THE CATHOLIC TRADITION NEWSLETTER
A weekly presentation of News, Information, Readings and Commentary for traditional Roman Catholics and Catholic Families remaining faithful to the teaching Magisterium as held by all faithful Catholics through the centuries.
Vol 17 Issue 16 Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
April 20, 2024
Our Lady on Saturday
- Sacrament of Matrimony
- Third Sunday after Easter
- Saint Anselm
- Family and Marriage
- Articles and notices
Dear Reader:
April is dedicated to the Blessed Sacrament. One may ask why and the answer is because normally Holy Thursday falls in the month of April, the day commemorating the institution of the Holy Eucharist and because all Catholics are required to make their Easter Duty—receive the Holy Eucharist—which is centered on this month. John the Apostle tells us that when Jesus spoke of the Holy Eucharist after the feeding of the five thousand, Now the pasch, the festival day of the Jews, was near at hand. (John 6:4) Christ would be the Paschal Victim, the Paschal Lamb, that would be offered for the deliverance of the people: Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins (Matt. 26:26-28) As the Israelites daily ate the manna in the desert, so Christ chose to make it possible for us to daily receive His Body and Blood under the appearances of bread and wine to feed us: Give us this day our supersubstantial bread (Matt. 6:11) As the Israelites were required once a year to eat the Passover lamb at this time, so Catholics are required once a year to partake of the Paschal Lamb at this time. Therefore, it is appropriate to dedicate this month to meditating on the Blessed Sacrament.
Now, the first act that brings attention and preparation is the fast that is required before Holy Communion. The fast prepares the body and mind for this great moment—the mouth to be empty for the Body of Christ, the tongue to be tasteless of worldly food to have the Bread from Heaven laid upon it.
The second act that brings attention and preparation in going to Holy Mass to receive Holy Communion is the genuflection one makes upon entering Church where Christ is already waiting for those who wish to receive Him. The genuflection says: Jesus, I know you are here present in the Tabernacle, in the Blessed Sacrament, hidden under the appearances of bread and wine so I may receive You. I will now begin to join with You in offering Your Body and Blood to the Eternal Father; I will now prepare myself to receive You into my soul, to unite myself with You. May my preparation be pleasing to You so You will bestow on me the graces I need and desire so I may increase in my love for You.
If we have a lack of faith, it will be evident to everyone if we rudely enter His house without greeting Him properly in a reverent genuflection. How we make that genuflection tells Our Divine Saviour the depth of our faith—so we do not do it only when others are watching or because we are made to genuflect; rather our mind is focused on Him Whom we know also greets us upon our entry into His house. Nor do we neglect it out of human fear—we do not want to publicly deny Our Lord’s Presence and then give a kiss of betrayal in receiving Him with our lips. Let us do so in the Name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost, while making the Sign of the Cross—the sign that acknowledges we are His brethren through adoption by Baptism.
As always, enjoy the readings provided for your benefit. — The Editor
______________
WHAT IS MATRIMONY
By Fr Courtney Edward Krier
(2023)
Sacrament of Matrimony
Post Trent
The Church, from its inception, has always struggled against the spirit of the world and its governments. The period between Constantine granting freedom to the Church until the Avignon Papacy the Church had grown in power to resist the persecution of governments. The Avignon Papacy (1309-77) and the Hundred Years War (1337-1453) together struck a blow to the papal power that once more allowed governments to refuse recognition to the Church of her role in the moral and spiritual life of its peoples. Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's (Matt. 22:21) became, Render all to Caesar, even what is God’s. The Church may not have suffered martyrdom; but whatever she did was opposed by the Civil Governments. As the state was able to grant or deprive material benefits to its citizens, the citizens easily submitted to the state and ignored the Church, who could only impose spiritual benefits and deprivations. The times the State used the Church to obtain dominion over its citizens brought only harm to the Church. The result was a greater and greater rift between the Church and the populace. The first sign of the rift was felt with John Wycliffe and Jan Hus in the beginning of the fifteenth century. The rift became visible with the Innovators opposing the Church and receiving support from the state—before the Innovators turned on the state. The state was able to crush the Innovators because the state had standing armies which the Church did not have and was at the mercy of both. As the wave of opposition grew and the states saw their power in the scales, the Thirty Year War ended the role of the Church in a truce of 1648. Since that time the Church would be the voice of one crying in the wilderness (cf. John 1:23) that hopefully the faithful would hear and follow. This can be seen in the pleas of the Popes—no longer addressed to State Rulers who claimed to be Catholic—addressed to the clergy and faithful. But, as was said above, the state had control over material rewards and punishments; whereas the Church had only spiritual power. Tragically her members refused to listen and this is sensed in the documents of Popes trying to keep the children of the Church in the faith. Marriage was her last hold in the public life of her children; and now one sees the struggle for the souls of those contemplating forming a union that would bring the future into existence. As Benedict XIV before, so now Clement XIII (1758-69) addressed the issue of making sure Catholics married Catholics in order to form Catholic families—the last bulwark of the Church against state hegemony and her existence.
Apost. Let. Quantopere, November 16, 1763—to Cardinal de Rohan, Bishop of Strasbourg.
You are certainly not unaware of how much the Catholic Church abhors marriages contracted between Catholics and heretics. The eternal salvation of her children is the object of her zealous preoccupation and therefore she has always dissuaded them from forming such unions.
It is Our conviction that such unions will introduce much harm in the midst of the Catholic Church if the mother who has the early education of her children is a stranger to our holy faith, ought we not fear for the religious formation of the children? The maternal instinct will impel the mother to use every solicitude for what has to do with the eternal salvation of her children and therefore she will not lose any occasion of instructing them in the doctrines of her sect, which she judges to be the only true one. If she sees her husband observe fast and abstinence on the days prescribed, approach the Sacrament of Penance in a devout manner to purify his soul from sin, or, again, proceed to the Eucharistic Table, then she will not let slip the opportunity—and the occasion will present itself often enough—of ridiculing these holy observances, as if they were so many useless practices. It will necessarily follow that, little by little, there will take root in the soul of the children a contempt for things most holy. And the principles that inspire their spirit from early infancy will be uprooted only with difficulty, if at all.
If it happens to be the case that the mother professes the Catholic Faith and the father belongs to a heretical sect, he will before the children ridicule the words and the actions of the wife and everything else that pertains to religion. What will be the effect on the still weak souls of the children? Will not the influence that the authority of the father exerts over them perhaps make them doubt the religion of their mother?
Besides, what will happen on the day when a serious discussion on the question of religion arises between husband and wife? The children's minds excited by the argument~ put forward by each parent will become muddled, and they will insensibly fall into religious indifference. Nothing is more contrary to faith, nothing more harmful than this attitude; for it completely ruins any religious, faith, be it true or false.
It is clear that the Lutheran heresy sees in such marriages the best prospects of spreading its doctrines. In fact, young women well grounded in the Lutheran heresy to whom permission has been given—except in some places—to establish their residence with their husbands, when the latter profess the Catholic Faith, will necessarily follow their husbands wherever he desires to settle. Besides, the young bride will rec
eive in her husband's house many adherents of her sect. One will not be able to refuse entry to the ministers of this same sect who will come to pay their respects to the woman. And they will use their ministry to confirm their sheep in their own errors and point out to the mother what she must do to destroy the young faith produced by the true doctrine in the souls of her children at the very moment in which this begins to develop.
In vain, therefore, is the Catholics' zeal to extirpate the errors condemned by the Church in the places where they flourish, if afterwards these same errors flourish with impunity among Catholics. Another consideration can be added: if of the two parties the Catholic member dies and leaves young children, the other party who is heretical will have full liberty to contaminate their souls with the insidious doctrines of his sect.
You see, therefore, beloved children, what the Catholic religion can expect from children born of such unions. One could further ask whether from such a marriage entered into with the purpose of propagating the Catholic Faith, there has instead arisen only advantage for heresy and an extension of its dire effects, and what is worse, whether the only result has been an increase in indifference towards all religion; for this disposition more often than not opens the way to impiety.
Clement XIV (1769-74) was elected as a compromise and promise. Joseph Wilhelm writes:
At the death of Clement XIII, the Church was in dire distress. Gallicanism and Jansenism, Febronianism and Rationalism were up in rebellion against the authority of the Roman pontiff; the rulers of France, Spain, Naples, Portugal, Parma were on the side of the sectarians who flattered their dynastic prejudices and, at least in appearance, worked for the strengthening of the temporal power against the spiritual. The new pope would have to face a coalition of moral and political forces which Clement XIII had indeed manfully resisted, but failed to put down, or even materially to check. (Pope Clement XIV, in The Catholic Encyclopedia)
Clement XIV suppressed the Jesuit Order to appease the royalty but still lost their loyalty. The Freemasons became the counselors in the courts of the rulers and membership in their ranks became the politically correct step for advancement. Joseph II of Austria literally declared himself head of the Church under his domains and supported all opposition to the Church and her teachings, even making marriage a civil contract in 1783.
Pope Pius VI (1775-1799) would find himself in one of the most tragic periods of modern papal history inheriting the results of Clement XIV’s surrender to the demands of the Rulers of Catholic Europe. Pius VI tried also through compromise to save his authority in the beginning, but he soon realised this only emboldened the enemies of the Church. When he refused to concede any further, he found himself a prisoner of the French under Napoleon Bonaparte, suffering and then dying in their hands in Valence.
In his efforts to safeguard the Sacrament of Marriage, Pius VI replied to those rejecting the Church’s authority in the matter of the validity of marriage of Catholics only within a lawful Catholic marriage.
Letter Post factum tibi, February 2, 1782, to the Archbishop of Treviso.
There is no doubt that the Church has the right to establish impediments to marriage, for the Council of Trent has defined: "If anyone says that the Church has not been able to establish diriment impediments to matrimony, or that by establishing them she has erred: let him be anathema". Even the Catholic teachers most favorable to lay authority never hesitated to recognize in this power a right given to the Church by Christ, and one which she has used from the earliest times right up to the present day.
Very ancient documents could be quoted as regards this usage, referring precisely to the times in which pagan princes never made such a concession to the Church, which often had to suffer the most violent persecutions. Yet the ecclesiastical decrees on this matter are anterior to the imperial constitutions; indeed, the former seemed to have served as a model for the latter. It can be noted in particular that the impediment of affinity in the early centuries was considered as diriment by ecclesiastical law, as can be attested by the letter of St. Basil to Diodorus and by the Council of Neo-Caesarea, at which a celebrated jurist stated in a note on the Council of Granada, that such an impediment had been abrogated by the ancient law of the Romans.
Therein is a proof a fortiori of the Church's right to establish such impediments and of the lack of foundation in the arguments of those who seek to evade the definition of the Council of Trent by pretending that the Council did not mean to define whether this power was given to the Church by Christ, or whether it was expressly or tacitly conceded to her instead by the princes. Since the Apostles made effective use of this power as regards the marriages of the faithful; and since it is impossible to pretend that their immediate successors obtained this power through a concession of the State, it must necessarily be concluded that they received it from Our Lord, together with the Power of the Keys. To say that in using this power they were mistaken, involves postulating a mistake consisting in arrogating to themselves a power that they did not have and they then would have usurped the legitimate rights belonging to the civil power. But everyone will easily understand that such an hypothesis is absurd.
It is also known that it has been defined in the same place (a) that the Church has the power of establishing various degrees of prohibiting and diriment impediments. Consequently, since at no moment can a dogma of faith have been or be now false, it follows necessarily that from the beginning of the Church and at all times since it has been true and will be true in the future that the Church possesses in reality the power that the Council attributes to her. Now, on the contrary, if even a tacit concession on the part of the princes had been necessary, it would follow that what the Council declares could not have been verified in the first centuries at the time of the pagan princes and it could not be verified today in those regions where Christians are subject to the dominion of the infidels. Besides, if princes could annul the impediments sanctioned by the Church with the revocation of a power benevolently conceded by them, then what was defined at the Council of Trent would no longer be true and we would find ourselves faced with the monstrous situation of being obliged at a certain point to deny to the Church a power which had already been recognized to be hers by the Holy Spirit Himself through an Ecumenical Council.
(To be continued)
--------------------------
The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers
F. Toal
THE GOSPEL OF THE SUNDAY
John xvi. 16-22
At that time: Jesus said to his disciples: A little while, and now you shall not see me; and again a little while, and you shall see me: because I go to the Father. Then some of his disciples said one to another: What is this that he saith to us: A little while, and you shall not see me; and again a little while, and you shall see me, and, because I go to the Father? They said therefore: What is this that he saith, a little while? we know not what he speaketh. And Jesus knew that they had a mind to ask him; and he said to them: of this do you inquire among yourselves, because I said: A little while, and you shall not see me; and again a little while, and you shall see me? Amen, amen, I say to you, that you shall lament and weep, but the world shall rejoice; and you shall be made sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy. A woman, when she is in labour, hath sorrow, because her hour is come; but when she hath brought forth the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world. So also you now indeed have sorrow; but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice; and your joy no man shall take from you.
THE VENERABLE BEDE, PRIEST AND DOCTOR
I Will See You Again: the Christian's Hope
Then follows: A woman when she is in labour, hath sorrow, because her hour is come. He speaks of the Holy Church as the woman, because of her fruitfulness in all good, and because she never ceases to bring forth children to God. And of her elsewhere is it said: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, until the whole was leavened (Mt. xiii. 3 3; Lk. xiii. 21). The woman takes the leaven, as the Church takes from the Lord the divine gift of faith and love. She hides this in three measures of flour until the whole is leavened; as she has ministered the word of life in Asia, Africa, and Europe, until all the earth is set on fire with the love of the kingdom of heaven. He shows that He belongs to the members of this Woman who in sorrow declares to certain persons who were falling away from the purity of the Faith: My little children, of whom I am in labour again, until Christ be formed in you (Gal. iv. 19). They testify they are her members who inflamed with heavenly desires cry out in praise of their Creator: From thy fear, O Lord, we have conceived and brought forth, and have been as it were in labour, and have brought forth wind. But this woman when she is in labour hath sorrow, because her hour is come; but when she hath brought forth the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world (Is. xxvi. 17). For as long as she is steadfast in this world in advancing in virtue, she will never cease to be harassed by the trials of the world; but when she has overcome in the contest of her labours, and attained to the palm of victory, she remembers no more the anguish that is now ended because of her joy in the reward received. For the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be received in us (Rom. viii. 18).
She remembers no more, He says, the anguish for joy that a man is born into the world. For as the woman rejoices that a man is born into the world, so also is the Church filled with becoming exultation at the birth of the Christian people into life eternal; because of whose birth she now grieves and is in labour, as a woman who brings forth in this present life. Nor should it seem strange to anyone that he is said to be born who departs from the present life. For just as he is said to be born who comes forth from his mother's womb into this light of ours, so also may he most justly be said to be born who delivered of the bonds of the flesh is uplifted to light eternal. For this reason is it the custom of the Church to call those days in which the passing of the Martyrs and Confessors of Christ is commemorated, not funeral celebrations, but Birth Festivals, or Natalitia. The Lord then goes on to explain this figure of the woman He has put before us.
So also you now indeed have sorrow; but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice; and your joy no man shall take from you. This is easily understood of the Disciples; for they had to mourn over the slain and buried Christ; but after the glory of the Resurrection, they were glad when they saw the Lord. And their joy no one takes from them; for though in the days that followed they suffered persecution and torment for Christ's Name, yet they suffered these things gladly: for they were inflamed with the hope of resurrection and the hope of seeing Him. Indeed, they counted it all joy when they met with trials of every kind (Jas. i. 2). For even when they were scourged by the chiefs of the priests, They went from, as it is written, rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Christ (Acts v. 41).
Their joy no one takes from them; for by suffering such things for the sake of Christ they merited to reign with Christ forever. And the whole Church likewise, amid the trials and labours of this present life, goes steadily forward to the reward of eternal joy; as the Apostle bears witness: That through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God (Acts xiv.21).
When He said: I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, He meant: I will see you; I will snatch you from the jaws of your enemies; I will crown you as victors; I will prove to you that I was ever with you as a witness while you fought. For when would He not see His own, especially in the midst of trials, since He has promised to be with them all the days of this world? And as the faithful died in the midst of their sufferings, their torturers believed that they were without divine aid; saying: Where is their God? For this, one such as these, hedged about with torments, cries out: Behold, O Lord, my afflictions, because the enemy is lifted up (Lam. i. 9); which is as if he were openly to say: Since the enemy who torments me raises his head in pride against thy lowly ones, sustain us by thy help, O Triumphant Creator; prove to us when our enemies are defeated and driven off that thou hast seen our struggles, and that they were pleasing to Thee. So after their tribulation the Lord sees the Elect when, the enemy condemned, He gives them the reward of their patience.
We can interpret the words: I will see you again, as though He said: I shall appear to you who now see me; as He said to Abraham: Now I know that thou fearest God (Gen. xxii. 12); just as though He said: Now I have made men know that you fear God, they who till now knew not what was ever known to Me. If then, Brethren, we are afflicted by salutary suffering, if according to the exhortation of the Apostle, we are patient in tribulation; instant in prayer (Rom. xii. 12), if with due sorrow we weep for our own errors and for the miseries of our neighbours, the Lord will see us again; that is, He will show Himself to us in the future Who once deigned to see us and bestow on us the knowledge of His Faith. He will see us that He may crown us Who once saw us that He might call us. He will see us and our heart will rejoice, and our joy no man shall take from us; for this is the sole and true reward of those who sorrow for God's sake; to rejoice for ever in His sight.
This reward on high He promised when He said: Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God (Mt. v. 8). The psalmist longed for this reward when He cried: My soul hath thirsteth after the strong living God; when shall I come and appear before the face of the living God? (Ps. xli. 3). This the Apostle rejoiced that with others like him he might receive; who though conscious of his own struggles could yet confidently proclaim: We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face (I Cor. xiii. 12). Relying on God let us also truly seek to lay hold of this reward, until we come to see Him Who is the Help of those who fight, and the Reward of those who win, Jesus Christ our Lord, Who with the Father and the Holy Ghost liveth and reigneth world without end. Amen.
---------------------------
APRIL 21
St. Anselm of Canterbury
Bishop, Confessor, Doctor of the Church
One of the greatest among the many great saints of the Middle Ages is St. Anselm. He was born in 1033 in Piedmont, Italy, the son of a noble Lombard family. His father was a prodigal worldling; but his mother was very religious, and she aroused in the gifted boy a love of virtue and Christian life. Anselm studied diligently. At fifteen he sought admission to a monastery, but the abbot feared the wrath of the boy’s father, and refused him. After his mother’s death, the repulsive behavior of his father drove Anselm from his home. He went to the French monastery of Bec, where he resumed his studies under the famous Lanfranc. In 1090, his father having died meanwhile, Anselm became a monk, and, after a few years, he was named prior. In 1078 he became abbot.
Upon the earnest solicitation of King William II of England, he reluctantly accepted the See of Canterbury, in 1093. Soon the King began meddling in the affairs of the Church and curtailing her rights, but Anselm withstood him courageously. When however, in 1097, the Archbishop, against the will of the King, went to Rome, William declared him banished. Three years later upon the death of the King, he returned to Canterbury; but the fight for the freedom of the Church continued under King Henry II, and Anselm had to stay out of England until 1105. Finally Henry relented, placed complete confidence in the Archbishop, and even appointed him administrator of the affairs of the realm during the King’s absence. The Saint died on April 21, 1109. His pioneering theological works had a decisive influence on the development of theological science, meriting for him the title of “Father of Scholasticism.” He was a mighty defender of the faith and the freedom of the Church. He used to say: “God likes nothing better than to see His Church free.”
“You are the salt of the earth . . . . You are the light of the world” (Gospel). Truly, this man was the light that illumined the Church by virtue of his profound knowledge. His one joy was to delve into the truths of the Faith and divine things. He confessed that study often caused him to miss meals, and that dawn sometimes found him buried in contemplation. Wherever he was: in the cloister, in the archiepiscopal residence, on journeys, or in exile—everywhere he was studying, doing research, or writing about God, about the Holy Trinity, about the procession of the Holy Spirit from Father and Son, about the mystery of the Incarnation, about the nature of good and evil, about sin, or about eternal predestination and the relationship between grace and freedom. Anselm’s chief purpose in pursuing knowledge was stated by him thus: “Man was created to love God, that is why he is immortal. Loving God, the soul lives forever and ever happily. This blessedness consists in the enjoyment of God, for He gives Himself to those who love Him, God wants to be loved. What can He give in return but Himself? In this way man is united with God. His happiness will be in proportion to his love, his love is as great as his understanding.” St. Anselm’s knowledge is genuinely Christian and completely orthodox, permeated by humble, heartfelt, fervent piety, filled with a holy warmth of prayer and of love for God and Christ.
“You are the salt of the earth.” As a great and holy theologian, as a fiery defender of the freedom of the Church, Anselm fulfills this saying of our Lord. Few other prelates stood as firmly behind Popes Gregory VII and Urban II in their efforts to reform the Church. As soon as Lanfranc, Anselm’s predecessor in the See of Canterbury, had died, King William began oppressing the Church in order to claim her revenues for himself. For years he left the See of Canterbury vacant, appropriated its income, and sold abbeys and bishoprics as he pleased. Then Anselm came, but not until he had received the King’s assurance that he would return church property, acknowledge Urban II as pope, and accept Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, as his spiritual father and obey him. In his turn, the Archbishop would honor him as a political ruler. When Anselm pressed the King, however, for appointments to the abbatial vacancies, he refused in a roundabout way. When Anselm wanted to receive the archiepiscopal pallium from the Holy Father himself, William declared that this would be disloyal to the crown. Anselm stood firm against all unjust demands. The King then sent court chaplains to obtain the pallium; but when the Legate brought it, William tried to induce him to depose St. Anselm. When certain bishops pretended that they could not support their Archbishop and threatened to go over to the King’s side unless Anselm would abandon his principles, the latter replied: “You have spoken rightly; go to your master, I shall stay on the side of God.”
William threatened to deprive him of the diocese if he left England, but Anselm went to Rome anyway. Deposed by William, and later by Henry, the Saint still came out of the fray victorious. In 1107 King Henry renounced his claim to the right to invest bishops, to tax church property, and to seize vacant bishoprics.
Now St. Anselm returned to England, amid the rejoicing of the people. He proceeded with a firm hand to reform both bishops and faithful and thus saved England to the Church and the papacy. On Wednesday before Easter he felt that death was near and had the story of the Passion read to him. He breathed forth his soul just as the reader came to the passage: “You are the men who have kept to my side in my hours of trial: and, as my Father has allotted a kingdom to me, so I allot to you a place to eat and drink at my table in my kingdom» (Luke. 22:28). “I have fought a good fight; I have finished the race; I have redeemed my pledge; I look forward to the prize that is waiting for me, the prize I have earned. The Lord … will grant it to me when that day comes” (Epistle).
St. Anselm exhibited remarkable versatility in his life; a combination of contemplation, prayer, study, writing, and external activity. This was partly the result of the extraordinary talent that God gave him, but it was likewise the fruit of Anselm’s faithful exercise of his talent in the study of natural and supernatural truths. But his chief merit lay in his earnest, conscious effort to live in accordance with what he had learned from the study of divine truths. By this means he was able to ascend to the heights of a life of faith and union with God. There is very much that we can learn from this great teacher.
“Lord, I do not presume to fathom the depths of your truths, for my understanding is not equal to the task. Nevertheless, I desire to learn Your truths in some measure—those truths that I believe and love. I do not seek to gain knowledge so that I can believe; rather, I believe so that I may gain knowledge. No matter how persistently my soul gazes, it still beholds nothing of Your beauty; my soul listens intently, and yet it hears nothing of the learning of Your Being; my soul wants to breathe in Your fragrance, and yet perceives none of it. What are You, Lord? Under what image can my heart recognize You? Truly, You are life; You are truth; You are Goodness; You are Holiness; You are eternity; You are everything good! … O man, why do you roam about so far in search of good things for soul and body? Love the one Good, in whom all goods are contained, and that will satisfy you!” (St. Anselm)
Collect: O God, who didst give blessed Anselm to Thy people as a minister of eternal salvation, grant, we pray Thee, that we may be worthy to have as our advocate in heaven him who on earth taught us the way of life. Amen.
(Benedict Baur)
_______________
Father of the Family
By Eugene Geissler
(1957)
PART II
Reflections
CHAPTER 7
OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN
SOMEBODY HAS MADE the clever but superficial observation of human nature that the social scale always slants down to the people next door.
It is one of those half-truths that shouldn't fool anybody; among people who really know their neighbors, it isn't true. At least, this father has often wished that he were as good a father as the others he sees about him, and his own children as well-behaved as the neighbors' children.
There is always the natural temptation, however, to try to explain this sort of neighborly superiority away. A father likes to think, however fumbling his efforts, that he, too, loves his children. In fact in his best moments, he would like to be known as loving all children—his own and other people's.
It might be suggested that what he feels in his best moments may really be due to the promptings of grace.
Even when there are many children in a house, even in a large family where the children are a lot of company for each other, it is not enough. They have need for other people's children. Men are social and children more so, for there are the added elements of gregariousness which they have not yet outgrown and a lack of individualism which they have not yet grown into.
It is a great gap in the social structure of our time that there is, as a rule, no neighborhood life for our children, because there are no "neighborhoods." There are parks and playgrounds, schools and organizations, institutions of all kinds, but no rapport among people living next to each other, no open doors, no "second homes."
There are, of course, real neighbors and real neighborhoods (we live in one), but they are usually the result of conscious effort against the grain of the times. This conscious effort is being exerted more and more as the real crisis of the family is being more and more appreciated.
Neighbors cooperating in this matter, first in recognizing the need for it, and then, with a common understanding allowing for a reasonable freedom of coming and going are not only making life easier for themselves, but also providing for a basic need of their own and other people's children. It is elementary that social life cannot be lived in a vacuum.
What does a father do to be rid of the vacuum? What is a father's role here? In between his own family and the state, between the limited and the immense, between the family—personal and the civic—institutional, what is his duty and his contribution?
It can be expressed in various ways. It is to direct the family as family beyond itself, to carry over to others, to be one with a larger group, to think of the neighborhood as a larger family. In other times there was what some sociologists have called the "kinship" group. Today there is nothing to take its place, unless the father joins with other fathers to create together with them out of the physical reality of the neighborhood a real social entity. It does not mean creating with them something impersonal and artificial; this is already, in a kind of desperation and in default of fathers, being done by "outsiders." It is to know, love, and serve; to have contact and rapport, mutual interest and mutual benefit with the people next door and down the road and in the block and across the street. This is the organic and natural way, and even the easy way for the broader contacts every family as family needs—especially for the sake of the children.
It is so ready-made for a father, in the present way of things, to go his own way, or even for his family to go its own way, to speed across the arid desert between the family and the commercial-impersonal world, buying and manufacturing its escape from isolation and boredom. Should not a father know that his ship rests in the mouth of the Amazon and he has only to let down his bucket for fresh water to quench the thirst of his children?
Not everything can be perfect and possible, but a neighborhood "tot-lot" or a home kindergarten; a song fest or a musical festival; ball games and other neighborhood sports; an open door policy in respect of backyards and their recreational equipment, an open door policy in respect of basements and living rooms, a neighborly exchange of services; the having something—a backyard golf course, tennis court, outdoor fireplace, for neighborhood purposes. In brief, real live contact and social communication and its consequent enrichment of family social life, especially for the children, is not beyond the directional reach of a conscientious father.
It is not necessary to be as enthusiastic of other people's proteges as they are. The little boy just barely walking who flub-dubbed on his nose across the field to where his father was talking with another father, evinced from his own father the remark:
"You don't know what pride is until you have a boy." To the other father the boy didn't look that convincing—and a good thing too. Nature with her usual touch of eternal wisdom has provided for different viewpoints to serve different purposes.
A father might try the viewpoint of loving other people's children for what they promise to be, or for what they mean to God, or for what they can mean to his own children. Even if he isn't impressed, maybe his own two-year-old is, or if he isn't now, maybe he will be ten years from now, or fifteen.
A father must take the long view. Horizons widen, and with them responsibilities widen too. Possibilities increase and so do children's needs.
Anyhow, those who live next to each other have special need for each other, and more than is usually recognized. (To be continued)
-----------------------------
FYI: The Church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. The universality of the Church is made manifest in its unity. Not united, one is separated from the Universal Church. This can be by disunity or intentional disjunction. Christ, at the Last Supper prayed for unity: that they may be one, as we also are. (John 17:11) In an effort to bring unity among faithful Catholics upholding the Council of Trent and the Tridentine Mass, that is, the Catholic Faith rejected by Vatican II, I bring to your attention an appeal to plead with the clergy (traditional Roman Catholic bishops and priests) to meet together and resolve the disunity the members of the Church find in wanting to know they are members of the Roman Catholic Church and not members of a sect. Remember, the Church is not a cause, it is not an opinion, it is the means of salvation which each member must be assured they will obtain. The appeal, in various languages, may be found at this website:
http://www.einsicht-aktuell.de/index.php?svar=2&ausgabe_id=397&artikel_id=4654
A video that shows the work of the Church since Vatican II: Indefectible 4: The Cedars of Lebanon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7V535-vcKY
Many have responded to this plea for unity and I am grateful. Please continue to pray it will be heeded by the clergy so that on Sunday the words, I believe in the Church that is one, holy, catholic and apostolic, is not just meaningless words said at Holy Mass (or Mass prayers) but rings true for each one of us Catholics.
-------------------------
Father Krier will be in Pahrump, May 9. He will be at Saint Joseph Chapel in Eureka, NV, May 14.
-------------------------
The topics of Faith and Morals will correspond to the Roman Catholic Faith in Tradition and the Magisterium. The News will be of interest. The commentaries are for the reader to ponder and consider. The e-mail address will be for you to provide thought for consideration. The donations will be to support the continuation of this undertaking.
While the Newsletter is free of charge it is not free of cost. Please consider supporting St Joseph’s Catholic Church with a tax - deductible donation by clicking the secure link: Donate Zelle: 702-596-5041
Or if you prefer send a check to
Catholic Tradition Newsletter
c/o St Joseph’s Catholic Church
131 N. 9th St
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Visit us on the Worldwide Web: http://stjosephlv.org
e-mail news and comments to: tcatholicn@yahoo.com