Feast of St Agnes

The Eve of St Agnes was the day when young maidens would ask the virgin martyr for a vision or dream of their future husband. The English have a custom of putting a piece of wedding cake (which is hard fruit cake with marzipan frosting) under the pillow in order to dream of one's husband to be. Most girls just wake up with squashed pieces of cake under their pillows.

John Keats, an interesting Romantic poet, wrote a poem on this event The Eve of St. Agnes, which is a Romeo and Juliet type of poem.

I am reminded today of all the beautiful, single TLM women I know who cannot find husbands who are trad Catholics.

Here is the NO Collect of the day. Almighty ever-living God, who choose what is weak in the world to confound the strong, mercifully grant, that we, who celebrate the heavenly birthday of your Martyr Saint Agnes, may follow her constancy in the faith. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

The Journeys of St. Paul

Some of us have to be called out of a nice, calm and secure existence to make it to heaven.

St. Paul was called out of Judah and was sent by God to many countries of the world. The Romans had created the Pax Romana, a time of relative peace, and had created some of the best roads in the world, some lasting to this day.

Getting about to preach the Gospel and teach was planned by God, using the engineering and military expertise of the Romans to facilitate the spread of Catholicism. I list the places to where he went, omitting the duplicate visits.

St. Paul traveled to Damascus, Jerusalem, Antioch, which was in Syria, Seleucia, Cyprus, Salamis, Paphos, Perga, Antioch in Pisidia. He went to Iconium, Attalia, Cilicia, Derbe and Lystra, Phrygia and Galatia. Then, he went from Mysia to Troas, the island of Samothracia, and then to Neapolis in Macedonia. After that, Paul went to Philippi, Amphipolis, Appolonia, and Thessalonica. 

He then traveled to Berea, Achaia to Athens, and Corinth.

Paul then traveled to Cenchrea, Ephesus, Caesarea, Troas and Macedonia. Then, he went to Achaia,  Assos, Mitylene, Chios, Samos, Trogylium, and Miletus. Then he went to Coos, Rhodes, Patara, and Tyre. After that, he traveled to Ptolemais. He continued to Sidon, Myra, Lasea, and Malta.   

Then, Paul went to Syracuse, to Rhegium, Puteoli, and Rome.

What are you doing to evangelize the world?

The Organist and Schola leader at our TLM

http://qconline.com/archives/qco/print_display.php?id=666866

Follow up on "Pay the fine or bake the cake."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/20/state-rules-oregon-bakery-that-refused-to-make-a-gay-wedding-cake-violated-lesbian-couples-civil-rights/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons

persecution time....

Can we just skip a generation, please?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-elizabeth-ii-hand-over-3039892

Real Pacificism III

Wrapping up these posts on Just War Doctrine and pacifism, I want to point out the sad reality of the lack of understanding of duties of defense among so many "new men".

Too many men today do not think it is their duty to protect themselves, their families, wives, children, Church, country.  Part of this has been the brain-washing of the false pacifist position of the past 40 years, which is a view that states that all confrontation, including physical, is by definition "bad". This is, obviously, not the case.

But, that view of many men is that they do not have to learn how to defend, nor do they have a duty to do so.

God put women and children in family and clan units for their protection. Men have lost this sense of being protectors. They rationalize their stand by claiming a false pacifism, which is merely an excuse not to fight.

Many men do not know that patriotism is a virtue. Many men have fallen into the cynicism referred to yesterday and the day before in posts. Cynicism denies the need for protection. Fear also denies the traditional male role of protector.

Too many men will not fight, refuse to defend, the innocent, the weak. This fear or state of weakness is not real pacifism, like the men of the Anabaptists exhibit, but a denial of what it is to be a man. Our nation and other nations of the West have lost leadership because of these false ideals and fear.

The protectors are becoming an extinct species......

The ashikikomori

I had an article on men not dating in Japan several years ago. Two readers have contributed to this discussion. I cannot find the original interview of the young men in 2012, who said they would not get married and were not dating.

One reader wrote this in 2012


1. Japanese (men and women both) tend to fall into extremes of femininity or masculinity. There is never such a thing as "gender neutral". Much of this has to do with the language which differs strongly between feminine and masculine forms of speech. Kawaii culture is often simply an expression (or marketing) of that extreme femininity, while there is an equally prevalent Samurai culture of high speed trains, magnificent architecture, and competitiveness that expresses the extreme masculine. While Japan has a deep tradition of subtlety of social expression, it has a deeper tradition of profound emotion - it is not unusual to see a fistfight in parliament, or a man weeping in public. 

2. The Japanese are perfectly aware of this fact that they love the childish, and some contemporary Japanese popular art pokes fun at this. Once recent anime features an ingenious "Professor" who makes sentient robots. She is also about 8 years old and would live on snacks and read manga all day - were it not for the admonishments of one of her more sensible creations. The Professor is a critique of Japan - as brilliantly intelligent, magnificently creative, and absurdly infantile. 

3. Captain Tylor from the "Musekinin Kansho Tylor" which we watched is a similar critique. The Captain is a Japanese everyman - naturally cunning, innocent, good-hearted, yet completely irresponsible. He is contrasted with the old imperial Japanese ideal, Lt. Yamamoto, who is consumed by duty and has to find his heart. This sharp contrast between the not-so-past feudal Japan and modern democratic Japan is still a daily reality for many Japanese. 

4.. Japanese culture has from the earliest times has had what Fr. Isaac, (a teacher at the seminary) might call an "irrealist" mode of thinking and artistic expression. It is perhaps the first culture to attempt to depict nothingness. Traditional Japanese art is minimalist and ideological, like modern western art. Of course, the impressionist movement was heavily influenced by Japanese art. Similarly, western Realism has had a huge impact on Japanese society, which is radically apparent in the postwar anime and manga sphere, which is full of western "practical fantasy" such as princes, dragons, and faeries acting out morality plays. Kawaii is a polite derivative of Greek ideals - celebration of the physical form, a frank but positive view of humanity, and the benevolent leadership of fate (or grace!) - as much as it is an organic progression of Japanese ideals. 

Remember Ayu from Kanon, who uses "Boku" for "I", a masculine form - probably from talking with boys more than girls as a child. Yuuichi suggests she use "Atashi" which is feminine, or "Watashi" which is a more modern, gender-neutral construction. She says she doesn't like these and so Yuuichi teases her by suggesting she use "Ore" - a medieval super-masculine form used for oration and commands. She tries it and the combination of her using "Ore" with her petite size and high voice is so absurd that Yuuichi reels over in laughter. Ayu, like Japan, is outwardly cute and feminine, but inwardly tomboyish, independent, and assertive. 

And, another reader sent this:

http://theweek.com/article/index/254923/everything-you-need-to-know-about-japans-population-crisis

Everything you need to know about Japan's population crisis

Japan's birthrate is plummeting. Why have so many young Japanese given up on getting married?

By Sarah Eberspacher | January 11, 2014

               There clearly is a subset of Japanese youth who have withdrawn from dating. Instead, they focus on online porn and games like Nintendo's Love Plus, in which players conduct a relationship with an anime girlfriend. Hundreds of thousands of young men are known ashikikomori, shut-ins who eschew human contact and spend their days playing video games and reading comics in their parents' homes. 

An epidemic of shut-ins 

For years, Takeshi hid from the world, playing video games all night and sleeping all day, eating from a tray his mother left outside his room. He was a hikikomori, one of an estimated 1 million Japanese teens and young men who have become shut-ins, with virtually no human contact beyond their parents. Some of the hikikomori first withdraw because of some social embarrassment — bad grades, or a romantic rejection. The longer they drop out, the more shame they feel in a society where one's status and reputation are paramount and hard to change. Parents, and especially mothers, often enable the withdrawal. "In Japan, mothers and sons often have a symbiotic, codependent relationship," says psychiatrist Tamaki Saito, who first identified the disorder in the 1990s. Takeshi re-entered society after four years, thanks to a government program that sends female outreach counselors known as "rental sisters" to coax the hikikomori out of the house. But that program doesn't always work. As one shut-in of 15 years said, "I missed my chance."   sekkusu shinai shokogun, or "celibacy syndrome,"

Real Pacifism II

From day one, I was against the preemptive strikes from America, the 2003 war in Iraq, because of the teachings of the Catholic Church on Just War.

I was teaching at the time and the head of the board had lunch with me and asked me to explain my position, as the entire faculty, but me supported the war. I explained, as I had in religion classes, that the Church did no support strikes which may stop a war as part of the Just War doctrine. Preemptive strikes are not part of the criteria for a just war.

The Catholic Church has been clear on the doctrine of Just War. Defense and means, as well as reason for such must follow real criteria. Sadly, too many Catholics have not understood the Church's position and either fall into false pacifism or false aggression. Here are some of the points Note, a summary of the CCC as to the necessary criteria for a Just War may be seen in a previous post.

Therefore, there are times when a Catholic can object to national aggression. Not all wars are just. One may be against a particular war and still uphold the Just War doctrine.

Here is another source
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

III. THE FAILURE OF PEACE: WAR

497. The Magisterium condemns "the savagery of war" [1032] and asks that war be considered in a new way.[1033] In fact, "it is hardly possible to imagine that in an atomic era, war could be used as an instrument of justice".[1034] War is a "scourge" [1035] and is never an appropriate way to resolve problems that arise between nations, "it has never been and it will never be",[1036] because it creates new and still more complicated conflicts.[1037] When it erupts, war becomes an "unnecessary massacre",[1038] an "adventure without return"[1039] that compromises humanity's present and threatens its future. "Nothing is lost by peace; everything may be lost by war".[1040] The damage caused by an armed conflict is not only material but also moral.[1041] In the end, war is "the failure of all true humanism",[1042] "it is always a defeat for humanity": [1043] "never again some peoples against others, never again! ... no more war, no more war!" [1044]

498. Seeking alternative solutions to war for resolving international conflicts has taken on tremendous urgency today, since "the terrifying power of the means of destruction - to which even medium and small-sized countries have access - and the ever closer links between the peoples of the whole world make it very difficult or practically impossible to limit the consequences of a conflict".[1045] It is therefore essential to seek out the causes underlying bellicose conflicts, especially those connected with structural situations of injustice, poverty and exploitation, which require intervention so that they may be removed. "For this reason, another name for peace is development. Just as there is a collective responsibility for avoiding war, so too there is a collective responsibility for promoting development".[1046]

499. States do not always possess adequate means to provide effectively for their own defence, from this derives the need and importance of international and regional organizations, which should be in a position to work together to resolve conflicts and promote peace, re-establishing relationships of mutual trust that make recourse to war unthinkable.[1047] "There is reason to hope ... that by meeting and negotiating, men may come to discover better the bonds that unite them together, deriving from the human nature which they have in common; and that they may also come to discover that one of the most profound requirements of their common nature is this: that between them and their respective peoples it is not fear which should reign but love, a love which tends to express itself in a collaboration that is loyal, manifold in form and productive of many benefits".[1048]

a. Legitimate defence

500. A war of aggression is intrinsically immoral. In the tragic case where such a war breaks out, leaders of the State that has been attacked have the right and the duty to organize a defence even using the force of arms.[1049] To be licit, the use of force must correspond to certain strict conditions: "the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the 'just war' doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good".[1050 ]

If this responsibility justifies the possession of sufficient means to exercise this right to defence, States still have the obligation to do everything possible "to ensure that the conditions of peace exist, not only within their own territory but throughout the world".[1051] It is important to remember that "it is one thing to wage a war of self-defence; it is quite another to seek to impose domination on another nation. The possession of war potential does not justify the use of force for political or military objectives. Nor does the mere fact that war has unfortunately broken out mean that all is fair between the warring parties".[1052]

501. The Charter of the United Nations, born from the tragedy of the Second World War with the intention of preserving future generations from the scourge of war, is based on a generalized prohibition of a recourse to force to resolve disputes between States, with the exception of two cases: legitimate defence and measures taken by the Security Council within the area of its responsibilities for maintaining peace. In every case, exercising the right to self-defence must respect "the traditional limits of necessity and proportionality".[1053]

Therefore, engaging in a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and juridical questions. International legitimacy for the use of armed force, on the basis of rigorous assessment and with well-founded motivations, can only be given by the decision of a competent body that identifies specific situations as threats to peace and authorizes an intrusion into the sphere of autonomy usually reserved to a State.

b. Defending peace

502. The requirements of legitimate defence justify the existence in States of armed forces, the activity of which should be at the service of peace. Those who defend the security and freedom of a country, in such a spirit, make an authentic contribution to peace.[1054] Everyone who serves in the armed forces is concretely called to defend good, truth and justice in the world. Many are those who, in such circumstances, have sacrificed their lives for these values and in defence of innocent lives. Very significant in this regard is the increasing number of military personnel serving in multinational forces on humanitarian or peace-keeping missions promoted by the United Nations.[1055]

503. Every member of the armed forces is morally obliged to resist orders that call for perpetrating crimes against the law of nations and the universal principles of this law.[1056] Military personnel remain fully responsible for the acts they commit in violation of the rights of individuals and peoples, or of the norms of international humanitarian law. Such acts cannot be justified by claiming obedience to the orders of superiors.

Conscientious objectors who, out of principle, refuse military service in those cases where it is obligatory because their conscience rejects any kind of recourse to the use of force or because they are opposed to the participation in a particular conflict, must be open to accepting alternative forms of service. "It seems just that laws should make humane provision for the case of conscientious objectors who refuse to carry arms, provided they accept some other form of community service".[1057]

c. The duty to protect the innocent

504. The right to use force for purposes of legitimate defence is associated with the duty to protect and help innocent victims who are not able to defend themselves from acts of aggression. In modern conflicts, which are often within a State, the precepts of international humanitarian law must be fully respected. Far too often, the civilian population is hit and at times even becomes a target of war. In some cases, they are brutally massacred or taken from their homes and land by forced transfers, under the guise of "ethnic cleansing",[1058] which is always unacceptable. In such tragic circumstances, humanitarian aid must reach the civilian population and must never be used to influence those receiving it; the good of the human person must take precedence over the interests of the parties to the conflict.

505. The principle of humanity inscribed in the conscience of every person and all peoples includes the obligation to protect civil populations from the effects of war. "That minimum protection of the dignity of every person, guaranteed by international humanitarian law, is all too often violated in the name of military or political demands which should never prevail over the value of the human person. Today we are aware of the need to find a new consensus on humanitarian principles and to reinforce their foundation to prevent the recurrence of atrocities and abuse".[1059]

A particular category of war victim is formed by refugees, forced by combat to flee the places where they habitually live and to seek refuge in foreign countries. The Church is close to them not only with her pastoral presence and material support, but also with her commitment to defend their human dignity: "Concern for refugees must lead us to reaffirm and highlight universally recognized human rights, and to ask that the effective recognition of these rights be guaranteed to refugees".[1060]

506. Attempts to eliminate entire national, ethnic, religious or linguistic groups are crimes against God and humanity itself, and those responsible for such crimes must answer for them before justice.[1061] The twentieth century bears the tragic mark of different genocides: from that of the Armenians to that of the Ukrainians, from that of the Cambodians to those perpetrated in Africa and in the Balkans. Among these, the Holocaust of the Jewish people, the Shoah, stands out: "the days of the Shoah marked a true night of history, with unimaginable crimes against God and humanity".[1062]

The international community as a whole has the moral obligation to intervene on behalf of those groups whose very survival is threatened or whose basic human rights are seriously violated. As members of an international community, States cannot remain indifferent; on the contrary, if all other available means should prove ineffective, it is "legitimate and even obligatory to take concrete measures to disarm the aggressor".[1063] The principle of national sovereignty cannot be claimed as a motive for preventing an intervention in defence of innocent victims.[1064] The measures adopted must be carried out in full respect of international law and the fundamental principle of equality among States.

Parents, pay attention

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gardasil-researcher-speaks-out/

The False Pacifist vs.The True I

During the Viet Nam War, I knew several seminarians who chose to prove to their draft boards that Catholicism supported pacifism. Their numbers had come up and they either had to go to Nam or prove, that as pacifists, they would be willing to do alternative work. In fact, the official government rule is that conscientious objectors must support the war effort by alternative, non-combative duties or go to federal prison.

All won their hearings and went into offices, or did cleaning on bases and so on. Their stand was that the Catholic Church always had a history of pacifism alongside the Just War Theory. These young men did their homework, but part of their stand was that they would never fight in any war, not merely this particular was which they thought was unjust.

Today, in the Church there is a false pacifism. This pacifism is not founded on a philosophy of non-violence, but on the desire not to engage in any fighting or any kind for any reason because of....fear. The fear is the feat of confrontation of any kind, and there are two generations which seem to have an over-representation of youth and middle-aged people who simply will not fight, even to defend themselves or others

When the several young men, all who were at university with me and in theology classes with me, researched Catholic pacifism, they showed me their results, and, in fact, as a research theology student myself, I dived into the study with and for them. The pacifist stand of "satyagraha", held by Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr is not part of the Catholic historical position, as it came from the Hindu tradition. The idea of "conscientious objection" would have to be total and not specific to a war to be a valid stance before a draft board.

That the official teaching of the Catholic Church is Just War Legitimacy makes it difficult for Catholics who are true pacifists to find their heritage, but some did. 

The martyrs could be construed as pacifists, in that they did not fight or defend themselves. But, then most could not, were not in that position of armed resistance.

A true pacifist, as my friend discovered, could not pretend or be fearful of confrontation. Their stand was one of non-violence not non-confrontation.

Confrontation with peaceful, passive means, "passive resistance" is something I was taught, useful for pro-life work in antagonistic places. Again, passive resistance, being resistance, is not fearful.

Most Catholics agree with the Just War position of the Church, and here is the section from the CCC on this.

III. SAFEGUARDING PEACE

Peace

2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill," [Mt. 5:21] our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice." [St. Thomas Aquinas, ST II-II q158, a1 ad3] If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment." [Mt. 5:22]

2303 Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the  neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm.  "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven." [Mt. 5:44-45]

2304 Respect for and development of human life require peace.  Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is "the tranquility of order." [St. Augustine,City of God 19, 13,1]  Peace is the work of justice  and the effect of charity. [Cf. Is. 32:17; cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes #78, 1-2]

 2305 Earthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ, the messianic "Prince of Peace." [Is. 9:5] By the blood of his Cross, "in his own person he killed the hostility," [Eph. 2:16; cf. Col. 1:20-22] he reconciled men with God  and made his Church the sacrament of the unity of the human race and of its union with God. "He is our peace." [Eph. 2:14] He has declared: "Blessed are the peacemakers." [Mt. 5:9]

2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity,  provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death. [Cf. Vatican II,Gaudium et spes 78, 5]

Avoiding war

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war. [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 81, 4] All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed." [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes79, 4]

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
 - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
 - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
 - there must be serious prospects of success;
 - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed  forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they  carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.[Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 79, 5]

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way. [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 79, 3] 2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties." [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes79, 4]

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally  bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 80, 3]A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons - especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; [Pope Paul VI, Populorum Progressio 53] it thwarts the development of peoples. Over- armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common  good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy,  distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these  disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:

Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes78, 6; cf. Is. 2:4]

To be continued..........

Yesterday, at the Chicago Right to Life March

The Roots of Cynicism

The main root of cynicism is negativity, which can be brought on by pride or hyper-criticism. The truly humble person is not prone to cynicism, as those who fall into cynicism judge that they are better than other people.

Pride causes negativity when people tend to blame others for their problems instead of taking responsibility for their own sins.

Pride cause judgement, the seeking of the mote in the other's eye instead of looking a the beam in one's own.

Negativity breeds cynicism. A person wants perfection, a utopian society, without work or effort. Negativity comes from the false expectations of others.

Cynicism is also idolatry. This idolatry worships comfort and hates suffering. One of the most cynical persons I know thinks that all people lie, because she does. She also wants to avoid suffering, and if she must, like being uncomfortable at work, she will blame others for the state of affairs and not want to suffer through difficulties.

The woman then complains, incessantly and falls into a martyr pattern. No one could possibly suffer as much as she does. Yet, she hates suffering and only wants comfort.

She sees suffering as masochism, never as a tool used by God for perfection.

Her cynicism infects her entire world, as she complains, judges, feels depressed. Yet, she refuses to look in the mirror and change herself.

The cynic is frequently self-centered and wants the world to revolve around her needs.This same cynic has no belief in God, or the efficacy of prayer, or grace.

To be a cynic is to choose to live in a grey shadow-land of unhappiness.

Ironically, this same cynic feels superior to all others, and therefore has the right to judge.

The road to perfection must start with a conversion away from cynicism to hope and the belief in change, the metanoia of self.

Goodbye Ireland's Ethics

"80% of respondents agree corruption is part of the business culture in Ireland."

The morally bankrupt nation...Ireland.

http://linkis.com/transparency.ie/news/tAmgu

The Dark Night vs.Despair

I have written before on the difference between the Dark Night of the Soul, when no consolations are felt or seen by the person involved, and despair.

The two states are completely different. In despair, hope is gone. Faith is gone. Love has been destroyed.

In the Dark Night, one hopes and works out of faith without any assurance of salvation and without clarity of sight.

Faith and hope are operative in the Dark Night. In the Dark Night, especially that of the soul, one makes acts of faith and hope over and over and over.

One suffers intensely in the Dark Night, but in faith.

To be continued....

On Despair Three

Sometimes, it is the voice of reason which snaps someone out of despair. St. Peter had the grace of repentance.

Aquinas is clear that despair is a serious sin. Here is another snippet from the Summa.

There is a pattern, a paradigm of action and thought which leads to despair.

Mortal sin, rationalization of those sins, and finally a turning away of the theological virtues given in baptism. I suggest to those who are evangelizing or talking with people in despair, that the fact that this sin is directly against God and His goodness would be a good topic of conversation. Those who have despaired need to find the real God, not the God of their imaginations. And, they need to know that God has forgiven them.

To reject over and over the forgiveness of God, won by Jesus on the Cross, is the sin of despair.

Whether despair is the greatest of sins?

  Objection 1: It would seem that despair is not the greatest of sins. For there can be despair without unbelief, as stated above (Article [2]). But unbelief is the greatest of sins because it overthrows the foundation of the spiritual edifice. Therefore despair is not the greatest of sins.
  Objection 2: Further, a greater evil is opposed to a greater good, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 10). But charity is greater than hope, according to 1 Cor. 13:13. Therefore hatred of God is a greater sin than despair.
  Objection 3: Further, in the sin of despair there is nothing but inordinate aversion from God: whereas in other sins there is not only inordinate aversion from God, but also an inordinate conversion. Therefore the sin of despair is not more but less grave than other sins.
  On the contrary, An incurable sin seems to be most grievous, according to Jer. 30:12: "Thy bruise is incurable, thy wound is very grievous." Now the sin of despair is incurable, according to Jer. 15:18: "My wound is desperate so as to refuse to be healed." [*Vulg.: 'Why is my wound,' etc.] Therefore despair is a most grievous sin.
  I answer that, Those sins which are contrary to the theological virtues are in themselves more grievous than others: because, since the theological virtues have God for their object, the sins which are opposed to them imply aversion from God directly and principally. Now every mortal sin takes its principal malice and gravity from the fact of its turning away from God, for if it were possible to turn to a mutable good, even inordinately, without turning away from God, it would not be a mortal sin. Consequently a sin which, first and of its very nature, includes aversion from God, is most grievous among mortal sins.
   Now unbelief, despair and hatred of God are opposed to the theological virtues: and among them, if we compare hatred of God and unbelief to despair, we shall find that, in themselves, that is, in respect of their proper species, they are more grievous. For unbelief is due to a man not believing God's own truth; while the hatred of God arises from man's will being opposed to God's goodness itself; whereas despair consists in a man ceasing to hope for a share of God's goodness. Hence it is clear that unbelief and hatred of God are against God as He is in Himself, while despair is against Him, according as His good is partaken of by us. Wherefore strictly speaking it is more grievous sin to disbelieve God's truth, or to hate God, than not to hope to receive glory from Him.
   If, however, despair be compared to the other two sins from our point of view, then despair is more dangerous, since hope withdraws us from evils and induces us to seek for good things, so that when hope is given up, men rush headlong into sin, and are drawn away from good works. Wherefore a gloss on Prov. 24:10, "If thou lose hope being weary in the day of distress, thy strength shall be diminished," says: "Nothing is more hateful than despair, for the man that has it loses his constancy both in the every day toils of this life, and, what is worse, in the battle of faith." And Isidore says (De Sum. Bono ii, 14): "To commit a crime is to kill the soul, but to despair is to fall into hell."

On Despair Two

One of the great weaknesses of modern catechesis in the past thirty years has been the emphasis on emotional religious experience or faith based on experience of some emotional event. This has led to many people chasing after new age religions and false private revelations.

Despair is, therefore, seen as a result of depression or melancholia, rather than a deadly sin. It is part of the appetites in so far as it starts in feeling, but as Catholics, we are called to overcome our feelings with grace and  hope.

In other words, one's judgement is tainted by passion or habit of sin and, therefore, one cannot make a good judgment regarding God and His Mercy

Here is Aquinas on this point.

 I answer that, Unbelief pertains to the intellect, but despair, to the appetite: and the intellect is about universals, while the appetite is moved in connection with particulars, since the appetitive movement is from the soul towards things, which, in themselves, are particular. Now it may happen that a man, while having a right opinion in the universal, is not rightly disposed as to his appetitive movement, his estimate being corrupted in a particular matter, because, in order to pass from the universal opinion to the appetite for a particular thing, it is necessary to have a particular estimate (De Anima iii, 2), just as it is impossible to infer a particular conclusion from an universal proposition, except through the holding of a particular proposition. Hence it is that a man, while having right faith, in the universal, fails in an appetitive movement, in regard to some particular, his particular estimate being corrupted by a habit or a passion, just as the fornicator, by choosing fornication as a good for himself at this particular moment, has a corrupt estimate in a particular matter, although he retains the true universal estimate according to faith, viz. that fornication is a mortal sin. In the same way, a man while retaining in the universal, the true estimate of faith, viz. that there is in the Church the power of forgiving sins, may suffer a movement of despair, to wit, that for him, being in such a state, there is no hope of pardon, his estimate being corrupted in a particular matter. In this way there can be despair, just as there can be other mortal sins, without belief.
  Reply to Objection 1: The effect is done away, not only when the first cause is removed, but also when the secondary cause is removed. Hence the movement of hope can be done away, not only by the removal of the universal estimate of faith, which is, so to say, the first cause of the certainty of hope, but also by the removal of the particular estimate, which is the secondary cause, as it were.
  Reply to Objection 2: If anyone were to judge, in universal, that God's mercy is not infinite, he would be an unbeliever. But he who despairs judges not thus, but that, for him in that state, on account of some particular disposition, there is no hope of the Divine mercy.
   The same answer applies to the Third Objection, since the Novatians denied, in universal, that there is remission of sins in the Church.

To be continued

On Despair

I have written on all the capital sins several times. Just follow the tags and labels. But, today, a reader asked me to do a post on the sin of despair.

This is the ultimate sin. The reject of Revelation and Tradition, the rejection of grace. Despair is a hopelessness which results in doubting or not believing that God is God.

Here is a snippet from St. Thomas Aquinas on despair. I shall write more about this sin later. It leads to many other sins and is a result of pride, at root. Despair means that one has an incorrect and even malicious view of God.

Despair is not an emotion, although emotions can lead to despair. Despair is an act of the will.

Judas hung himself out of despair, rather than humbling himself and asking for God's forgiveness, as Peter did after denying Christ.

Les Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry, Folio 147v - Judas Hangs Himself the Musée Condé, Chantilly.

Whether despair is a sin?

  Objection 1: It would seem that despair is not a sin. For every sin includes conversion to a mutable good, together with aversion from the immutable good, as Augustine states (De Lib. Arb. ii, 19). But despair includes no conversion to a mutable good. Therefore it is not a sin.
  Objection 2: Further, that which grows from a good root, seems to be no sin, because "a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit" (Mt. 7:18). Now despair seems to grow from a good root, viz. fear of God, or from horror at the greatness of one's own sins. Therefore despair is not a sin.
  Objection 3: Further, if despair were a sin, it would be a sin also for the damned to despair. But this is not imputed to them as their fault but as part of their damnation. Therefore neither is it imputed to wayfarers as their fault, so that it is not a sin.
  On the contrary, That which leads men to sin, seems not only to be a sin itself, but a source of sins. Now such is despair, for the Apostle says of certain men (Eph. 4:19): "Who, despairing, have given themselves up to lasciviousness, unto the working of all uncleanness and [Vulg.: 'unto'] covetousness." Therefore despair is not only a sin but also the origin of other sins.
  I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 2) affirmation and negation in the intellect correspond to search and avoidance in the appetite; while truth and falsehood in the intellect correspond to good and evil in the appetite. Consequently every appetitive movement which is conformed to a true intellect, is good in itself, while every appetitive movement which is conformed to a false intellect is evil in itself and sinful. Now the true opinion of the intellect about God is that from Him comes salvation to mankind, and pardon to sinners, according to Ezech. 18:23, "I desire not the death of the sinner, but that he should be converted, and live" [*Vulg.: 'Is it My will that a sinner should die . . . and not that he should be converted and live?' Cf. Ezech. 33:11]: while it is a false opinion that He refuses pardon to the repentant sinner, or that He does not turn sinners to Himself by sanctifying grace. Therefore, just as the movement of hope, which is in conformity with the true opinion, is praiseworthy and virtuous, so the contrary movement of despair, which is in conformity with the false opinion about God, is vicious and sinful.


  Reply to Objection 1: In every mortal sin there is, in some way, aversion from the immutable good, and conversion to a mutable good, but not always in the same way. Because, since the theological virtues have God for their object, the sins which are contrary to them, such as hatred of God, despair and unbelief, consist principally in aversion from the immutable good; but, consequently, they imply conversion to a mutable good, in so far as the soul that is a deserter from God, must necessarily turn to other things. Other sins, however, consist principally in conversion to a mutable good, and, consequently, in aversion from the immutable good: because the fornicator intends, not to depart from God, but to enjoy carnal pleasure, the result of which is that he departs from God.
  Reply to Objection 2: A thing may grow from a virtuous root in two ways: first, directly and on the part of the virtue itself; even as an act proceeds from a habit: and in this way no sin can grow from a virtuous root, for in this sense Augustine declared (De Lib. Arb. ii, 18,19) that "no man makes evil use of virtue." Secondly, a thing proceeds from a virtue indirectly, or is occasioned by a virtue, and in this way nothing hinders a sin proceeding from a virtue: thus sometimes men pride themselves of their virtues, according to Augustine (Ep. ccxi): "Pride lies in wait for good works that they may die." In this way fear of God or horror of one's own sins may lead to despair, in so far as man makes evil use of those good things, by allowing them to be an occasion of despair.
  Reply to Objection 3: The damned are outside the pale of hope on account of the impossibility of returning to happiness: hence it is not imputed to them that they hope not, but it is a part of their damnation. Even so, it would be no sin for a wayfarer to despair of obtaining that which he had no natural capacity for obtaining, or which was not due to be obtained by him; for instance, if a physician were to despair of healing some sick man, or if anyone were to despair of ever becoming rich.

---

 to be continued...

Any readers really clever at finding books?

For over twelve years, in my twenties and thirties, the English version of Raissa's Journal was my constant companion. As usual, along the way as part of evangelization, I passed it on to someone.

I cannot find an English version under 250 USA dollars.

If any reader can find one, let me know. If one is very conversant in French, one can find the French version for about 29.99 USA dollars.  I can read French, but would prefer the English version.

I believe Raissa Maritain is a saint and should be canonized. Would you join me in praying to her for my needs and plans? Thanks.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxDqL09lphy9sMKZqMt8vP5anQUWuTB_I4mu-3cwiK8P8IdLTn

STM

Seminarian at The Church of the Nativity

Thanks to a reader in Poole

New Provision for Sunday Mass in Bournemouth

7 JANUARY 2014

We are delighted to announce that, commencing from Sunday, 19 January, there will be a Low Mass offered on a monthly basis at Our Lady Immaculate Church, Seamoor Road, Bournemouth, BH4 9AE at 7.00 pm. The Mass will be preceded by confessions at 6.00 pm.

The Latin Mass Society is indebted to the work of our local members who petitioned for the Mass and to Bishop Egan (pictured, right) who has extended provision to Bournemouth. Mass will be offered by Fr Glaysher from the Isle of Wight.

http://www.lms.org.uk

Good News, indeed!