G K Chesterton on the Virgin and Child

If the world wanted what is called a non-controversial aspect of Christianity, it would probably select Christmas. Yet it is obviously bound up with what is supposed to be a controversial aspect (I could never at any stage of my opinions imagine why); the respect paid to the Blessed Virgin. When I was a boy a more Puritan generation objected to a statue upon my parish church representing the Virgin and Child. After much controversy, they compromised by taking away the Child. One would think that this was even more corrupted with Mariolatry, unless the mother was counted less dangerous when deprived of a sort of weapon. But the practical difficulty is also a parable. You cannot chip away the statue of a mother from all round that of a newborn child. You cannot suspend the new-born child in mid-air; indeed you cannot really have a statue of a newborn child at all. Similarly, you cannot suspend the idea of a newborn child in the void or think of him without thinking of his mother. You cannot visit the child without visiting the mother, you cannot in common human life approach the child except through the mother. If we are to think of Christ in this aspect at all, the other idea follows it as it is followed in history. We must either leave Christ out of Christmas, or Christmas out of Christ, or we must admit, if only as we admit it in an old picture, that those holy heads are too near together for the haloes not to mingle and cross.

 The Everlasting Man

 

O Emmanuel

O Rex Gentium

O Oriens

O Clavis David

O Radix Jesse

O Adonai

O Sapientia

Advent novena

A poltergeist requests Masses

From Shane Leslie's Ghost Book

Fr Faber on recreation, chess, and St Charles Borromeo

Everyone remembers the story of St. Charles Borromeo and his game of chess. When others were saying what they would forthwith begin to do if they knew they should die within an hour, the saint said he should go on with his chess; for he had begun it simply for God's glory, and he desired nothing better than to be called away in the midst of an action begun for the glory of God.

All For Jesus

Fr Vincent McNabb writes to "The Tablet"

Just browsing the Tablet archive,  I found this gem:

6th May 1911

THE FEEBLE-MINDED

 

SIR,—In your issue of April 15, mention is made of a Home for Feeble-minded girls over 16 years of age, to be opened at High Wycombe. It will be under the charge of the White Sisters (daughters of the Holy Spirit) and an organising Committee. Nothing but thanks could be offered to the Sisters and the Committee for their timely effort to deal with a social problem. May their zeal receive the better thanks of imitation elsewhere throughout the country.

 

I wish every other contribution of your correspondent merited the like gratitude.

 

Let me set down some statements that seem to me to be pernicious.

It is hoped that girls will remain in the Home for the greater part of their lives for this very grave reason : when a feeble-minded girl arrives at maturity, and is not under organised supervision, she becomes a danger to herself and to the community, ending in the workhouse, an inebriate reformatory, a rescue home or a jail. Liberty to the feeble-minded is only liberty to lead a life of misery and degradation, whereas segregation means a life of happiness and utility. Without this segregation the British public must in time consist of more mentally deficient than normal people as the feeble-minded give the world more children than do the normal in the ratio of 7'3 to 4. This is a mathematical fact from which there is no escape.  

This is such an unveiled "casting of stones" at a self-defenceless class of the community that I, their brother, may be allowed on their behalf to call a spade a spade—with emphasis.

 

I. From internal evidence I conclude that your correspondent is either not a "White Sister—a daughter of the Holy Spirit," or she has forgotten of what spirit, and colour, she is. Her voice may be the voice of a daughter of the Holy Spirit, but her words are the wearisome fallacies of the Eugenists.

 

II. There is a confusion between the " feeble-minded " and the "sexually feeble-willed." To argue that the feeble-minded are a danger to the community lays your correspondent open to an overwhelming tu quoque. It would be such a display of lack-logic that a defender of the poor might be pardoned for calling it "feeble-minded." A witty defender of the poor might even suggest humorously that your correspondent's mental state deserves permanent custodial treatment—as a danger to the community.

 

III. I have underlined the passage beginning "without this segregation." A few days ago Mr. Chesterton, on a memorable occasion expressed our thoughts and relieved our feelings by the monosyllable "Bosh !" On reading the passage underlined, I fly for shelter to leeward of Mr. Chesterton's strong sense—and vocabulary.

 

IV. Your ordinary run of readers will be swayed by the "7'3 to 4," with its delicate air of scholarly precision. All the terrier within me yearns to rise up and worry this appalling assumption. Instead of anger I will be content with authority. Many might be brought to bear ; one will do my work.

 

In his evidence before the Royal Commission on the care and control of the feeble-minded, Sir J. Crichton Browne said :

No definite opinion can be expressed as to whether the number of idiots, imbeciles, epileptics, feeble-minded, and defective persons is increasing out of proportion to the population. . . . A consideration of the causes of mental defects might lead us to infer that they are a diminishing quantity ; for they are undoubtedly of more frequent occurrence where there is a low standard of health dependent on poverty and insanitary conditions. (Report of Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-minded. Vol. I.)

I confess to the feeling that Sir J. Crichton Browne's wise ignorance is a more scholarly attitude than the precise "7'3 to 4."

 

V. I will end with two grave thoughts. If this custodial treatment and enforced celibacy bad been meted out to all the feeble-minded of the past century, how many of our reigning sovereigns would be in existence ?

 

To be quite consequent your correspondent would have given Francis Thompson permanent custodial treatment at Storrington, years before he went there to find himself a poet. We should thus have been without the "Hound of Heaven" ; though I agree we should have had the proceedings of the Eugenist societies and the long paralogisms on heredity.

 

I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

VINCENT MCNABB, O.P.

Holy Cross Priory, Leicester.

 

 

The article Fr McNabb's letter refers to is here.

There's a further letter from him here.

St Philip Neri on anger

"He who continues in anger, strife, and a bitter spirit, has a taste of the air of hell."

St Philip Neri on adversity

"There is no surer or clearer proof of the love of God than adversity."

GKC foresees Assisi

Even where we can hardly call the Christian greater, we are forced to call him larger. But it is so to whatever philosophy or heresy or modern movement we may turn. How would Francis the Troubadour have fared among the Calvinists, or for that matter among the Utilitarians of the Manchester School? Yet men like Bossuet and Pascal could be as stern and logical as any Calvinist or Utilitarian. How would St. Joan of Arc, a woman waving on men to war with the sword, have fared among the Quakers or the Doukhabors or the Tolstoyan sect of pacifists? Yet any number of Catholic saints have spent their lives in preaching peace and preventing wars. It is the same with all the modern attempts at Syncretism. They are never able to make something larger than the Creed without leaving something out. I do not mean leaving out something divine but something human; the flag or the inn or the boy's tale of battle or the hedge at the end of the field. The Theosophists build a pantheon; but it is only a pantheon for pantheists. They call a Parliament of Religions as a reunion of all the peoples; but it is only a reunion of all the prigs. Yet exactly such a pantheon had been set up two thousand years before by the shores of the Mediterranean; and Christians were invited to set up the image of Jesus side by side with the image of Jupiter, of Mithras, of Osiris, of Atys, or of Ammon. It was the refusal of the Christians that was the turning-point of history. If the Christians had accepted, they and the whole world would have certainly, in a grotesque but exact metaphor, gone to pot. They would all have been boiled down to one lukewarm liquid in that great pot of cosmopolitan corruption in which all the other myths and mysteries were already melting. It was an awful and an appalling escape. Nobody understands the nature of the Church, or the ringing note of the creed descending from antiquity, who does not realize that the whole world once very nearly died of broad-mindedness and. the brotherhood of all religions.

 The Everlasting Man

 

Pope Pius XII on wars of aggression

Every war of aggression against any ordinance which God gives to man in the interests of peace and bids him respect and endorse, preserve and defend, is a sin and a crime. It is an attack upon the Majesty of God, the Creator and Orderer of the World. If any people threatened with, or already the victim of, an unjust aggression be minded to think and act in a Christian way, it cannot remain in a passive indifference. All the more does the solidarity of the family of peoples forbid the other members to behave like simple onlookers in an attitude of unconcerned neutrality.

Who can ever measure the harm done in the past by such indifference, so far removed from Christian feeling, towards aggressive wars? How pointedly it has given proof of the lack of security among the "great" and, above all, among the "little". Has it, on the other hand, brought any advantage at all? On the contrary, It has only reassured and encouraged the authors and favourers of aggression, by forcing single peoples, abandoned to themselves, to a necessary and indefinite increase of their armaments.

Resting upon God and upon the order established by Him, the Christian will for peace is, accordingly, strong as steel. It is of a temper very different from the mere humanitarian sentiment, too often nothing but a sensitiveness which detests war only because of its horrors and atrocities, its havoc and its dire results, but not also because of its injustice.

In such a sentiment, hedonistic and utilitarian in character, and materialistic in origin, there is wanting the firm foundation of a strict and unconditional obligation. It forms the kind of soul in which the empty sham of compromise takes root, the attempt to save oneself at the cost of others, and in every case the success of the aggressor.

So true is this that neither the consideration of the sorrows and evils following from war, by itself, nor the exact balancing of action and advantage, suffice for a final decision whether it is morally lawful or, in a given concrete case, morally binding, to resist the aggressor (supposing always a well-founded likelihood of success).

One thing is certain: the precept of peace is of Divine right. Its end is the protection of things that constitute the good of mankind, in so far as it is the good of the Creator. Now among these are some so important for human society that their defence against unjust aggression is beyond question fully lawful. The United Nations as a body are bound to defend them, having the duty not to forsake the nation assaulted.

Guide For Living

In Spain, there is a crucifix

 (I think this poem is by Fr Mateo Crawley-Boevey SSCC.)

In Spain, there is a crucifix, with one arm of Our Lord
Hanging down, not fixed thereon, they say with one accord -

It happened that a certain man fell deep in sin and shame.
He, to the priest for pardon, with deep contrition came.
The priest was loathe to give it, the man though pleaded sore,
And so the good priest pardoned him but warned, "Now sin no more!"

The sinner went off happy, but, sad it is to tell,
Into the rut of evil ways, again he weakly fell.
Back to the priest for pardon, he came with grief anew,
The priest refused it, saying, "Your sorrow is not true!"
The poor man begged and pleaded, and so the priest gave in,
But said that nevermore would he absolve such a grievous sin.

The sinner went off, full of joy, his weakness though was great,
And soon alas, he fell again, into his sinful state.
This time the priest was adamant, "I will not pardon you,
Your sorrow and repentance are shallow and untrue!"
In vain the sinner pleaded, for pardon as before.
The priest was now determined to absolve the man no more.

Suddenly they were disturbed by anguished sobs of pain,
So loud, so unmistakable, they listened once again.
It was as if the tenderest heart, with bitter grief was broken,
The sound just pierced their very souls, although no word was spoken.
They looked, the church was as before, but then they saw above
The crucifix was there alive, the sobs were those of Love.

Then Jesus to His own dear priest said tenderly, "My son,
You have not shed your blood for him, as I his Lord have done!"
Then that dear hand, transfixed by love, detached itself instead
To make a large "Sign of the Cross" over the sinner's head.

Until this day that loving Hand so often raised in blessing,
Has not returned to where it was, but now all priests addressing -
Says, "Pardon, pardon, mercy, mercy, on sinners pity take.
Ah, draw them to My loving Heart, and love them for My sake!"

Dorothy Day on abortion and birth control

Context here.

The relevance of camels while discussing gnats

In the aftermath of the EU referendum, I'm seeing a lot of judgments being made about the fitness of those who voted Leave (of whom I am one), and worry about what lies ahead.

We're a bunch of racist xenophobes, apparently. And even if many of us are not personally, we've enabled a bunch of racist xenophobes to usher in a Fascist state.

And people are very worried about that prospect. (I do not relish the idea either.)

But, what do we actually have today? What are we tolerating? What doesn't bother us too much? In fact, what do many actually support?

Well, if you point out that, while worrying about racism and xenophobia, we're tolerating the murder of unborn children, you'll be told that that is a separate issue, totally irrelevant, beside the point.

Now, let's go back to the Gospel and imagine an exchange between Our Lord and a Pharisee. The latter is criticising someone over a gnat-like matter. Our Lord points out that the Pharisee is actually swallowing a camel.

The Pharisee says, "We're not talking about that camel! This is about a gnat! Don't change the subject!"

Or, maybe the Pharisee is telling someone to address a mote that is in his eye. Our Lord comes along and says, "Erm, what about the beam that is in your own eye?"

The Pharisee says, "This is about that man's mote, not my beam! My beam has nothing to do with it!"

We live in a world where abortion is not merely tolerated. It is defended as a right. And we vote for politicians who support it. Even if we oppose abortion personally, we still hold politicians who support it in esteem.They are not beyond the pale. Why? Why is racism, or xenophobia, the only thing that would put them beyond the pale?

If we tolerate abortion, we are in no position to take exception to xenophobia.

To trust in God, by Pope Pius XII

What does it mean to trust in God?

Trust in God means the abandonment of oneself, with all the forces of the will sustained by grace and love, in spite of all the doubts suggested by appearances to the contrary, to the wisdom, the infinite love of God. It means believing that nothing in this world escapes His Providence, whether in the universal or in the particular order; that nothing great or small happens which is not foreseen, willed or permitted, directed always by Providence to its exalted ends, which in this world are always inspired by love for men.

It means believing that God can permit, at times here below, for some time, pre-eminence of atheism and of impiety, the lamentable obscuring of a sense of justice, the violation of law, the tormenting of innocent, peaceful, undefended, helpless men. It means believing that God at times thus lets trials befall individuals and peoples, trials of which the malice of men is the instrument in a design of justice directed towards the punishment of sin, towards purifying persons and peoples through the expiations of this present life and bringing them back by this way to Himself; but it means believing at the same time that this justice always remains here below the justice of a Father inspired and dominated by love.

However severe may seem the Hand of the Divine Surgeon when he cuts with the lancet into the live flesh, it is always an active love that guides and drives it in, and only the good of men and peoples makes Him intervene in such a painful way.

It means, finally, believing that the fierce intensity of the trial, like the triumph of evil, will endure here below for only a fixed time and not longer; that the hour of God will come, the hour of mercy, the hour of holy rejoicing, the hour of the new canticle of liberation, the hour of exultation and of joy, the hour in which, after having let the hurricane loose for a moment upon humanity, the all-powerful Hand of the Heavenly Father, with an imperceptible motion, will detain it and disperse it, and, by ways little known to the mind or to the hopes of men, justice, calm and peace will be restored to the nations.

We know well that the most serious difficulty for those who have not a correct sense of the Divine comes from seeing so many innocent victims involved in suffering by the same tempest which overwhelms sinners. Men never remain indifferent when the hurricane which tears up the great trees also cuts down the lowly little flowers which opened at their feet only to lavish the grace of their beauty and fragrance on the air around them. And yet these flowers and their perfumes are the work of God and of His wonderful designing. If he has allowed any of these flowers to be swept away in the storm, can He not, do you think, have assigned a goal unseen by the human eye for the sacrifice of that most unoffending creature in the general arrangement of the law by which He prevails over and governs nature? How much more, then, will His omnipotence and love direct the lot of pure and innocent human beings to good.

Through the languishing of faith in men's hearts, through the pleasure-seeking that moulds and captivates their lives, men are driven to judge as evil, and as unmixed evil, all the physical mishaps of this earth. They have forgotten that suffering stands at the threshold of life as the way that leads to the smiles of the cradle. They have forgotten that it is more often than not the shadow of the Cross of Calvary thrown on the path of the Resurrection; they have forgotten that the cross is frequently a gift of God, a gift which is needed in order to offer to the Divine Justice our share of expiation. They have forgotten that the only real evil is the sin that offends God. They have forgotten what the Apostle says: "The sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that will be revealed in us", that we ought to look on "the Author and Finisher of Faith, Jesus, Who for the joy set before Him, endured a cross.".

Do you, too, dear children, look upon your sufferings thus, and you will find the strength not merely to accept them with resignation, but to love them, to glory in them as the Apostles and saints. . . .

Look upon your sufferings and difficulties in the light of the sufferings of the Crucified, in the light of the sufferings of the Blessed Virgin, the most innocent of creatures and the most intimate sharer in the Passion of Our Lord, and you will be able to understand that to be like the Exemplar, the Son of God, King of Sufferings, is the noblest and safest way to Heaven and victory.

Guide For Living, Radio address on "Divine Providence in Human Events", June 29, 1941

God is love; love isn't necessarily God - C S Lewis

St. John’s saying that God is love has long been balanced in my mind against the remark of a modern author (M. Denis de Rougement) that “love ceases to be a demon only when he ceases to be a god”; which of course can be re-stated in the form “begins to be a demon the moment he begins to be a god.” This balance seems to me an indispensable safeguard. If we ignore it the truth that God is love may slyly come to mean for us the converse, that love is God. I suppose that everyone who has thought about the matter will see what M. de Rougemont meant. Every human love, at its height, has a tendency to claim for itself a divine authority. Its voice tends to sound as if it were the will of God Himself. It tells us not to count the cost, it demands of us a total commitment, it attempts to over-ride all other claims and insinuates that any action which is sincerely done “for love’s sake” is thereby lawful and even meritorious.

The Four Loves

False Hope in the Neutral, by Carol Robinson

False Hope in the Neutral

Most of the naturally good reforms mentioned earlier are "neutral"; that is, they are good in themselves and standing alone. The question arises whether we ought not to try to put them into effect as soon as possible without waiting for the world to become Christian. It seems like a much more ambitious project to restore all things to Christ than to get young people to do folk dancing or to make and distribute whole wheat bread to malnourished people. Besides, many non-Catholics, not ready to join the Church, are willing to cooperate on these naturally good projects. We also belong to this world, it is argued, and owe it to our citizenship to work for good temporal ends.

Now the illusion here is that it is easier to bring about a good natural order through natural efforts than it is to obtain the rectification of the natural order through the reorientation of the world to Christ.

It is possible to obtain temporarily certain objects in the natural order, but by and large this naturally good world is impossible, and therefore unrealistic, whereas the ordering of the world to Christ is our mission and may perhaps be closer to realization in our day than it has ever been.

The reason the naturally good order is impossible is, theologically, owing to Original Sin. A naturally good society is impossible to fallen man.

But apart from theological considerations we should learn by our own experience and analysis. Our great hopes are always failing us. We think we can create wonderful citizens if only everyone gets an education - but human virtue keeps declining. We think we can create good interracial relationships by non-religious means, but we do not succeed. We think we can clean up political corruption by the right use of our franchise, but the change is only momentary, or apparent, and the situation continues to worsen.

One difficulty with "neutral" means is that being neutral, they cannot sustain their indeterminism and will thus become an instrument of atheism, avarice or idolatry if we decline to impregnate them with Christianity. The Communists use folk dancing to better advantage than we do, the British cooperatives are huge capitalistic enterprises, and lots of people worship wheat germs.
...

My Life With Thomas Aquinas

The "Good Natural", by Carol Robinson

The "Good Natural" Not the Christian

If it were possible to achieve all these natural reforms by natural action, which it is not, the result would not be a Christian society. We have to say this because many people confuse a Christian order with a naturally good order. They are as different as day from night. Christ's own life centered in the mystery of the Cross, so His society also can be expected to bear an analogous resemblance. Christ's life was a contradiction, so His order can be expected to contradict the world too. Consider the illustration, how different the humanist's "ideal man" is from the saint. He has culture, refinement, learning. His natural gifts are all developed. He is courteous and clean and interested in the common good rather than in his own advancement. Obviously it is an ideal which rests heavily on natural endowment, material and social advantages.

Sanctity, in contrast, can use any human base, wise or simple, rich or poor. It completely fulfills its subjects, even intensifying their natural gifts, but by ordering a man's whole life to charity. a certain transformation and elevation of his nature takes place, within which the nature is perfected but not with the finality one finds in the humanist. St Francis of Assisi was a talented and charming youth before his "conversion." He gave up all promise of human development and achievement. Yet who can say that the saint lacked any fulfillment of his nature? His charm was still there, mysteriously magnified. He was a leader of men above anything he could have hoped for in war or politics. Furthermore what Francis became he could never have become by first perfecting himself in the natural order. The transformation and elevation of his faculties demanded as prerequisite their radical subordination to a higher principle. Francis the saint was so different from what would have been Francis the fully developed man that the quality of the two would have to be submitted to a different measure. One of the most striking contrasts would be in external appearance, that is, in the material aspect.

The same thing holds true with the social order. It is not only in the hearts of men that the difference lies between the naturally good man and the Christian; it is even more sharply evident in the temporal embodiment of the two ideals. We build housing projects and garden suburbs and fancy sometimes that we are making Christian communities, or at least communities waiting for and adapted to Christian groups. But these natural embodiments of natural standards, such as good garbage disposal, attractive houses and private garden plots turn out to be sterile and lifeless and to act as a natural constraint rather than encouragement of the life of mutual charity. It is not the goodness in these projects that condemns them, because Christianity incorporates all the good things like space and air and gardens and family-size units. But it does it in a different way and one which cannot be foreseen by merely technological considerations. Perhaps the best way to express it is to say that the naturally good thing is dead, like a corpes, or frozen, whereas the Christian thing is alive and vital and warm. Or maybe the difference is in the hierarchical structure of a community, a housing project, a political order. Or perhaps it lies in the fact that the naturally good scheme is "perfect" in a narrow, materially realizable way, whereas the Christian social order, being an embodiment in sinful mankind, is imperfect and perfect at the same time. Just as St Francis' clothes were beggar's rags and his body was sickly, so a Christian realization in a social order is unlikely to achieve new paint on all the houses or perfectly paved roads. But as St Francis lent a beauty to his very garments so these Christian things will take on a beauty which will transcend and transform the material element. Needless to say it will not be the beauty of the glass-brick kitchen advertised in the Ladies' Home Journal.
...

My Life With Thomas Aquinas

The Impotence of Purely Natural Action, by Carol Robinson

The Impotence of Purely Natural Action

Because the devil's synthesis destroys the natural order, it is tempting for Christians to look to the restoration of the natural order as the antidote, or at least the primary and preliminary action demanded by circumstances. The fact that the natural law is binding on all men, not only on Christians, and that human reason is capable of being persuaded of its truth, is a further inducement to place emphasis on this level.

Reforms of various sorts are suggested organic farming, return to a wholesome nutrition with "whole" foods, banishment of usury from the financial world, the breakdown of large cities, distributism, folk dancing and culture, clean government, the reappreciation of women's nature and domestic role, credit unions, cooperatives, study groups of all sorts, creative work and recreation, housing reform. All these are good, most of them are also necessary, but none of them singly nor all of them collectively has the power to wrest the world from the devil, as they stand, without being ordered to a higher end.

Here is where the theology of nature and graces enters the picture again, to remind us that in one sense the "good natural" is just as far from the supernatural as is perverted nature - for they are both infinitely removed from it. "Without Me, you can do nothing."

There are several illusory positions to be dealt with.
...

From "My Life With Thomas Aquinas"

Forgiveness - St Philip Neri

"If a man finds it very hard to forgive injuries, let him look at a crucifix, and think that Christ has shed all His Blood for him, and not only forgave his enemies, but prayed the Eternal Father to forgive them also."

Avoiding false hope and pride - Thomas a Kempis

VAIN is the man who puts his trust in men, in created things.

Do not be ashamed to serve others for the love of Jesus Christ and to seem poor in this world. Do not be self-sufficient but place your trust in God. Do what lies in your power and God will aid your good will. Put no trust in your own learning nor in the cunning of any man, but rather in the grace of God Who helps the humble and humbles the proud.

If you have wealth, do not glory in it, nor in friends because they are powerful, but in God Who gives all things and Who desires above all to give Himself. Do not boast of personal stature or of physical beauty, qualities which are marred and destroyed by a little sickness. Do not take pride in your talent or ability, lest you displease God to Whom belongs all the natural gifts that you have.

Do not think yourself better than others lest, perhaps, you be accounted worse before God Who knows what is in man. Do not take pride in your good deeds, for God’s judgments differ from those of men and what pleases them often displeases Him. If there is good in you, see more good in others, so that you may remain humble. It does no harm to esteem yourself less than anyone else, but it is very harmful to think yourself better than even one. The humble live in continuous peace, while in the hearts of the proud are envy and frequent anger.

Imitation of Christ

If I were a Eugenist - G K Chesterton

Now, even if I could share the Eugenic contempt for human rights, even if I could start gaily on the Eugenic campaign, I should not begin by removing feeble-minded persons. I have known as many families in as many classes as most men ; and I cannot remember meeting any very monstrous human suffering arising out of the presence of such insufficient and negative types. There seem to be comparatively few of them ; and those few by no means the worst burdens upon domestic happiness. I do not hear of them often ; I do not hear of them doing much more harm than good ; and in the few cases I know well they are not only regarded with human affection, but can be put to certain limited forms of human use. Even if I were a Eugenist, then I should not personally elect to waste my time locking up the feeble-minded. The people I should lock up would be the strong-minded. I have known hardly any cases of mere mental weakness making a family a failure ; I have known eight or nine cases of violent and exaggerated force of character making a family a hell. If the strong- minded could be segregated it would quite certainly be better for their friends and families.

Eugenics and Other Evils

Pity for others' falls - St Philip Neri

"To be without pity for other men’s falls, is an evident sign that we shall fall ourselves shortly."

Pope Benedict XV on peace and discord

6. Our Lord Jesus Christ came down from Heaven for the very purpose of restoring amongst men the Kingdom of Peace, which the envy of the devil had destroyed, and it was His will that it should rest on no other foundation than that of brotherly love. These are His own oft-repeated words: "A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another (John xiv. 34); "This is my commandment that you love one another" (John xv. 12); "These things I command you, that you love one another" (John xv. 17); as though His one office and purpose was to bring men to mutual love. He used every kind of argument to bring about that effect. He bids us all look up to Heaven: "For one is your Father who is in Heaven" (Matt. xxiii 9); He teaches all men, without distinction of nationality or of language, or of ideas, to pray in the words: "Our Father, who are in Heaven" (Matt. vi. 9); nay, more, He tells us that our Heavenly Father in distributing the blessings of nature makes no distinction of our deserts: "Who maketh His sun to rise upon the good and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust" (Matt. v. 45). He bids us be brothers one to another, and calls us His brethren: "All you are brethren" (Matt. xxiii. 8); "that He might be the first-born amongst many brethren" (Rom. vii. 29). In order the more to stimulate us to brotherly love, even towards those whom our natural pride despises, it is His will that we should recognize the dignity of His own very self in the meanest of men: "As long as you did it to one of these My least brethren, you did it to Me" (Matt. xxv. 40. At the close of His life did He not most earnestly beg of His Father, that as many as should believe in Him should all be one in the bond of charity? "As thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee" (John xvii. 21). And finally, as He was hanging from the cross, He poured out His blood over us all, whence being as it were compacted and fitly joined together in one body, we should love one another, with a love like that which one member bears to another in the same body.

7. Far different from this is the behaviour of men today. Never perhaps was there more talking about the brotherhood of men than there is today; in fact, men do not hesitate to proclaim that striving after brotherhood is one of the greatest gifts of modern civilization, ignoring the teaching of the Gospel, and setting aside the work of Christ and of His Church. But in reality never was there less brotherly activity amongst men than at the present moment. Race hatred has reached its climax; peoples are more divided by jealousies than by frontiers; within one and the same nation, within the same city there rages the burning envy of class against class; and amongst individuals it is self-love which is the supreme law overruling everything.

8. You see, Venerable Brethren, how necessary it is to strive in every possible way that the charity of Jesus Christ should once more rule supreme amongst men. That will ever be our own aim; that will be the keynote of Our Pontificate. And We exhort you to make that also the end of your endeavours. Let us never cease from reechoing in the ears of men and setting forth in our acts, that saying of St. John: "Let us love one another" (I John iii. 23). Noble, indeed, and praiseworthy are the manifold philanthropic institutions of our day: but it is when they contribute to stimulate true love of God and of our neighbours in the hearts of men, that they are found to confer a lasting advantage; if they do not do so, they are of no real value, for "he that loveth not, abideth in death." (I John iii. 14).

 Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum

Reputantibus, Pope Leo XIII

REPUTANTIBUS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON THE LANGUAGE QUESTION IN BOHEMIA
 
To Our Venerable Brothers Theodore, Archbishop of Olomouc,
and the Archbishops and Bishops of Bohemia and Moravia.

As We reflect often on the condition of  your churches, it seems to Us that at this moment nearly everywhere  everything is full of fear, full of concern. However, this situation is  more serious in your case because, while Catholicism is exposed to the  hatred and cunning of external enemies, domestic issues also divide it.  For while heretics both openly and covertly endeavor to spread error  among the faithful, seeds of discord grow daily among Catholics  themselves - the surest means to hinder strength and break down  constancy.

2. Surely the strongest grounds for  dissension, especially in Bohemia, are to be found in the languages  which each person, according to his origin, employs. For it is implanted  by nature that everyone wishes to preserve the language inherited from  his ancestors.

3. To be sure, We have decided to refrain  from settling this controversy. Indeed one cannot find fault with the  preservation of one's ancestral tongue, if it is kept within defined  limits. However, what is valid for other private rights, must be held to  apply here also: namely, that the common good of the nation must not  suffer from their preservation. It is, therefore,  the task of those who are in charge of the state to preserve intact the  rights of individuals, in such a way that the common good of the nation  be secured and allowed to flourish.

4. As far as We are concerned, Our duty  admonishes Us to take constant care that religion, which is the chief  good of souls and the source of all other goods, not be endangered by  controversies of this nature.

5. Therefore we earnestly exhort your  faithful, although of various regions and tongues, to preserve that far  more excellent kinship which is born from the communion of faith and  common sacraments. For whoever are baptized in Christ, have one Lord and  one faith; they are one body and one spirit, insofar as they are called  to one hope. It would be truly disgraceful that those who are bound  together by so many holy ties and are seeking the same city in heaven  should be torn apart by earthly reasons, rivaling with one another, as  the Apostle says, and hating one another. Therefore, that kinship of  souls which comes from Christ must constantly be inculcated in the  faithful and all partiality must be eradicated. "For greater indeed is  the paternity of Christ than that of blood: for the fraternity of blood  touches the likeness only of the body; the fraternity of Christ,  however, conveys unanimity of heart and spirit, as is written: One was the heart and one the spirit of the multitude of believers."(1)

6. In this matter the holy clergy should  surpass in example all others. Indeed, it is at variance with their  office to mingle in such dissensions. If they should reside in places  inhabited by people of different races or languages, unless they abstain  from any appearance of contention, they may easily incur hatred and  dislike from both sides. Nothing could be more detrimental to the  exercise of their sacred function than this. The faithful, to be sure,  should recognize in fact and practice that the ministers of the Church  are concerned only with the eternal affairs of souls and do not seek  what is theirs, but only what is Christ's.

7. If, then, it is well known to all  alike that the disciples of Christ are recognized by the love that they  have for one another, the holy clergy must observe this same love  mutually among themselves far more. For not only are they thought, and  deservedly so, to have drunk much more deeply from the charity of  Christ, but also because each one of them, in addressing the faithful,  ought to be able to use the words of the Apostle, "Be imitators of me,  as I am of Christ."(2)

8. We can easily admit that this is very  difficult in practice, unless the elements of discord are erased from  their souls at an early time when they, who aspire to the clerical  state, are formed in our seminaries. Therefore, you must diligently see  to it that the students in seminaries early learn to love one another in  a fraternal love and from a genuine heart, as those born not from a  corruptible seed but an incorruptible one through the word of the living  God.(3) Should arguments break out, restrain them strongly and do not  allow them to persist in any way; thus those who are destined for the  clergy, if they cannot be of one language because of different places of  origin, still may certainly be of one heart and one spirit.

9. From this union of wills, indeed,  which must be conspicuous in the clerical order, as we have already  intimated, this advantage among others will follow: that the ministers  of the sacraments will more efficaciously warn the faithful not to  exceed the limits in preserving and vindicating the rights proper to  each race, or by excessive partisanship not to do  violence to justice and overlook the common advantages of the state. For  we think that this, according to the circumstances of your various  regions, should be the principal task of priests, to exhort the  faithful, in season and out, to love one another; they should warn them  constantly that he is not worthy of the name of Christian who does not  fulfill in spirit and action the new command given by Christ that we  love one another as He has loved us.

10. Certainly, he does not fulfill it,  who thinks that charity pertains only to those who are related in tongue  or race. For if, as Christ says, you love those who love you, do not  the publicans do so? and if you salute your brothers only, do not the  pagans do so?(4) For to be sure a characteristic of Christian charity is  that it extends equally to all; for, as the Apostle warns, there is no  distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is the same Lord of all,  rich to all who invoke him.(5)

11. May God, who is Love, kindly grant  that all be united in their thoughts and in their convictions, thinking  the same and having no contention; grant that in humility they may think  each other better than themselves, each not looking to his own  interests, but to those of others.

12. May the Apostolic blessing, which we  grant most lovingly in the Lord, to you, Venerable Brothers, and the  faithful committed to each of you, be a token of this and also of Our  benevolence.

Given in Rome at St. Peter's, 20 August 1901, in the 24th year of Our Pontificate.
LEO XIII

REFERENCES:
1. St. Maximus, among the sermons of St. Augustine, 100.
2. Phil 3.17.
3. Pt 1.22 f.
4. Mt 5.46 f.
5. Rom 10.12.

St Philip Neri on prayer and charity

"To leave our prayer when we are called to do some act of charity for our neighbour, is not really a quitting of prayer, but leaving Christ for Christ, that is, depriving ourselves of spiritual sweetnesses in order to gain souls."

In support of Katie Price

What did Katie Price mean when she said that, if she had known her son was going to be blind, she would have had him aborted?

Clearly, she was referring to what she would have done before she knew what having a disabled son was like. Now she is glad she didn't know in advance, because she would have missed out on so much.

And, furthermore, now that she is in a situation where she does know, she would not only not abort a disabled child, but she would be willing to adopt one.

Her words, which some have complained would be upsetting for her son, are surely rather a tribute to him for what he has taught her.

Harvey has been a blessing, changing her whole outlook.

God bless them.

Self-identification

The media refer to Bruce Jenner as Caitlyn, and call him "her". Countless other stories of "trans-gender" people refer to them as their chosen sex.

Today I saw a story about Grumpy Gertie, the goose, who has been shot dead:

The white goose, known as Grumpy Gertie, was so well-known in Sandon, Hertfordshire, he appeared on the village's sign.
But he was found shot dead at the village pond on Sunday amid reports he was gunned down by a gang in a 4x4.

Now, this is a very sad story, but one thing in particular struck me from the news report:

Gay Ayton said: "He was a real character - he was hand-reared here and thought he was a duck..."

See that? He thought he was a duck. So why does the BBC report persist in calling him a goose? Is that any way to honour his memory? Even his "friends" from the village say he's a goose!

How insensitive.

Why not just sterilise nuns?

(That's not a serious suggestion, by the way.)

What seems to be a myth has provoked a fair bit of discussion and food for thought.

Pope Francis has revived the old story that Pope Paul VI gave permission for nuns to use contraception to prevent any rape-induced pregnancies. And, with what must be some rather deft acrobatics, he managed to conclude that therefore it would be all right for married couples to avoid conceiving babies with Zika-virus induced defects!

(Fr Z has provided some history regarding the myth here.)

Pondering my question above has helped me to understand why nuns (and any other women) shouldn't take contraceptive "medication" for contraceptive purposes. (Here is an old post of mine explaining why I don't think contraception counts as medicine.)

Contraception won't protect anyone from rape itself. (Indeed, mightn't the knowledge that someone is on the Pill increase the risk?) Contraception just attempts to eliminate the danger of conceiving a baby. So the intention is contraceptive. No double-effect there. It is not like taking the Pill for some therapeutic reason, knowing that there is an undesired contraceptive effect too.

Now, I can see that a consecrated virgin has a good reason for wishing to avoid pregnancy. She is not a married woman who must be open to life. But, the end doesn't justify the means, and as Pope Paul VI wrote in Humanae Vitae:

Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it...

Since medicine is meant to help you work better, whereas contraception seeks to stop something which does work from working, it would seem to be against nature.

And sterilisation has the same effect, achieved by surgical means. Mutilation, basically. And, again the double-effect won't justify it, because there is no health reason to warrant it.

So, I maintain that giving nuns contraceptive drugs, or sterilising them, is not justifiable.

What about some barrier method? Well, I'm not so certain on the morality or immorality of that. Since Fr Heribert Jone writes, "A woman sins gravely by expelling the seminal fluid or preventing its entry into the uterus. It is not sinful to do so if she has been the victim of rape or deception provided she does so before conception, since in this instance the semen is equivalent to an unjust aggressor," (Moral Theology, para 759), maybe a barrier would be permissible. Impracticable, though?

(This is leaving aside the matter of Pope Francis using an apocryphal (and mythical) story dealing with rape, to justify consenting spouses using contraception to avoid defective offspring!)

Bear in mind: these are the musings of an amateur.

Pope Benedict XV on Christian charity

Christian charity ought not to be content with not hating our enemies and loving them as brothers; it also demands that we treat them with kindness, following the rule of the Divine Master Who "went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil", and finished His mortal life, the course of which was marked by good deeds, by shedding His blood for them...

Pacem, Dei munus pulcherrimum, 1920

St Therese of Lisieux on charity towards others

"I understand now that charity consists in bearing with the faults of others, in not being surprised at their weakness, in being edified by the smallest acts of virtue we see them practise."

St Therese of Lisieux

Being perfect - St Philip Neri

"In order to be perfect, we must not only obey and honour our superiors; we must honour our equals and inferiors also."

God's love of men - Fr Faber

Verily, God's love of men is a simple wonder. Yet how He must love them, seeing that He became not an angel for angels, but He did become a man for men!

All For Jesus