shentel.net).

***

Please visit the Symposium's website to read Cardinal Raymond Burke's letter of welcome to participants. The event will also be streamed live.

Conjugal Restraint

Seventh in a Series on Catholic Marriage and Parenthood

 by

 Fr. Thomas J. Gerrard

All who look forward to marriage do so as to a state of ideal happiness. Yet how many fail to realize their ideal! It makes you jump, as Chesterton would say, when you think of what you expected, and compare it with what you have got. So we come round again to the same old theme: if you want to enjoy the Catholic ideal of a perfect marriage you must follow the Catholic rules. He who wishes for the end wishes also the means to the end.

Now, one of the chief means to happiness proposed by the Church is conjugal restraint. It would be very strange if in all the other animal tendencies she counselled moderation, and in this allowed unlimited indulgence. Yes, there can be debauchery in the pleasures of married life just as in the pleasures of eating and drinking. Such excess is a violation of the law of nature, and inevitably brings on nature's punishment. In this, as in all other functions of man, virtue, happiness, and well-being are to be found in moderation, and moderation is secured by rational restraint.

The question before us is not so much as to what is sin or no sin, but rather as to what helps to a higher happiness. The Church allows a wide freedom in the enjoyment of conjugal pleasures. She never for a moment forgets that one of the ends for which marriage was instituted was that it should be a remedy for concupiscence. In order therefore that there shall be no danger of indulgence outside lawful matrimony, the widest possible exercise is permitted within matrimony. The Church goes, hand in hand with nature, to the furthermost of nature's limits before she says that such or such an act is sin. She counsels the married pair, however, not to avail themselves of the whole range of nature's freedom. She declares that rational restraint is the way to the highest and fullest happiness in married life.

The root reason of this counsel is to be found in the fact that by restraint the sexual appetite is brought under control of the will. The will is guided by reason, and reason in its turn is illumined by divine wisdom. Thus, restrained and controlled, the sexual appetite can be directed to the three great ends for which it was made, and thus can it be prevented from abuse, for which it was not made. The order and higher satisfaction thus secured constitute the essence of happiness.

Let us see now how this higher satisfaction is reached. There are three ends for which marriage was instituted, and consequently three reasons which make the marriage act lawful and holy. The first and chief is the begetting of children. The second is the calming of concupiscence, and consequent avoiding of incontinence. The third is the fostering of conjugal love and affection. But all these minister to the perfection both of the individual and of the race. The married pair see in their offspring the continuance of their own life. Their joy is to know that a child is born to them, to see the child grow up and become settled in life, to hear that their own son is making his mark in the world, or that their own daughter is married well and happily.

The second and third reasons minister to the first. Unless there were a remedy for concupiscence, incontinence would follow, and with it all the evils of jealousy, quarrels, illegitimacy, separation, or divorce. Further, the fostering of conjugal love tends both to the increase of offspring, and to its good bringing up when born.

Sensual pleasure for its own sake is not amongst the recognized reasons for the exercise of the marriage act. It passes away with its own satisfaction, and if indulged merely for that purpose has neither use nor dignity. As a matter of fact, it was made to minister to higher ends. It is a mere adjunct to the marriage act, intended to make it attractive for the benefit of the race. If, therefore, it is perverted and made an end in itself, and if its higher ends are excluded, then it defeats the aim of matrimony, it kills the love between husband and wife, it shirks the burden of children.

In order that sensual pleasure may be the servant and not the master of man it must be restrained. It must not be crushed or destroyed. That was the error of Manicheism and Buddhism. But it must be moderated so that it may remain as long as possible a help towards conjugal love, towards the normal satisfaction of the sexual appetite, and towards the procreation of a large and healthy family of children. To let it have its full fling is to lessen its keenness, to destroy its power, and to render it disgusting.

There can be no general law for everybody. What is excess for one pair may be moderation for another. What is moderation for one partner may be excess for the other. Each case must be judged according to its own circumstances.

In deciding this, the existence and the welfare of the offspring is the first consideration. Incontinence tells against the interests of the offspring. Each partner then has the duty of seeing that, as far as possible, the other shall not be exposed to this danger. For the sake of home and family, therefore, each one is bound to render the debt as often as reasonably asked.

For such a sacred purpose either partner should be willing to undergo serious inconvenience. Indeed, marriage is supposed to be fraught with serious inconveniences. These are love's opportunities, and love is given to overcome them. The cares of child-bearing are no excuse for the wife refusing consent, nor yet is the expense of the child's education an excuse for the husband refusing consent. Not even a difficult childbirth is a sufficient reason for refusing. The only justification for refusing is something so serious as to involve danger of death, or long painful illness. Complete debauchery will come within this category. Such excessive indulgence may so weaken a man's will as to render him liable to incontinence. In the interests of conjugal fidelity the wife would in such a case be justified in refusing.

The intention of this chapter, however, is to indicate counsel rather than precept, to point the way of the higher happiness rather than the lowest degree of strict justice. St. Paul is our inspired authority. In laying down his doctrine, he is careful to say that it is a mere recommendation and not a binding obligation.

Defraud not one another, except perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

In the first place, he defends the conjugal rights of each partner. The husband is not to take upon himself any extraordinary restraint without the consent of the wife, nor the wife without consent of the husband. The aim of restraint is to acquire a wider and deeper spiritual life. But to do so at the expense of another's rights is an act of injustice which of its very nature militates against the deeper life desired. God instituted marriage as a remedy for concupiscence. But to deny the right is to put the other partner in danger of incontinence. Such an act of injustice can only entail spiritual loss to all concerned, and become the source of discontent and unhappiness in the family circle.

Lawful restraint requires three conditions. First, it must be by mutual consent; secondly, it must be only for a limited time; and thirdly, it must be for the sake of a higher spiritual life.

All things have their season: a time to embrace and a time to be far from embraces.

And the time most fitted for this abstention is the time of solemn fast or feast.

Blow the trumpet in Sion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly: let the bridegroom go forth from his bed, and the bride out of her bride-chamber.

The two observances are mutually helpful: the abstention promotes religion, and religion promotes restraint.

The Church makes no law about the times of this restraint. She recommends, however, that it be practiced at the times of the ecclesiastical fasts and festivals. At the end of the marriage service, the priest is directed so to admonish the bridal pair. Owing to the delicacy of the public conscience, this admonition is usually omitted. It remains, however, to be read privately by all those who will avail themselves of the wisdom of Mother Church.

The counsels of St. Paul and the Church are supported by the counsels of nature. Nature will allow a wide liberty, but she will rebel if she is over-taxed. It is astonishing how the race continues, considering the extent to which its reproductive powers are abused. But nature is both kind and strict. She gives ample warning as the limits of moderation are transgressed. If the excess be persistent and grave, she visits the offenders with grave chastisement.

The married pair, then, have the advantage of two guides, nature and religion. Nature will give the first warning against excess. The moderate exercise of the sexual life ought not to interfere with the working-life of either husband or wife. The strength of the weaker partner, then, will be the measure by which restraint is judged.

If the advice of the Church, too, be followed, it will be a strong help to the married couple to regulate their life within the bounds of physical fitness. To be explicit, the Church mentions the eves of all great festivals, and the seasons of Advent and Lent. But, once again, the rule is not one of obligation, but only one of counsel and can thus be changed to suit each one's individual needs.

This restraint is not accomplished by unaided nature. It is the result of a special grace of God which is conferred through the matrimonial Sacrament. The woman is the minister of grace to the man, and the man to the woman. Grace is given to accomplish all the ends of matrimony. But this restraint is needed for these ends. Therefore it will be supported by grace. Thus, the Catholic ideal is again seen to be the power making for family happiness. It tends to keep the parents in good health and consequently tends to produce a healthy offspring. In preventing excess, it prevents the married pair from becoming mere instruments of pleasure for each other, and consequently promotes a reverence and love which debauchery would destroy.

Now, although this abstention during ecclesiastical seasons is not of obligation, yet there are occasions when it is of obligation; and it will then be difficult to observe unless the non-obligatory restraint has been practiced.

Common decency demands that abstinence should be observed during the whole period of menstruation. The same must be said of the time immediately following childbirth. There is an idea prevalent, especially amongst the poorer classes, that it is bad luck to return to the married life until the woman has been churched. There is no rule of the Church to this effect. But it is a good custom, provided it is regarded merely as a custom and not adorned with the sanction of magic, of good luck, or bad luck.

Then comes the question of times of illness. For one partner there is danger of grave illness, whilst for the other there is danger of incontinency. Rather than expose a partner to the danger of sin, the other partner is bound to suffer grave inconvenience, but is not bound to go so far as to incur dangerous illness. It is difficult sometimes to draw the line, and wherever the line is drawn it means dissatisfaction for one or other of the parties concerned. How much better it would be, then, if both had practiced restraint when it was not of obligation! It would have produced a habit of mind and heart, by which the stronger partner would show a tender regard for the weaker. It would have become an effective expression of love, powerful to create a return love and thus to weld anew the marriage bond.

There may also arise the necessity of temporary separation on account of business. A commercial traveler may be away from home for months at a time. A sailor may be ordered abroad for a year or perhaps two. Whenever possible a man should take his wife with him on his travels. But since this, for many, is not practicable, the mind must be especially strengthened by the practice of restraint when it is not obligatory.

The plight of the very poor calls for special consideration. There are thousands upon thousands who have not got a living wage, yea, indeed, thousands upon thousands who have no wages at all. A poor dock-laborer of Liverpool, writing to me on various topics of the social question, thus very delicately tells his story. He says:

I will now touch briefly on the birthrate. Many good, earnest-minded men have often said of us workers that it was a crime for a man earning a small wage to marry and bring children into the world whose only heritage was one of poverty and want. Too well do we know with what anxiety the arrival of each little new-comer is looked forward to, as it means more to feed and clothe, while the earning power of the bread-winner is gradually growing less. But as the Church tells us that we are obeying the law of God, we may well ask 'Is it ever to be thus? Must we, in order to do what we were created for, commit a serious crime against our own offspring?' And in this dilemma we inquire: 'Which is the greater criminal, the working-man for obeying God's law, or he who is responsible for his condition in life and who prevents him from rearing his family in decency and comfort?' Although I look on little children as precious heirlooms sent from God, and with full knowledge that they beget happiness, could I be blamed should I advise my sons not to marry till late in life, or else refrain from marriage altogether; and so further restrict the birthrate, the decline of which is causing so much agitation throughout the country?

The writer is a good Catholic and so does not go so far as to suggest the artificial restriction within marriage. This evil, though, is closely bound up with the economic evil of which he speaks.

Let it be said at once, then, that poverty is no bar to the Sacrament of marriage. The poor are entitled to receive all the graces and all the joys which pertain to the marriage state, including the possession of children. Poverty in its extremity - destitution, that is - is a deplorable evil; but it is a mere trifle compared with the sins of incontinency which would surely follow if the poor were forbidden to marry. It is a mere trifle compared with that detestable sin against nature, the artificial restrictions of the birthrate.

Of course, there is no reason why young people should not abstain from marriage until they have a living wage, or, having married, abstain from the marriage act, provided this can be done without danger of incontinency. This course, indeed, may be profitably recommended and the Sacraments of the Church will be the best help in carrying it out. But Satan will be busy amongst those who try it. If it fails, marriage is the remedy in spite of all poverty, marriage and all the normal blessings of marriage, the procreation of children, the avoidance of incontinency, and the promotion of mutual love and affection. And if eventually the marriage is to be made ideal and despoiled of the stigma of destitution, it can only be by fidelity to the complete ideal of the Church, for it pertains to the complete ideal of the Church that a man should receive as much wages for his labor as will keep himself, his wife, and his family in reasonable and frugal comfort.

The sexual question, therefore, though largely a physical and economic one, is at bottom a religious one. The restraint needful for a happy marriage wants religious illumination and strength. The marriage bond has its likeness in the bond between Christ and the Church, namely, the bond of intense, strong love. The marriage bond is thus something quite distinct from lust. Lust seeks its own animal gratification, regardless of any other end but its own indulgence. Love, however, seeks the higher well-being. The love of the married pair, then, will be tender above all things. It will be selfless to a degree so that the weaker party has every consideration. Whatever sensual pleasure may be incidental to this love, all will be controlled and directed to the higher well-being of husband, wife, and children.

Crisis: Where Will the Synod Lead Us?

There's nothing like a strong cup of coffee and an equally strong shot of Catholic doctrine to wake you up in the morning. I just enjoyed both simultaneously.

Portal PCh24.pl released a video yesterday entitled Crisis: Where Will the Synod Lead Us? (Original: Kryzys: Dokąd zaprowadzi nas synod?) which contains strong words from three prominent prelates - Cardinal Raymond Burke, Archbishop Jan Lenga and Bishop Athanasius Schneider - on the issues surrounding the upcoming 2015 Synod. It's well worth your time, so pour yourself a cup and enjoy:

You might think - as do I, gentle reader - that the real coup d'état has already taken place in the recently released marriage annulment reform (can there remain any doubt as to why Cardinal Burke was removed from his post as Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura?), and that the Synod, while it will offer certain factions the opportunity to push for the approval of their perverted views on human sexuality, has been orchestrated to divert attention away from the structural and legal reforms currently being undertaken and to ultimately result in a widespread sigh of relief to the tune of "Crisis averted!" So, seeing as it speaks to eventualities which, in all likelihood, will never materialize, why draw your attention to this video?

To remind you to thank God for the holy priests and bishops who have demonstrated the courage and conviction to stand up for the teachings of Our Lord, Jesus Christ (miserere nobis), in the face of a pernicious heresy, the threat of schism and even apostasy. To remind you that the battle is not lost, and that the situation is not hopeless. To remind you that, come what may, Christ has not and will never abandon His Church.

Of course, you know these things. But it doesn't hurt to be reminded of them now and again.

The Gospel of St. John

Reading N°32 in the History of the Catholic Church

 by

 Fr. Fernand Mourret, S.S.

St. John the Evangelist
Domenichino (1581-1648)

The fall of the Flavians was followed by a conservative reaction, from which the Christians profited. At Domitian's death, in 96, St. John returned from exile to Ephesus. There he had the consolation of being again in the society of Christians in which he had lived for about thirty years. This whole crowd of converts, some from the ranks of Judaism, some from paganism, were all more or less imbued with the same philosophical ideas that issued from Alexandria. The educated discussed abstract systems that were venturesome and obscure. Even the common people spoke the language of those ideas; and by that unfelt influence which descends from the heights of speculative science little by little into the practice of life, curious theories insinuated themselves into the popular beliefs.

Some people were making a distinction between Christ and Jesus, regarding the latter as a mere man, like other men. This theory had been taught especially by a certain mysterious personage, Cerinthus, whose life is almost entirely unknown to us. His views are recorded by St. Irenaeus.^[1]

Cerinthus seems to have been a native of Egypt. He was a Jew before his conversion. After becoming a Christian, he kept his narrow views, refusing to admit the catholic character of Christianity. If we are to accept St. Epiphanius' report,^[2] Cerinthus organized even around St. Paul a sort of opposition preaching for the purpose of maintaining the Christian religion in strict dependence on Judaism. But the Judaism to which Cerinthus held was that interpreted by Philo - a synthesis of pagan wisdom and Mosaic teaching. After travelling through Palestine, Syria, and Galatia, Cerinthus returned to Asia. He may have settled at Ephesus during St. John's exile. Here is a brief outline of his teaching:

So far is the supreme God raised above all things, that even the angels do not know Him. He is neither the Creator nor Lawmaker of the world. This function belongs to the angels. As for Jesus, He is the son of Joseph and Mary. At His baptism, a power of the supreme God descended upon Him and remained in Him until the Passion exclusive. This divine entity was the Christ. The power of the supreme God left Him during His Passion, but nevertheless He rose from the dead.^[3]

Did Cerinthus confine himself to teaching by word of mouth, or did he put his ideas in writing? Contemporary evidence is too vague on this point to allow us to decide. We know that he made devoted disciples among the Christians. Upon St. John's return to Ephesus, the heresy of the Cerinthians was a great peril for the Church. Polycarp relates that John, the disciple of the Lord, one day entered a bath at Ephesus and there saw the heresiarch; thereupon John ran out, crying: "Let us fly lest the baths fall in, since Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within."^[4]

Besides Cerinthus, were there any forerunners of Docetism - later propounded by Saturninus, Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion - the error which holds that Jesus Christ had only an apparent body? Or did Cerinthus himself teach this heresy? It is impossible to say. But several passages of St. John's writings seem to have such a doctrine in mind.^[5]

However this may be, to refute the false notions that were circulating about the adorable person of the Savior, nothing could equal the testimony of him who had known the Master intimately, who had rested his head upon His breast the night before He died, and who had heard His last words on Calvary. St. John addressed to the Christians of Asia Minor, who had been converted from paganism, a letter which may be considered as a preface to the Gospel which he wrote later. This letter begins thus:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life. [...] That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship may be with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.^[6]

These words indicate the aim of the Fourth Gospel: to show, as against the new heretics, the identity of Jesus of Nazareth with the eternal Son of God, the life and light of the world. The first three Gospels had given a glimpse of the eternal preexistence of Jesus Christ.^[7] St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Colossians, and later in the Epistle to the Hebrews, represented Christ as the sole revealer and sole mediator of the invisible Father.^[8] St. John's originality consisted in this, that, in the light of more intimate recollections and deeper supernatural illuminations, he made Christian revelation more precise on these points; and that, in his exposition, he ventured to use the abstract expressions of Oriental language, expressions that were common in the country where he was writing.

Soon afterward, St. John's Gospel appeared. It begins thus:

In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This term "Word" or Logos was in common use by the Alexandrian philosophers. But we would be quite mistaken if we therefore concluded that the Evangelist's thought is at all dependent upon a particular philosophy. In the philosophy of Philo, the word Logos means vaguely an organ of the divine power, although we cannot exactly say whether it is confounded with God or constitutes a distinct person; for other philosophers, this word signified either a being intermediate between the world and God, or divine reason spread forth in the world, or something entirely different. The Logos, for the Hellenists of the time, was the favorite word to express whatever is beautiful and harmonious and great. We may form an idea of this by considering what the eighteenth century philosophers put under the name of Reason, those of the nineteenth under the name of Science, those of the twentieth under the name of Life. The Apostle seized upon this word - he uses it only four times in all his writings - and declares to that Alexandrian world, seduced by all the grand things which that term suggested to them, that its ideal is fully realized only in this Jesus, whose witness he, John, is.^[9] And the Evangelist makes the idea of the Word, or Logos, more precise by means of the two clearer words, light and life:

The Word was with God. [...] In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.^[10]

The wonderful prologue containing these words so far surpasses the ordinary conceptions of the human mind as to dazzle and astound it. This son of thunder does not speak a human language; he flashes lightning, he thunders, he stuns, he humbles every created mind under the obedience of the faith, when, by a rapid flight, cleaving the air and piercing the clouds and rising above the angels, he intones these words: "In the beginning was the Word."^[11]

Once the theologian has set forth the grand concept we should have of Jesus Christ, the part of the witness begins. St. John's aim in writing his Gospel is evidently to prove the faith; but he wishes to prove it by history, chiefly by that which he knows in a more personal way. He is not at pains to harmonize his account with that of the preceding Evangelists. As a rule John records the events in the order of their happening; and nevertheless it is possible to note a progressive movement in the march of ideas, which warrants the division of the Holy Book into three parts. The first recounts the various greetings accorded by the world to the Light bestowed on it by the Incarnate Word;^[12] the second describes the implacable resistance it met with from the creatures of Darkness;^[13] the third describes the eclipse of the Light, but only an apparent eclipse, since from it Jesus emerges in a more striking manifestation of His Divinity: His love attaining its climax in the Eucharist and the sacrifice on the Cross.^[14] "None but God could have loved so greatly as this."^[15]

The Fourth Gospel seems to flow in a single stream. The events and discourses connect, explain, and supplement each other in a magnificent unity. Everything in it is lifelike and glowing; the events are intermingled with dialogue and animated retort, with realistic interruptions; the actors of the story seem to live again in its pages. Even the abstract ideas take on a body, and the most material events evoke supernatural realities. The Savior's features appear more lifelike than in the Synoptic Gospels; the inner depths of His soul are more clearly revealed. The Apostle, writing his narrative after a long interval, "recording conversations and discourses that he did not write down on the spot, subjects these conversations and discourses to certain literary transformations," by giving them "a personal stamp of his own in the construction of phrases and the grouping of ideas."^[16] Yet it is quite natural to think that the beloved disciple was able to attain to deeper realities than the other Evangelists, either by the more intimate confidences which his divine Friend may have bestowed on him, or because a more ardent love made it easier for him to understand and remember, or because a half-century of intense mystical life revealed to him more clearly a saying at first imperfectly understood.^[17]

The appearance of St. John's Gospel was one of the greatest events in the early Church. It occurred about the year 98.^[18] The Evangelist accomplished his purpose. Without any direct controversy or specific mention of the heresy, by a simple mention of the opposite facts,^[19] which he himself had witnessed, he reduced to nothing all the affirmations of Cerinthus. Thereafter, in the teaching of the faithful, the influence of this book was immense. Eusebius says: "It is read in all the churches under heaven."^[20] Some heretics tried to make it serve their own purpose; others fought it with all their might. Especially in Alexandria it occasioned many metaphysical speculations. Eusebius speaks of "a school of sacred learning" or didascalia, founded in Alexandria at an early date.^[21] This was the germ of the famous school on which Clement of Alexandria and Origen shed such incomparable luster. It was the beginning of a new phase in the history of the Church. In Jerusalem, Christianity appears as a brotherhood, with St. James the Less as its father; at Antioch, it appears as a propaganda, with St. Paul as its chief champion; at Rome, it declares itself as a government, with St. Peter as the head; at Alexandria, it presents itself as a philosophy, with St. John as its doctor. These were, however, merely diverse aspects, successive adaptations, of a doctrine always one, always identical: for it to enlarge and develop was simply to succeed in fathoming the Master's teaching more and more deeply.

The story of St. John's last years has not been recorded; it is lost in fanciful legend, with which the Gnostics embellished it. What we can accept as a truthful detail is the continuance of his amiable kindness. All the traditions represent him as a kindly man advanced in years, summing up all his teaching in one saying:

My little children, let us love not in word nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth.^[22]

These same traditions are agreed in saying that his death was as gentle as falling asleep.^[23] His tomb soon became an object of universal veneration. Today, upon the ruins of the city of Ephesus, it is thought that traces of it are to be found on the side of a hill where eight or ten poor families are living together; and the memory of the great Apostle survives in the name of the little village which these families have founded, Aya Suluk, the place of the "Holy Theologian" (aghiou apostolou).^[24]

Tomb of St. John the Apostle in Ephesus. The Basilica which once stood over
the tomb was abandoned after the Seljuk conquest of the 13th century, with the
remains being completely burned and destroyed during the Mongol raids of 1402.

Footnotes

[1] St. Irenaeus, Haereses, I, xxvi, 1.

[2] St. Epiphanius, Haereses, XXVIII, 2-4.

[3] St. Irenaeus, III, xi, 7. On Cerinthus, cf. idem, I, xxvi, 1; Tertullian, De praescr., 48.

[4] Eusebius, H. E., IV, xiv, 6.

[5] John 1:14; 19:34; 1 John 1:1; 4:3; 2 John 7.

[6] 1 John 1:1.

[7] Mark 12:35-37; Matt. 22:41-46; Luke 20:41-44.

[8] Coloss. 1:13-20; Heb. 1:2 f.; 7:6; 9:15; 12:24. Cf. 1 Cor. 8:6.

[9] On the comparison of Philo's Logos with the Logos of St. John, see Lebreton, Les Origines du dogme de Ia Trinité, I, 515-523.

[10] Anyone who will consult a Concordance, under the words "light" and "life," will be impressed with the important place which these two ideas hold in St. John's Gospel.

[11] Cf. Bossuet, Elévations sur les mystères, 7th edition.

[12] John 1-4.

[13] John 5-12.

[14] John 12-20. The last chapter, undoubtedly added as an afterthought, presents a somewhat different point of view.

[15] Fouard, St. John, p. 176.

[16] Lepin, art. "Evangiles", in the Dict. apol. de la foi catholique.

[17] Fouard (St. John, p. 175) admits as probable that other hands cooperated with St. John in the editing of his recollections. Calmes (Comment se sont formes les Evangiles, pp. 5-7, and L'Evangile selon saint Jean, Introduction) is willing to consider rather broadly the part of St. John's disciples in the editing of his Gospel. But, on any supposition, these authors maintain that the whole Gospel reproduces the Apostle's thought. Even with this restriction, the hypothesis admitted by Fouard and Calmes seems to us improbable. The perfect unity of plan and style to be observed in the Fourth Gospel does not easily comport with the supposition of a plurality of collaborators; unless these latter be regarded as simple scribes, passive secretaries, solely engaged in rendering with scrupulous care the thoughts and expressions of the Apostle - which would fundamentally be a return to the traditional thesis. (On the history of the Fourth Gospel, see Levesque, Nos quatre evangiles.)

[18] Probably the Apostle had begun to write his Gospel during his exile at Patmos, or even earlier, and it was merely the reproduction and orderly arrangement of his habitual preaching.

[19] Cf. Döllinger, The First Age of Christianity and the Church, I, 192.

[20] Eusebius, H. E., III, xxiv, 2. On the Gospel of St. John, see Corluy, Commentarium in Evangelium S. Joannis; Knabenbauer, ibidem; Lepin, La Valeur historique du quatrième Evangile; Nouvelle, L'Authenticité du quatrième Evangile.

[21] Eusebius, H. E. V, x, 1.

[22] 1 John 3:18.

[23] Zahn, Acta Johannis, p. 256.

[24] Le Camus, Voyage aux pays bibliques, III, 132 ff.

***

Join the discussion at:

Oaths

Twenty-Eighth in a Series on Catholic Morality

 by
 Fr. John H. Stapleton

The first quality of an oath is that it be true. It is evident that every statement we make, whether simple or sworn, must be true. If we affirm what we know to be false we lie, if we swear to what we know to be false, we perjure ourselves. Perjury is a sacrilegious falsehood, and the first sin against the Second Commandment.

If, while firmly believing it to be true, what we swear to happens to be false, we are not guilty of perjury, for the simple reason that our moral certitude places us in good faith, and good faith guarantees us against offending. The truth we proclaim under oath is relative, not absolute, subjective rather than objective, that is to say, the statement we make is true as far as we are in a position to know. All this holds good before the bar of conscience, but it may be otherwise in the courts where something more than personal convictions, something more akin to scientific knowledge, is required.

He who swears without sufficient certitude, without a prudent examination of the facts of the question, through ignorance that must be imputed to his guilt, that one takes a rash oath - a sin great or small according to the gravity of the circumstances. It is not infrequently grievous.

Some oaths, instead of being statements, are promises - sworn promises. That of which we call God to witness the truth is not something that is, but something that will be. If one promises under oath, and has no intention of redeeming his pledge; or if he afterwards revokes such an intention without serious reasons, and fails to make good his sworn promise, he sins grievously, for he makes a fool and a liar of Almighty God who acts as sponsor of a false pledge. Concerning temperance pledges, it may here be said that they are simple promises made to God, but not being sworn to, are not oaths in any sense of the word.

Then, again, to be lawful, an oath must be necessary or useful, demanded by the glory of God, our own or our neighbor's good; and it must be possible to fulfill the promise within the given time. Otherwise, we trifle with a sacred thing, we are guilty of taking vain and unnecessary oaths. There can be no doubt but that this is highly offensive to God, who is thus made little of in His holy name.

This is the most frequent offense against the Second Commandment, the sin of profane swearing, the calling upon God to witness the truth of every second word we utter. It betrays in a man a very weak sense of his own honesty when he cannot let his words stand for themselves. It betokens a blasphemous disrespect for God Himself, represented by that name which is made a convenient tool to further every vulgar end. It is therefore criminal and degrading, and the guilt thereby incurred cannot be palliated by the plea of habit. A sin is none the less a sin because it is one of a great many. Vice is criminal. The victim of a vice can be considered less guilty only on condition of seriously combating that vice. Failing in this, he must bear the full burden of his guilt.

Are we bound to keep our oaths? If valid, we certainly are. An oath is valid when the matter thereof is not forbidden or illicit. The matter is illicit when the statement or promise we make is contrary to right. He who binds himself under oath to do evil, not only does not sin in fulfilling his pledge, but would sin if he did redeem it. The sin he thus commits may be mortal or venial according to the gravity of the matter of the oath. He sinned in taking the oath; he sins more grievously in keeping it.

The binding force of an oath is also destroyed by fraud and deception. Fear may have a kindred effect, if it renders one incapable of a human act. Likewise a former oath may annul a subsequent oath under certain conditions.

Again, no man in taking an oath intends to bind himself to anything physically or morally impossible, or forbidden by his superiors; he expects that his promise will be accepted by the other party, that all things will remain unchanged, that the other party will keep faith, and that there will be no grave reason for him to change his mind. In the event of any of these conditions failing of fulfillment his intention is not to be held by his sworn word, and his oath is considered invalidated. He is to be favored in all doubts and is held only to the strict words of his promise.

The least, therefore, we have to do with oaths, the better. They are things too sacred to trifle with. When necessity demands it, let our swearing honor the Almighty by the respect we show His holy name.