Friends of the Cross

St. Louis de Montfort on a theme closely related to both Lent and chivalry:

Friends of the Cross, you are like crusaders united to fight against the world; not like Religious who retreat from the world lest they be overcome, but like brave and valiant warriors on the battle- field, who refuse to retreat or even yield an inch. Be brave and fight courageously.

You must be joined together in a close union of mind and heart, which is stronger and far more formidable to the world and to hell than are the armed forces of a great nation to its enemies. Evil spirits are united to destroy you; you must be united to crush them. The avaricious are united to make money and amass gold and silver; you must combine your efforts to acquire the eternal treasures hidden in the Cross. Pleasure-seekers unite to enjoy themselves; you must be united to suffer.

Quite a different standard than that of the chivalry of the world.

Off to help preach a retreat to post-abortive women with the Sisters of Life. Please pray for the 23 women and for those conducting the retreat this weekend. Theme for the retreat:   In the Cross is Salvation.

The Anthem of Lepanto

The stanzas below I wrote to be sung to the tune Thaxted by Gustav Holst, adapted from a section of Jupiter from his suite The Planets as a setting for the patriotic poem by Cecil Spring-Rice, I vow to Thee my Country.  This exquisitely beautiful and sad melody has a special significance for me, since it was by providence used by Fra Didacus for the memorial video about our deceased knights, Thom and Marc Girard.  At that time it was pointed out to me what the original lyrics where and how appropriate a choice the tune was.

Eternal rest grant to Thom and Marc, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them. May they rest in peace. Amen.

For your consideration:

I cast myself before Thee, Thy bondsman and Thy fool;
Thy patronage is freedom, Thy slavery my school.
I offer Thee my sword hilt and wait for Thy command
To serve among Thy servants who pledge to take a stand.
That I might die in battle, a victim of Thy love:
My wish, my prayer, my promise, thus written in my blood.

I saw the bark of Peter ride dark into the sun,
But darker still the marking of crescent, hoard and gun.
Her sails lay flat and mellow, Her men had pledged their troth,
Left hand on beaded psalter, the right to keep their oath.
The haughty fiend had counted on fear to win the day,
But Thine own breath has countered to turn the wind their way.

My Queen, to Thee be honor and praise through all Thy knights
Who toiled and bled and parted Thy martyrs robed in white.
All courtesy and prowess, all strength and gentleness,
Thy heart a pyx of virtue, Thy face all loveliness.
Then at the hour of judgment my colors Thou may see,
Thy Son upon His white steed, Thou pray to come for me.

Marian Chivalrous Prayer

The following excerpts are from a prayer by Blessed Henry Heath, or Father Paul of St. Magdalen, as he was known in religion.  As an English Protestant during the persecution under James I, he struggled with the faith of his youth and was inspired to pray to the Blessed Virgin for enlightenment.  He embraced the Catholic faith in 1622, and escaped England to France where he studied at the College of Douai, where he eventually entered the Franciscan Order.  His heart became ever more set upon returning to England as a priest, ministering to the Catholics there and eventually dying a martyr.  The prayer posted below, expresses both his great love for the Blessed Mother and his desire to honor by his ministry, suffering and sacrifice.  In 1643 he returned secretly to England as a priest, but was apprehended on his arrival.  When has was asked by the judge why he had come to England, he replied that he had come to save souls, and when interrogated further he unhesitatingly confessed to being a priest, a crime then under English law.  He was convicted of treason an butchered at Tyburn in the same year.

Henry Heath was among the eighty-five martyrs of England and Wales beatified by Pope John Paul II on 22 November 1987.

Witness Marian Chivalry:

Blessed Mother of God and Virgin, beloved Daughter of the Eternal Trinity, Spouse of the Holy Ghost, special Patroness of the Catholic Church, Mother of orphans, Advocate of sinners, most faithful Consoler of the desolate and afflicted, Blessed Mother and Lady, to whom, after God, I owe, not only what I am, but ten thousand times more than I can conceive. Thou knowest what in early times was the intercourse between me and thee, my sleepless nights, my painful struggles, my sighs, my groans, alike of joy and sorrow: of joy, because I possessed thee wholly as my Mother of hope; of sorrow, because I was so unworthy to converse with such a queen. O Mary! who can be found capable of celebrating the excellence of thy merits, thy boundless benignity, and our daily faults; thy constant help, and our many temptations; thy most powerful aid, and the instability of our intentions; thy innumerable incentives to good, and our propensity to evil; thy invitations to virtue, our torpidity towards thee, and the ardent inextinguishable flames of thy charity towards us? O Blessed and ever most Blessed Mother I my sole consolation in this sorrowful pilgrimage on earth is that Jesus Christ is thy only Son, and that through thy gracious intercession He does not reject me. My highest perfection is to try and imitate thy singular humility and obedience and to make myself in all things the servant of God’s good pleasure and commands. All my studies and knowledge tend to this, that I may understand at least some small portion of those mysteries which were infinitely consummated in thee : how God, the Author and Beginning of all things, indivisible in essence, received from thee a Son coeval and coequal with Himself in majesty, distinct in person, but undivided in the participation of substance and glory; how the same Person, who from all eternity claimed by right the Divine nature, laying aside His royal sceptre and power became a weak infant, deriving flesh from thy flesh, fed by the nourishment that flowed from thy breasts, pressed in thine embrace and warmed in thy bosom, but far more happily and deeply cherished by thee in the tenderest affections of thy maternal love. . .

‘O Blessed Virgin, what tongue can describe thy innumerable gifts? Who can worthily celebrate thy praise? What did prophets foretell, apostles preach, fathers defend, and doctors declare, except simple faith in Him who was conceived by thee, born of thee, fed and nourished by thee? My only ambition in this life is to be subject to thee as thy most vile and obedient slave. Called by thee, I run quickly; dismissed, I retire; at thy command I remain. When for the punishment of my sins thou art pleased to withdraw thy accustomed consolation and to chastise me with temporal affliction, I wait patiently. Come what may in this fluctuating and finite world, dead or alive, submerged and shipwrecked or standing on dry ground, in prosperity or adversity, in sweetness or bitterness, in joy or sorrow, all is pleasing to me so long as I have access to thee, and by thee may follow Jesus, to whom, like the prodigal son, I desire to return, upheld by the hope that, notwithstanding my numerous past sins, He will through thy most benign intercession receive me as my most tender and indulgent Father and my most gentle and loving Redeemer. . .

‘O most Blessed Virgin, as from the first moment of my conversion, so now my last will and testament is, that I assign my soul to sweetest Jesus and to thee, that thou mayst claim full possession, authority, and dominion over it; and I leave and abandon my body to be tried and tested by all sorts of torments and sufferings, that it may thereby be exercised from day to day in humility and self-abnegation, and may advance quickly in the path of all the virtues which thy blessed steps have trod. This my last petition and the summit of all my wishes, is, that after such immense and innumerable favours thou wilt add yet one more, and obtain for me fortitude and constancy to press forward in the footsteps of thy faithful and victorious servants who have gone before me. Then, if it be granted me, thou wilt see with what willingness and alacrity I shall give my bare back to be placed upon burning coals, with what joy I shall drink the most bitter chalice, with what glad and eager gaze I shall look on that much desired knife even while it transfixes me, that knife which will deliver me from this wearisome and miserable prison, and introduce me to the longed-for presence of thy dearest Son Jesus, where in company with thee I shall dwell for ever. Amen. Quick, quick, quick?’

Bl Henry Heath’s Prayer to Our Lady is taken from Franciscan Martyrs in England.  This book is out of print, as far as I know and is a real treasure–very inspiring.

Theology of the Body: Of Sign and Fulfillment

I wish to return to my discussion of Theology of the Body, and the exchange between Dr. Lowery and Christopher West.  Specifically, I wish to discuss the topic of theological analogy, because it is so central to the argument and because it is easily misunderstood.

In answering the charge of Dr. Lowery that he is sexualizing Christianity, West turns to the topic of analogy and says that it works both ways:

Of course, it’s an analogy to speak of the marriage of Christ and the Church. Analogies are always inadequate. Yet John Paul believes the spousal analogy is the least inadequate since “in the very essence of marriage a particle of the mystery is captured” (Aug. 18, 1982).

Hence, the Pope says we’re justified in applying the spousal analogy in two directions. Primarily, God reveals the truth about nuptial union (Christian nuptiality). But in some way nuptial union also reveals the truth about God (nuptial Christianity).

In practical matters, West has worked this analogy both ways, not only from the top down, but from the bottom up, that is, from earthly marriage to the divine union, by saying that heaven is like the ultimate climax, that the Holy Spirit inseminates and impregnates Mary with Jesus, that the Easter liturgy is a fertility rite, and that a woman’s womb is like the Holy of Holy’s or the Eucharistic tabernacle.  This is the habit of mind that moves, I believe, Dr. Lowery to say that West is sexualizing Christianity.

Now, in the quote from West above he makes reference to John Paul II’s Theology of the Body Wednesday audience from August 18, 1982.  (I am linking to the original translation but will quote from the more recent Waldstein translation, 90.3-4.)  It is true, as West says, that the Holy Father does indeed say that the analogy works both ways.  However, once again, West latches onto to the Holy Father’s precise philosophical language and then uses it to proclaim all kinds of things the Holy Father never said.

I will not quote at length, but I recommend a careful reading of sections 3 and 4, so that one can verify my interpretation.

First of all, regardless of the inherent logic involved, the Holy Father speaks only of the analogy that St. Paul presents in the fifth chapter of the letter to the Ephesians, namely, Wives, be subject to your husbands . . . as the Church is subject to Christ, and You, husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church (vv. 25, 24).  St. Paul is simply not talking about body parts or sexual acts, and neither is the Holy Father.  They are certainly not using sexual language to describe heavenly or supernatural realities realities.

But what does John Paul II actually mean when he says that “this analogy works in two directions”?  The Holy Father says:

While [this analogy] allows us, on the one hand, to understand better the relationship of Christ with the Church, it permits us, on the other hand, to penetrate more deeply into the essence of the marriage to which Christians are called.

This statement and the Holy Father’s explanation is much more modest than West suggests by means of his practical and erotic applications.  John Paul II merely wants to point out that the analogy allows us to obtain, both a “deeper understanding of the Church,” and a “deeper understanding of marriage.”

But while there is this reciprocal movement in two directions, it is not identical in both instances.  John Paul II says that we must keep in mind “that at the basis of the understanding of marriage in its very essence stands Christ’s spousal relationship with the Church.”  So, in other words, Christ’s relationship to the Church is the foundation of our understanding of marriage.  He goes on to say that “marriage becomes a visible sign of the eternal divine mystery, according to the image of the Church united with Christ” (emphasis in original). Thus, while the relationship of Christ and His Church is the foundation of our understanding of marriage, marriage itself is a visible sign of the mystery of Christ and His Church.  This is the sense in which the analogy works both ways—and only in this sense.

What this means precisely can be elucidated if we further describe the workings of theological analogy.  This is made possible, in a particular way, if we remember the relationship of type and anti-type in sacred scripture, which is a particular use of theological analogy.  Old Testament types such as the Paschal Lamb, in relation to Christ, or the Ark of the Covent in relation to Our Lady, or even marriage (as a sacrament of creation) in relation ship to Christ and the Church, are foreshadowings and signs of something more perfect that is to come.  The Old Testament pre-figurements are the “types,” and the New Testament fulfillments are the “anti-types.”

Yet, no one would suggest that Christ is something like a furry animal or that Our Lady is something like a gold-plated wooden box.  Yes, these analogies work in two ways, but the foundation of our understanding of the Paschal Lamb is Christ as Our Lady is of the Ark of the Covenant.  And Lamb and the Ark are signs of Jesus and Mary, respectively.  The analogy does not work backwards in exactly the same way that it does forwards.

Thus, the way that these analogies work is from the higher to the lower.  We call it exemplarism.  The higher, invisible realities define and illumine the meaning of the lower, and the lower are visible signs and faint hints of the higher.  The anti-types (Jesus and Mary) are the examplars or archetypes of the lower realties (Lamb and Ark).  Yes, these analogies work both ways, but not in the same manner both ways.

But this explanation is not sufficient to deal with the particular analogy that St. Paul uses in the letter to the Ephesians, because the “sign” that St. Paul writes about, namely, marriage is not an Old Testament type, but the New Covenant Sacrament, instituted by Christ, and in itself is a higher reality than the original sacrament of creation.  In fact, both the relationship of Christ and the Church, and of man and woman in the Christian Sacrament are kinds of fulfillments, but they also both point to higher realities.  The Christian Sacrament points to Christ and His relationship to the Church, and the love of the Christ the Bridegroom for His Bride the Church on the Cross points to communion of the Father Son and Holy Spirit.

So we rightly say that analogies work in two directions, the higher, more perfect, and sometimes invisible reality defining and illuminating the meaning of the lower reality, and the lower reality remaining a visible sign and hint of the fuller reality that we are yet to experience or which is experienced in a more hidden way.  Hence, in our experience in this life of Christ’s love for the Church we often find our faith challenged because the interior life, which is Christ’s presence within us, most often goes on without our perception, yet faith tells us that the union can lead to a bliss, concerning which Christian marriage only offers a faint hint.

None of this even begins to suggest that theological analogy in general, or St. Paul’s analogy specifically, justifies our using sexual imagery to explain supernatural realities.  In any case, once again, the Holy Father simply does not make the claim Christopher West suggests he does.  Even more, the imagery in Ephesians five, when taken in the context of what Our Lord has to say of marriage belonging only to this life, drives home the fact that the more perfect must inform the less perfect and not vice-versa.  The less perfect (marriage) being closer and more familiar to us is a sign and helps us to look up to the higher reality which we do not perceive so readily.  In heaven there will be spousal love, but not sex, and even in this life that exclusive and blissful love of spouses can be had without sex.

We should be careful to not introduce more confusion into our sex-saturated world as we attempt to evangelize the masses.

Friary with a View

This is where I stayed during much of the time I was in Australia last Fall.

Behold the Marian Friary of Our Lady Gate of Heaven in Munster, a superb of Perth, Western Australia.  This is what we call the fear of hell.  Actually, when there is no flames and smoke there really is a superb view of the Western Coast.

The friars, Father Joseph Michael, Father Andre and Friar Cyprian, all had to evacuate the building when the bush fire nearly took the friary out.  A similar fire threatened our other friary in nearby Toodyay last month.  In that disaster, our friars were also spared, but some of our friends, and others, lost their homes.  Please keep them in your prayers.

The Measure

Be merciful, just as also your Father is merciful.  Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven. Give and gifts will be given to you; a good measure, packed together, shaken down, and overflowing, will be poured into your lap. For the measure with which you measure will in return be measured out to you (Lk 6:36-38, today’s gospel reading for the ordinary form of the Mass).

Banal and mushy catechesis has led many of us to explain passages like this away in the interests of defending the right and duty to think critically. And, of course, we should resist the sentimentalist accusation of “being judgmental” as we strive to discern right from wrong.  But explaining away Our Lord’s words is no good either, nor is limiting our exegesis to describing what Our Lord is not saying, namely, that God is the big teddy bear in the sky and everyone is going to heaven.

The fact is that Our Lord is the only one who is in position to judge and we really have very little to complain about when we compare the injustices done to us to those done to Him.  Our Lord measures by the length of His arms on the cross.  When He says: Forgive them for they know not what they do (Lk 23:34), the appropriate response for us is to put our hand over our mouth (cf. Job 40:40).

We hold our neighbor to all kinds of standards that we don’t keep ourselves. We have much more “righteous” indignation about the faults and sins of others than we do about the true honor of God.  What is more pathetic, sometimes we are blind to the truth of it.  We have a million excuses.

We can cry for justice, but when at the last judgment Our Lord extends His wounded hands over the cosmos and over the living and the dead, we will all be reduced to silence.  Then after we all finally realize the truth of things we will cry for mercy, but then mercy will have passed.  Then there will be justice and only justice.  Now is time for mercy and we should cry for it now, and above all, we should show it.

That is Our Lord’s measure.  May it be ours as well.

Snake Oil and Circus Tricks

Here is latest from Father Thomas Loya.  It is a rather brazen, if not unusual example of what has become part of the “tradition” for many of the American propagators of that pungent and turbid concoction that is mislabeled Theology of the Body.

Content Warning.

With defenders like Father Thomas Loya, does Christopher West need critics?

Real Templars

Here is some information that is real news to me, provided by Noah and Ryan, in regard to a legimate claiment to the title Militia Templi Christi Pauperum Millitum Ordo, or Knights Templar.  And yes, this is very legit, a fact which I was not inclined to accept, until it was proven to me.  Mind you, the members of this brotherhood in arms are very clear to disclaim any connection with the historical order, since any such claim, if and when made—as it often is by pretenders—is always false.  The knights already have a well established presence in the United States.

The professed members have a fourth promise of “public testimony of faith.”  Excellent!

Here is some background from Noah and I invite him to respond if anyone has any questions.

First, we do not claim to be descended from the original order.  Many of the people making that claimare Freemasons.

We are a canonically legal Lay Order who live according to the Rule of the Militia Templi which is a close replica of the Primative Rule of the Templare written by St. Bernard of Clairvaux.  Like the ancient Order, the Militia Templi consists of Catholic Lay Faithful binding ourselves to much of the aethetics of the monk, but living in the secular world as knights, in effect a restoration of the order.

We are recognized as a private association of lay faithful and our Constitution and Rule are approved by the Archdiocese of Siena.  The Magistral See of the Militia Templi is located in Poggibonsi Italy.  The Magistral See consists of a 12th Century Templar castle which is the See of the Grand Master of the Order.  The Abbot Protector of the Militia is HE Abbot Philip Lawrence OSB of Christ in the Desert Monastery.  Like the ancient Order, the Militia Templi is divided into Preceptories and the North American Preceptory now consists of eight Professed Knights, two Dames and approximately 25 Novices.  In the North  American Preceptory we have four Chaplains to include our senior Chaplain, HE Bishop Kevin Vann, Bishop of Ft. Worth Tx.  The Militia Templi is in full communion with the Holy See and with the local Ordinary.

Pope John Paul II gave plenary indulgences to the order 1989 for certain special liturgical feast days and the days of our novitiate and investiture, etc.  In 1991 the Militia received an indult from the Holy See to use

the liturgy in place by 1962.  Accordingly, the Militia has a preference for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and prays the Divine Office per the Breviary of Blessed John XXIII.

The Militia Templi consists of both celibate and married knights as well as dames.  As laity, knights take perpetual private vows of obedience to the Rule and the Superiors of our Order, chastity according to our station in life, spiritual poverty, and to defend the Holy Faith.  Under the discipline of the Rule, knights and novices are bound to pray certain parts of the Divine Office, assist Holy Mass frequently, receive the sacrament of penance at least once a month and pray the Holy Rosary daily.  As such, the Militia is a vocation which is the gift of God.  Our hope is to achieve heaven, and holiness and sanctification on earth by a life of work, prayer and self-sacrifice.   We pray and work so that we may live a life of heroic virtue and prefer nothing to the love of Christ.  For me it is my weakness that makes me need to live under such a rule and which allows Christ to be our strength and Mary to be our consolation.

As Knights living in the world we offer ourselves as the victims of the secular battlefield as the priest offers himself as the victim of the Mass. It is the charism of the Order to protect  what remains of Christendom against secularism with its attendant erred philosophies threatening our culture, and to work towards the restoration of Christendom.  The Militia defends and supports the traditional Liturgy and the social dogmas of the Church per the Magisterium.  We have a special focus on the teaching of the Holy Faith and knightly virtue to the young in an age of relativism and practical atheism.

I am a huge fan of MaryVictrix, Standing Fast, AirMaria and the FI.

Thanks, Noah.

Getting Something Done this Lent

On Ash Wednesday our lives round the bend on the road to Jerusalem only to find the hordes of Babylon blocking our way. We are marked with the cross and there can be no avoidance of the fight.  This is the imagery used by the nineteenth century Anglican, Father Congreve, SSJE to describe the “advance of Lent.” I can hardly think of anything more appropriate for our meditation:

Lent awakens spiritual hope in us, just as the sight of the enemy awakes the spirit of an army. They were lagging just now, tired with the march, dispirited; but a sudden signal, one turn in the road, shows them the enemy’s lines stretching right across their way. How the men’s hearts leap up: who is [wearied] now? So Lent awakes the energy of hope by showing us our enemy, the reality of the battle of life, of our conflict with evil. We all know that our fifty or seventy years in this world were given to us for a great achievement–to conquer the world, the flesh, and the devil, to win holiness for eternity; but we easily forget this, and slip out of range. But Lent rallies us, reminds us of the seriousness of our moral life, of the reality of sin, of bad tendencies of our childhood not conquered yet, of the strength of sins of the flesh, of pride and temper, of love of the world, of cowardice in confessing Christ, of sloth and depression, of neglect of prayer and the sacraments.

The Two Standards

Though Congreve was not Catholic, his imagery reflects one of the most important metaphors used by St. Ignatius in The Spiritual Exercises, namely, the two standards.   Christ and Satan are captains of two immense armies that rally around them in the respective regions of Jerusalem and Babylon.  For St. Ignatius, this a fundamental image of the spiritual life: mortal strife, that can have only one of two outcomes, heaven or hell.

The strategy of Satan is as simple as it is deadly.  St. Ignatius tells us that the demons are sent forth by the Prince of Darkness to tempt us with love for the world:  a “longing for riches,” “vain honor” and “vast pride.”  He says that it is this love for the world  by which he opens the door to every other vice.

But the assets laid to bear against Satan by the Lord are more powerful: “highest poverty,”contumely and contempt, and “humility.”  As with the “beatitudes.”  This is an inversion of values, the paradox of the gospel:  life through death, going up by being brought down.

The Hardest Road

How is a man to in the word but not of the world? How is a man to be a soldier, a knight, and a courageous man without the arrogance and pride that are the tools of Satan? How are we to fight Satan without capitulating to his manipulative and dishonorable methods? In a word, how are we to be wise as serpent and simple as doves? (cf. Mt 10:16).

The first step consists in recognizing that the road that Our Lord took is the hardest road.  He remained in the fight to the end and at the same time never sought His own glory and good, but glory of His Father and our salvation.  This is the humility of which St. Ignatius speaks.  Here is Father Hardon’s commentary on the two standards in which he recommends humility, calmness of spirit and the discernment of spirits as the particular means by which we fight under the standard of Christ and overcome the devil.

Our battle is first of all one that must take place within, but for it to be brought to a victory for Christ, it must be extended to the ends of the earth.  It is a fight that we must never concede.

The Abomination of Desolation

Anthony Esolen has written an excellent article, entitled, Where the Battle Was Not Fought, in which he chronicles the woes of the Church in Canada. (Not to pick on Canada, we have our own similar problems in the U.S.) Esolen notes that there is really no place for men, because no one wants to fight, and because virtually no effort has been made to attract men to the faith, let alone to the priesthood.

The spiritual apathy of men, and by which men no longer have a place in the Church—a fight conceded or never fought—leaves us in a desperate situation.  For far two long our leaders have largely derelict of their duty, and we are left with the extremes of effeminacy and bravado.

Battle Scars

The solution consists in the rigors of an examined life that is bold enough to make mistakes and get hurt, and humble enough to reassess and revise in order to get it right.  This has to happen both spiritually and externally.

Recently, Dawn Eden and William Doino wrote a piece for Busted Halo, in which they called into question the adaptation of Saul Alinsky’s radicalized activist philosophy by conservatives being used against the expert liberal practitioners of that philosophy.  In particular, the writers criticized activist James E. O’Keefe for his syncretistic melding of the ideas of Alinsky and that of G.K. Chesterton, and for his practical application of that thinking which included the questionable participation of a young woman who posed as a prostitute in his ACORN exposé videos.  Eden and Doino, underscored the utilitarian ethics at the heart of O’Keefe’s methods, taken right out of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: “in war the end justifies almost any means.” In a subsequent interview Dawn Eden did not fail to mention that the work of Lila Rose, with whom O’Keefe has also collaborated, and who has been given favorable treatment on AirMaria, is not above critical review.

In response, Christian Hartsock, has penned, or should I say, slashed a rather purple piece of vitriol worthy of Keith Olbermann, in which he ostensibly adopts another rule from Alinsky’s playbook: “ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”  A comparison between the Eden/Doino essay and that of Hartsock, is the difference between a consideration of principles in view of success and a disregard of them justified by success.  We can leave everyone free to consider the question, but that the question ought to be considered, seems a difficult thing to reject.  That certainty may be something that Alinsky would ridicule, but it is not something that Chesterton would make fun of. On the contrary, for Chesterton such philosophical considerations belonged to the most practical order:

But there are some people, nevertheless—and I am one of them—who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy’s numbers, but still more important to know the enemy’s philosophy.

The Philosophy of Light

For Chesterton, this consideration of his enemy’s philosophy was not merely a tactical necessity, but a metaphysical and moral requirement, as he infers when he considers the philosophy of George Bernard Shaw.  He says that while his intellectual enemy was  genuinely “brilliant” and “honest,” his philosophy was “quite solid, quite coherent, and quite wrong.”  A man’s philosophy has consequences in the practical order, and so the practical thing to do is

. . . revert to the doctrinal methods of the thirteenth century, inspired by the general hope of getting something done.

Activism, or better, Catholic Action, will ultimately be fruitful only if it is an examined energy, like our own moral lives.  It is the hardest road.  It is not the merely the rough and tumble road of unchecked prowess, nor is it comfy road of the false courtesy of human respect.  It is the hardest road of Christian chivalry.  And it is the only way of  really “getting something done.”

This is the road we find ourselves on this Ash Wednesday, and the hellish hosts from Babylon will not part and let us pass unmolested.  The fight is on, but it begins, continues and ends first within our hearts.  Yet, it is always to be fought in the midst of the world that must be conquered for Christ.

Father Peter Damian Fehlner on Ratified, Non-Consummated Marriages

Posted supplementary to my two previous posts (1 and 2):

When are the sacramental graces of marriage received?  It has recently became fashionable to state, categorically, that no such sacramental graces are received until a sacramental marriage is consummated, as though a non-consummated marriage is not fully a sacramental marriage.  This is simply false.  The essence of a sacramental marriage consists in the contract, both as to the celebration of the sacrament and to the permanent state following on that celebration.  The first is known as marriage “in fiere” and marriage “in facto esse”.  Use has nothing to do with constituting the essence of marriage.  This is certainly very logical, whereas the new proposal is hardly that.  The conferral of sacramental graces is a presupposition for the holy fulfillment of marriage rights and duties, including use of the marriage act or sexual intercourse.  Hence, it is only logical that it be conferred before use of the marriage act.  If the sacrament is celebrated worthily, viz., the spouses are in the state of grace, an increase of sanctifying grace follows immediately on the administration of the sacrament, together with the effecting of the marriage bond with the rights and duties which this entails.  It is the marriage bond or “vinculum” which is the essence of the marriage state or permanent marriage contract, not the use of the marriage rights.  The right to actual graces in order to carry out the duties of the married state which are many besides the use of the marital act is rooted in the vinculum which constitutes a kind of proximate disposition for their conferral at the appropriate time and circumstances.  This is clearly the teaching of St. Thomas and is concurred in by St. Bonaventure.  Although a few modern theologians consider the vinculum a kind of quasi sacramental character, the majority of theologians prefer to abstain from the use of this terminology.  (Cf. F. Sola, SJ. Sacrae Theologiae Summa, volume 4, Madrid 1953, pp. 837-843 for magisterial and theological authorities.)  The principal magisterial authorities for this teaching are Leo XIII (Arcanum divinae sapientiae) and Pius XI (Casti Conubii).

Why is the petrine privilege limited to sacramental marriages “ratum sed non consummatum”?  A recent opinion claims that this restriction is related to the relative imperfection or incompletion of such a sacramental marriage.  Only the consummation of a sacramental marriage makes it fully sacramental, so the theory goes.  But this contradicts the long standing explicit teaching of the Magisterium for over a millennium.  Any marriage, but especially a “matrimonium ratum”, if intrinsically and fully indissoluble.  Intrinsically means that those united permanently by the marriage bond cannot end that bond, nor can the existence of spiritual or psychological frustrations on the part of the spouses, sometimes described as the “death” of a marriage, effect a dissolution of bond.  But this has never been meant in the teaching of Christ and of the Church to exclude the possibility of dissolving or ending a marriage by legitimate authorities apart from the spouses.  This authority belongs to God because he is the one who instituted marriage and defined the nature of the contract.  His authority extends to all marriages, sacramental or merely natural, all of which by his disposition end with death.  In one instance, that of the so-called “Pauline privilege” he has when certain conditions are fulfilled decreed the end of a natural marriage “in favor of the faith” in one of the spouses who converts to belief in Christ and is baptized, but the other refuses to live in peace with the converted spouse.

In some special cases Christ has conferred on the successors of St. Peter to dissolve non-consummated sacramental marriages in particular and relatively rare instances.  The reason for this delegation is to be found, not in the incompleteness of such a marriage as marriage, but in the imperfect clarity of the sacramental sign, the same rationale underlying the Pauline privilege, the only difference being that in the case of the Pauline privilege the dissolution is effected directly by God himself  (no delegation for this has been given either to civil or ecclesiastical authorities).  The rationale is this: in these cases the sign value of marriage is either not clearly present (natural marriage) or only partially in the case of a non-consummated sacramental marriage.  According to the teaching of Casti connubii, this sign value is twofold: that of Christ with the Church and by extension with souls (a spiritual union) and that of the Divine Word with his human nature (a physical union).  The first is realized immediately on celebration of the sacrament, the second only with consummation.  The vicarious power to dissolve the bond granted by Christ to the Pope in regard to non-consummated sacramental marriages is limited to those instances where “spiritual death” has occurred (e.g., solemn profession in a religious order) or where this is postulated by the spiritual need of one or the other spouse.  But with consummated sacramental marriages the sign value is such that Christ reserves all questions of dissolution of the bond to himself because of the perfection of the sign.  Evidently the perfection of the sign is not the equivalent of perfection of the marriage, which must be decided on other criteria, particularly when the virginal marriage of Mary and Joseph is taken into consideration. (cf. the treatise cited above, pp. 826-827; 830)