Pray for Our Brothers and Sisters in Nigeria

Four post day--please pray for the people of Christ the King Church in Nigeria-martyrs.
Articles here and there. The main stream media insists on making both sides the same, whereas the Christians are being killed, and are not the aggressors. We have a right to defend ourselves, but the main stream media sometimes calls defense "revenge killings". Revenge is wrong, always a sin, but defense is necessary. No photo is needed.

from the CBS news source listed above:

The group known as Boko Haram said in an email that it was responsible for the attacks.

"Allah has given us victory in the attacks we launched (Sunday) against churches in Kaduna and Zaria towns which resulted in the deaths of many Christians and security personnel," the statement said in the local Hausa language.

Boko Haram, whose name means "Western education is sacrilege" in Hausa, is waging an increasingly bloody fight with Nigeria's security agencies and public. More than 580 people have been killed in violence blamed on the sect this year alone, according to an AP count.

.......The most deadly attacks seem to have targeted Christian holidays: An Easter Day blast in Kaduna left at least 38 people dead, and a Christmas Day suicide bombing of a Catholic church near Nigeria's capital killed at least 44. Boko Haram claimed responsibility for both attacks.

Alexis de Tocqueville and 2012: part one for early high school home schooling moms

If Catholics in the pew in any country of the West do not start working to save their own rights regarding religious freedom, they have only themselves to blame if they find themselves under totalitarian democracies. de Tocqueville, who I taught for years, spoke of the "tyranny of the mob". If you have not read his Democracy in America, which should be required for every early high school course, you must. His many insights have not been surpassed. He saw that Americans preferred equality to rights, an interesting comment. And, he was critical of an anti-intellectualism in which Americans preferred opinions to rational discourse.

Does this sound familiar? However, his greatest insight in my reading is that he foresaw the rise of the tyranny of the majority.  His view of the tendency for Americans to be conformists, which is true, led him to observe that a mob or a majority can not only be wrong, but force error on others. He was also aware of the possibility of the Government giving up power to money and using money to control the masses. Does this sound familiar? His concern was that the American dream of material well-being would cause a shadow to fall over the lofty ideals of the Constitutional government.

How well he prophesied the ruin of American independence.

As a scholar and a Catholic, de Tocqueville realized the importance of both understanding history and the need for religion. He was painfully aware that Americans, even when he was observing them, were not as concerned with religion as perhaps they should have been, preferring to be so tolerant as not to be critical, even in a good sense. He wrote that, "The main business of religions is to purify, control, and restrain that excessive and exclusive taste for well-being which men acquire in times of equality."

How well he understood human nature and the American Experience.

When I taught American History, de Tocqueville was on the syllabus. He must be studied. Home schooling moms, please consider him seriously. 

Here are some long quotations from his writings from a website found here.  What follows is from that website.

"A great democratic revolution is taking place in our midst. " --Alexis de Tocqueville (Wikimedia Commons) On May 9, 1831, two young Frenchmen sailed into the harbor of Newport, Rhode Island and began a remarkable journey through the United States. Alexis de Tocqueville and Gustave de Beaumont, both minor French court officials, had been sent by their government to study new experimental prisons in America. However, even before leaving France, de Tocqueville and de Beaumont decided to spend most of their time observing American democracy in action. Both were excited by the prospect. America was such a young nation, and most Europeans had only a vague idea about its unique democratic system. After traveling thousands of miles over a period of nine months, the young men returned to France. De Tocqueville spent the next eight years writing two volumes on his observations. In 1840 the two volumes became one book which de Tocqueville titled Democracy in America. Much more than a mere record of his travels, Democracy in America, in the words of one modern historian, turned out to be "perhaps the greatest commentary ever written about any culture by any person at any time."Alexis de Tocqueville was born into an aristocratic family in 1805, the year after Napoleon Bonaparte was crowned emperor of France. De Tocqueville's parents had been imprisoned earlier during the French Revolution. Both escaped execution, the fate of many aristocrats at the time. De Tocqueville studied law and became a low-level judge in the French court system. Early 19th-century political events in France convinced de Tocqueville that aristocratic government in Europe was doomed, soon to be replaced by democracy. It was at this time that he and his fellow nobleman, de Beaumont, arranged their trip to America. From de Tocqueville's point of view, it would also be a journey into the future. American Equality During his travels which took him from the East Coast to the Mississippi River, de Tfocqueville filled 14 notebooks with his observations, thoughts, and interviews with over 200 Americans. De Tocqueville's relentless curiosity urged him to probe into every area of American culture, but it was the American people that interested him the most. Specifically, he wanted to find out about the role of the American citizen in this new democratic society. De Tocqueville set out to find the answers. "No novelty," he wrote, "struck me more vividly during my stay there than the equality of conditions." Coming from a society still heavily influenced by its aristocratic heritage, de Tocqueville was astounded at how much equality had become a part of American life. It surprised him to see everyone shaking hands with one another. De Tocqueville marveled, and also worried, about a society where social class did not seem to matter and everyone expected to be treated the same. From our point of view today, the United States in 1831 was far from being a society based on equality. The Indians were viewed as an alien people to be driven outside the bounds of civilization. Black slaves were considered the property of their masters. Women could not vote and were legally controlled by their husbands. "In America," wrote de Tocqueville, "a woman loses her independence forever in the bonds of matrimony." In de Tocqueville's America, the idea of equality applied mainly to free white adult males. Full citizenship rights belonged only to this group. Yet, even this limited degree of equality made the United States radically different from the rest of the world and fascinated de Tocqueville. Politics in de Tocqueville's America "No sooner do you set foot on American soil than you find yourself in a sort of tumult," de Tocqueville wrote in his book. "A confused clamor rises on every side, and a thousand voices are heard at once, each expressing some social requirements." De Tocqueville was amazed at the large number of people active in public affairs. "All around you everything is on the move," he reported. De Tocqueville saw all kinds of people busily planning local projects, choosing representatives and assembling to criticize their leaders. He was especially impressed with New England town meetings where every citizen had the right to vote on public matters. De Tocqueville thought it remarkable how often Americans joined together in various organizations which he called associations. "Americans of all ages, all stations of life and all types of disposition are forever forming associations," he wrote. "There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand types-religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute." De Tocqueville went on to observe that Americans naturally formed groups when they wanted to hold a celebration, found a church, build a school, distribute books or do almost anything else. "Finally, if they want to proclaim a truth or propagate some feeling ...they form an association. In every case, at the head of any new undertaking, where in France you would find the government ... in the United States you are sure to find an association." "The people reign over the American political world as God rules over the universe," wrote de Tocqueville. Although property requirements for voting were still common, they were beginning to disappear. Elections were usually held every year for local and state offices. Those who had the right to vote did so and in large numbers. During the time that de Tocqueville toured America, 70% or more of the voters turned out on election day, compared to under 50% today. The four-year cycle of presidential elections, which de Tocqueville called a "revolution ... in the name of the law," fascinated him. He wrote: Long before the appointed day arrives, the election becomes the greatest, and one might say the only, affair occupying men's minds.... The President, for his part, is absorbed in the task of defending himself before the majority.... As the election draws near, intrigues grow more active and agitation is more lively and widespread. The citizens divide up into several camps.... The whole nation gets into a feverish state. . .. With the election over, de Tocqueville reported, everything quickly calmed down like a river that only momentarily overflowed its banks. "But was it not astonishing," remarked de Tocqueville, "that such a storm could ever have arisen?" At- the time of de Tocqueville's visit, political parties in America were undergoing great change as old ones died out and new ones emerged. The most significant development was the birth of the Democratic Party under the leadership of Andrew Jackson, elected president in 1828. De Tocqueville observed a "constant agitation of parties," each attempting to draw voters over to its side. In his notes he wrote that a party candidate ". . . must haunt the taverns, drink and argue with the mob; that is what is called Electioneering in America." De Tocqueville leveled some of his sharpest criticism against American political leaders themselves. He became convinced that outstanding men avoided elected office in order to pursue their private ambitions and careers. Those who did seek public office, he believed, were often poorly educated and open to corruption. In one of his notebooks, de Tocqueville ridiculed Congressman Davy Crockett as a man "...who had received no education, could read only with difficulty, had no property, no fixed dwelling, but spent his time hunting, selling his game for a living, and 1pending his whole life in the woods." But de Tocqueville saved his sharpest barbs for President Jackson whom he described in his book as a "man of violent character and middling capacities." In his view, Jackson possessed few qualities for political leadership. Law and Citizenship De Tocqueville found a deep respect for the law in America. The reason, he felt, was that the American citizens themselves held the ultimate power to change any laws they disliked. On the other hand, those who chose to violate the law were immediately branded as outcasts by the law-abiding majority. In Europe, de Tocqueville observed, the people merely watched as the authorities tracked down a criminal, while in America "...everyone thinks he has an interest in furnishing proof of an offense and in arresting the guilty man." De Tocqueville wondered how American citizens learned about the law and their rights. Public schools, even at an elementary level, hardly existed outside of New England. Newspapers helped to inform the public, but the majority of Americans could not read. De Tocqueville discovered that the courtroom and jury actually served as a "free school" for civic education. "I do not know whether a jury is useful to the parties involved," de Tocqueville wrote, "but I am sure it is very good for those who have to decide the case." De Tocqueville also declared that juries "...make all men feel that they have duties toward society and that they take a share in its government." "Tyranny of the Majority" A number of things bothered de Tocqueville about democracy. One of them was that in a society made up of equal citizens, the majority is always right. To de Tocqueville, a majority of equals, just like a single all-powerful ruler, could abuse its power. In a democracy, de Tocqueville argued, this abuse becomes the "tyranny of the majority." De Tocqueville did not claim that the tyranny of the majority as yet existed to any great degree in America. Still, he saw evidence of it developing. For example, de Tocqueville found that in the North, free black males who had the right to vote often were discouraged from voting by the white majority. De Tocqueville maintained that even freedom of speech, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, was affected by majority opinion. "I know no country," he wrote, "in which, generally speaking, there is less independence of mind and true freedom of discussion than in America." He added that the lack of great writers in the United States was due to the absence of "freedom of spirit" brought on by a majority intolerant of minority views. "If ever freedom is lost in America," de Tocqueville warned, "that will be due to the ... majority driving minorities to desperation...." De Tocqueville did identify certain elements at work in American democracy which checked the formation of a tyranny of the majority. Among these elements were the large number of independent associations, the press and the courts. I used a great site called the de Tocqueville Project when I was teaching in the classroom and at home. I hope you moms can find it. The site provided activities for students as well as excellent commentary. I am off to Mass and cannot write more this morning. God bless you all and remember, when a right is given up, it is lost forever.

Mysterious China Clouds

No real explanation, but locals in Beijing, China claim these clouds were connected with a chemical plant malfunction. Two people have been arrested for false rumors. What do you think?

Vocations, lost, blocked, unanswered

The vocations crisis to the priesthood and religious life looks as if it is abating, slowly but surely. Numbers are up in several countries in the West and some seminaries are full enough not to be able to take in any more young men this year. The seminaries for older vocations have seen a rise in students as well. The Bade in Rome, I have been told, is full as well as such seminaries in the States.

However, there is another vocation crisis which has not been highlighted as much in the Catholic press and that is the vocation to marriage. Marriages among Catholics are at an all time low, with many couples either leaving the Church or cohabitating without marriage. The larger issue are the number of young people who are not even considering getting married, as well as older men and women who are living a single, unconsecrated and secular life.

I believe there are three reasons for the lack of marriage vocations, which may apply to those of the priesthood and religious life.

The first is what some people in conversation call the "lost vocation". A friend of mine, a young man in his thirties, claims he is a lost vocation, as does another friend of mine in his early forties. What they mean is that they applied and were refused by one bishop and did not try another diocese. Why, I do not know, as I do know some seminarians and even ordained priests, who when refused by one bishop, or vocations director, went on to apply elsewhere, were accepted and are now either in the seminary or ordained--good men all.

A "lost vocation" in marriage could mean that a man asked one woman to get married and she said no or that a woman was never asked. This does happen. Unrequited love is the stuff of history as well as novels. A mystery surrounds the concept of unrequited love, such as, can one fall in love with the wrong person? I think not. Therefore, let us move on to the other categories.

A blocked vocation to marriage (or even to the priesthood or religious life) is a personal psychological or even spiritual bar to the acceptance. For example, I know many young people under thirty-five, who have been raised in such an individualistic atmosphere, or who are afraid of intimacy, or who do not want children, who have refused to consider marriage as a vocation. I wrote about this with regard to the Japanese on this blog many months ago.
http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/narcissism-is-destroying-japan.html

Many young people and not-so-young have blocks to marriage which have been caused by trauma, unhappy home lives, or confusion about their own lives. A trauma could be the divorce of parents, the early death of a parent, (a mom's early death is a common story in the lives of the saints, by the way), alcoholism, drug abuse, or even physical or sexual abuse. Unhappy homes wherein a young person witnessed and lived with parents who did not learn to love each other could be another blockage. These events could cause a fear of intimacy, as intimacy requires risk and an openness to existential pain as well as love. M. Scott Peck, in one of his excellent books, wrote about a young woman who was depressed, but so afraid of love and a relationship, that she said "no" to her vocation. This type of blockage is more and more common in today's fragmented world.

There can even be an inordinate fear of the world, or the future leading to an unwillingness to engage in the world through marriage and children, or to be involved in history, the future. One young lady told me years ago that she was not going to get married or have children because the world was so bad. How sad, as she denied herself and the world, love and life.

Individualism can also lead to selfishness and the unwillingness to share a life with someone else, but I think this is a rare situation, but may be growing in our societies of entitlement philosophy. "Why should I get married", a young person stated, "I have everything I need and want". The older son at home is an example of this type of "peter pan" syndrome, which I have written about in two previous blogs found here below on the links. I have a few other references to this theme in other blogs are teaching boys to be men, but these are the main ideas:





http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/protectors-predators-and-peter-pans.html



http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/lost-boys-lost-civilizations.html


Men and women have to decide to grow up.

The fear of commitment lies in the psychological fears from such events as partially listed here. Blockages can be removed, as I have witnessed this is peoples' lives, through prayer, healing, the frequent reception of the sacraments, especially Holy Communion, and the life of the virtues.

It is our duty as adults to let God remove blockages in our lives and be healed in order to be what He intended us to be, as a vocation is not about DOING, but about BEING. See my long series on Love and the Pope's Encyclical Deus Caritas Est. I did a long examination of this just weeks ago, and you can follow the series below, starting here:

http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/on-love-and-answer-to-socialism-part.html . 


As adults, our way to God is determined by God in our call, our vocation. To say "yes" to a vocation to marriage is to say "yes" to God, humbly recognizing that He made us to be a certain person for His Honor and Glory.

In fact, others rely on us fulfilling our vocations in the world. The Kingdom of God is advanced by adults deciding to cooperate with God in His Plan for the Church and for us individually.

Like concentric circles in a pond, our affirmations of our vocations touch the lives of others in the Church and in the world.

That blockages can and must be removed, with suffering, of course, is the hope of all Christians. To be what we are called to be forms a cooperation with grace. Only life and joy can result.

The last point covered today is the unanswered vocation. As long as a person is confused, he or she cannot answer the call from God. Confusion is only one reason for the unanswered vocation, however. I separate this category from the first two, lost and blocked, as this could be simply an act of the will wherein one says "no" to God. I have met both single persons and married persons who refused to have children, preferring to live a contracepting lifestyle. This is a huge negative decision, impacting their souls, the Church, and, indeed, the world. That a healthy, comfortable person would say "no" to God in a vocation or to a vocation to marriage is almost as serious as the unforgivable sin of denying the works of the Holy Spirit. Fear is part of the first two reasons for negation, but the last reason, in the unanswered vocation, is rebellion. No is an answer, however.

I appeal to all youth and even those who are older and still confused about their vocations to pray through to a resolution and not merely "let things happen" by chance. We have free will and are meant to use it in conformity with a well-trained conscience. God wants us to be happy and to be the person He created.

Do not be afraid, I say to all. Be open to others. Do not live in isolation. Let God be God in your lives. Choose life, not death. Choose love; to love and be loved. That is the call of Christ in your lives.

A Pat Buchanan Article Worth Reading, (as usual)

If you have not read Pat Buchanan for awhile, I recommend this article on his website. http://buchanan.org/blog/dress-rehearsal-for-a-mideast-war-5101?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PatrickBuchanan+%28Pat+Buchanan+Update%29

The thinking man's commentator....

The Age of the Martyrs

Talking with young people this weekend, I was convinced in my initial view that the John Paul II Generation of Catholics in America is a great phenomenon which did not happen in Great Britain. Many reasons caused this lack of inspiration by Blessed John Paul II, which obviously occurred in the States, where many young people born under his long reign have been inspired to either answer the vocation to the priesthood or religious life, or following a traditional mode of Catholic marriage-that is, avoiding contraception, being involved in homeschooling, and the married women deciding to be stay-at-home moms.

Several reasons may be postulated as to why Blessed John Paul II did not have the impact on the previous generation of youth here, now in their forties, whereas Benedict XVI is influencing the youth now, here, in a more specific manner. Both popes visited Great Britain and the World Youth Days were popular, but the reactions nationally were polls apart.

Some of the reasons are merely that Blessed John Paul II as an Eastern European appealed to those from similar backgrounds in the States. His style, open and media-friendly, was, shall we say, very "American". Benedict is very European in his personality and manner. His gentleness and gentility have attracted the attention of youth here.

However, I put forward another main reason for Benedict's influence over John Paul II in Great Britain-the British Church, until very recently, has had a long history of intellectual Catholicism and Benedict has rekindled that Catholic intellectualism by his constant appeal to Faith and Reason.

Now, one does not have to be an academic to be an intellectual, but the new generation of twenty and thirty somethings, who are either coming into the Church, or pursuing vocations in the Church in Great Britain are highly intelligent and intellectual youth. These are not youth who merely follow an experiential type of faith-not Neo-Catechumenates, or Charismatics, which some in the States in the John Paul II Generation were and still are.

Great Britain, particularly England, is the intellectual home of Blessed John Henry Newman, St. Edmund Campion, St. Thomas More, and other intellectuals not canonized, such as Christopher Dawson, Hilaire Belloc (French but living and working here), Chesterton and others.

These bright lights laid the foundation, and built on the longer, older tradition of Catholic intellectualism in England. The list is too long to put in this post, but we have Sts. Anselm and Bede for earlier examples. The joining of Faith and Reason appeals to this heritage. Benedict appeals to this heritage in a very European and urbane manner. He is the man of the hour, just as John Paul II was for the Americans.

I am impressed by those youth who are weaned from the emphasis on experiential religion, a fault of the Charismatic Renewal here, which has been divorced from solid catechesis for too long.
The Benedict XVI generation reads, knows the CCC inside and out. They are preparing themselves for missionary work, a real New Evangelization a la Benedict. They can see that commitment needs catechesis, and not merely prayer and experience. They desire to know and teach doctrine.

The two movements which have impressed me are the Evangelium and the Faith movements, both presenting Faith and Reason to the youth; and the youth are responding. Faith is not new, but is attracting young people more than from their parents' generation, which is interesting. The same thing is happening with the pro-life movement here. Younger people are stepping into a void, which was filled by the earlier generation in the States. These movements are attracting the Benedict XVI Generation.

I am prejudiced against the Charismatic Renewal in Great Britain, as I think it is doing more harm than good at this point, with a mixture of false ecumenism and anti-intellectualism at its base. At some point, one must learn what one believes, not just rely on experience. A young person told me that today, about herself. She has left the Charismatics and joined other groups which study the Faith and spread it. This emphasis on study is gaining ground, thank goodness. I do not see vocations coming out of prayer groups anyway, as I am seeing vocations arising out of inspiration from Pope Benedict's writings and example, as well as the influence of the work of Blessed John Paul II, but, after his death.

Perhaps all of this has to do with the times. Two students I spoke with this weekend believe they are in the generation of martyrs. They are quite sane, and open about the possibility of shedding blood in persecution for the Faith. These are bright and talented youth, who love the Church and are willing to die for the Truth. I think that the present Pope's war on relativism and immorality, his fearless discussions on Islam, his condemnation of abortion, contraception, homosexual life-styles, civil marriage, and his emphasis on clarity, hope, and love have inspired a new generation of Catholics. This Pope has been very direct, and has even pointed out the "enemy within the Church" as recently as last Advent. This generation knows that spiritual warfare becomes physical persecution. This will be the generation of the martyrs, which I have known and taught openly as early as 2000-in America. These British youth see things in the clear light of day-good and evil-and they are not afraid. They are sophisticated, smart and ready. This is the Benedict XVI Generation-the Age of the Martyrs.

And in France, a crash may be inevitable

Another interesting Telegraph article from Sunday. French government pursuing socialist plans may cause another crisis, which could have been avoided-if Sarkozy was elected. I cannot understand why the French populace is pursuing this headlong spending spree by voting in the socialists.

Greek electorate narrowly decide against disaster-Conservatives in

and updates....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/9336240/Greek-election-despatch-no-panic-no-fear-no-hope.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/9337683/Greece-election-vote-leaves-Euro-in-balance.html

From the Telegraph, June 17th 22.21 Tomorrow's front pages are starting to emerge. The FT has gone with the headline: "Samaras leads in Greece poll", which will likely change for the final edition, while The Daily Telegraph has opted for: "Greek vote leaves euro in balance".

 

Happy Father's Day

Happy Father's Day to all fathers, especially to God, Our Father, Abba, Who sent us Christ in order that we might know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world, and be happy with Him in the next.

Happy Father's Day to my father, who is 89.

We are so fortunate to belong to a Church, the one, true religion, to which a loving Father-God has revealed Himself. We are His children by baptism, and the heirs to heaven. Thank Him for His great Mercy in giving us life, the Church, His Son and the Holy Spirit. Also, thank Him for giving us each other, our brothers and sisters in Christ.

At the Courtauld in London, God the Father by the Master of Castello

On Gramsci and Education

I wonder if it is a lack of perfection to write about Gramsci on a Sunday post? Well, I have not mentioned him for awhile and unless I lose my Post-Post-Modernists, I thought I should reveal some more of his copious notebooks. A very learned friend of mine said two weeks ago that she thought Gramsci should be considered a "professional radical".

Here is food for thought from Notebook 7 (1930-1931) Section 104, page 226 of collection.


"History of the intellectuals. Struggle between church and state." 


"This struggle assumed a different character in different historical periods. In the modern phase, it is the struggle for hegemony in the education of the people; at least, this is its most salient characteristic, to which all others are secondary. It is therefore a struggle between two categories of intellectuals, a struggle to subodinate the clergy, as a typical category of intellectuals, to the directives of the state, that is, to the directives of the dominant class (freedom of teaching--youth organizations--women's organization--professional organizations)."


Can't have a Gramsci quotation without him mentioning hegemony.


Taken as an institution created by Christ on earth to lead men and women to eternal life, there is a hegemony, the dirty word of the Marxist, given to the Church. This rule, this imperial rule of men's hearts and minds finds its roots in the Old and New Testament-the Kingdom of Israel was a real place, just as the Kingdom of God, the Church, is a real place.

Now, as this hegemony is spiritual and interior, Gramsci's argument is flawed, as his only reference is materialism. So, the power struggle for him is purely historical and physical, not being able to see or believe in the invisible realm of spiritual warfare. But, Gramsci correctly sees that the Church is in a battle for the cultural and mental dominance of mankind.

This dominance, we know, is connected to our assent of belief and rests in free will.

Obviously, he does not believe that and merely sees the subjugation of humans to imperialistic powers. He knows and explains that hegemony must be over all aspects of life: education, literature, music, morality, ethics (not the same thing), military, political and governmental life. Hegemony of one class over another is always decided by the Marxist. Which group controls the other groups is based on the type of Marxism--Gramsci wanted to develop an intellectual working class. He thought that such a group would counteract the hegemony of the Church.

Hegemon is, as you can see, a Greek word meaning "leader" or "superior state", hearkening back to the dominance of one city-state over another in the ancient Greek world.

States within states include the Church, but those who do not believe that the Church is the foremost and only divine institution (sorry, monarchists, but even the ancient prophets tried to talk the Jews out of a monarchical system). The radical feminists use the term as in "hegemonic masculinity", seeing patriarchies as threats to real freedom, as in gender studies, the male always is the suppressor of the female. I am sure some of this philosophical/sociological jargon will be bandied about the upcoming synod in GB.

Why the Church is a threat to the State is behind Gramsci's entire argument concerning which hegemon should be in power at any given time. Part of his argument lies in the fact that the Church sided with either emperors or kings in the 19th century as against atheistic rebellions in Italy and France, as well as Austria. Gramsci mentions several times that he likes the Church in a defensive role against the liberal, and new states, as in the movements in Italy and Spain.

My emphasis, as an educator, is always going to be on education and the hegemony theory.

Here is Gramsci again, in Notebook 7, section 89, page 216.


"Past and present. Religion in the schools."


"This is why, following the Gentile reform, the new school curricula assign art and religion solely to elementary school, whereas philosophy is entrusted for the most part to secondary school. In the philosophical rationale of elementary curricula, the words 'teaching of religion is considered to be the foundation and the summit of all primary education' mean precisely that  religion is a necessary but lower category that education must pass through because, according to Hegel's notion, religion is a mythological and lower form of philosophy that corresponds to the mental capacity of the child, who is not yet capable of rising to the level of pure philosophy--into which, at a later stage, religion must be absorbed and resolved. Let us point out straight away that in fact this idealist theory has failed to pollute the teaching of religion in the elementary school by having it treated as mythology. It has failed because the teacher either do not understand or they do not care for such theories and also because Catholic teaching of religion is intrinsically historical and dogmatic and the curricula, texts and teaching are externally supervised and directed by the church. Furthermore the words, 'foundation and summit' have been accepted by the church in their obvious meaning and repeated in the concordat between the Holy See and Italy, according to which....religious instruction is extended to the middle schools. This extension is now thwarting the aims of idealism, which wanted to exclude religion from the middle schools, where philosophy alone would predominate--a philosophy destined to supersede and absorb the religion learned in the elementary schools."


What the Gramscians did not accomplish, Dewey and the liberal element of the Catholic Church did.

Ponder, please. This is why I home schooled, as even Catholic schools have succumbed to these ideals.

A Fun Competition--Name and Place the Church

Put your answers by number in the comments. You may guess or look these up.

Number One

Number Three

Number Four

Number Two

Number Five

Numbers Six and Seven

More to come and winner gets one decade of the rosary said for him or her! You can cheat and use the Net. I may do this again, as it looks like a fun exercise.....If you have been following this blog, you have an advantage.

Number Eight

Number Nine

Number Ten

More on the Swedish Homeschooling Case

I wrote about this case in an earlier post. LifeSiteNews has an update.

Nightmare soon to end?: Court vindicates Swedish homeschooling parents in state kidnapping case

Ben Johnson

Fri Jun 15 15:36 EST

Freedom

June 15, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) –  A Swedish homseschooling couple may shortly be reunited with their son after a prolonged separation, after a Swedish court has judged that the couple did not act irresponsibly by removing their children from the public school system.

Government officials seized Christer and Annie Johansson’s 10-year-old son, Domenic, in June 2009 as they boarded a plane for Annie’s home country of India. Domenic, who was seven at the time, has been in state custody ever since. 

“We will ask the court for the immediate return of Domenic Johansson to his parents,” said Ruby Harrold-Claesson of the Nordic Committee on Human Rights, who represents the parents. “Based on the information in this verdict, there can be no justification for keeping this family apart.” 

The U.S.-based Alliance Defense Fund and Home School Legal Defense Alliance are providing legal advice. 

“The government shouldn’t abduct and imprison children simply because it doesn’t like home schooling,” said ADF Legal Counsel Roger Kiska. “This family’s human rights have been unimaginably violated.” 

HSLDA Director of International Relations Mike Donnelly agreed the case was “a grotesque abuse of their human rights.”

“Domenic has not been returned home yet, but we have every hope that he will be soon,” he said. 

The child has been in state custody for three years with limited visitation from the parents, while the state has considered terminating their parental rights altogether. Authorities jailed Christer after he took his son on an unauthorized outing in December 2010.

According to Crisis magazine, the years-long separation led Annie to have a nervous breakdown.   

Meanwhile, the Scandinavian nation has cracked down on homeschooling, allowing it only under “extraordinary circumstances.”

Prayers needed, please

I lied...a five post day, not three. Please pray for Greece, Egypt and Syria, when you say your night prayers. The elections and rebellions are at crucial stages. Please pray for two seminarians and a young man applying to the FSSPs. Pray for a new friend of mine with a new heart condition. Pray also for my thesis proposal, the book, and all my needs.

Thank you, dear readers.

Cardinal Burke on the SSPX

Comments for another blog and Inter Insigniores as a reminder

A three post day for your Saturday reading.... Some readers know I have posted Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as a permanent marker on my blog. Now, this discussion has come up again, and will, I suppose, as part of the run-up to the Anglican Synod this summer which will vote on women bishops, thus creating, one assumes, a final break with any integrity, at pretending that community is "Catholic".

Here are some bits from readers on wdtprs which will help, plus my own comments and an encyclical to boot.

Prepared by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Approved for Publication by His Holiness Pope John Paul II October 28, 1995

Responsum ad Dubium Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: In the affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary

and

“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,”419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421 (CCC 891, footnote 421 quoting Lument Gentium 25)

So, the “deposit of divine Revelation” is infallible.

According to Responsum ad Dubium Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis – “the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith”:

This means it is infallible per the last sentence in paragraph 891 in the CCC.

These two commentators agree with the Teaching Magisterium of the Church. Some do not, for less than convincing reasons.

Where is common sense in all of these arguments for women priests? For over 2000 years, the Holy Catholic Church has not ordained women for many reasons, including the fact that Christ, the Second Person in the Blessed Trinity, chose men to be his apostles and established that succession through Peter.

Either we believe in three things or not: one, that Christ was truly God and Man and was not, as the modernists state, a captive of His time. He created His time.

Two, that Christ is Incarnated God and a Man and is the High Priest, the Priest of Priests, all of which are alter Christus in body as well as soul.

Three, that the Tradition of the Church, with Scripture, is infallible with regard to statements from the Vatican, and honored practice, constituting the Teaching Magisterium of the Church. The only reason why Rome had to make statements at any time was to clarify doctrine as against heresies.

Wait until the Anglican Church implodes this summer at the Synod, which in all indications, will be deciding on women bishops. Either one believe in Christ and His Church or does not; I do.

And just to remind my Anglican brothers and sisters, and some Catholics, here is Pope Paul VI's document, an encyclical; and, therefore, there should be no doubts as to infallibility. I quote it in its entirety.

Declaration On The Question Of Admission Of Women To The Ministerial Priesthood

Inter Insigniores
October 15, 1976
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the FaithIntroduction
The Role Of Women In Modern Society And The ChurchAmong the characteristics that mark our present age, Pope John XXIII indicated, in his Encyclical "Pacem in Terris" of 11 April 1963, "the part that women are now taking in public life . . . This is a development that is perhaps of swifter growth among Christian nations, but it is also happening extensively, if more slowly, among nations that are heirs to different traditions and imbued with a different culture".¹ Along the same lines, the Second Vatican Council, enumerating in its Pastoral Constitution "Gaudium et Spes" the forms of discrimination touching upon the basic rights of the person which must be overcome and eliminated as being contrary to God's plan, gives first place to discrimination based upon sex.² The resulting equality will secure the building up of a world that is not leveled out and uniform but harmonious and unified, if men and women contribute to it their own resources and dynamism, as Pope Paul VI recently stated.³
In the life of the Church herself, as history shows us, women have played a decisive role and accomplished tasks of outstanding value. One has only to think of the foundresses of the great religious families, such as Saint Clare and Saint Teresa of Avila. The latter, moreover, and Saint Catherine of Siena, have left writings so rich in spiritual doctrine that Pope Paul VI has included them among the Doctors of the Church. Nor could one forget the great number of women who have consecrated themselves to the Lord for the exercise of charity or for the missions, and the Christian wives who have had a profound influence on their families, particularly for the passing on of the faith to their children.
But our age gives rise to increased demands: "Since in our time women have an ever more active share in the whole life of society, it is very important that they participate more widely also in the various sectors of the Church's apostolate".⁴ This charge of the Second Vatican Council has already set in motion the whole process of change now taking place: these various experiences of course need to come to maturity. But as Pope Paul VI also remarked,⁵ a very large number of Christian communities are already benefiting from the apostolic commitment of women. Some of these women are called to take part in councils set up for pastoral reflection, at the diocesan or parish level; and the Apostolic See has brought women into some of its working bodies.
For some years now various Christian communities stemming from the sixteenth-century Reformation or of later origin have been admitting women to the pastoral office on a par with men. This initiative has led to petitions and writings by members of these communities and similar groups, directed towards making this admission a general thing; it has also led to contrary reactions. This therefore constitutes an ecumenical problem, and the Catholic Church must make her thinking known on it, all the more because in various sectors of opinion the question has been asked whether she too could not modify her discipline and admit women to priestly ordination. A number of Catholic theologians have even posed this question publicly, evoking studies not only in the sphere of exegesis, patrology and Church history but also in the field of the history of institutions and customs, of sociology and of psychology. The various arguments capable of clarifying this important problem have been submitted to a critical examination. As we are dealing with a debate which classical theology scarcely touched upon, the current argumentation runs the risk of neglecting essential elements.
For these reasons, in execution of a mandate received from the Holy Father and echoing the declaration which he himself made in his letter of 30 November 1975,⁶ the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith judges it necessary to recall that the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination. The Sacred Congregation deems it opportune at the present juncture to explain this position of the Church. It is a position which will perhaps cause pain but whose positive value will become apparent in the long run, since it can be of help in deepening understanding of the respective roles of men and of women.
1. The Church's Constant Tradition
The Catholic Church has never felt that priestly or episcopal ordination can be validly conferred on women. A few heretical sects in the first centuries, especially Gnostic ones, entrusted the exercise of the priestly ministry to women: This innovation was immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers, who considered it as unacceptable in the Church.⁷ It is true that in the writings of the Fathers, one will find the undeniable influence of prejudices unfavourable to woman, but nevertheless, it should be noted that these prejudices had hardly any influences on their pastoral activity, and still less on their spiritual direction. But over and above these considerations inspired by the spirit of the times, one finds expressed -- especially in the canonical documents of the Antiochan and Egyptian traditions -- this essential reason, namely, that by calling only men to the priestly Order and ministry in its true sense, the Church intends to remain faithful to the type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles.⁸
The same conviction animates medieval theology⁹, even if the Scholastic doctors, in their desire to clarify by reason the data of faith, often present arguments on this point that modern thought would have difficulty in admitting, or would even rightly reject. Since that period and up till our own time, it can be said that the question has not been raised again for the practice has enjoyed peaceful and universal acceptance.
The Church's tradition in the matter has thus been so firm in the course of the centuries that the Magisterium has not felt the need to intervene in order to formulate a principle which was not attacked, or to defend a law which was not challenged. But each time that this tradition had the occasion to manifest itself, it witnessed to the Church's desire to conform to the model left her by the Lord.
The same tradition has been faithfully safeguarded by the Churches of the East. Their unanimity on this point is all the more remarkable since in many other questions their discipline admits of a great diversity. At present time these same Churches refuse to associate themselves with requests directed towards securing the accession of women to priestly ordination.

2. The Attitude of Christ.

Jesus Christ did not call any women to become part of the Twelve. If he acted in this way, it was not in order to conform to the customs of his time, for his attitude towards women was quite different from that of his millieu, and he deliberately and courageously broke with it.For example, to the great astonishment of his own disciples Jesus converses publicly with the Samaritan woman (Jn 4:27); he takes no notice of the state of legal impurity of the woman who had suffered from hemorrhages (Mt 9:20); he allows a sinful woman to approach him in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Lk 7:37); and by pardoning the woman taken in adultery, he means to show that one must not be more severe towards the fault of a woman than towards that of a man (Jn 8:11). He does not hesitate to depart from the Mosaic Law in order to affirm the equality of the rights and duties of men and women with regard to the marriage bond (Mk 10:2; Mt 19:3).
In his itinerant ministry Jesus was accompanied not only by the Twelve but also by a group of women (Lk 8:2). Contrary to the Jewish mentality, which did not accord great value to the testimony of women, as Jewish law attests, it was nevertheless women who were the fist to have the privilege of seeing the risen Lord, and it was they who were charged by Jesus to take the first paschal message to the Apostles themselves (Mt 28:7 ; Lk 24:9 ; Jn 20:11), in order to prepare the latter to become the official witnesses to the Resurrection.
It is true that these facts do not make the matter immediately obvious. This is no surprise, for the questions that the Word of God brings before us go beyond the obvious. In order to reach the the ultimate meaning of the mission of Jesus and the ultimate meaning of Scripture, a purely historical exegesis of the texts cannot suffice. But it must be recognised that we have here a number of convergent indications that make all the more remarkable that Jesus did not entrust the apostolic charge¹⁰ to women. Even his Mother, who was so closely associated with the mystery of her Son, and whose incomparable role is emphasized by the Gospels of Luke and John, was not invested with the apostolic ministry. This fact was to lead the Fathers to present her as an example of Christ's will in this domain; as Pope Innocent III repeated later, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, 'Although the Blessed Virgin Mary surpassed in dignity and in excellence all the Apostles, nevertheless it was not to her but to them that the Lord entrusted the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.'¹¹


3. The Practice of the Apostles.
The apostolic community remained faithful to the attitude of Jesus towards women. Although Mary occupied a privileged place in the little circle of those gathered in the Upper Room after the Lord's Ascension (Acts 1:14), it was not she who was called to enter the College of the Twelve at the time of the election that resulted in the choice of Mathias: those who were put forward were two disciples whom the Gospels do not even mention.
On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit filled them all, men and women (Acts 2:1, 1:14), yet the proclamation of the fulfillment of the prophecies in Jesus was made only by 'Peter and the Eleven' (Acts 2:14).
When they and Paul went beyond the confines of the Jewish world, the preaching of the Gospel and the Christian life in the Greco-Roman civilisation impelled them to break with Mosaic practices, sometimes regretfully. They could therefore have envisaged conferring ordination on women, if they had not been convinced of their duty of fidelity to the Lord on this point. In fact the Greeks did not share the ideas of the Jews: although their philosophers taught the inferiority of women, historians nevertheless emphasize the existence of a certain movement for the advancement of women during the Imperial period. In fact we know from the book of Acts and from the letter of St.Paul, that certain women worked with the Apostle for the Gospel (Rm 16:3-12; Phil 4:3). Saint Paul lists their names with gratitude in the final salutations of the Letters. Some of them often exercised an important influence on conversions: Priscilla, Lydia and others; especially Priscilla, who took it on herself to complete the instruction of Apollos (Acts 18:26); Phoebe, in the service of the Church of Cenchreae (Rm 16:1). All these facts manifest within the Apostolic Church a considerable evolution vis-a-vis the customs of Judaism. Nevertheless at no time was there a question of conferring ordination on these women.
In the Pauline letters, exegetes of authority have noted a difference between two formulas used by the Apostle: he writes indiscriminately 'My fellow workers' (Rom. 16:3;Phil 4:2-3) when referring to men and women helping him in his apostolate in one way or another; but he reserves the title of 'God's fellow workers' (1 Cor. 3-9; 1 Thess 3:2) to Apollos, Timothy and himself, thus designated because they are directly set apart for the apostolic ministry and the preaching of the Word of God. In spite of the so important role played by women on the day of the Resurrection, their collaboration was not extended by St.Paul to the official and public proclamation of the message, since this proclamation belongs exclusively to the apostolic mission.


4. Permanent Value of the Attitude of Jesus and the Apostles.
Could the Church today depart from this attitude of Jesus and the Apostles, which has been considered as normative by the whole of tradition up to our own day? Various arguments have been put forward in favour of a positive reply to this question, and these must now be examined.
It has been claimed in particular that the attitude of Jesus and the Apostles is explained by the influence of their milieu and their times. It is said that, if Jesus did not entrust to women and not even to his Mother a ministry assimilating them to the Twelve, this was because historical circumstances did not permit him to do so. No one however has ever proved- and it is clearly impossible to prove- that this attitude is inspired only by social and cultural reasons. As we have seen, and examination of the Gospels shows on the contrary that Jesus broke with the prejudices of his time, by widely contravening the discriminations practiced with regard to women. One therefore cannot maintain that, by not calling women to enter the group of the Apostles, Jesus was simply letting himself be guided by reasons of expediency. For all the more reason, social and cultural conditioning did not hold back the Apostles working in the Greek milieu, where the same forms of discrimination did not exist.
Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value. However, the Apostle's forbidding of women to speak in the assemblies (1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Ti, 2:12) is of a different nature, and exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognises as possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (1 Cor 11:15); the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact. Nor should it be forgotten that we owe to Saint Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental equality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (Gal 3:28). Therefore there is no reason for accusing him of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate.
But over and above these objections taken from the history of apostolic times, those who support the legitimacy of change in the matter turn to the Church's practice in her sacramental discipline. It has been noted, in our day especially, to what extent the Church is conscious of possessing a certain power over the sacraments, even though they were instituted by Christ. She has used this power down the centuries in order to determine their signs and the conditions of their administration: recent decisions of Popes Pius XII and Paul IV are proof of this.¹² However, it must be emphasized that this power, which is a real one, has definite limits. As Pope Pius XII recalled: 'The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments, that is to say, over what Christ the Lord, as the sources of Revelation bear witness, determined should be maintained in the sacramental sign.'¹³ This was already the teaching of the council of Trent , which declared: 'In the Church there has always existed this power, that in the administration of the sacraments, provided that their substance remains unaltered, she can lay down or modify what she considers more fitting either for the benefit of those who receive them or for respect towards those same sacraments, according to varying circumstances, times or places.¹⁴
Moreover, it must not be forgotten that the sacramental signs are not conventional ones. Not only is it true that, in many respects, they are natural signs because they respond to the deep symbolism of actions and things, but they are more than this: they are principally meant to link the person of every period to the supreme Event of the history of salvation, in order to enable that person to understand, through all the Bible's wealth of pedagogy and symbolism, what grace they signify and produce. For example, the sacrament of the Eucharist is not only a fraternal meal, but at the same time a memorial which makes present and actual Christ's sacrifice and his offering by the Church. Again the priestly ministry is not just a pastoral service; it ensures the continuity of the functions entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and the continuity of the powers related to those functions. Adaptations to civilizations and times therefore cannot abolish on essential points, the sacramental reference to constitutive events of Christianity and to Christ himself.
In the final analysis it is the Church through the voice of the Magisterium, that, in these various domains, decides what can change and what must remain immutable. When she judges she cannot accept certain changes, it is because she knows she is bound by Christ's manner of acting. Her attitude, despite appearances, is therefore not one of archaism but of fidelity: it can be truly understood only in this light. The Church makes pronouncements in virtue of the Lord's promise and the presence of the Holy Spirit, in order to proclaim better the mystery of Christ and to safeguard and manifest the whole of its rich content.
The practice of the Church therefore has a normative character: in the fact of conferring priestly ordination only on men, it is a question of unbroken tradition throughout the history of the Church, universal in the East and in the West, and alert to repress abuses immediately. This norm, based on Christ's example, has been and is still observed because it is considered to conform to God's plan for his Church.


5. The Ministerial Priesthood in the Light of The Mystery of Christ.
Having recalled the Church's norm and the basis thereof, it seems useful and opportune to illustrate this norm by showing the profound fittingness that theological reflection discovers between the proper nature of the sacrament of Order, with its specific reference to the mystery of Christ, and the fact that only men have been called to receive priestly ordination. It is not a question here of bringing forward a demonstrative argument, but of clarifying this teaching by the analogy of faith.
The Church's constant teaching, repeated and clarified by the Second Vatican Council and again recalled by the 1971 Synod of Bishops and by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its Declaration of 24th. June 1973, declares that the bishop or the priest in the exercise of his ministry, does not act in his own name, in persona propria: he represents Christ, who acts through him: "the priest truly acts in the place of Christ', as St. Cyprian already wrote in the third century.¹⁵ It is this ability to represent Christ that St.Paul considered as characteristic of his apostolic function (2 Cor. 5:20; Gal. 4:14). The supreme expression of this representation is found in the altogether special form it assumes in the celebration of the Eucharist, which is the source and centre of the Church's unity, the sacrificial meal in which the People of God are associated in the sacrifice of Christ: the priest, who alone has the power to perform it, then acts not only through the effective power conferred on him by Christ, but in persona Christi,¹⁶ taking the role of Christ, to the point of being his very image, when he pronounces the words of consecration.¹⁷
The Christian priesthood is therefore of a sacramental nature: the priest is a sign, the supernatural effectiveness of which comes from the ordination received, but a sign that must be perceptible¹⁸ and which the faithful must be able to recognise with ease. The whole sacramental economy is in fact based upon natural signs, on symbols imprinted on the human psychology: 'Sacramental signs,' says St.Thomas,' represent what they signify by natural resemblance.'¹⁹ The same natural resemblance is required for persons as for things: when Christ's role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this 'natural resemblance' which must exist between Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man: in such a case it would be difficult to see in the minister the image of Christ. For Christ himself was and remains a man.
Christ is of course the firstborn of all humanity, of women as well as men: the unity which he re-established after sin is such that there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all are one in Christ Jesus (Gal.3:28). Nevertheless, the incarnation of the Word took place according to the male sex: this is indeed a question of fact, and this fact, while not implying and alleged natural superiority of man over woman, cannot be disassociated from the economy of salvation: it is indeed in harmony with the entirety of God's plan as God himself has revealed it, and of which the mystery of the Covenant is the nucleus.
For the salvation offered by God to men and women, the union with him to which they are called - in short, the Covenant- took on, from the Old Testament Prophets onwards, the privileged form of a nuptial mystery: for God the Chosen People is seen as his ardently loved spouse. Both Jewish and Christian tradition has discovered the depth of this intimacy of love by reading and rereading the Song of Songs; the divine Bridegroom will remain faithful even when the Bride betrays his love, when Israel is unfaithful to God (Hos.1-3; Jer.2). When the 'fullness of time'(Gal.4:4) comes, the Word, the Son of God, takes on flesh in order to establish and seal the new and eternal Covenant in his blood, which will be shed for many so that sins may be forgiven. His death will gather together again the scattered children of God; from his pierced side will be born the Church, as Eve was born from Adam's side. At that time there is fully and eternally accomplished the nuptial mystery proclaimed and hymned in the Old Testament: Christ is the Bridegroom; the Church his Bride, whom he loves because he has gained her by his blood and made her glorious, holy and without blemish, and henceforth he is inseparable from her. This nuptial theme, which is developed from the Letters of St.Paul onwards (2 Cor.11:2; Eph.5:22-23) to the writings of St.John (especially in Jn.3:29; Rev.19:7,9), is present also in the Synoptic Gospels: the Bridegroom's friends must not fast as long as he is with them (Mk.2:19); the Kingdom of Heaven is like a king who gave a feast for his son's weeding (Mt.22:1-14). It is through this Sciptural language, all interwoven with symbols, and which expresses and affects man and women in their profound identity, that there is revealed to us the mystery of God and Christ, a mystery which of itself is unfathomable.
That is why we can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man. And therefore, unless one is to disregard the importance of this symbolism for the economy of Revelation, it must be admitted that, in actions which demand the character of ordination and in which Christ himself, the author of the Covenant, the Bridegroom, the Head of the Church, is represented, exercising his ministry of salvation- which is in the highest degree the case of the Eucharist- his role (this is the original sense of the word 'persona')must be taken by a man. This does not stem from any personal superiority of the latter in the order of values, but only from a difference of fact on the level of functions and service.
Could one say that, since Christ is now in the heavenly condition, from now on it is a matter of indifference whether he be represented by a man or by a woman, since 'at the resurrection men and women do not marry' (Mat.22:30)? But this text does not mean that the distinction between man and women, insofar as it determines the identity proper to the person, is suppressed in the glorified state; what holds for us also holds for Christ. It is indeed evident that in human beings the difference of sex exercises an important influence, much deeper than, for example, ethnic differences: the latter do not affect the human person as intimately as the difference of sex, which is directly ordained both for the communion of persons and for the generation of human beings. In Biblical Revelation this difference is the effect of God's will from the beginning: 'male and female he created them' (Gen 1:27).
However, it will perhaps be further objected that the priest, especially when he presides at the liturgical and sacramental functions, equally represents the Church: he acts in her name with 'the intention of doing what she does'. In this sense, the theologians of the Middle Ages said that the minister also acts in persona Ecclesiae, that is to say, in the name of the whole Church and in order to represent her. And in fact, leaving aside the question of the participation of the faithful in a liturgical action, it is indeed in the name of the whole Church that the action is celebrated by the priest: he prays in the name of all, and in the Mass he offers the sacrifice of the whole Church. In the new Passover, the Church, under visible signs, immolates Christ through the ministry of the priest.²⁰ And so, it is asserted, since the priest also represents the Church, would it not be possible to think that this representation could be carried out by a woman, according to the symbolism already explained? It is true that the priest represents the Church, which is the Body of Christ. But if he does so, it is precisely because he first represents Christ himself, who is the Head and the Shepherd of the Church. The Second Vatican Council²¹ used this phrase to make more precise and complete the expression 'in persona Christi'. It is in this quality that the priest presides over the Christian assembly and celebrates the Eucharistic sacrifice 'in which the whole Church offers and is herself wholly offered'.²²
If one does justice to these reflections, one will better understand how well-founded is the basis of the Church's practice; and will conclude that the controversies raised in our days over the ordination of women are for all Christians a pressing invitation to meditate on the mystery of the Church, to study in greater detail the meaning of the episcopate and the priesthood, and to rediscover the real and pre-eminent place of the priest in the community of the baptized, of which he indeed forms part but from which he is distinguished because, in the actions that call for the character of ordination, for the community he is - with all the effectiveness proper to the sacraments- the image and symbol of Christ himself who calls, forgives, and accomplishes the sacrifice of the Covenant.


6. The Ministerial Priesthood Illustrated by The Mystery of the Church.
It is opportune to recall that problems of sacramental theology, especially when they concern the ministerial priesthood, as is the case here, cannot be solved except in the light of Revelation. The human sciences, however valuable their contribution in their own domain, cannot suffice here, for they cannot grasp the realities of faith: the properly supernatural content of these realities is beyond their competence.
Thus one must note the extent to which the Church is a society different from other societies, original in her nature and in her structures. The pastoral charge in the Church is normally linked to the sacrament of Order; it is not a simple government, comparable to the modes of authority found in the States. It is not granted by people's spontaneous choice: even when it involves designation through election, it is the laying on of hands and the prayer of the successors of the Apostles which guarantee God's choice; and it is the Holy Spirit, given by ordination, who grants participation in the ruling power of the Supreme Pastor, Christ (Acts 20:28). It is a charge of service and love: 'If you love me, feed my sheep' ( Jn.21:15-17).
For this reason one cannot see how it is possible to propose the admission of women to the priesthood in virtue of the equality of rights of the human person, an equality which holds good also for Christians. To this end, use is sometimes made of the text quoted above, from the Letter to the Galatians (3:28), which says that in Christ there is no longer any distinction between men and women. But this passage does not concern ministries: it only affirms the universal calling to divine filiation, which is the same for all. Moreover, and above all, to consider the ministerial priesthood as a human right would be to misjudge it's nature completely: baptism does not confer any personal title to public ministry within the Church. The priesthood is not conferred for the honour or advantage of the recipient, but for the service of God and the Church; it is the object of a specific and totally gratuitous vocation: 'You did not choose me, no, I chose you; and I commissioned you...' (Jn.15:16; Heb.5:4).
It is sometimes said and written in books and periodicals that some women feel that they have a vocation to the priesthood. Such an attraction however noble and understandable, still does not suffice for a genuine vocation. In fact a vocation cannot be reduced to a mere personal attraction, which can remain purely subjective. Since the priesthood is a particular ministry of which the Church has received the charge and the control, authentication by the Church is indispensable here and is a constitutive part of the vocation: Christ chose 'those he wanted' (Mk.3:13). On the other hand, there is a universal vocation of all the baptized to the exercise of the royal priesthood by offering their lives to God and by giving witness for his praise.
Women who express a desire for the ministerial priesthood are doubtless motivated by the desire to serve Christ and the Church. And it is not surprising that, at a time when they are becoming more aware of the discriminations to which they have been subjected, they should desire the ministerial priesthood itself. But it must not be forgotten that the priesthood does not form part of the rights of the individual, but stems from the economy of the mystery of Christ and the Church. The priestly office cannot become the goal of social advancement: no merely human progress of society or of the individual can of itself give access to it: it is of another order.
It therefore remains for us to meditate more deeply on the nature of the real equality of the baptized which is one of the great affirmations of Christianity; equality is in no way identity, for the Church is a differentiated body, in which each individual has his or her role. The roles are distinct, and must not be confused; they do not favour the superiority of some vis-a-vis the others, nor do they provide an excuse for jealousy; the only better gift, which can and must be desired, is love (1 Cor. 12-13). The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers but the saints.
The Church desires that Christian women should become more fully aware of the greatness of their mission; today their role is of capital importance, both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery of believers of the true face of the Church.

His Holiness Pope Paul VI, during the audience granted to the undersigned Prefect of the Sacred Congregation on 15 October 1976, approved this Declaration, confirmed it and ordered its publication.
Given in Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 15 October 1976, the feast of Saint Theresa of Avila.
Franjo Cardinal Seper
Prefect
==================================================================
Endnotes
1. AAS 55 (1963), pp. 267-268.
2. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution "Gaudium et Spes," 29 (7 December 1965): AAS 58 (1966), pp. 1048-1049.
3. Cf. Pope Paul VI, Address to the members of the Study Commission on the Role of Women in Society and in the Church and to the members of the Committee for International Women's Year, 18 April 1975; AAS 67 (1975), p. 265.
4. Second Vatican Council, Decree "Apostolicam Actuositatem," 9 (18 November 1965) AAS 58 (1966), p. 846.
5. Cf. Pope Paul VI, Address to the members of the Study Commission on the Role of Women in Society and in the Church and to the members of the Committee for International Women's Year, 18 April 1975: AAS 67 (1975), p. 266.
6. Cf. AAS 68 (1976), pp. 599-600; cf. ibid, pp. 600 601.
7. Saint Irenaeus, "Adversus Haereses," 1, 13, 2: PG 7 580-581; ed Harvey, I, 114-122; Tertullian, "De Praescrip. Haeretic." 41, 5: CCL 1, p 221; Firmilian of Caesarea, in Saint Cyprian, "Epist.," 75: CSEL 3, pp. 817-818; Origen, "Fragmentum in 1 Cor." 74, in "Journal of Theological Studies" 10(1909), pp. 41-42; Saint Epiphanius, "Panarion" 49, 2-3; 78, 23; 79, 2-4; vol. 2, GCS 31, pp. 243-244; vol. 3, GCS 37, pp. 473, 477-479.
8. "Didascalia Apostolorum," ch. 15, ed. R. H. Connolly, pp. 133 and 142; "Constitutiones Apostolicae," bk. 3, ch. 6, nos. 1-2; ch. 9 3-4: ed. F. H. Funk, pp. 191, 201; Saint John Chrysostom, "De Sacerdotio" 2, 2: PG 48, 633.
9. Saint Bonaventure, "In IV Sent.," Dist. 25, art. 2, q. 1 ed. Quaracchi vol. 4, 649; Richard of Middleton, "In IV Sent.," Dist. 25 art. 4, n. 1, ed. Venice, 1499, f 177r; John Duns Scotus, "In IV Sent., Dist. 25: Opus Oxoniense," ed. Vives, vol. 19, p. 140; "Reportata Parisiensia," vol. 24, pp. 369-371; Durandus of Saint Pourcain, "In IV Sent.," Dist. 25, q. 2, ed. Venice, 1571, f 364V.
10. Some who also wished to explain this fact by a symbolic intention of Jesus: the Twelve were to represent the ancestors of the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. Mt 19:28; Lk 22:30). But in these texts it is only a question of their participation in the eschatological judgment. The essential meaning of the choice of the Twelve should rather be sought in the totality of their mission (cf. Mk 3: 14): they are to represent Jesus to the people and carry on his work.
11. Pope Innocent III, "Epist." (11 December 1210 to the Bishops of Palencia and Burgos, included in "Corpus Iuris, Decret. Lib. 5," tit. 38 "De Paenit.," ch. 10 "Nova:" ed. A. Friedberg, vol. 2, col. 886-887; cf. "Glossa in Decretal. Lib. 1," tit. 33, ch. 12 "Dilecta, vo Iurisdictioni." Cf. Saint Thomas, "Summa Theologiae," III, q. 27, a. 5 ad 3; Pseudo-Albert the Great, "Mariale," quaest. 42, ed. Borgnet 37, 81.
12. Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution "Sacramentum Ordinis" 30 November 1947: AAS 40 (1948), pp. 5-7; Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution "Divinae Consortium Naturae," 15 August 1971: AAS 63 (1971), pp. 657 664; Apostolic Constitution "Sacram Unctionem," 30 November 1972: AAS 65 (1973), pp. 5-9.
13. Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution "Sacramentum Ordinis: loc. cit.," p. 5.
14. Session 21, chap. 2: Denzinger-Schonmetzer, "Enchiridion Symbolorum" 1728.
15. Saint Cyprian, "Epist." 63, 14: PL 4, 397 B; ed. Hartel, vol. 3, p. 713.
16. Second Vatican Council, Constitution "Sacrosanctum Concilium," 33 (4 December 1963): ". ..by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ. . . "; Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium," 10 (21 November 1964): "The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, moulds and rules the priestly people. Acting in the person of Christ, he brings about the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. . . " 28: "By the powers of the sacrament of Order, and in the image of Christ the eternal High Priest. . . they exercise this sacred function of Christ above all in the Eucharistic liturgy or synaxis. There, acting in the person of Christ . . . " Decree "Presbyterorum Ordinis," 2 (7 December 1965): "...priests by the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are marked with a special character and are so configured to Christ the Priest that they can act in the person of Christ the Head"; 13: "As ministers of sacred realities, especially in the Sacrifice of the Mass, priests represent the person of Christ in a special way"; cf. 1971 Synod of Bishops, "De Sacerdotio Ministeriali" I, 4; Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Declaratio circa catholicam doctrinam de Ecclesia," 6 (24 June 1973).
17. Saint Thomas, "Summa Theologiae," III, q. 83, art. I, ad 3: "It is to be said that [just as the celebration of this sacrament is the representative image of Christ's Cross: ibid. ad 2]. for the same reason the priest also enacts the image of Christ, in whose person and by whose power he pronounces the words of consecration".
18. "For since a sacrament is a sign, there is required in the things that are done in the sacraments not only the 'res' but the signification of the 'res"', recalls Saint Thomas, precisely in order to reject the ordination of women: "In IV Sent.," dist. 25, q. 2 art. 1, quaestiuncula 1a. corp.
19. Saint Thomas, "In IV Sent.," dist. 25 q. 2, quaestiuncula 1a ad 4um.
20. Cf. Council of Trent, Session 22, chap. 1: DS 1741.
21. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium," 28: "Exercising within the limits of their authority the function of Christ as Shepherd and Head"; Decree "Presbyterorum Ordinis," 2: "that they can act in the person of Christ the Head"; 6: "the office of Christ the Head and the Shepherd". Cf. Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter "Mediator Dei:" "the minister of the altar represents the person of Christ as the Head, offering in the name of all his members": AAS 39 (1947), p. 556; 1971 Synod of Bishops, "De Sacerdotio Ministeriali," I, 4: "[The priestly ministry]...makes Christ, the Head of the community, present. . . ".
22. Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter "Mysterium Fidei," 3 September 1965: AAS 57 (1965), p. 761.


 http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6interi.htm