Calx Mariae issue 10, Autumn 2020

R E C O M M E N D E D P R I C E £ 5 . 0 0 , S E E P A G E 67 F O R D E TA I L S

MARIAE CALX

Rebuilding our Christian civilisation

FOCUS:

LOVE AND REVERENCE DUE TO OUR LORD

How should we receive Holy Communion?

INCLUDING:

PARENTS' RIGHTS UNDER CONTINUED ATTACK Praying for the Catholic bishops of England and Wales to change course b y D R . TO M R O G E R S

THE WISDOM OF TRADITION in the manner of receiving Holy Communion a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h D R . P E T E R K WA S N I E W S K I

A CRUSADE OF EUCHARISTIC REPARATION b y H . E . B I S H O P AT H A N A S I U S S C H N E I D E R

A V O I C E O F T H E FA M I LY P U B L I C AT I O N

ISSUE 10

AU TUMN 2020

T EN V E G IN M O C P U

FATHERS’ CALL TO BISHOPS:

help us to defend our children’ s purity ONLINE CONFERENCE, 9 OCTOBER 2020

Please join us for an online conference on the right of parents to protect their children from compulsory Relationships and Sex Education in schools.

SPEAKERS INCLUDE:

Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke John Smeaton (SPUC, UK) Dr. Joseph Shaw (Latin Mass Society, UK) Dr. Tom Rogers (SPUC, UK) John-Henry Westen (LifeSiteNews) This is a free online event. To register, please visit:

www.lifesitenews.com/events All presentations will be readily available to watch immediately afterwards.

MARIAE CALX

ISSUE 10

AU TUMN 2020

CONTENTS 2 From the editor 3 The abolition of boys and girls

by Liam Gibson 5 Parents' rights under continued attack – praying for the Catholic bishops of England and Wales to change course

by Dr. Tom Rogers 19 FOCUS Love and reverence due to Our Lord: How should we receive Holy Communion?

21 Theological reasons for receiving Holy Communion on the tongue

by Fr. Serafino M. Lanzetta 26

The wisdom of tradition in the manner of receiving Holy Communion A conversation with Dr. Peter Kwasniewski 5

21

35 Five reasons for receiving Holy Communion on the tongue

by John-Henry Westen 40

Devotion to the Blessed Sacrament in Austrian royal history and among young Catholics today An interview with Theresa Habsburg and Alexander Tschugguel 45 The sins against the Blessed Sacrament and the need for a crusade of Eucharistic reparation

by H.E. Bishop Athanasius Schneider 26

40

5 3 What St. Thomas teaches us about true law A column by Matthew McCusker 55

59

45

53

X-Ray of the Priest in a Field Hospital by Fr. Armand de Malleray FSSP A book review by Fr. Thomas Crean OP A letter from a Benedictine monk

6 4 St. Alphonsus Liguori – our tutor in perseverance

by Maria Madise

FROM THE EDITOR

2

EDITOR Maria Madise EDITORIAL BOARD Liam Gibson Matthew McCusker John Smeaton John-Henry Westen DESIGN & PRODUCTION EDITOR Selina Fang EDITORIAL OFFICE VOICE OF THE FAMILY Unit B, 3 Whitacre Mews, Stannary Street, SE11 4AB, London, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7820 3126 Email: editor@voiceofthefamily.com www.voiceofthefamily.com/calxmariae PUBLICATION IS SPONSORED BY:

Special thanks to: DISCLAIMER: Great care is taken to credit photos and seek permission before publishing. If you have a query regarding copyright, please contact the Editor. No part of this magazine may be reproduced without written permission.

Donations for the continuation of this magazine in print will be gratefully received by Voice of the Family at the address above or online via:

www.voiceofthefamily.com/donate

© V O I C E O F T H E FA M I LY 2 0 2 0

Calx Mariae seeks to contribute to the rebuilding of Christian civilisation by providing features and analysis in the areas of life, family and culture. Our aim in producing this magazine is to strengthen our readers in the faith and in their witness to the truth about human life and the family.

ISSN:2517-6455

Every crisis brings its blessings and the opportunity for renewal.

Looking back to January 2020, we are like sailors thinking of dry land to which they hope to return.

While we have no sight of it, the memory is fresh in our mind. But to navigate the tempestuous sea, we are told to put safety above all.

We are being told where it is safe to sit and stand, who it is safe to meet and what to touch. Remember the signs “Danger!”, stuck on the high-voltage cables or cages of the wild animals in the zoo? Their purpose was to point out where we could get hurt. It is the opposite now. Selected items and areas marked as “safe” are meant to make us think of everything (and everyone) else as dangerous.

But “safe” is not the same as “right” or “true”. It is not the ultimate good and may not be the way to heaven. I found it quite striking, when recently taking the London underground late on a Saturday night, to see parties who represented so much that was morally objectionable in their dress, manners, language and behaviour – all dutifully wearing masks.

It is particularly disturbing, of course, how “safety” is being promoted as a new moral marker in the church – to the extent that the Catholic bishops of England and Wales say it is a prima facie duty of Catholics to be vaccinated against the coronavirus, even if key parts of testing are being skipped and even if the vaccine is derived from the cell lines of an aborted child. Regardless of what we may think of masks or vaccines in general, it is critical to resist the redefining of morality.

Communion in the hand, illicitly imposed in many parts of the world, is the epitome of this mentality. Our response to the instrumentalisation of the Eucharist – in the name of “safety” – can only be one: to increase our devotion, love and reverence due to Our Lord. This is the subject of the FOCUS section of this issue of Calx Mariae (see p.19).

Indifference from Catholics who claim to know and love Him could be much worse than abuse from those who hate Him. So let us join Bishop Schneider on his Eucharistic crusade (see p.45) and commit ourselves to acts of reparation, and consolation of Our Lord, while due honour is being denied to Him in many of His own churches. Anyone who can organise Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in reparation for the sins committed against the Holy Eucharist during this pandemic, ought to do that.

We must be grateful for bad times. The darker the night, the brighter the light. The sad state of the world which does not know God is plain for all to see and the faces of the “two churches” have been uncovered. The middle ground between them is being rapidly conquered by either one or the other – the Church that recommends watching Mass on TV until “this is all over” or the Church motivated by faith in the Real Presence.

Ultimately, they cannot co-exist. Only the one drawing on the wisdom of tradition, fruitful in its many large families and vocations, will survive and gather the faithful to herself.

Today, we can be truly grateful for our Catholic faith. Strong in this faith, we must not only endeavour to survive, but to thrive, be proudly Catholic and restore all things in Christ, without compromising one iota of this perfect gift. When all human means fail, Divine Providence will intervene. When all seems lost, the Immaculate Heart will triumph. May she triumph soon!

Calx Mariae is published by Voice of the Family, an international coalition of prolife and pro-family organisations formed in support of Catholic teaching on the family.

The following truths are particularly at the heart of Voice of the Family’s work: 9 Marriage, the exclusive, life-long union of one man and one woman, is the foundation of a stable and flourishing society and is the greatest protector of children, born and unborn.

9 The procreative and unitive ends of the conjugal act cannot licitly be separated; the rejection of this truth lies at the root of modern attacks on life and the family.

9 Parents are the primary educators of their children and the protection of this right is essential for building a new “culture of life”.

pro-life action

THE ABOLITION OF boys and girls

by LIAM GIBSON

F

ew people ten years ago could have predicted the speed and ferocity with which transgender theory has taken hold of the public imagination. This theory insists that gender is a social construct and that human beings can have a gender identity radically at odds with their biological sex.

While the media fawns over celebrities who decide to raise their children as gender-neutral, public figures who question this ideology are denounced as bigoted and “transphobic”. And although they receive far less attention, in the last five years dozens of academics and university students have faced similar accusations often resulting in them being subjected to harassment or facing disciplinary action.1 Many members of the medical profession have also spoken to journalists off the record about their reservations regarding the policy of automatically affirming all cases of gender dysphoria. Not surprisingly, however, they are fearful of voicing those concerns publicly.2 Yet, despite the power of the transgender lobby, concerns over the effects of the current policy among

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

the political and medical establishment seem to be growing. In June, leaked documents indicated that the British government was backing away from plans to allow “trans” people to change the sex on their birth certificate without a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. And in May the National Health Service quietly adjusted its position on prescribing gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues or “puberty blockers” to children, acknowledging that the effects are not fully reversible as it had previously claimed.3 While the entertainment industry seeks to normalise transgenderism, the effect of social media and the internet has been described in terms of social contagion, a phenomenon recognised to spread mental health problems such as depression or eating disorders within peer groups.4 But it is also likely that transgender ideology within schools has had a considerable impact. When primary schools, including Catholic primary schools, encourage pupils to question their “gender identity” then rush to “affirm” those who show signs of confusion, it should come as no surprise 3

pro-life action

that there has been a 400 per cent increase in referrals to the gender identity service at London’s Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust since 2015.5,6 In 2018/19 alone the total number of referrals in England was 624 boys and 1,740 girls.7 But why are children in primary schools being subjected to transgender ideology? One answer to this question is to be found in the Istanbul Convention, the Council of Europe’s Convention on combating domestic violence. In signing the Convention in 2012 the British government committed itself to take: “…the necessary steps to include teaching material on issues such as equality between women and men, non-stereotyped gender roles, mutual respect, non-violent conflict resolution in interpersonal relationships, gender-based violence against women and the right to personal integrity, adapted to the evolving capacity of learners, in formal curricula and at all levels of education.”8 [emphasis added] At first, promoting “non-stereotyped gender roles” may seem innocuous – few people would object to a little girl being told that she could grow up to become a motor mechanic if that’s what she wanted. In fact, treating boys as boys and girls as girls is considered a form of stereotyping which the Convention commits states to end. Instead boys and girls at all levels of education (this means as young as six) are to be challenged to question whether they are boys and girls at all. Their parents may have treated them as either one or the other but inside they might actually be different. Girls might really be boys or vice versa, or they could be “two-spirited” or perhaps “gender fluid” or “genderqueer”. They are encouraged to decide for themselves what they want to be and told that no one has the right to contradict that decision.

In When Harry Became Sally, Ryan T. Anderson describes the explosion of the trans agenda in the United States and warns of the potential damage done to children who are being left deeply confused by transgender ideology.9 He states: “Parents are told that puberty blockers and crosssex hormones may be the only way to prevent their children from committing suicide. […] And never mind that ‘transitioning’ treatment has not been shown to reduce the extraordinarily high rate of 4

suicide attempts among people who identify as transgender (41 per cent, compared with 4.6 per cent of the general population).10 In fact, people who have had transition surgery are nineteen times more likely than average to die by suicide.”11 As shocking as these figures are, these are not the only victims. When children are taught from the age of six that they alone can decide their sexual identity, then no one can tell them that they can’t engage in sexual activity, including sex with adults. A direct result of the trans agenda will be the rapid sexualisation of a whole generation of children.

Due to the disruption caused by Covid-19, the imposition of England’s new relationships and sex education curriculum has been delayed. But transgender ideology can be promoted throughout the school by way of its equality scheme and even its dress code.

Most parents are aware of the need to monitor their children’s use of the internet and social media but it is becoming increasingly important to find out exactly what sort of ideas their school might be spreading about gender identity.

ENDNOTES: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Academics and others at British universities targeted for questioning transgender orthodoxy, http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0060/GCtargets.shtml.

Marcus Evans, “Freedom to think: the need for thorough assessment and treatment of gender dysphoric children”, BJPsych Bulletin, FirstView, published online by Cambridge University Press, 21 July 2020, https://www.cambridge.org/core/ journals/bjpsych-bulletin/article/freedom-to-think-the-need-for-thorough-assessment-and-treatment-of-gender-dysphoric-children/F4B7F5CAFC0D0BE9FF3C7886BA6E904B/core-reader.

James Kirkup, “The NHS has quietly changed its trans guidance to reflect reality”, The Spectator, 4 June 2020, https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-nhs-hasquietly-changed-its-trans-guidance-to-reflect-reality.

Lisa Littman, “Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria”, PLoS ONE 13(8), 16 August 2018, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202330.

Marcus Evans, “Freedom to think: the need for thorough assessment and treatment of gender dysphoric children”.

In February, the Irish Independent reported that at least three Irish doctors had expressed “grave concerns” over the service provided by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust at the Children's Hospital in Crumlin, Co Dublin.

Two hundred and ninety-one Irish children have used the service since 2015.

Shane Phelan Irish Independent Doctors in row with HSE over claims children's transgender care is “unsafe”, 3 February 2020, https://www.independent.ie/ irish-news/health/doctors-in-row-with-hse-over-claims-childrens-transgendercare-is-unsafe-38920159.html.

The Surge in Referral Rates of Girls to the Tavistock Continues to Rise Transgender Trend: Questioning the Narrative, Blog post published 1 July 2019, https://www. transgendertrend.com/surge-referral-rates-girls-tavistock-continues-rise/.

Art 14 – Education Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, Istanbul, 11 May 2011.

Ryan T Anderson, When Harry Became Sally, Encounter Books, New York 2018.

Anne P. Haas, Philip L. Rodgers, and Jody Herman, “Suicide Attempts Among Transgender and Gender Non Conforming Adults: Findings of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey”, Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, January 2014.

Cecilia Dhejne et al., “Long-term follow-up of transsexual persons undergoing sex reassignment surgery: cohort study in Sweden”, PLOS ONE 6 (February 2011): e16885.

CAL X M A R IA E

analysis

PARENTS' RIGHTS UNDER CONTINUED ATTACK

Praying for the Catholic bishops of England and Wales to change course b y D R . TO M R O G E R S

I

n a previous article (“How Catholic Church officials have betrayed parents and children”, Calx Mariae, March 2019), I detailed the disturbing shift in position taken by leaders and officials of the Catholic Church in recent years, away from defending the principle of the parent as primary educator of their children, especially in the area of relationships and sex education. In line with the global promotion of the LGBT and Comprehensive Sex Education agendas, policies undermining authentic Catholic teaching have been adopted by Church leaders within both the Church and Catholic education system. In particular, I detailed how the

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

Catholic Education Service (CES), an agency of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales (CBCEW), have seriously undermined the sacred duty of parenthood and the Christian formation of children through its school policies, model RSE curriculum, pro-LGBT publications, and, above all, through its public support of government legislation which is imposing compulsory pro-LGBT relationships and sex education on all school children in England. With that legislation due imminently to come into force in September 2020 (with a partial reprieve until summer 2021 due to the recent national school lockdown), I will examine not only how we have reached this point, and the devastating role played by Church leaders in facilitating the crisis, but also bring readers up to date as to where we are now in the battle, and certain unexpected opportunities that have arisen. Whilst serious errors and dangers persist, this includes some

5

analysis

welcome signs of a new direction being pursued within the Church hierarchy.

The background to the Catholic bishops’ support for the sex education agenda Although the secular sex education and LGBT agendas have been considerably furthered by Church leaders during the pontificate of Pope Francis, they have in fact been pursued by the CBCEW and CES for well over a decade. Under the chairmanship of Archbishop (now Cardinal) Vincent Nichols (from 1999 to 2008) the CES developed a policy that resulted in providing children in Catholic schools, including adolescents under the legal age of consent, with access to abortion and contraception services, without parental knowledge or consent, through a state run confidential advice agency, named “Connexions”.1 Also under Nichols’ chairmanship the CES joined the Sex Education Forum, which required agreement with the Sex and Relationships Education Framework (2003, reissued 2005), which, for instance, “welcomes” the “diversity of society” in the area of “sexuality”, regards sex education as “an entitlement for all boys as well as girls; those who are heterosexual, lesbian, gay or bisexual” and requires that children should be

6

given “relevant information” which “is accurate and non-judgmental” about “the potential consequences of unprotected sex” including “abortion”. In fact, the Catholic Marriage Advisory Service (now Marriage Care, a Catholic charity always presided over by the Archbishop of Westminster) had been a close working partner of the Sex Education Forum from as far back as 1986, when the organisation was originally founded to oppose the then pro-family policies of the Conservative government, including “Section 28” (of the Local Government Act 1988) which prohibited the promotion of homosexuality in state schools.2 The Sex Education Forum was thereafter one of the main organisations at the forefront of the campaign to make comprehensive sex education compulsory in all UK schools.

With the full support of the CES, then under the Chairmanship of Malcolm McMahon (the Bishop of Nottingham, now Archbishop of Liverpool) the intense campaign for compulsory sex education finally prevailed in March 2017 when the Government brought forward amendments during the passing of the Children & Social Work Act. The CES had supported a previous and very similar Parliamenta-

CAL X M A R IA E

“The new subjects of Relationships Education were made compulsory in all English primary schools, and Relationships and Sex Education compulsory in all English secondary schools. With an added compulsory new subject, ‘Health Education’, the new state regime would attempt to cover virtually every aspect of a child’s moral formation, health and well-being at school.”

ry attempt to implement compulsory SRE in 2010, when the outgoing Labour Government attempted to include it in the Children, Schools & Families Bill – an attempt which failed in the pre-election Parliamentary “wash-up” thanks to sufficient opposition within Parliament, helped by strong lobbying from many faithful Catholics (and SPUC), appalled at what was being done by the CES in their name.3 The CES had also helped draft the same government’s new revised guidance on SRE which would have been implemented with the new legislation had it passed, and which promoted to children a decidedly anti-life and anti-family view of human sexuality.4 One of the Labour MPs who enthusiastically supported that legislation, along with a full range of socially liberal causes in opposition to Catholic moral teaching, was Greg Pope, Member for Hyndburn, who vacated his seat at the call of the General Election in April 2010. He was immediately appointed as deputy director of the Catholic Education Service, according to their press release, “after a rigorous selection process and was the unanimous choice of the final interview panel, which was chaired by Bishop Malcolm McMahon, Chairman of CESEW.”5 This “rigorous selection process” was either accepting of, or indifferent to, Pope’s extensive anti-life and anti-family voting record in Parliament, which included support for abortion, euthanasia, population control and contraception, no-fault divorce and cohabitation rights, as well as virtually every facet of the homosexual rights agenda.6 Aside from support for compulsory RSE, Pope, as an MP, was also keen on enforcing the state takeover of parenting in other ways. For instance, he voted against a Bill which would have required practitioners providing contraception

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

or abortion services to a child under the age of 16 to inform his or her parent or guardian.7 His support for the corruption of children included putting his vote or signature to numerous initiatives to promote homosexuality and sexual immorality in schools (including voting to repeal “Section 28”), numerous “anti-homophobia” initiatives, and the support of such campaigns as “National Condom Week” in schools.

Only by means of a completely revisionist idea of what it means to be a Catholic could a man promoting such policies be deemed an appropriate choice to hold a position of responsibility over Catholic education.

However, he was in fact eminently suitable to help further the agenda the CES was already pursuing.

Acting also as “head of Parliamentary relations” for the CBCEW, for instance, he wrote to all Catholic MPs in 2014 to reassure them they would not be denied Communion for voting in favour of imposing same sex “marriage” on Britain.8 The crowning glory of his career with the agency was the CES’s role in supporting compulsory pro-LGBT relationships and sex education in all schools in England with the passing of the Children & Social Work Act in March 2017. Thereafter, Pope was immediately rewarded by the Bishops for such services to the faith with his promotion and new appointment as Assistant General Secretary (later Executive Director of the Catholic Trust) of the CBCEW. Compulsory RSE comes to English schools The Children & Social Work Act (2017) made the new subjects of Relationships Education compulsory in all English primary schools, and Relationships and Sex Education compulsory in all English secondary schools. With another compulsory new subject, “Health Education”, later added to the mix 7

analysis

(“RSHE”), the new regime would further the state takeover of parenting in an attempt for the school to cover virtually every aspect of a child’s moral formation, health and well-being. The Government stated that parents would be able to withdraw their children only from the “sex education” parts of RSHE at secondary school, and even this much compromised right was later replaced only with a “right to request withdrawal”, with the final decision given over to the head teacher. In a final slap in the face of parents, their children were given the legal right to overrule their parents’ wishes, if the head teacher had not already done so, and opt into sex education classes when the child reaches 15 years of age (though ironically, they are not able to opt themselves out). From the outset government spokespersons, including the Prime Minister, stated that Relationships Education was intended to be “LGBT inclusive”.9 The CES publicly and consistently voiced nothing but support for the legislative changes and government RSE policy. Following the passing of the Children & Social Work Act in March 2017, the then Chair of the CES, Archbishop Malcolm McMahon, issued a statement welcoming the changes to the law and “the government’s commitment to improving [sic] Relationships and Sex Education in all schools”. He also welcomed the “government’s commitment to protect parental right of withdrawal”, even though that right was specifically limited, even at this early stage.10 The RSE Regulations and Statutory Guidance which would govern the general content and delivery of the new subjects, were the subject of two major public consultations, before having to be ratified by Parliament. Catholic leaders did absolutely nothing to encourage the faithful’s participation in these consultations, despite the potentially strong influence the resulting curriculum is likely to have on the moral development of our nation’s youth, both Catholic and non-Catholic. Rather the CES continued its mini-PR campaign in support of the Government, even when its intentions for the new RSE regime became clearer.11 Aside from the effective removal of the parental right of withdrawal (as described above), key dangers contained in both the Draft (July 2018) and Final (June 2019) RSE Guidance and Regulations, include: • The promotion of abortion, contraception and facilitation of underage sex. Secondary school chil8

dren should be provided with “the facts about the full range of contraceptive choices, efficacy and options available”, and signposted as to where and how to obtain abortion and contraception services without parental knowledge or consent. Carrying an unborn child to term is presented simply as one of the possible “choices” when pregnant, alongside that of having an abortion – “about which pupils should receive medically and legally accurate, impartial information” [my emphasis] (p.29).

• LGBT content is expected, “at a timely point”, to be “fully integrated” into the children’s programme of study, which should present homosexual relationships and family structures in a positive manner (pp.15, 20-21, 26-30).

• Real marriage and the natural family unit are sidelined. Redefined to include same sex “marriage” (and on a par with civil partnerships), marriage is simply presented as one possible relationship option. The emphasis is on the diversity of different “healthy” relationships and family structures (pp.13-15, 19-22, 25-29).12 With Church leaders supporting the Government, the mobilisation of Catholic voters to best influence the process (as the mainstream media, LGBT and sex education lobbies were doing for the other side) was therefore left to the various pro-life and pro-family organisations, such as SPUC Safe at School and Parent Power, and the many new groups (including from the Christian, Muslim, Jewish and other faith communities) that were now springing up as part of the rapidly growing parental rights movement. This awareness campaign proved successful in that the majority of submissions to the consultation on the Draft Guidance (July-Nov 2018) were firmly against the Government’s proposals. But with the backing of the education, media and church establishments, the consultation results could more easily be ignored and the Final RSHE Guidance and Regulations were published virtually unchanged (if anything, slightly worse) in March 2019, and the Regulations were shortly afterwards passed by an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons (538 to 21).

The CES issued yet another press statement, this time from Director Paul Barber, to “welcome” this development – only this time they were not so readily claiming that the Government was still retaining the CAL X M A R IA E

right of withdrawal, stating instead, in much vaguer terms, how “the Catholic Church teaches that parents are the prime educators of their children and we are pleased to see the Government sharing this fundamental principle”. Whilst it is true that the official RSE Guidance (June 2019) refers to parents as being the “prime educators” (p.4), it is hard to consider this meaningful with no parental right of withdrawal, and with schools being reassured that they have the final say over curriculum and lesson content – making largely worthless even the much vaunted parental RSE consultations that every school is required to undertake.13 Besides the betrayal of parents and children, the political significance of the bishops’ support for the Government’s measures cannot be overemphasised.

In April 2019, SPUC and others launched a last ditch effort in the House of Lords to prevent compulsory RSE, but the odds were overwhelmingly stacked against us and the Statutory Instrument enforcing the measures were passed into law. A letter received on the matter by one of the Society’s supporters from Lord Elton, a sympathetic Conservative Peer, was very telling:

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

“As that measure had already been accepted by the Church of England, welcomed by the Roman Catholic Church[my emphasis], passed with approval by the House of Commons, there was no possibility of rejecting it. What some of us managed to do in the discussion of it in this House, was to make the Government aware of the grave concern of many members of all three Abrahamic Faiths, to press for close study of its effects in practice and for a report thereon with attention given to the experience and opinions of parents – and children – that could be considered by both Houses of Parliament etc …”

The CBCEW support for the new RSE regime was also considered important by the Government itself, and often referred to by ministers and officials. For example, Nick Gibb, Minister for School Standards, commented the following in a House of Commons debate (entitled Parental Involvement in Teaching: Equality Act) on 25 June 2019: “The guidance was carefully crafted to build the widest possible consensus for this policy, which is why it went through this House with an overwhelming majority and the other House without a Division. Those people who are opposed to it 9

analysis

“The fact that the same state guidance on RSE could meet with the approval of both LGBT pressure groups, such as Stonewall, and ‘the Catholic Church’ would certainly mean that at least one of those factions is compromising on their core values.” are at the other end of that consensus. I am afraid that it is unlikely that we will bring those extreme ends of the debate into that consensus, but I am very content that we have secured the support of the Catholic Church [my emphasis], the Church of England and organisations such as Stonewall for the guidance we have created.”

The fact that the same state guidance on RSE could meet with the approval of both LGBT pressure groups, such as Stonewall, and “the Catholic Church” would certainly mean that at least one of those factions is compromising on their core values. However, as well as being adamant that this guidance leaves scope for Catholic schools to teach “according to the tenets of the faith” (and leaving aside the fate of the 90% of children who go to non-Catholic schools), CES statements in support of the changes trumpeted the “high quality RSE” which Catholic schools already offer, and boasted of “the fact that the Government had used the Catholic model curriculum as examples of best practice”.14 In other words, it all just means business as usual for Catholic schools so there is nothing to worry about.

The CES’s model RSE curriculum is likely able to meet such approval from Government, because despite parading its commitment to the Catholic faith, with a great deal of uncontroversial orthodoxsounding content, there are enough ambiguous loopholes inserted to ensure that the LGBT or comprehensive sex education agendas can be taught where necessary. So, for example, the CES model Catholic Primary RSE Curriculum (Autumn 2019) in the section “Created to love others” states that children at Key Stage 1 (5-7 years old) should be taught that “all families are important” (1.2.2.2) and echoes the Government guidance in instructing young children that “there are different family structures and these should

10

be respected” (1.2.3.3.).15 Are children therefore to be taught to respect unnatural “family structures” in themselves (“two mums/dads”, etc.) rather than merely to love and respect their fellow classmates, regardless of their background or family circumstances? Such items are made to sound innocuous, but it is the alleged need to make children from every type of family background “feel welcome” that has been one of the main justifications for promoting the LGBT agenda in primary schools, including, as we shall see below, many Catholic primary schools. Teaching pupils in KS2 (ages 7-11) about the “similarities and differences between people” in relation to the “protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010, Part 2, Chapter 1, sections 4-12”, would therefore include teaching those children about “gender reassignment”, “marriage [including same-sex ‘marriage’] and [same-sex] civil partnerships” and “sexual orientation” (2.1.3.4.). Parents may also be concerned at the prospect of other adults leading their 5-7 year old children into “identifying and correctly naming their ‘private parts’ (see NSPCC resource PANTS) for the purposes of safeCAL X M A R IA E

guarding them from sexual exploitation” [1.2.4.4.].

As well as the largely unproven effectiveness of such an approach for its stated purpose, discussion of such intimate matters in the public space of the classroom, and at a time not of the parents’ best judgement, can undermine the parents’ natural role of protector, and sexualise young children by breaking down their natural reserve and encouraging undue “exploration” of their sexual organs.

The CES’s model RSE curriculum for secondary schools builds on this foundation. It takes the validity of LGBT ideology for granted, and could be used to help facilitate active pupil exploration of destructive and mortally sinful life choices.16 Despite foregrounding the need to teach children about the Church’s teaching with regards marriage, fertility and the sanctity of life, pupils are also taught to be “respectful of […] their emerging sexual identity” (4.1.1.1.), as well as the concepts of “sexual identity, gender identity and sexual orientation” (3.1.4.6.). They are to be taught throughout secondary school (both KS3 and KS4) “about diversity in sexual attraction and developing sexuality, including sources of support and reassurance and how to access them” (3.2.3.11; 4.2.3.10.). They are also to be taught “where and how to obtain sexual health information, advice and support”, including “who to talk to for accurate advice and support in the event of unintended pregnancy” (4.2.4.10).

One of the key principles running through the model Catholic RSE curriculum, as explained its introduction, is that it aims to be “balanced”: Whilst promoting Catholic virtues, schools should ensure that children and young people are offered a broad and balanced RSE programme which provides them with clear factual, scientific information when relevant and meets the statutory requirements placed on schools. In secondary schools this includes teaching students about the laws relating to forced marriage, female genital mutilation, abortion and equalities legislation (including the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013).17 This echoes what the Government have explained about how the new law is intended to work in relation to faith schools. That whilst they are free to teach pupils what their faith says about sex and relationships, including related matters like abortion, “in all schools, AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

teaching should reflect the law (including the Equality Act 2010) as it applies to relationships, so that young people clearly understand what the law allows and does not allow” (22).18 The clear impression given by the Statutory RSE Guidance (2019) is that it is the law of the land (informed by the official state ideology), rather than the law and values of God, that should be the overriding influence in this “balanced” curriculum, and be the main arbiter for children in judging between right and wrong: 75. Pupils should be taught the facts and the law about sex, sexuality, sexual health and gender identity in an age-appropriate and inclusive way. All pupils should feel that the content is relevant to them and their developing sexuality. Sexual orientation and gender identity should be explored at a timely point and in a clear, sensitive and respectful manner. When teaching about these topics, it must be recognised that young people may be discovering or understanding their sexual orientation or gender identity. There should be an equal opportunity to explore the features of stable and healthy same-sex relationships. This should be integrated appropriately into the RSE programme, rather than addressed separately or in only one lesson.

76. It is recognised that there will be a range of opinions regarding RSE. The starting principle when teaching each of these must be that the applicable law should be taught in a factual way so that pupils are clear on their rights and responsibilities as citizens.

77. Schools may choose to explore faith, or other perspectives, on some of these issues in other subjects such as Religious Education.

78. Pupils should be well informed about the full range of perspectives and, within the law, should be well equipped to make decisions for themselves about how to live their own lives, whilst respecting the right of others to make their own decisions and hold their own beliefs.

Whilst it is theoretically possible that a good solid Catholic school could teach these subjects in a way that ensures pupils clearly receive the teachings of the Catholic faith, this necessary element of “bal11

analysis

ance” and “respect” for mortally sinful lifestyle choices means pupils will likely receive a very mixed message; and in the present cultural context, leaves those opposed to Christian morality clear inroads to pursue their agenda with children in Catholic schools (not to mention the majority of other schools). The Bishops, who have been the cheer leaders of (and even instrumental to) changes to the law, now claim that they must be bound by that law.

CES’s own vision for RSE Other documents published by the CES unashamedly distort Catholic teaching to promote homosexuality, often using the teachings of Pope Francis to add a kind of pseudo-doctrinal credence to what are clearly heretical positions. Learning to Love (2017), an RSE guide for Catholic educators, and published “to mark the first anniversary of Amoris Laetitia”, declares its admiration for the exhortation as being “an inspirational document, rich with insights and fresh descriptions of the Church’s teaching on this vital subject”.19 On the subject of homosexuality, Learning to Love offers its own “fresh description” of the Church’s teaching, referring to same sex relationships as being able to constitute

12

a “powerful” and “an exalted form of love”, on a par with that between husband and wife in marriage, and the document “applauds the great progress that has been made in countering all forms of discrimination against homosexuality in recent times, and wish to collaborate with efforts to make such discrimination obsolete [my emphasis].” (p.17) One such “collaborative effort” to enforce acceptance of homosexuality is Made in God’s Image: Challenging homophobic and biphobic bullying in Catholic schools (2017; 2nd edn. 2018) – a joint venture between the CES and the Aquinas Centre for Theological Literacy, St. Mary’s University.20 It is also a collaboration with Stonewall and LGBT Youth Scotland in the sense that they have copied and pasted much of the content of Made in God’s Image out of documents from these other organisations.21 The document gravely misrepresents both Scripture and Catholic teaching, as well as UK law, to intimidate Catholic schools into promoting the LGBT agenda. The overriding message that is conveyed to children through the eight part scheme of work is that being “lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender” is part of their God-given purpose and identity, an integral part of being “made in God’s

CAL X M A R IA E

image”, something that must be celebrated, and that a true Catholic should act to report and help robustly stamp out any traces of “homophobia” – conveniently defined for children, in one of the word games they are given to play, as: “A range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs [my emphasis].” (p.16) Adolescent boys and girls are consequently being given the message that a feeling of “aversion” to “homosexuality” (including homosexual acts and advances?) means that there is something wrong with them – they are guilty of “irrational fear” or “hatred”. Is this not what is called “grooming”? In a letter to a concerned member of the faithful, Bishop Patrick McKinney (Nottingham), one of at least six English bishops who celebrates LGBT Masses in his diocese, states about Made in God’s Image: “The second edition has been approved [by the Bishops of England & Wales] as a document produced by the Catholic Education Service. It is intended to offer pastoral support of children in our Catholic schools who may be experiencing bullying of this kind. Such bullying, or bullying of any kind, cannot be tolerated in our schools. This document does not promote homosexuality [my emphasis].”

However, by warning children so emphatically against any “negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality” (as opposed to homosexual persons), the document is clearly intended to promote homosexuality per se as only something positive – especially due to the omission of Scriptural truths or the fullness of Church teaching concerning homosexual acts. The deceptive over-emphasis hammered home throughout is that it is always wrong to judge others (pp.19-20), God is love and so being a Christian requires that there must be total loving acceptance of those who identity as “LGBTQ” because they are a persecuted minority, as was the early church (p.28). One of the “learning outcomes” of the final eighth lesson is the “ability to

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

use Pope Francis ‘tweets’ as a tool to focus the whole school community on challenging homophobic bullying” (p.28). The ten Francis tweets together stress the pseudo-doctrine of total unconditional love, mercy, acceptance of absolutely everyone by God and Church, whatever they do and includes the statement that “God loves us as we are: no sin, fault or mistake can make Him change His mind” (Pope Francis @ Pontifex 30 July 2016) – a statement clearly in need of qualification.

The “No Outsiders” scandal “Anti-bullying” and “equality” programmes, such as Made in God’s Image, have long been used as a Trojan Horse for infiltrating schools, including primary schools, with the LGBT pride agenda. One of the most notorious recent examples of such programmes has been No Outsiders, written by homosexual activist teacher Andrew Moffat, MBE. No Outsiders declares its express aim that “to be a person who is gay or lesbian or transgender or bi-sexual is normal, acceptable and ok”. Children also need to be learning that they may identify or may not identify as LGBT as they grow up, and that “whoever they grow into as an adult is also perfectly normal and acceptable” (p.2).22 One of the most challenging things about such programmes is that they are often integrated throughout the curriculum rather than in ring-fenced RSE or PSHE lessons. For instance, LGBT-themed story books such as King and King and The Princess Boy might be covered in literacy lessons. As Moffatt remarks, “for this work to succeed, there needs to be a whole-school ethos to which everyone signs up” (p.6). This makes it even harder for parents to keep track of what is going on or take steps to withdraw their young children. Rather than just challenging one or two lessons they suddenly find themselves with the overwhelming prospect of having to take on the whole curriculum and the whole school.

The introduction of No Outsiders in a number of Birmingham primary schools, including Parkfield (where Moffat remains assistant head teacher) and Anderton Park, sparked a parent-led revolt and protest outside the school gates, after the school and local authority refused to respond to their concerns and withdraw the programme. The situation made national headlines throughout 2018-19, and coverage

13

analysis

was mostly characterised by an intense vilification of the mostly Muslim parents for their perceived intolerance and bigotry.

Following a High Court judgment, a censorship zone was enforced around both schools and their acts of witness in defence of their children are no longer allowed. Several have faced legal battles for withdrawing their children.

Naturally, the desperate parents involved in this battle have looked to the different Christian communities, including the Catholic Church, for support.

However, not only has there been complete silence from Catholic Church leaders on the matter, but it has been found that at least ten Catholic primary schools in the Liverpool Archdiocese alone have been using No Outsiders.23 Rt. Rev. Malcolm McMahon, former Chair of the CES, is now Archbishop of Liverpool.

An Education newsletter from Summer 2019 sent to Catholic schools by the Liverpool Archdiocese Centre for Evangelisation (LACE) stated: RSE Update In response to the governments new document about their statutory requirements for RSE to be taught, nothing needs to change in our schools as we are doing everything it asks. In fact, the CES materials are referenced in the document. If Local Authorities have sent guidance for RSE that you are considering in school, please send a copy into our team at LACE to ensure it meets with Church teaching and Bishops’ requirements. All That I Am can be used to supplement Journey in Love in Years 5 & 6. Exemplars of curriculum planning can be shared if needed. However, you still need to cover all primary years. Information from No Outsiders is still current and fine to use in school. Given the current climate, it might be better not to post on social media and use the term “All are Welcome” for the time being to avoid adverse publicity [my emphasis].24 In other words, Catholic primary schools in the Liverpool Archdiocese are deceiving parents by using “All that I am” and “Journey in Love” for RSE, but “No Outsiders” separately to teach “equality”. Moreover, the Archdiocese is instructing their schools to refer to the programme as “All are Welcome” in order to deliberately mislead parents about what exactly is being taught. It is not clear at this stage how many 14

other Catholic schools in other dioceses are using this or similar programmes promoting the LGBT agenda (including the CES’s own Made in God’s Image), so parents need to be highly vigilant.

A change in direction?

The Welsh Government announced back in May 2018 that it was intending to introduce compulsory Relationships & Sexuality Education in all Welsh schools in 2022. There was a characteristic silence from the Bishops of England and Wales at this stage, but, unlike the situation in England, the Welsh Government initially stated that the parent’s right of withdrawal would be retained. That changed the following year in October 2019, when the Welsh Government announced that it was intending to now remove this right, despite an overwhelming majority (88.7%) having supported its retention in a public consultation earlier that year. Not satisfied with that outcome, the Welsh Government announced a further consultation on the matter. Quite out of character the CES, now (since May 2019) under the Chairmanship of Bishop Marcus Stock of Leeds, launched a small campaign opposing the Welsh Government’s moves, encouraging Catholics to write to register their disapproval with their Assembly Member.

It might be contended that the hand of the CES was forced in this respect as the Welsh Government were more brazen and explicit about their intentions to remove parental rights to withdraw children from RSE, whereas in England they had been able to go along with the pretence that it had been retained in the shape of the “right to request withdrawal”. However, Bishop Stock also issued a statement for the December 2019 General Election urging Catholics to challenge their Parliamentary candidates on a range of issues relating to Catholic education, including RSE: “Relationships and Sex Education Catholic education is based on the formation of the whole child.

Well-taught and age-appropriate Relationship and Sex Education (RSE) is an important part of this.

However, even more important is the right of parents, as the primary educators of their children, to be fully consulted and to maintain their ability to withdraw their children from these lessons.

While we are confident that the model curriculum in Catholic schools delivers RSE in accordance CAL X M A R IA E

“Whilst it is theoretically possible that a good Catholic school could teach these subjects in a way that ensures pupils clearly receive the teachings of the Catholic faith, the requirements for ‘balance’ and ‘respect’ for mortally sinful lifestyle choices means pupils will likely receive a very mixed message; and in the present cultural context, leaves those opposed to Christian morality clear inroads to pursue their agenda with children in Catholic schools.”

with the teachings of the Church and the wishes of parents, the same cannot be said for other schools.

Hence for Catholic parents who do not have the option to send their child to a Catholic school, it is vital that this parental right remains in place.”25 What a shame therefore that the CES had been so instrumental in supporting through the changes in England that it now stands to oppose in both England and Wales. Whilst this statement is flawed, as we have seen, in respect of its claim concerning the CES’s model curriculum, perhaps, please God, it represents the start of a positive change of approach for the CES under new leadership which must be encouraged.

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

As expected, the Welsh Government announced in January 2020 that they intended to go ahead anyway with their plans to remove the parental right of withdrawal when their new RSE regime comes into force in 2022. They did not reveal what proportion of submissions to their November 2019 consultation objected to their proposals – their published consultation analysis presented itself as “qualitative”, and had conveniently “not sought to count how many respondents held a particular view” (p.4).26 The CES issued a press release in stark but welcome contrast to all those they had issued in response to the changes in England. Director, Paul Barber, commented:

15

analysis

“Today’s announcement from the Welsh Government represents a regressive step in the relationship between parents, schools and the State. By removing the parental right of withdrawal, these proposals risk undermining parents’ fundamental and inalienable role as the primary educators of their children. Many hundreds of Catholics made representations during the consultation. However, it is clear from today’s announcement that the Welsh Government is content with ignoring the views of the Catholic community.”27 From September 2020, the new compulsory subjects come into force in England. Where RSE is being taught, parents will no longer have an automatic right of withdrawal (except for “sex education” at primary schools). However, due to the Coronavirus lockdown (which prevented many schools from holding the required parental consultations), the Government announced in June 2020 that it was allowing schools, where necessary, the opportunity to delay the full implementation of the new subjects until the start of the Summer term (April) 2021. This therefore presents us with a small window of opportunity to come together to build an even stronger and greater movement in opposition to the new RSE regime before it comes fully into force and entrenched in all of our schools.

16

Parents wanting to make a stand at schools where they are already facing compulsory RSE will also need our help and support. With recognition of positive signs in the right direction, we call on Church leaders to now robustly and publicly come out in support of such parents, and actively support the campaign to reinstate the right of withdrawal.

Our efforts on that front could also be aided by a Judicial Review currently being pursued by the Let Kids Be Kids Coalition, which is challenging the RSE legislation over its violation of human rights law guaranteeing parents the right to choose an education for their children “in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”28 There is also much to be done in challenging the growing stronghold of LGBT ideology in our schools, including an increasing number of Catholic schools.

To protect the innocence of children, pro-family groups – including SPUC, the Latin Mass Society, and Catholic Man UK – have formed the “Coalition in Defence of Primary Educators”. They are calling on lay Catholics to pray and offer sacrifices that the country’s bishops will turn fully away from the betrayals of recent times and help lead the resistance in this most crucial of battles for the lives and eternal souls of our children.

CAL X M A R IA E

To receive updated information on RSE, please sign up to the Safe at School campaign at: www.spuc.org.uk/Safe-at-School Dr. Tom Rogers is the SPUC Education Manager. He has been working full-time for the pro-life cause since 2016. An academic and educationalist, he previously lectured in English literature at university, and has also taught in the secondary and further education sectors. He is married with five children.

ENDNOTES: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

See John Smeaton’s blog, “My wife and I will not be donating to the Catholic Education Service this weekend”, 29 January 2010; http://spuc-director.blogspot. com/2010/01/my-wife-and-i-will-not-be-donating-to.html; Oona Stanaard, “The Connexions Service Working in Catholic Schools in England”, September 2002; https://web.archive.org/web/20080907140826/http://www.cesew.org.uk/standard.asp?id=159 Sex Education Forum, “Founder, Anne Weyman, reflects on 30 years of Sex Education Forum”, 5 December 2017; https://www.sexeducationforum.org.uk/news/ blog/founder-anne-weyman-reflects-30-years-sex-education-forum [accessed 12 August 2020] See John Smeaton’s blog, “Huge pro-life and pro-family victory is won in British Parliament”, 6 April 2010; http://spuc-director.blogspot.com/2010/04/huge-prolife-and-pro-family-victory-is.html See John Smeaton’s blog, “Catholic Education Service has helped draft the government's anti-life/anti-family sex ed draft guidance”, 10 February 2010; http:// spuc-director.blogspot.com/2010/02/catholic-education-service-has-helped.html CES Press Release, “Greg Pope joins CESEW as its new Deputy Director”, 13 April 2010; https://web.archive.org/web/20111116072652/http://www.cesew.org.uk/ standardnews.asp?id=9332 A full catalogue of Greg Pope’s anti-life and anti-family record in Parliament can be found on John Smeaton’s blog, “Catholic Education Service appoints anti-life and anti-family ex-MP as deputy director”, 22 April 2010; https://spuc-director. blogspot.com/2010/04/catholic-education-service-appoints.html] Greg Pope voted against Angela Watkinson MP’s Ten Minute Rule Bill on “Contraception and Abortion (Parental Information) l”, 14 March 2007; https://publications. parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070314/debtext/70314-0004.htm See Hilary White, “UK bishops assure Catholic MPs they won’t be denied Communion for backing same-sex ‘marriage’”, LifeSiteNews, 02 April 2014; https://www. lifesitenews.com/news/uk-bishops-assure-catholic-mps-they-wont-be-deniedcommunion-for-backing-sa For instance, Nick Gibb MP, stated in response to a Parliamentary question (3 July 2017) that “we expect schools to ensure that all pupils, whatever their developing sexuality or gender identity, feel that relationships and sex education is relevant to them and sensitive to their needs. As part of our engagement programme, we will consider ways to ensure that our guidance and regulations are inclusive of LGBT issues. We plan to work closely with organisations such as Stonewall and the Terrence Higgins Trust, amongst others.” Prime Minister Teresa May affirmed her support for “LGBT inclusive” Relationships Education in English schools in her speech at the Pink News LGBT Awards 2017.

CES Press Release, “Catholic Education Service welcomes Government announcement on RSE”, 1 March 2017; http://catholiceducation.org.uk/component/k2/ item/1003621-catholic-education-service-welcomes-government-announcement-on-rse The CES issued further press statements from Archbishop McMahon on 19 July 2018, following the publication of the Draft RSE Guidance, and from CES Director Paul Barber on 25 February 2019, to again “welcome this commitment by the Government to improve Relationships and Sex Education in all schools”; http:// www.catholiceducation.org.uk/component/k2/item/1003657-catholic-churchwelcomes-move-to-improve-relationship-and-sex-education-in-all-schools ; http:// catholiceducation.org.uk/component/k2/item/1003661-government-announcement-on-relationships-and-sex-education-ces-statement Department for Education, Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education Statutory guidance for governing bodies, proprietors, head teachers, principals, senior leadership teams, teachers, June 2019 [draft published July 2018]. Page numbers relate to the final guidance, available online at; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/relationships-education-relationships-and-sex-education-rse-and-health-education

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

For every type of school, it is mandatory in law (because it’s in the Regulations) to consult parents when both making and changing the RSE policy. See section 8 (80B) (3) (p.3) with regard to maintained schools; section 12 (2A) (f) (p.4) for independent schools and 13 (25) (5) (p.5) for non-maintained special schools.

The Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education and Health Education (England) Regulations 2019, Statutory Instrument No. 924. The need to consult parents, including also about the content of lessons and resources, is stressed in the RSE Statutory Guidance (June 2019), in paragraphs 24, 38, 40-44. However, in DfE guidance for primary schools it is stated that “schools should be clear with parents, from the outset and throughout, that while their views are welcome and will be genuinely reflected on to reach their final decisions, they do not amount to a veto over curriculum content”. Department for Education, Parental Engagement on Relationships Education, 2019, p.5.

See the CES press releases welcoming the RSE developments on 1 March 2017, 19 July 2018 and 25 February 2019. Op cit.

Catholic Education Service, A model Catholic Primary RSE curriculum, Revised Autumn 2019, pp.6-7.

Catholic Education Service, A model Catholic Secondary RSE curriculum, Revised Autumn 2019.

Ibid, p.2.

RSE Statutory Guidance (June 2019), Para. 22, p.13.

Department of Catholic Education and Formation Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England & Wales, Learning to Love: An introduction to Catholic Relationship and Sex Education (RSE) for Catholic Educators, March 2017.

Catholic Education Service, St. Mary’s University, Made in God’s Image: Challenging homophobic and biphobic bullying in Catholic schools (2017; 2nd edn. 2018); https:// www.catholiceducation.org.uk/images/CES-Project_Homophobic-Bullying-Booklet_JUN18_PROOF-9.pdf The Countercultural Father blog (12 May 2017), for instance, notes that (in relation to the first 2017 edition) “A cursory glance at the relevant documents suggests that one page of Made in God’s Image (page 3) is lifted verbatim from Stonewall’s document (page 6) and no fewer than seven (pp. 12, 14, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26) are lifted verbatim or (in a few cases) in large part from the LGBT Youth Scotland document (pp. 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 and 31)”; http://ccfather. blogspot.com/2017/05/schrodingers-funding.html Andrew Moffat, No Outsiders in Our School: Teaching the Equality Act in Primary Schools, Routledge: London, 2017. For a good comprehensive critique of the programme see Shelley Charlesworth, “No Outsiders: Queering the Classroom”, TransgenderTrend, 23 April 2019; https://www.transgendertrend.com/no-outsiders-queering-primary-classroom/ See Jules Gomes, “UK Catholic Schools Indoctrinating Kids with LGBT Curriculum”, Church Millitant, 29 November 2019; https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/ article/uk-catholic-schools-use-lgbt-curriculum. Also see SPUC, Safe at School Bulletin, February 2020; https://www.spuc.org.uk/Portals/0/ThemePluginPro/ uploads/2020/4/8/SPUC%20Safe%20at%20School%20bulletin%20Feb%20 2020_web%20version.pdf Liverpool Archdiocese Centre for Evangelisation, Christian Education Summer Reflection and Newsletter 2019, http://www.liverpoolcatholic.org.uk/userfiles/files/ced/ Information%20for%20Co-ordinators/1%20Newsletter%20Summer%202019.pdf CES Press Release, “Why Catholic Schools matter at this General Election”, 25 December 2019; http://www.cesew.org.uk/component/k2/item/1003678-whycatholic-schools-matter-at-this-general-election Wavehill and Four Cymru [on behalf of the Welsh Government], Ensuring access to the full curriculum: Consultation Analysis, January 2020; https://gov.wales/sites/ default/files/consultations/2020-01/full-report-ensuring-access-to-the-full-curriculum.pdf CES Press Release, “Catholic Education Service Criticises Welsh Government RSE Announcement”, 22 January 2020; http://www.cesew.org.uk/component/k2/ item/1003679-catholic-education-service-criticises-welsh-government-rse-announcement The Human Rights Act 1998, incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 2.1) which states that “In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” For further information about the Judicial Review see www.letkidsbekidscoalition.org

17

focus

LOVE AND REVERENCE DUE TO OUR LORD How should we receive Holy Communion?

V

PHOTO CREDIT: DON ELVIR TABAKOVIĆ, CAN. REG.

oice of the Family in union with the prolife movement worldwide advocates for the inviolability and value of human life and proudly so. Indeed, we consider it a privilege and honour to defend the most vulnerable human lives. Many in the pro-life movement are prepared to lay down their own lives for the lives of those they seek to protect. This is the strength of our commitment.

And yet there is something even more precious than the sanctity of human life, and this is the divine life truly present in the Holy Eucharist, in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Our greatest treasure on earth is the Blessed Sacrament. There is no other nation so great, the Divine Office of Corpus Christi sings, “as to have its gods so near as our God is present to us”. The Eucharist is our dearest treasure and the thought of having it so near to us in our Catholic churches fills us with gratitude and awe.

We rejoiced as churches around the world re-opened: Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist can be received again! But whilst the life of a Catholic might be characterised as discerning how we can best offer the love and reverence due to Our Lord, Catholics in many places in the world are now faced with a new and terrible challenge of how are we allowed to worship Our Lord. Regulations, issued by some of the world’s bishops, recommend that the faithful receive Holy Communion in the hand and, in the most radical cases, bishops have attempted to ban Holy Communion on the tongue. These recommendations contradict Church law, they obscure the reality of the Real Presence, and they lead the faithful, albeit, please God, in

most cases unintentionally, to engage in practices lacking in reverence towards the divine life.

What are we, the laity, to do in such a situation? How can we defend the Eucharist and offer Our Lord the love and reverence due to Him? First, we must know that by insisting on receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, we are standing on solid ground, prepared by the Tradition of the Church and made fertile with the blood of her martyrs. Tradition demands the greatest possible reverence towards the Holy Eucharist. In fact, serious punishments used to be reserved for practices which are being recommended by some bishops today. The faithful are being misled into believing that the responsible option is to receive Our Lord in the hand despite the very real danger of losing and desecrating fragments of our Eucharistic Lord. And following the instructions issued in the current crisis, Catholics are being schooled to remember in future that this is the “safer option” when similar problems arrive.

But generations of Catholics before us have kept their devotion to our Eucharistic Lord unchanged throughout wars, epidemics, and other disasters that have struck the world – not because they did not know the danger they were in, but because they knew Who is in the Eucharist they approached.

St. Thomas taught: “Out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament.

Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were

19

to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.” (16 ST, III, Q. 82, Art. 13) The Real Presence does not change. It is not possible that what the Church has always taught about the Holy Eucharist does not apply following the coronavirus.

Secondly, receiving Holy Communion on the tongue remained the norm even after the practice of Communion in the hand was introduced in 1969 under certain conditions despite the opposition of the overwhelming majority of the bishops at the time.

Thus, it is a practice that the Church in modern times, sadly, tolerates.

However, the universal law of the Church states that the faithful have the right to receive Communion on the tongue and that this right cannot be denied to them. This is the universal norm that no bishop or a bishops’ conference can overrule. As lay faithful, by insisting upon receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, we are asserting the right of Our Lord to be received in the most reverent manner possible. This is not a matter of our personal piety but justice due to Him. The ultimate target of Satan’s attacks is the Holy Eucharist, in which Jesus Christ is really present. The devil will do everything in his power to obscure the sacred reality of the Eucharist in order to diminish reverence due to Him. Today his scheme aims to lead large groups of faithful to desecration of the Eucharistic Body of Christ on an unprecedented scale.

He wants the Body of Christ to be trampled on by the clergy and laity in Catholic churches around the world. For a vast number of Catholics in the past fifty years, the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has helped to weaken faith in the Real Presence, in transubstantiation and in the divine character of the Sacrament. The devil would use anything to advance his wicked plots, even our longing to be united with Our Lord again in the Holy Eucharist after being deprived of assisting at Holy Mass for months.

We must join in making acts of reparation for sins committed against the Holy Eucharist in our churches.

The Eucharistic fragments falling down and crushed by the feet of God’s own people has to be for us a tragedy that demands action.

And this brings us to the role of the pro-life movement. We could take the view that this painful development troubles us as Catholics, but does not relate to our noble work of saving babies. However, this is not the case.

20

On the contrary, to be fully pro-life means being pro-eternal life: offering everyone the gift of eternal life, which comes only through Jesus Christ and the saving truth He has confided to the Catholic Church.

How can we say we care deeply about an unborn child, his mother, or anyone, and not desire for them eternal happiness in heaven, which only comes through the Catholic Church?

We in the pro-life movement defend the reality of hidden life. We are accustomed to defending human life hidden in the womb and now we are being called upon to defend the divine life hidden in the tabernacle, Who is being abused by many of those who should be the first to love Him. Catholics in the prolife movement are uniquely well prepared to counter these offences.

Also, we may wonder, is it merely a coincidence, that Communion in the hand that obscures the dignity of divine life was introduced about fifty years ago, just as abortion in many western countries that denies the dignity of human life was introduced about fifty years ago? Today we reap the bitter fruits: human life has lost its value in human society and the Body of Christ is denied due reverence in His churches.

And just as it is impossible to calculate the countless desecrations of the Body of Christ in the sacrilegious treatment of the Holy Eucharist brought about by the practice of Communion in the hand, it is also impossible to number the unborn children – made in the image and likeness of God – killed worldwide not only under permissive abortion legislation, but also those killed as a result of abortifacient contraceptive drugs and devices, and through IVF procedures.

The truth about the sanctity of human life before birth cannot triumph without the recognition of the truth about Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

This is why we organised an online conference, as Voice of the Family, uniting pro-life and pro-family groups from all around the world: to encourage our fellow lay Catholics to offer the love and reverence due to Our Lord truly present in the Holy Eucharist. We are pleased to share some moving personal witnesses, interviews and presentations from this conference, as well as a call by Bishop Athanasius Schneider to join the crusade to make reparation for the sins committed against the Holy Eucharist, in the FOCUS section of this edition of Calx Mariae.

CAL X M A R IA E

THEOLOGICAL REASONS for receiving Holy Communion on the tongue b y F R . S E R A F I N O M . L A N Z E T TA

The following talk was given at Voice of the Family’s online conference “Love and reverence due to Our Lord”, held on 16 July 2020.

A

lthough it might seem of secondary importance how we receive Holy Communion at Mass, it is, in fact, central to our faith. The traditional way is kneeling and on the tongue, which emphasises the importance of adoration before receiving Our Lord.

However, we also know that in the very first centuries Holy Communion was also distributed to the faithful in the hand. For example, St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century speaks of the importance of adoration before receiving Our Lord directly in the hand. We don’t know how widespread this practice was, but we do know that very soon the Church adopted the universal practise of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue while adoring Our Lord kneeling, and this remains the universal law of the Church.

We also know that there is an indult given to distribute Holy Communion in the hand of the faith-

ful. This permission came with the instruction Memoriale Domini in 1969, however, we have to always keep in mind that this is an indult – a permission – which can never become the grounds to impose this practice on the faithful.

After the lockdown, ordered because of the coronavirus, we are eager to resume public Masses in our churches and it may seem that the safest way to receive Holy Communion is in the hand. And therefore, people must receive Holy Communion in the hand.

However, the universal law of the Church remains the same and an indult remains only an indult.

To clarify this point, I would like to quote Memoriale Domini, the instruction on the manner of distributing Holy Communion. While this instruction gave the possibility to distribute Holy Communion in the hand, it also reminds us of the importance of keeping the traditional manner of receiving Our Lord because, a change in discipline involves a danger of undermining, little by little, the doctrine of the Church about the Most Holy Sacrament.

Memoriale Domini of 1969 states: “This [traditional] method of distributing Holy Communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of tradition behind it but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist.”

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

21

DETAIL FROM THE LAST SUPPER (C.1562). JUAN DE JUANES. MUSEO DEL PRADO, MADRID. PUBLIC DOMAIN

“It is very important not to confuse the meaning of the Last Supper and the meaning of the Mass. We have to understand the Mass as the continuation of Golgotha and the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, which was instituted sacramentally during the Last Supper.”

And in another place, it says that: “A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering Holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.”

These paragraphs need to be thoroughly considered.

Can we truly say that the change in practice, now spread throughout the Church, namely distributing Holy Communion in the hand, has not affected belief in the Holy Eucharist and the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

In answer to this question, I would like to consider some theological reasons for receiving Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue.

22

Of course, the principal reason for switching from Communion in the hand to Communion on the tongue in the early centuries was a practical one: to prevent the loss of fragments and consequently the profanation of these fragments of the Eucharistic Body of Our Lord. But also while considering more carefully the mystery that Jesus presented to us during the Last Supper on the night He was betrayed, the Church deepened her understanding about the importance of the Most Holy Sacrament, and how it should be received.

ADORATION DUE TO OUR LORD Considering the mystery of the Holy Mass in which we can receive this great gift of Holy Communion, the first question we may ask is: Was the Holy Eucharist instituted, in the first place, to be eaten or to be adored?

The Holy Eucharist is the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross from which we receive the fruit when we receive Our Lord in Holy Communion.

CAL X M A R IA E

theological reasons for receiving communion on the tongue

Jesus says in the Gospel: “I am the bread of life, whoever eats this bread will live for ever” (cf. John 6:35-59).

But to have Jesus as the bread of life, it is necessary that an ordinary piece of bread is turned into Our Lord’s Body; it is necessary that transubstantiation takes place in order to change the substance of bread into the Body of Christ, and the substance of wine into the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation is the renewing of the sacrifice of Our Lord. When Jesus is offering up Himself, He is offering His Body and His Blood. While instituting the Holy Eucharist, Jesus took bread in His hands and said: “This is My Body, this is My Blood” (cf. Mt. 26:26-28). The Holy Eucharist was instituted as a sacrifice, to become the bread of life, in order to be given to us in Holy Communion and give us eternal life.

We could ask again: was the Holy Eucharist instituted, primarily, to be eaten or to be adored, and therefore to be celebrated as the Sacrifice?

We can never have the Bread of Life and be nurtured by Jesus if we do not celebrate the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist. Holy Communion is always the fruit of this sacrifice and it has to be received with the interior spiritual disposition that is appropriate to the partakers of a sacrifice.

Holy Communion is never just bread that we eat, a cup of wine that we drink. Holy Communion is the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Our Lord. And as we reflect on the importance of the sacrifice which takes place prior to receiving Holy Communion, we also recognise the importance of adoration. We can never go to Holy Communion without first adoring Our Lord.

Therefore, we understand Holy Communion firstly as the sacrifice, which inspires adoration and allows us to receive Holy Communion worthily.

Without the sacrifice of Our Lord, the adoration due to God would not be possible. Only through the sacrifice of Christ, do we properly acknowledge His majesty as creatures, who are subject to His power of love. Only through His sacrifice, do we come to truly adore God and be properly religious people. To be religious means precisely to acknowledge God’s majesty and as a creature, as a Christian, be subject to His infinite love.

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

This is adoration, which is possible because of the sacrifice. It is Christ the Son who in offering Himself up to the Father brings with his offering the adoration of all creatures to God’s throne of majesty. Because of this, we can receive from God all the graces necessary for our life.

If we respect this succession, we see that the most suitable manner to partake in this mystery is to kneel and to receive Holy Communion directly on the tongue. This way we are drawn into the sacrifice of Our Lord, we manifest our faith by sharing with Christ the adoration of God the Father. We also emphasise the humility of Jesus who humbled Himself and became man to suffer for us, to die for us on the Cross. Humility which is inherent to Jesus’s sacrifice on the Cross also has to be visible in us. We accept the humility of the Lord and profess this mystery in the manner we receive Holy Communion. This is why we kneel and receive Communion on the tongue.

The banquet in the liturgy of the Holy Mass comes from the profound sacrificial dimension of Jesus’s life and the sacrificial dimension of each Christian’s life (cf. Rom. 12:1).

To sum this up, transubstantiation during the Mass is at the very core of the liturgy. Through transubstantiation, we understand the importance of the sacrifice to adore God properly. There is no adoration without sacrifice, and through adoration we join the banquet, that is, we become partakers of the sacrifice. And by joining the banquet, by receiving the Holy Eucharist, we become partakers of the mystery.

How we receive Holy Communion is not, therefore, something of secondary importance. On the contrary, it is the way in which we show who we are and what we believe.

THE LAST SUPPER AND THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS There is another theological reason for receiving Holy Communion on the tongue. The second question we could ask: Is the Holy Mass the Last Supper?

It is important to clarify this question because many people today believe that the Holy Mass is merely the representation of the Last Supper. And since the Last Supper was a banquet, the Mass becomes almost exclusively a banquet where we come to eat and drink.

23

If so, it would not be very important how we eat and drink. What is important is to celebrate, to enjoy the food and drink. This is why people today may say: “The manner in which we receive Holy Communion is just a formality, what is important is to receive Holy Communion.” But as I explained before, this is not just a formality – the way we receive Holy Communion is how we take part in the mystery we celebrate.

The Holy Mass is not the representation of the Last Supper but the representation of the sacrifice of Golgotha, which was instituted by Our Lord during the Last Supper. The 22nd session of the Council of Trent, about the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, teaches that: “Our Lord Jesus Christ that His priesthood was not to be extinguished by His death, in the Last Supper, on the night in which He was betrayed, – that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit, – declaring Himself constituted a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech, He offered up to God the Father His own Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine.”

Let us consider what is laid out in this important paragraph. During the Last Supper which was the celebration of the Jewish paschal festival, Jesus interrupted the Jewish celebration to institute a new Pasch, a new Passover, His own Passover. In order to give, as the Council says, to His Spouse a perennial sacrifice, a visible renewal of that sacrifice offered once and for all on the Cross, Jesus in the night He was betrayed – that is, during the Last Supper – instituted the sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He said: “This is My Body given up for you, this is My Blood shed for you.” This Eucharistic sacrifice was instituted to make the sacrifice of Golgotha present each time the Holy Mass is celebrated. Every time we celebrate this Sacrament we celebrate the salvation that Jesus acquired for us on the Cross.

It is very important not to confuse the meaning of the Last Supper and the meaning of the Mass. We have to understand the Mass as the continuation of

24

Golgotha and the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, which was instituted sacramentally during the Last Supper.

If the Last Supper is merely a banquet in which Jesus is celebrating primarily the Jewish Passover, it would mean that His death on the Cross is just an execution of a man. And vice versa, if the Cross of Our Lord is not the sacrifice for our salvation renewed in each celebration of the Mass, it would mean that at the Last Supper Jesus was just celebrating a meal with His Apostles.

Let us say it again: the Last Supper was the sacramental institution of the new Passover, in the context of the Jewish Passover. The sacrifice of the Cross was our liberation from sin and death.

Therefore, if the Mass is not the Last Supper, and it is not, we have to consider that the way we participate in the Mass is the way we would be on Calvary. This, of course, makes a great difference to the manner in which we receive Holy Communion. We do not come to eat and drink, we come to be partakers of the sacrifice. Kneeling and receiving Holy Communion on the tongue manifests this profound mystery of the Holy Mass.

THE EXAMPLE OF MARY To conclude, let us consider the most beautiful example set before us to understand the importance of the manner in which we receive Holy Communion.

This beautiful example is our Blessed Mother Mary.

Our Lady made the sacrificial nature of the Holy Eucharist her own. She always sought to receive the Holy Eucharist, in a spiritual manner, even before the Holy Eucharist was instituted by Christ because she always desired to be one with Our Lord, whom she had received in her womb at the moment of the Incarnation. Our Lady was always desirous to receive Jesus and to be with Him. She desired to be with Jesus in Holy Communion as well as to participate in the making of the Mass which is the whole Passion and Death of Our Lord.

To understand the role of Our Lady in the Mass and the role of Our Lady in our lives and to learn how to receive Holy Communion, we must look at the image of Calvary. Our Lady stands there without pronouncing a word, just adoring Our Lord at the foot of the Cross, as a very strong woman. She desired to be one with Jesus, to make a Holy Communion, to be intimately united with Him, and of course, do this by adoring Him and by receiving Him in the best way she could. By receiving Jesus at the foot of the CAL X M A R IA E

“By receiving Jesus at the foot of the Cross, by accepting His sacrifice and by becoming one with the sacrifice of the Cross, Our Lady became the Co-redemptrix, that is, the one who participated uniquely in the sacrifice of the Cross for our salvation.”

THE CRUCIFIXION (C.1440). FRA ANGELICO. METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART, NEW YORK. PUBLIC DOMAIN

Cross, by accepting His sacrifice and by becoming one with the sacrifice of the Cross, Our Lady became the Co-redemptrix, that is, the one who participated uniquely in the sacrifice of the Cross for our salvation. She made the sacrificial dimension of Jesus’ life her own.

When she received Holy Communion from the hands of the Apostles during the first Masses after Pentecost, we can imagine that she did it the same way she participated in the first Mass at the foot of the Cross, making herself humble to adore Our Lord and desiring to be once again united with Him in His sacrifice.

Could Our Lady have received Holy Communion in the hand after making the sacrificial nature of the Cross her own? Given that she was the mother, she AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

was the one who had brought Jesus to life, could she have received Him in Holy Communion in her hand?

No. She wanted to sacrifice herself as Jesus did.

That is why she received Him in the most humble way she could, and this humble but great way is given to us by the tradition of the Church. The Church, our Holy Mother, teaches us to receive Jesus kneeling and on the tongue.

Fr. Lanzetta is currently based in the diocese of Portsmouth (UK). In 2006 he gained a doctorate in Theology at the University of the Holy Cross in Rome. In 2014 he obtained the habilitation in Theology with a specialization in Ecclesiology at the Theology Faculty of Lugano (Switzerland). His published works include his post-doctoral habilitation, Vatican II, a Pastoral Council: Hermeneutics of Council Teaching.

25

The wisdom of tradition

in the manner of receiving Holy Communion

a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h D R . P E T E R K WA S N I E W S K I

John-Henry Westen spoke with Dr. Peter Kwasniewski during Voice of the Family’s online conference “Love and reverence due to Our Lord”, held on 16 July 2020.

JOHN-HENRY WESTEN: Could you give us, first of all, a short history of the manner in which Holy Communion has been received in the Church?

DR. PETER KWASNIEWSKI: The early centuries of the Church don’t give us as full a picture as we would like to have. We have a lot of fragmentary evidence. It seems that there was a diversity of manners of receiving. Communion was received in the hand but in a very reverent manner, not in the way it is done today. However, we also have evidence from St. Ephraim the Syrian, from the liturgy of St. James, from St. Gregory the Great, and from some other Fathers of the Church that Communion was given in the mouth as well and that the clergy were the ones who most properly communicated with their own hands.

The regional Council of Rouen in 878 mandated Communion in the mouth; the canons of the Coptic Church say “God forbid that any of the pearls”, by which they mean the consecrated fragments, “should adhere to the fingers or fall to the ground”. And even St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who is often quoted as a proponent of Communion in the hand, says the fragments are more precious than gold dust and that we should sooner lose one of our own members than lose any fragments. So, there is a very heightened awareness early on of the awesomeness of the Sacrament and in fact it is this growing sense of reverence that leads the Church over time, progressively, to restrict and, finally, to abolish Communion in the hand, except of course for the clergy. By the beginning of the second millennium, Communion in the mouth is universal for the laity, and in fact that goes along with a decrease in Communion under both kinds. That is, the host is received kneeling and on the tongue, and the chalice

26

becomes more and more reserved just for the celebrating priest or bishop. Essentially, for the second millennium of Catholic history, it is always Communion on the tongue for the laity, out of honour for our Lord and in the spirit of adoration.

JHW: Before we talk about how that got reversed, would you mind going a little bit more into the way Communion in the hand was condemned?

PK: As I understand it, the earliest records we have don’t seem to condemn Communion in the hand so much as enjoining or requiring Communion in the mouth as the more reverent way. It is actually remarkable how universal the practice is in the second millennium – to the extent that it simply is not discussed anymore. What we are seeing here is, in my opinion, a clear example of organic development.

That is, the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit responding more and more appropriately to the gifts that she has received. This is not to say that for the Christians in the third or fourth century it was wrong to do things the way they did, but they had not yet arrived at the most reverent, the safest and the most efficient way of giving Communion. We also have to bear in mind the practical question which is that there were far fewer communicants in the early Church. As the Church grew and spread and there were more and more faithful, the question arose: how are we going to give Communion to so many people?

And as anyone can see who has been to a traditional Latin Mass, where all the faithful are lined up along a Communion rail, kneeling, and the priest goes right CAL X M A R IA E

PHOTO CREDIT: DON ELVIR TABAKOVIĆ, CAN. REG.

along and gives Communion to each one in turn, it is a much more efficient way of giving Communion, in addition to being safer and more reverent.

JHW: So, after doing this universally for over a thousand years, the Church goes back to the practice of Communion in the hand in 1969. How did this even happen?

PK: It is a very sad story. It has been told very well

by Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise. He wrote a book on the history of Holy Communion and the manner of giving it. He documents this in detail as a case of rank disobedience, because the Church had a clear policy about what was to be done. However, in the 60s there were priests who were experimenting in every direction. And towards the end of the 60s there were priests who, unauthorized, were giving Communion in the hand and there were Bishops’ Conferences agitating for it.

Initially, Paul VI opposed Communion in the hand and in fact opposed it very strongly. In 1968 he sent out a questionnaire to all the bishops in the world, asking them whether the traditional manner (receiving Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue) should be retained, and Communion in the hand allowed. The overwhelming majority of bish-

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

ops responded “yes, we should retain the traditional manner; no, communion in the hand should not be allowed”. Those results, as well as the actual votes, were published along with the rationale for retaining the traditional practice in a 1969 instruction called Memoriale Domini, which was initiated by Paul VI, and approved by him for publication by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. Memoriale Domini is a remarkable document, which says (and I quote): “In view of the state of the Church as a whole today, this [the traditional] manner of distributing Holy Communion must be observed [the Latin could also be translated ‘preserved’] not only because it rests upon a tradition of many centuries but especially because it is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist. The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great Sacrament” – you see, there were some people saying that it is not dignified to get down on your knees and act like a slave or a servant; but this document says no, it does not detract from dignity – “and it is a part of the preparation needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord’s Body. This reverence is a sign of Holy Communion being not in ‘common bread and drink’ but in the Body and Blood of the Lord.”

27

focus

“Once there were heretics denying the Real Presence, the Church emphasised in every way she could: this is really the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Soul and Divinity.”

“In addition, this manner of communicating, which is now to be considered as prescribed by custom, gives more effective assurance that Holy Communion will be distributed with the appropriate reverence, decorum and dignity; that any danger of profaning the Eucharistic species in which ‘the whole and an entire Christ, God and man is substantially contained and permanently present in a unique way’, will be avoided; and finally that the diligent care which the Church has always commended for the very fragments of the consecrated bread will be maintained.”

This is Memoriale Domini of 1969, initiated and approved by Paul VI! The odd thing is that in the same document, after laying this out and giving the results of the vote and saying the traditional manner should be retained, Paul VI says: nevertheless, since there are some places in the world where Communion in the hand has already been introduced, in order to regulate it better, the Episcopal Conferences are allowed to permit it but under certain conditions.

So, it is an odd document, because it first persuades us to keep the traditional manner and then it says that the Episcopal Conferences can decide otherwise. Unfortunately, we have seen that a lot of hot-button issues were being pushed off to the Bishops’ Conferences in the 60s and 70s – and we see the same more recently with Amoris Laetitia. That is an unfortunate contradiction within this document. However, Memoriale Domini does say there is a condition for giving Communion on the hand: it cannot be done if “any possible lack of reverence or false ideas about the Eucharist” are being engendered in the attitudes of the people.

Perhaps Paul VI was thinking naively that this change could somehow take place without lessening reverence and devotion, without lessening the faith of the people in the Real Presence, but he was wrong.

28

PHOTO CREDIT: DON ELVIR TABAKOVIĆ, CAN. REG.

The document continues:

We know factually that he was wrong, when we look back in retrospect in 2020. I would say they should have known back then, had they been thinking it through, that this would have profound consequences.

But nevertheless, now it cannot be denied that there have been these profound consequences. As far as Memoriale Domini is concerned, we should not be giving Communion in the hand anymore because the very problems that it pointed to have occurred.

JHW: One of the arguments from those who promote Communion in the hand is that this is a restoration of a legitimate, ancient Christian practice. Why can’t we do it? Are we not getting back to the roots? How do you respond to them?

PK: This is a problem that Pope Pius XII dealt with in his 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei on the sacred liturgy where he defined an error that he called “false antiquarianism” and condemned it. He said it is a mistake to try to restore later in the Church’s history practices that occurred much earlier on, because it was not without the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the Church developed in the way that she did. He CAL X M A R IA E

the wisdom of tradition

gives these examples: it would be dangerous to turn the priest around and have him facing the people; it would be wrong to get rid of black as a colour for liturgical vestments. He gives various examples which unfortunately all came to pass only about 15 or 20 years later, but he says this would be a mistake because the Church does in fact deepen her understanding over time. The liturgy does not stop developing in the fifth or the sixth century, neither does the piety of the Christian people, nor the theology. When you look at the Council of Trent in the 16th century it is one of the most magnificent expositions of Catholic doctrine and there are things that are clarified in the Council of Trent that were unclear prior to that council for 1500 years.

If we were to disagree with Pius XII on that point, we would end up saying with the Protestants that the Church got corrupted; that for many centuries – the “Dark Ages” – the Church went off the rails and if we want the authentic Christian Church, we have to go back to the Apostles or at least to the apostolic period. That is a characteristically Protestant error. It is something that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Melanchthon said. And lo and behold, there were liturgical reformers in the 20th century saying exactly the same thing: we have to go back before what the Church did in the Middle Ages, because somehow that is corrupt.

I also wanted to comment that the ancient manner of receiving Communion in the hand was much different, and it would look today much more reverent, than what is done in the Novus Ordo. In the patristic period the right hand was placed forward because you always received in the right hand, never in the left hand (the left hand signifies sin and the devil). Once the holy bread was placed in your hand, you bowed down in adoration and took it up with your mouth.

You licked it up with your tongue to make sure there were no particles there. We even have records that sometimes a cloth was used. A cloth would have been put in your hands, the holy bread placed on the cloth and then you would bow down and receive it and that way whatever fragments might be there would be retained in the cloth which would be held by acolytes.

So, there are ways – at least theoretically – in which Communion in the hand could be much more a sign of reverence and be done without danger or without as much danger. But even so, the Church decided to AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

stop doing it, and what is being done now bears very little resemblance to what I just described.

JHW: So, what then are the basic problems with Communion in the hand?

PK: The number one problem is that it is contrary to at least a thousand years of tradition. The Council of Rouen that I mentioned before took place in 878. It is not an ecumenical council; it is a regional council, but it is indicative of the thinking and of the practice. So, for at least a thousand years the Church has seen fit to give Communion to the faithful kneeling and on the tongue. That is not accidental. That has everything to do with the Church’s growing faith, especially in the Middle Ages, when the first heretics rose up, who denied the Real Presence. For the first thousand years of Christianity nobody denied the Real Presence. The heretics denied other things, but nobody denied that.

Once there were heretics actually denying the Real Presence, the Church emphasised in every way she could: this is really the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Soul and Divinity. Therefore, we should do everything in our power, not only spiritually to be ready to receive and not be in a state of sin, but also physically, to show that we adore the Word made flesh in the Blessed Sacrament. This is also the reason why the genuflexions that priests do during the traditional liturgy developed in the Middle Ages: to affirm over and over again our faith in the Word made flesh, present on the altar. So that is the number one problem: contempt for tradition.

The number two problem is a practical problem that particles are lost when Communion is given in the hand. Research has been done to show this. There is an article available online in the Latin Mass magazine from many years ago where somebody did experiments using black gloves, so that it would be very obvious where the particles were. If you put a host in someone’s hand, especially considering that some of the hosts are a bit crumbly and not as compact as they traditionally used to be, it is not surprising that little crumbs might remain and fall onto the floor and be scattered. This is something that the Church Fathers would have beheld with horror. They would never have tolerated anything like that. In fact, that is exactly one of the conditions that the Church lays down in Redemptionis Sacramentum: “If there is a risk

29

focus

of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.” Frankly, there is always a risk of profanation if it is given in the hand, even just because of what I described, so this seems to be a very basic problem. That is why the rubrics of the traditional liturgy governing how the priest cleans off the paten and how he cleans the corporal on the altar are very detailed and thorough, because we do not want to lose one pearl, as St. Ephraim the Syrian says. When you give the host on the tongue to someone kneeling, that danger is almost completely removed. According to the rubrics, there is supposed to be a hand-paten or a chin-paten placed underneath so that if a fragment were to fall, it would fall right onto the paten, which the priest will clean afterwards.

So the Church has thought of everything in this practice, she has left nothing to chance.

Among other problems are that Communion in the hand, especially as it is done nowadays, standing up, lessens reverence for the Lord. When the Magi got to the manger, they did not just stand around and pass gifts like they were at some kind of convention.

They got down on their knees – that is what it says in Scripture. In the Gospels, when people come up to Our Lord to be healed, they fall on their knees.

When Peter says “Depart from me, Lord, I am a sinful man,” he is on his knees. It is the most obvious and the most natural sign of adoration and reverence and that is why, even in the Novus Ordo Mass, we are kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer. Why would we do that if we don’t kneel for Communion? When we go up to our Lord, this is the most sacred moment for us, because we come into contact with the Lord. So, there is a real incoherence. The traditional practice was (and is) perfectly consistent.

In connection with all of these things, Communion in the hand lessens the belief in the Real Presence.

If you really believe that Our Lord is present in the Eucharist, then you are not going to treat Him like an ordinary cracker, a wafer; you cannot imagine that.

Various surveys and polls have been done, which show how even Catholics who go to Mass do not believe in transubstantiation anymore. I think that Communion standing and in the hand bears a lot of the blame for that.

Let me just mention one other thing: it lessens our awareness of the dignity of the ordained priesthood 30

as well, because the priest is ordained to offer sacrifice but also to convey the sacraments to the faithful. St. Thomas says it belongs to the same one to consecrate and to distribute the Eucharist. The priests’ hands are anointed with sacred chrism in the ordination rites, so that he can worthily handle the body of Christ.

The faithful’s hands are never consecrated that way.

We are not set apart for the service of the Eucharist in the same way. Lay people receiving in the hand sends the subtle message of a kind of egalitarianism between the faithful and the priest. A lot of people do not necessarily formulate that in words but it has definitely lessened the respect and the honour that we owe to the priest. If the lay people can distribute, it just introduces all kinds of confusion about why the priest is special and what his role is.

JHW: So, can we say then that Communion in the hand is wrong, even sinful, for the faithful who see it that way?

PK: I would answer this question by first saying that the Church clearly stipulated conditions, as we discussed before, for Communion in the hand. Just to reiterate, the two conditions are 1) that any possible lack of reverence or false ideas about the Eucharist cannot be engendered in the people and 2) if there is a risk of profanation, Holy Communion should not be given in the hand.

I would say that those conditions are never met.

Universally neither one is met and most of the time both of them are flagrantly violated. And so, I would say it is wrong on a legal level because we cannot fulfil those conditions. Those conditions were set down, I think, somewhat naively, but they were set down and now we can look back and say we cannot actually fulfil these conditions.

In terms of our particular situation, if we come to see in the year 2020 how much damage this has done to faith in the Real Presence, to the adoration we should give to our Lord, to the dignity of the priesthood; if we see that it allows Satanists to access hosts; if we know these things – and it is not difficult to know them – then it would be wrong to receive in the hand, because we would just be augmenting the problem.

We would be contributing to it, we would be saying: I agree with this, I consent to this, it should keep happening this way. I think that is wrong. Speaking

CAL X M A R IA E

the wisdom of tradition

“We should never place our own private good over the common good of the Church and over the homage and worship that we owe to God. Even if that meant sacrificing reception of Communion, we will actually merit more in the sight of Our Lord if we defend His right to be treated with due honour than if we insist on receiving at any cost.”

for myself, in my conscience, I could not receive in the hand.

JHW: I agree. I wonder, though, whether that has to be parsed a little bit because the faithful are being told they should receive this way, and some are being told – especially now during the coronavirus pandemic – that they may not receive any other way. So, for those people who do not know, is it still a sin? And if the bishop or the priest is saying this, is it a sin for them?

PK: These are obviously much more controversial questions. I am going to say what I think is the case, although, others might wish to refute me on this.

I think that many bishops are abusing their authority right now. First of all, they are supposed to uphold canon law, which is really clear that the faithful have the right to receive Communion on the tongue.

That is spelled out without any exceptions. As long as the faithful are properly disposed to receive the sacraments, they cannot be denied the sacraments.

And when bishops invoke the canon about how a bishop can decide how the rights of the faithful are to be exercised (canon 223), it is not a blanket statement.

The bishop cannot tell me that I am not allowed to get married or that I have to become a monk. Those are my rights, but he cannot determine the exercise of those rights. So that is a general statement, but without a clarification it would not apply in this case.

The default position is that the faithful should be able to receive on the tongue.

However, more deeply than that, I think what this coronavirus is bringing out is a real crisis in the faith of the bishops in the Real Presence of Our Lord and in the reverence and adoration we owe Him. Why do I say that? Because they have been acting for months as if physical health is the highest good, AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

as if it is the summum bonum: the number one thing we have to do is to protect ourselves from the coronavirus and therefore how we treat the Eucharist is to be dictated by preventing the coronavirus. That is such a backwards way of thinking, it is completely upside-down. It sends to the faithful the signal: this Sacrament is a means to some end that the Church gets to determine; it is not God Himself Who is the end, the ultimate good, but it is just one more negotiable item in Catholic life. It is in a certain sense like saying that Mass is a “non-essential service.” The groceries are essential, food for your body is essential, but food for your soul is not essential. That is the message that has been sent: the Blessed Sacrament is a very special thing, it is a really important symbol for us – but it is not Almighty God, and therefore, it takes the second place to physical health.

I think this is a terrible message to send. Reverence is more important and there is a paradox here. The faithful are hungry for the Blessed Sacrament, they desperately want to receive, they want to go back to Mass. I feel the same way. Where I live, we have been able to go back to Mass and Communion, thanks be to God. But we should never place our own private good over the common good of the Church and over the homage and worship that we owe to God. Even if that meant sacrificing reception of Communion, I think it is more important. We will actually merit more in the sight of Our Lord if we defend His right to be treated with due honour than if we insist on receiving at any cost and do whatever they tell us.

JHW: Just to make that point clear: is it then the case that a bishop cannot really refuse or forbid Holy Communion on the tongue?

31

focus

32

PK: Yes, that is my position and I have tried to document that. I have an article on OnePeterFive that gives all the quotations from different Vatican documents that make it clear that the normative and universal manner of reception is on the tongue.1 That remains the case; that has never been changed. The Communion in the hand is an exception. It is an indult, a permission – one that, in my opinion, should never have been granted. However, all it says is: you do not have to do the universal norm, you are allowed to practice this particular exception. The bishops are flipping that around and saying: the universal norm now is Communion in the hand and, by exception or by permission, on the tongue. That is completely to invert all that the Church documents have ever said about this.

is at just the right level to put the host on the tongue without any contact of the tongue. I have been receiving this way for decades and I think I’ve noticed a priest’s finger touch my tongue twice. It is a very safe way of giving Communion but that is because there is a perfect height relationship between the minister and the recipient. In the Novus Ordo when people are queuing up in lines as if they are going to buy bus tickets or something – there is a weird relationship then between the dispenser and the recipient. Often the priest or the minister is shorter than the one receiving and they have to reach up. That is not really a safe way to give Communion on the tongue. So, if you are going to receive Communion on the tongue, kneel. That is what makes it work practically and also it is the sign of adoration that we owe.

JHW: That being said, could a bishop legitimately forbid Communion on the hand completely in his diocese?

PK: Yes, absolutely. That is possible because that is only a permission. The permission has to be requested from the Vatican and nobody needs to take advantage of a permission. In fact, there have been a few bishops in the world who actually said, in my diocese we are only receiving on the tongue; we are following the Church’s universal norm with no exceptions. That is a quite different situation.

I also wanted to mention the importance of receiving Communion, not only on the tongue but on the tongue, kneeling. St. Augustine in the 5th century said: if we do not adore the Eucharist before we receive it, we sin. That is why, technically on the books, even in the Novus Ordo, everyone is supposed to make a sign of adoration towards the Blessed Sacrament before they receive. Some people genuflect, some people bow, but they are supposed to make some sign of adoration, otherwise they sin. Now, they may not know, nobody has ever told them, so they might not be personally culpable, but it is objectively wrong not to show a sign of adoration towards Our Lord in the Sacrament. Kneeling was the traditional way of doing that – to adore and worship God. In the context of the Church, we all understand that this is what it means. But practically speaking, it is much easier for the priest to give Communion to someone who is kneeling because the priest is standing and his hand

JHW: People also talk about being unworthy to receive altogether and say “is my tongue any more worthy than my hand?”

PK: It is an absurd objection because indeed, metaphysically speaking, every creature is unworthy of God, so that is why we say Domine, non sum dignus – Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof but only say the word and my soul shall be healed; and that is true. We are saying that even if we are in a state of grace. Even St. Thomas Aquinas said Domine, non sum dignus.

However, we are talking about something else. We are talking about fittingness, the way we show our humility and our love and our submission and our worship of the Lord. We want to show that in the best way we can and in that sense make ourselves more worthy. St. Thomas says, a worthy Communion means that you receive in a state of grace with lively faith and actual devotion. So, what he means is that you do not just go up by routine, because everyone else is going up and you receive because your parents or your neighbours are receiving, and you don’t even know what it signifies. That would be without faith. We need to have real conscious faith that we are going to receive the Lord Jesus and actual devotion, not just habitual devotion (I was devout last week or I am capable of being devout), by actually encouraging myself right now to make acts of faith, hope and charity and asking God to sanctify me, cleanse me and transform me.

So, lively faith and actual devotion are what we need

CAL X M A R IA E

the wisdom of tradition

the everlasting reward which Thou hast promised.

Through Christ our Lord. Amen”.

The meaning of that in the rite itself is that the tongue is being blessed for the eventual reception of the Bread of Life. And so if you are baptised in the traditional rite, your tongue is blessed so that it may properly receive the host, just as in the rite of Ordination the priest’s hands are properly blessed and consecrated so that he may handle it. The lex orandi of the Church said yes, this is important. Just like the Church consecrates patens because the host will be put on them, so she blesses the tongue of the one being baptised.

It seems to me that we have to throw that argument right back to people and say no, the Church for almost 2,000 years blessed the tongue for this reason.

for a worthy Communion. In that sense we can have a worthy communion or an unworthy communion.

There is something very interesting concerning the tongue. In the traditional rite of Baptism that was used in the Church from ancient times all the way until it was changed around 1970, the priest blesses and exorcises some salt and puts a little of the salt into the mouth of the child or the adult being baptised and he says “receive the salt of wisdom, may it be unto thee a sign of reconciliation to life everlasting. Amen”.

(As you know, blessed salt is used in the making of traditional holy water and it is also used by exorcists.)

After doing that he prays: “God of our fathers, O God, the source of all truth, humbly we implore thee to look with mercy upon this thy servant and to no more let him hunger who now tastes this first nourishment of salt but let him be enriched with heavenly food so that he may ever be inflamed with zeal and joyous and hope constant in serving Thee. We bid Thee, Lord, lead him to the bath where one is born anew, that in the company Thy faithful he may deserve to win

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

JHW: One of the arguments that is being made now in the time of this pandemic is that because Communion on the tongue is less hygienic than Communion in the hand, we have to receive Communion in the hand for the time being. How do you respond to that?

PK: I responded earlier on the theoretical level that we should not make health into our God and we should not make human life, this mortal life, into the ultimate standard of every decision we make.

But practically speaking, there are experts who disagree that Communion on the tongue is less hygienic. There have been a number of medical doctors, as well as bishops, who have come out and said it is no less hygienic to give properly onto the tongue than to put the host in someone’s hand. Our hands are quite dirty and that is why they are always telling us to wash them. You can hardly live for 15 minutes without getting germs on your hands from somewhere.

I won’t even go into some of the studies that have been done about how dirty things are that people are touching. So, I am not at all convinced it is more hygienic to give Communion in the hand, especially if a priest’s hand comes into contact with the communicant’s hand, which often happens – unless you are going to drop the host or you use machines like the Germans are doing, or allow other kinds of irreverent, unfitting, unworthy, mechanistic treatments of Our Lord, because of this panic and craze. In fact, if a priest knows what he is doing and the people are kneeling, as I explained before, it seems to be much more hygienic to give on the tongue.

33

focus

JHW: So what advice do you have for Catholics in dioceses where the bishop has forbidden communion on the tongue?

PK: That is a very painful cross to have to bear. I think there are a few things the faithful can do. First, they can try to find a priest who is willing to give Communion to them outside of Mass. There is a little ritual for it, it is permissible. This is what I would start with because there are many priests out there who are fully aware of the problem of being forced to do this against their will and against the rights of the faithful.

But it may not be possible to find a priest who is willing to do that. Another thing that could be done is to intensify your prayer life in other traditional ways: embrace the Rosary anew; pray some part of the Divine Office – whether that is Prime, Compline, Lauds or Vespers; read the missal. If you cannot get to daily Mass then take a traditional missal and just read the prayers, they are so rich. You can make a very heartfelt, earnest spiritual Communion. The saints say that this can bring us as much grace as sacramental Communion. It is not a long-term solution. However, if we are going to do that, as a temporary solution, we should really prepare ourselves for it as well as possible. For example, some people light a couple of candles and, early in the morning, they pray through the prayers of the Mass and they make a spiritual Communion and meditate.2 Maybe once a month they could drive some place, to a different diocese or a chapel, where they can receive Holy Communion on the tongue.

We are in a battle right now where the different dioceses are almost in rivalry with each other because some have good policies and some have bad policies and some are confused. The idea of a monolithic Catholic Church is not the case anymore. There is a lot of diversity right now. I think the lay people are becoming aware of this and instead of despairing about it or becoming angry they should just take whatever concrete steps they can.

PK: There is a huge benefit just to being present at Mass – “assisting at Mass”, as it used to be called. I have got an article about this on OnePeterFive that might help people.3 There is nothing you can do to glorify God more than to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, even if you do not receive, because at that Mass the Lord is being offered up in the all-pleasing, all-sufficient sacrifice and we join ourselves spiritually with that sacrifice. In fact, it is by joining ourselves spiritually to it that we make ourselves ready to receive the sacrament. And so, it is not necessary always to receive sacramentally, as I am sure you know. It is good to receive frequently if one is well disposed with faith and devotion, but there have been long spans in Church history where even saints have received once a week or less. And so, I think sometimes we can also use that kind of “Eucharistic fast” to intensify our desire to be united to the Lord and use it to purify our own motivations but also to make reparation for profanations and sacrileges. We can really offer this up and say: “Lord, you know how much I want to receive you, but I am not going to dishonour you. I am going to offer this up before you now for those who are committing sacrilege and profanation.”

Dr. Peter Kwasniewski is a Thomistic theologian, a liturgical scholar and a choral composer. He is a graduate of Thomas Aquinas College and the Catholic University of America. He has taught at the International Theological Institute in Austria, the Franciscan University of Steubenville’s Austria Programme, and he has also taught at Wyoming Catholic College, which he helped to establish in 2006. He is a well-known writer and speaker on traditional Catholicism, and an author of eight books.

ENDNOTES: 1.

2.

3.

See Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, “Bishops cannot mandate Communion on the hand or forbid Communion on the tongue”, OnePeterFive, 6 May 2020, https://onepeterfive.com/bishops-communion-hand-tongue/ See Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, “Your Local Mass Canceled? Try Meditating on the Texts of the Traditional Mass”, OnePeterFive, 20 March 2020, https://onepeterfive. com/mass-canceled-pray-missal/ See Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, “Holy Mass: you cannot do anything to glorify God more”, OnePeterFive, 19 February 2020, https://onepeterfive.com/holy-mass-glorify-god/

JHW: And when you are given the opportunity to attend Mass, but are told that you may only receive on the hand, would you still go to Mass? Or maybe just watch it on TV since you are not going to receive anyway?

34

CAL X M A R IA E

FIVE REASONS for receiving Holy Communion on the tongue

b y J O H N - H E N RY W E S T E N

W

ith orders to refuse the faithful Holy Communion on the tongue coming from governmental health authorities and even some bishops, I would like to share with you a few of the reasons that have convinced me never to receive Holy Communion on the hand. And, if the matter was forced, I would make the sacrifice of making a spiritual Holy Communion.

1. Reverence due to Almighty God Receiving on the tongue comes from a deep reverential love of the King of Kings whom we receive in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Some of the most powerful arguments for the need for this type of reverence are in the Bible.

TRANSFIGURAITON (C.1500). PIETRO VANNUCCI. COLLEGIO DEL CAMBIO, PERUGIA. PUBLIC DOMAIN

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

When God spoke to Moses from the burning bush, as we read in Exodus 3, He told him not to come too near and to remove his sandals because he was on holy ground. In Psalm 95 we read, “Come let us adore and fall down: and weep before the Lord that made us.” We see it in the New Testament too, when Peter, James, and John at the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, saw the glorified body of Jesus, which we receive in Holy Communion – they prostrated themselves with their foreheads to the ground.

However, the Biblical account that speaks to this subject most directly for me is what happened with the Ark of the Covenant (2 Samuel 6:1-7 and 1 Chronicles 13:9-12). The Ark of the Covenant was designed by God and built to the Lord’s specifications. It contained manna, the staff of Moses, and the tablets of the Ten Commandments. It was so sacred that it was never allowed to be touched except by certain Levites – the priests of the time. That reservation of touching the Ark to priests only was potently reinforced when a layman named Uzzah who was transporting the Ark at the request of King David was struck dead by God for touching it.

Uzzah was doing what he thought was right to save the Ark. He and his brother were transporting the Ark in a cart pulled by oxen. Along the journey, it was tilted and so Uzzah used his hand to steady the Ark and was struck dead by the Lord. Scripture explains that the Lord struck him down because he was not to touch the Ark. It is very much the same in our time when many are trying to do what they think is right during the coronavirus by receiving Communion on the hand.

And yet with the Ark, it was not the right thing to do even though it is what seemed expedient – it was done for good intentions to save the Ark from harm, just as many are receiving Holy Communion on the hand today with good intent to safeguard their brothers and sisters in Christ from possible coronavirus

35

focus

infection or to help the Church, so she may continue to distribute Holy Communion at all.

Nevertheless, touching the Ark was the wrong thing to do. The Lord’s decision here perplexed David, who thereafter was afraid to bring the Ark of the Lord to himself.

And yet what was the Ark of the Covenant compared to Our Lord Himself in the Eucharist? The Ark was revered in the temple. It was carried in ceremony and was considered holy. And yet it was only the footstool of God. It was His presence, veiled, and a prefiguring of His Real Presence in the Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ, whom we receive in Holy Communion.

2. The authority of the Church While we are dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, it is important to know that the Church has already considered the matter of the allowance of Holy Communion on the tongue while facing the spread of this type of virus even in modern times. In 2009, during the H1N1 influenza pandemic, a lay Catholic in England in a diocese where Holy Communion on the tongue was restricted due to the pandemic wrote to the Vatican about the matter.

The response from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, dated 14 July 2009, was posted online by Rorate Caeli blog. The Congregation, which is tasked with authoritatively

responding to such questions, wrote back quoting Church law on the subject as laid out in the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, saying, “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue” (n. 92), “nor is it licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful who are not impeded by law from receiving the Holy Eucharist” (cf. n. 91).1 The Vatican response added, “The Congregation thanks you for bringing this important matter to its attention. Be assured that the appropriate contacts will be made.”

Canonist Cathy Caridi pointed out the significance of that line at the Canon Law Made Easy blog. Caridi says, it “makes clear that after sending this letter, the CDW intended to contact the clergy who were illegally barring Catholics from receiving Communion on the tongue, to inform them in a formal, official way that by doing so that they were violating the law.”2 Caridi concludes: “It would be only logical to assume that if the faithful contact the CDW now, with information about current illegal practices in their own parishes/dioceses where they are forbidden to receive Communion on the tongue; the CDW will respond in precisely the same way.

“The CDW will have to respond in the same way, not because coronavirus isn’t dangerous, but because the right of the faithful around the world to receive the Eucharist in the way that is the Church’s established norm – on the tongue – cannot be curtailed by anyone other than the Supreme Authority of the Church. This is an issue not of germs, but of the Church’s hierarchical structure.

No bishop on earth (still less a parish priest acting on his own!) has the authority to countermand a law or specific directive of the Vatican that is intended to apply to the universal Church.”3 3. The witness of angels, saints and popes St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in his Summa Theologiae: “Out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.

36

CAL X M A R IA E

PHOTO CREDIT: DON ELVIR TABAKOVIĆ, CAN. REG.

“Out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.”

- St. Thomas Aquinas

Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.” (16 ST, III, Q. 82, Art. 13) In 2008, Pope Benedict decided to stop giving Holy Communion on the hand and would only give Holy Communion to the faithful on the tongue and kneeling. A Vatican web-page commemorating this decision was published in 2009 (updated to include a photo of Pope Francis) and can still be found on the Vatican website. The page says: “From the time of the Fathers of the Church, a tendency was born and consolidated whereby distribution of Holy Communion in the hand became more and more restricted in favour of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue. The motiva-

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

tion for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to avoid, as much as possible, the dropping of Eucharistic particles; b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.”4 The webpage concludes: “...starting with the Solemnity of Corpus Christi in the year 2008, the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, began to distribute to the faithful the Body of the Lord, by placing it directly on the tongue of the faithful as they remain kneeling.”

A celebrated saying of St. Augustine, cited by Pope Benedict XVI in n. 66 of his Apostolic exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis, teaches: “No one eats that flesh without first adoring it; we should sin were we not to adore it” (Enarrationes in Psalmos 98, 9). Kneeling indicates the adoration necessary before receiving the Eucharistic Christ.

37

focus

At one of the appearances of the Angel of Peace to the children in Fatima, the Angel brought Holy Communion to them. The Angel prostrated himself before the Eucharistic Lord, teaching the children to do the same.

4. Profanation or desecration of the Holy Eucharist In 2014, when he was asked to address the chief concern with Communion on the hand, namely the loss of fragments of the Eucharistic Christ, Bishop Athanasius Schneider told the magazine of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales: “To my knowledge and experience, the deepest wound in the actual crisis of the Church is the Eucharistic wound; the abuses of the Blessed Sacrament…

“There is…the question of the objectively irreverent reception of Holy Communion. The so-called new, modern manner of receiving Holy Communion directly into the hand is very serious because it exposes Christ to an enormous banality.

“There is the grievous fact of the loss of the Eucharistic fragments. No one can deny this. And the fragments of the consecrated host are crushed by feet. This is horrible! Our God, in our churches, is trampled by feet! No one can deny it.

“And this is happening on a large scale. This has to be, for a person with faith and love for God, a very serious phenomenon.

“We cannot continue as if Jesus as God does not exist, as though only the bread exists. This modern practice of Communion in the hand has nothing to do with the practice in the ancient Church.

The modern practice of receiving Communion in hand contributes gradually to the loss of the Catholic faith in the real presence and in the transubstantiation.

“A priest and a bishop cannot say this practice is ok. Here is at stake the most holy, the most divine and concrete on Earth.”

38

5. Communion on the hand was re-introduced by way of abuse, deceit, and betrayal From an in-depth and heavily referenced study of the question by Michael Davies we learn: “Communion in the hand was re-introduced into the Catholic Church as an act of rebellion soon after Vatican II. It began in Holland as an arbitrary act of defiance of legitimate authority (...) and the practice spread to Germany, Belgium, and France.

“The consequences of this rebellion became so serious that the Pope consulted the Bishops of the world, and, after obtaining their opinions, promulgated the Instruction Memoriale Domini, in 1969.

This Instruction is included and will be referred to from time to time. The principal points contained in it are: 1. The Bishops of the world were overwhelmingly against the innovation. 2. The traditional manner of distributing Holy Communion must be retained. 3. It is a sign of reverence which does not detract from the dignity of the communicant. 4. The innovation could lead to irreverence, profanation, and the adulteration of correct doctrine.

“Therefore: The Apostolic See strongly urges bishops, priests, people to observe this law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgment of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church.”5 Davies says, however, a calamitous error of judgment then followed. It was agreed that wherever the practice “has already developed in any place” a two-thirds majority of the episcopal conference could petition the Holy See for permission to legalise the abuse. Quite clearly, the phrase “has already developed” meant by that date, 28 May 1969. Countries where the practice had not developed by that date were obviously excluded from the concession – and all the English-speaking countries come into this category.

When the US Conference of Catholic Bishops debated the question in 1977, Bishop Blanchette pointed out that the procedure approved by the Vatican was that permission could be requested from the Holy See if the contrary usage prevailed. He pointed out that CAL X M A R IA E

why i only receive holy communion on the tongue

PHOTO CREDIT: DON ELVIR TABAKOVIĆ, CAN. REG.

the bishops could hardly take the second step without taking the first.

Bishop Blanchette is reported in the National Catholic Register of 12 June 1977 recollecting, “I said, we are now going to discuss and probably vote on whether we want to petition the Holy See, and we have not established that a contrary usage prevails. I said a simple way to do that would be to ask the Ordinaries to indicate whether in their dioceses the contrary usage prevails. The Ordinary should know, he is the shepherd of the diocese.

He has been asked to obey and his priests have been asked to obey, so if anybody knows whether the contrary usage prevails, he should. And so I asked that the agenda be amended so that the first step – finding out whether the contrary usage prevails – could be verified, and if it were verified then we could get on with the rest of the agenda. But if the first step is not verified, how can we logically go on to the second step? That was my motion.”

Michael Davies explains: “Bishop Blanchette’s motion was supported in writing by five other bishops and sustained by the president of the conference. According to the rules, there should have been a written vote, but supporters of the innovation objected and voted, on a show of hands, to rule the president out of order.

It therefore seems quite reasonable to ask: just how legal was this vote? Then, of course, other extraordinary measures were taken to get the innovation adopted. Retired bishops were prevented from voting, and, when the necessary majority had still not been achieved, bishops who had not been present were polled until the necessary total was arrived at.”

So as you can see, Communion on the hand in modern times came by way of abuse, deceit, and betrayal.

It is for these reasons that I believe Catholics should not receive Holy Communion on the hand.

Should you be in a situation where you are refused Holy Communion unless you take it on the hand, I would make a spiritual Communion and then contact the proper authority to remedy the situation. Take that letter that was written by the Vatican on the question AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

during the swine flu pandemic in 2009 to your priest or bishop. Ask them to give you Holy Communion at least after Mass if they feel they cannot do it during Mass. And if they still don’t permit you to receive Our Lord on the tongue, apply to the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship with the proof of the denial of Holy Communion on the tongue and pray to God the remedy comes soon.

In the meantime, offer up the sacrifice of being deprived of the Holy Eucharist and attend Mass offering your own pain along with Christ’s Sacrifice.

John-Henry Westen the co-founder and editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews. He is also the co-founder of Voice of the Family. He and his wife Dianne and their eight children live in the Ottawa Valley in Ontario, Canada. He has spoken at conferences and retreats, and appeared on radio and television throughout North America, Europe and Asia. He is a consultant to Canada’s largest pro-life organisation Campaign Life Coalition and the host of the John-Henry Westen Show.

ENDNOTES: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Rorate Caeli, “It is not licit to deny communion on the tongue due to H1N1”, 26 November 2009, https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/11/it-is-not-licit-todeny-communion-on.html Cathy Caridi, “Can we be required to receive Communion in the hand, because of the virus?, Canon Law Made Easy, 12 March 2020, https://canonlawmadeeasy. com/2020/03/12/communion-in-the-hand-virus/ Ibid.

Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff, “Communion received on the tongue and while kneeling”, http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/ details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_comunione_en.html Michael Davies, “Communion in the hand and similar frauds”, https://sspx.org/sites/ sspx/files/communion-in-the-hand-and-other-similiar-frauds-michael-davies.pdf

39

DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED SACRAMENT

in Austrian royal history and among young Catholics today John-Henry Westen interviewed Theresa Habsburg and Alexander Tschugguel at Voice of the Family’s online conference “Love and reverence due to Our Lord” on 16 July 2020.

Alexander Tschugguel lives in Austria. He first came to public attention by removing the Pachamama idols from the church in Rome during the Vatican synod on the panAmazon region in October 2019. He has since founded the St. Boniface Institute and travels the world to encourage Catholics to take a more active approach to their faith in order to protect the Church from the secular and globalist tendencies.

JOHN-HENRY WESTEN: Alexander, can you tell us a little bit about the House of Habsburg and their great devotion to the Blessed Sacrament?

ALEXANDER TSCHUGGUEL: Yes, first I should say that as Austrians, especially traditional Catholic Austrians, we all have a deep regard for the House of Habsburg.

The family has been Catholic for about a thousand years. They never became Protestant, even though a few of them, unfortunately, tried to turn away from the faith. However, they always remained Catholic and many great Catholics came from the family.

The first Habsburg to be the king of the Holy Roman Empire was King Rudolf (1218-1291). Once when he was out hunting, he saw a priest with the Blessed Sacrament on his way to someone who was about to die. The priest was standing by a river and he could not cross without endangering the Holy Sacrament. Rudolf immediately dismounted and gave his horse to the priest. He led the horse, with the priest and the Holy Sacrament, over the river. On the other side, the priest wanted to return the horse to King Rudolf but he said: “I am not worthy to sit on this

40

horse again because now this horse has carried Our Lord Almighty”.

This is a good story to show the ideas and ideals, which were carried through the centuries by this family.

There is another story about the Holy Sacrament and Maximilian (1459-1519), the “last knight” as he is called. Maximilian reigned during the 1500s, just before the Protestant revolution took place, and when he died he wanted his body to be flagellated and to have a picture painted of this scene to be shown to the Austrian people, so that they would always remember that everything passes away, also the Emperor. And that your body, as well as everything earthly, is not the most important. It is more important that you go to heaven. As a sign of his devotion to God, by his testament, King Maximilian ordered his favourite armour, the armour the knight wears in battle, to be put in front of the Holy Sacrament, kneeling, in a church in Innsbruck in Tyrol, so that the people would always see his armour in front of the Holy Sacrament as a reminder that all people who live in this country should do the same.

Emperors and kings, if they are good emperors and kings, should always give an example to their people.

The third story I would like to share with you is about the last emperor, who everyone knows, Blessed Emperor Karl of Austria. He kept diaries which are very important, especially for the time after his reign.

He wrote, for example, that on the ship that brought them to the exile, he and his wife, Empress Zita, asked to bring a priest on board so that they could assist at Holy Mass but they were not allowed to do so. Emperor Karl wrote in his diary that this was one of the most terrible days because until that day, he had been to Mass every day throughout his life.

CAL X M A R IA E

Another story about Emperor Karl I would like to add was from the last day of his life. He was feeling very weak during the night and he knew that his life on earth was coming to an end. At 2am he asked a priest if he could receive the Holy Eucharist, but then he hesitated: “Father, am I allowed to receive the Sacrament, am I worthy to do that because due to my sore throat I had to take a sip of water?” As we know, back then it was only possible to receive Holy Communion if you were fasting from midnight. And so the priest had to assure him that he could because he was about to die. Karl received Holy Communion and then he died.

We have many such stories from the Habsburg family which really inspire us to follow their example of piety.

JHW: What a wonderful example. So what has this meant for Austrians down through the generations and what does it mean for you personally?

AT: Indeed, for generations, we have had in Austria, thanks to the public signs and actions of the Habsburgs, real encouragement for the Catholic faith.

However, during the Reformation in the 16th century, in the German-speaking area, 90 per cent of people lost the faith. Emperor Maximilian II was very weak, and at the end, he did not even attend Mass

any more. His son Rudolf II was a bohemian and very much involved in the occult. When he was about to die, he said, no, I won’t go to confession. Both of them remained officially Catholic but they had really abandoned the faith. Maximilian even gave rights to the Protestants throughout the empire. However, the brothers of Maximilian were Karl, who was residing in Styria, and Ferdinand, who was residing in the country of my family, Tyrol. They were both devout Catholics. At the end of the 16th century, they met with the Kurfürst [Prince-Elector] of Bavaria to plan the Counter-Reformation. Together with Cardinal Klesl, they managed to re-Catholicise the Holy Roman Empire. It was really fantastic.

Shortly afterwards the people were led to Protestantism again by Rudolf and Matthias, who were not faithful Catholics. But then in 1619, Ferdinand II was crowned. He had been raised by Jesuits and at that time, this meant a very strong Catholic formation. He attended Holy Mass daily and made a pilgrimage to Loreto, the place where the house of the Holy Family stands. There he knelt in front of the statue of Our Lady and promised her that he would make Austria Catholic again. He kept this promise and really turned the country around. After that Austria was Catholic up until modern times. We are still mainly Catholic,

41 ACT OF DEVOTION OF RUDOLF I OF HABSBURG (C.1625). PETER PAUL RUBENS & JAN WILDENS. MUSEO DEL PRADO, MADRID. PUBLIC DOMAIN

focus

but Vatican II and the subsequent reforms have of course changed much.

So, this is what the Habsburgs did for Austria. And even though there were some who fell away from the faith, in every generation there was someone who at least tried to be more faithful than, let us say, the average.

So, what does it mean for us Austrians in the present time and especially for me?

It means for us that it is possible to maintain the faith even at times when everyone seems to want to abolish it. It was possible at a time when only 10 per cent of the country was Catholic. Now we are still more than 50 per cent Catholic in Austria, so it should be a little easier. We have a great example and we would love to follow this example.

JHW: In Austria today, even though it is 50 per cent Catholic, Catholicism is probably quite different from what we would consider proper Catholicism. This is partly manifested in the method of reception of Holy Communion. How do you yourself receive and why do you do it that way?

AT: I am really lucky because the priest who led me to my conversion is very conservative, and he told me that the only proper way to receive Holy Communion is kneeling on the tongue without touching it with your hands. Since I became a Catholic, I have always received this way.

The problem with Holy Communion on the hand in Austria is that, as in many Catholic countries, when the reforms after Vatican II were introduced, people were taught that everything that a bishop or the pope says is infallible. This mentality began to develop already around 1900. It is wrong, but this is something which has really had an effect.

Now, even though it looks as if everyone in Austria only receives Communion on the hand, we have a counter-movement which has gained momentum.

There are many people my age, who only receive on the tongue, even though their parents were taught only to receive on the hand. Like in many other countries, although the official numbers of Catholics are still very high, the numbers of Catholics who go to Mass and really believe are much smaller. However, among the people who go to Mass and believe, the number of people who receive Communion on the tongue is actually very high.

42

JHW: It is interesting too that especially among the faithful young people we see that a lot. Can you tell us something about your experience of reception of Holy Communion during coronavirus when many bishops around the world have been telling people that they must receive on the hand and on the hand only? How have you confronted that?

AT: First of all, I have to thank the priest, who was courageous enough to bring me Holy Communion when I was sick with the coronavirus.

I have talked to many doctors all around Austria, I think more than 80 or 90 doctors and surgeons, to organise an initiative telling the bishops to abandon the current restrictions. They all confirmed what is logical: the less contact you have with another person, the less chance there is to transmit any disease.

Those who receive Holy Communion as often as possible know that the occasions when the priest touches your tongue are rare. I have been a Catholic since 2009 and I never remember the priest touching my tongue. All priests I have talked to, who only distribute Communion on the tongue, also told me the same.

The doctors wrote a letter to the Bishops’ Conference of Austria and now they officially allow reception of Communion on the tongue again.

The great examples in the history of our Church must teach us. For example, St. Charles Borromeo, who was a great saint, tried to find creative ways to distribute Communion during the plague. He erected altars on the streets so that people could see Mass being offered from their windows. He then separated the sick priests from the ones who were still healthy. The sick priests distributed Holy Communion to the sick people and the healthy priests to the healthy people. If there were only healthy people he used a silver spoon as the eastern orthodox do. So, there was always a way for the people to receive Our Lord worthily. This is the way our Church should lead.

CAL X M A R IA E

de votion to the blessed sacra ment

Theresa Habsburg is a student of Arabic and Middle Eastern studies in Vienna.

She grew up in a large Catholic family of the Habsburg dynasty and is engaged in Catholic and pro-life issues.

During the coronavirus crisis, she arranged for young people from Austria and many European countries to record videos asking their bishops to reopen churches and allow public Mass after lockdowns.

JOHN-HENRY WESTEN: Alexander has shared some stories about your family history, especially in relation to the Blessed Sacrament. Can you also tell us a little about the devotion to the Blessed Sacrament in your family today?

THERESA HABSBURG: For a start, it is important to say that we are a very big family, and so I have quite a few aunts, uncles, and cousins who I don’t know yet.

I probably only know a small fraction of all of my relatives. But speaking about my immediate family, the devotion to the Blessed Sacrament has been very important. We have always known that it was part of our history.

However, of course, even though we have such a rich history, and deep Catholic roots which go back a long way and are a huge blessing, like everyone else, the Enlightenment, the effects of the French revolution and of modernism have not left us untouched. It is evident in the fact that after Joseph II, a black sheep of the family, there have been no vocations to the priesthood for about 200 years until my uncle, Paul, who is a priest in Paris now.

My parents, of course, grew up with the faith.

However, you grow in your faith every day and I see that with my parents. I can only see their love for Christ and for the Eucharist grow from day to day.

That makes such a big difference for children if you have grandparents and parents that carry the love for Christ and for the faith with them. By their example, they give that love for Christ to us. Seeing your parents live that and seeing your aunts and uncles really live that, you know that this is part of who we are, as Habsburgs, and that the Catholic faith is such an important part of our life.

I am confident that a large part of the family is still devoted to the faith, because we have these deep roots, and also because of the blessings we have received from the prayers of our ancestors, we are also the recipients of those graces.

JHW: Absolutely. But why is it such an important matter for you to receive Our Lord worthily, to receive Our Lord kneeling and on the tongue?

TH: It hasn’t always been that clear to me. I think when I was younger, I also received on the hand. We grew up in the countryside and it was very common there. But as I grew and grew in the faith and met amazing Catholics and priests, I’ve come to understand it in a deeper manner.

Also in the past few months, we have been lucky enough to have great priests in Vienna who continued to offer Mass. Discussions about what we believe, what we think the Eucharist is and what we think the Mass is came up all the time.

In the beginning, I wasn’t sure what I thought, the whole situation was very unusual for everyone. But with realising how integral to our faith it is to be able to go to Mass and to receive the Eucharist, came a deep understanding that there is also a right way to receive the Eucharist. If we actually believe that we are receiving the true Body of Christ, we know that we can never be worthy of receiving Him. However, if there is a way to at least try to attain as much humility as possible, to receive Him as worthily as possible, then I feel that there shouldn’t be a question.

EMPEROR KARL OF AUSTRIA AND EMPRESS ZITA, 1911. PUBLIC DOMAIN

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

43

focus

PHOTO CREDIT: DON ELVIR TABAKOVIĆ, CAN. REG.

JHW: It is interesting that it was the coronavirus crisis and the demand to receive Holy Communion only in the hand, which has brought for you and I think for many people even more clarity on this very issue.

TH: I think I also saw that. I feel like I saw the crowds parting. There was a very strong group of people who were really striving to get the Mass back and who were really concerned about this issue. At the beginning, I wasn’t sure what the right thing was, because it was so unprecedented. You had to really think about it and to reevaluate what we believe, but as soon as I did that, it was so clear. I realised also that most of the people who were striving to get the Mass back were the same people who were striving for Communion on the tongue only.

JHW: As a young person, what would your encouragement be to young people about loving Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament in general and about how to receive him specifically?

TH: I can only speak as someone who is not very advanced in the faith. I wouldn’t say that I’m advanced 44

at all, but I think that it’s important to make yourself as small as possible, if that makes sense.

For me, attending the traditional Latin Mass has made an incredible difference. In today’s world, everything is about you, everything is about how you present yourself, what you get from the world, how the world can make you feel better, how you can be on top of the world. But it only makes sense that if it comes to loving the One who made everything that we call the world, we would have to make ourselves very small, especially today, even to begin to understand what is happening.

The whole structure of the Latin Mass leads us away from the self and towards God. The way you receive God, the way you get to encounter God in Mass made such a difference. I’m just amazed how the recent weeks have helped me in my faith as it should have been a dry period of the faith, but we’ve had absolutely amazing priests, who guided us through this time. It completely changed my understanding of the Mass and the Eucharist.

CAL X M A R IA E

the sins against the blessed sacrament

and the need for a crusade of Eucharistic reparation b y H . E . B I S H O P AT H A N A S I U S S C H N E I D E R

T

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

Majesty and the immensity of His Love in the Blessed Sacrament. Our Lord has expressed to some saints His complaints and His sorrow about the sacrileges and outrages with which men offend Him. One can understand this truth from the words of the Lord spoken to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, as Pope Pius XI reports in his encyclical Miserentissimus Redemptor: “When Christ manifested Himself to Margaret Mary, and declared to her the infinitude of His love, at the same time, in the manner of a mourner, He complained that so many and such great injuries were done to Him by ungrateful men – and we would that these words in which He made this complaint were fixed in the minds of the faithful, and were never blotted out by oblivion: ‘Behold this Heart’ – He said – ‘which has loved men so much and has loaded them with all benefits, and for this boundless love has had no return but neglect, and contumely, and this often from those who were bound by a debt and duty of a more special love.’” (n. 12) PHOTO CREDIT: DON ELVIR TABAKOVIĆ, CAN. REG.

here has never been in the history of the Church a time, where the sacrament of the Eucharist has been abused and outraged to such an alarming and grievous extent as in the past five decades, especially since the official introduction and Papal approval in 1969 of the practice of Communion in the hand. These abuses are aggravated, furthermore, by the widespread practice in many countries of faithful who, not having received the sacrament of Penance for many years, nevertheless regularly receive Holy Communion. The height of the abuses of the Holy Eucharist is seen in the admittance to Holy Communion of couples who are living in a public and objective state of adultery, violating thereby their indissoluble valid sacramental marriage bonds, as in the case of the so-called “divorced and remarried”, such admittance being in some regions officially legalised by specific norms, and, in the case of the Buenos Aires region in Argentina, norms even approved by the Pope. Additionally to these abuses comes the practice of an official admittance of Protestant spouses in mixed marriages to Holy Communion, e.g., in some dioceses in Germany.

To say that the Lord is not suffering because of the outrages committed against Him in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist can lead to a minimising of the great atrocities committed. Some people say: God is offended by the abuse of the Blessed Sacrament, but the Lord does not personally suffer. This is, however, theologically and spiritually too narrow a view. Although Christ is now in His glorious state and hence no more subject to suffering in a human way, He nevertheless is affected and touched in His Sacred Heart by the abuses and outrages against the Divine

45

focus

“Although Christ is now in His glorious state and hence no more subject to suffering in a human way, He nevertheless is affected and touched in His Sacred Heart by the abuses and outrages against the Divine majesty and the immensity of His Love in the Blessed Sacrament.”

Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité gave a profound theological explanation of the meaning of the “suffering” or “sadness” of God because of the offenses the sinners commit against Him: “This ‘suffering’, this ‘sadness’ of the Heavenly Father, or of Jesus since His Ascension, are to be understood analogically. They are not suffered passively as with us, but on the contrary freely willed and chosen as the ultimate expression of Their mercy towards sinners called to conversion. They are only a manifestation of God’s love for sinners, a love which is sovereignly free and gratuitous, and which is not irrevocable.”1 This analogical spiritual meaning of the “sadness” or the “suffering” of Jesus in the Eucharistic mystery is confirmed by the words of the Angel in his apparition in 1916 to the children of Fatima and especially by the words and the example of the life of St. Francisco Marto. The children were invited by the Angel to make reparation for offenses against the Eucharistic Jesus and to console Him, as we can read in the Memoirs of Sister Lucia: “While we were there, the Angel appeared to us for the third time, holding a chalice in his hands, with a host above it from which some drops of blood were falling into the sacred vessel. Leaving the chalice and the host suspended in the air, the Angel prostrated himself on the ground and repeated this prayer three times: ‘Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit…’ Then, rising, he once more took the chalice and the host in his hands. He gave the host to me, and to Jacinta and Francisco he gave the contents of the chalice to drink, saying as he did so: ‘Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by

46

ungrateful men. Repair their crimes and console your God.’”2 Reporting about the third Apparition on 13 July 1917, Sister Lucia stressed how Francisco perceived the mystery of God and the necessity to console Him because of the offenses of the sinners: “What made the most powerful impression on him [Francisco] and what wholly absorbed him, was God, the Most Holy Trinity, perceived in that light which penetrated our inmost souls. Afterwards, he said: ‘We were on fire in that light which is God, and yet we were not burnt! What is God?... We could never put it into words. Yes, that is something indeed which we could never express! But what a pity it is that He is so sad! If only I could console Him!’”3 Sister Lucia wrote how Francisco perceived the necessity to console God, whom he understood to be “sad” because of the sins of men: “I asked him one day: ‘Francisco, which do you like better – to console Our Lord, or to convert sinners, so that no more souls will go to hell?’ ‘I would rather console Our Lord. Didn’t you notice how sad Our Lady was that last month, when she said that people must not offend Our Lord any more, for He is already much offended? I would like to console Our Lord, and after that convert sinners so that they won’t offend Him any more.’”4 In his prayers and in the offering of his sufferings St. Francisco Marto gave priority to the intention of “consoling the Hidden Jesus”, i.e. the Eucharistic Lord.

Sister Lucia reported these words of Francisco, in which he said to her: “When you come out of school, go and stay for a little while near the Hidden Jesus, CAL X M A R IA E

a c r u s a d e of e u c h a r i s t i c r e pa r at i on

and afterwards come home by yourself.” When Lucia asked Francisco about his sufferings, he answered: “I’m suffering to console Our Lord. First I make it to console Our Lord and Our Lady, and then, afterwards, for sinners and for the Holy Father. … More than anything else I want to console Him.”5 Jesus Christ continues in a mysterious way his Passion in Gethsemane throughout the ages in the mystery of His Church and also in the Eucharistic mystery, the mystery of His immense Love. Known is the expression of Blaise Pascal: “Jesus will be in agony even to the end of the world. We must not sleep during that time.”6 Cardinal Karol Wojtyła left us a profound reflection on the mystery of Christ’s

sufferings in Gethsemane, which in a certain sense continue in the life of the Church. Cardinal Wojtyła spoke also about the duty of the Church to console Christ: “And now the Church seeks to recover that hour in Gethsemane – the hour lost by Peter, James and John – so as to compensate for the Master’s lack of companionship which increased his soul’s suffering.

The desire to recover that hour has become a real need for many hearts, especially for those who live as fully as they can the mystery of the divine heart.

The Lord Jesus allows us to meet him in that hour [and] he invites us to share the prayer of his heart.

THE THREE CHILDREN OF FATIMA TO WHOM OUR LADY APPEARED IN 1917. PUBLIC DOMAIN

47

focus

Faced with all the trials that man and the Church have to undergo, there is a constant need to return to Gethsemane and undertake that sharing in the prayer of Christ our Lord.”7 Jesus Christ in the Eucharistic mystery is not indifferent and insensitive towards the behaviour which men show in His regard in this Sacrament of Love.

Christ is present in this Sacrament also with His soul, which is hypostatically united with His Divine Person.

The Roman theologian Antonio Piolanti presented a sound theological explanation in this regard. Even if the body of Christ in the Eucharist cannot see nor sensibly feel what happens or what is said in the place of his sacramental presence, Christ in the Eucharist “hears all and sees with superior knowledge”. Piolanti then quotes Cardinal Franzelin: “The blessed humanity of Christ sees all things in themselves by virtue of the abundant infused knowledge due to the Redeemer of mankind, to the Judge of the living and the dead, to the Firstborn of every creature, to the Center of all celestial and earthly history. All these treasures of the beatific vision and of the infused knowledge are certainly in the soul of Christ, also in so far as it is present in the Eucharist. In addition to these reasons, by another special title, precisely as the soul of Christ is formally in the Eucharist, for the same purpose of the institution of the mystery, it sees all men’s hearts, all thoughts and affections, all virtues and all sins, all the needs of the whole Church and of the individual members, the labors, the anxieties, the persecutions, the triumphs – in a word, all the internal and external life of the Church, His Bride, nourished with His flesh and with His Precious Blood. So by a threefold title (if we can say so) Christ in the sacramental state sees and in a certain divine way perceives all the thoughts and affections, the worship, the homages and also the insults and sins of all men in general, of all his faithful specifically and his priests in particular; He perceives homages and sins that directly refer to this ineffable mystery of love.”8 One of the greatest apostles of the Eucharist of modern times, St. Peter Julian Eymard, left us the following

48

profound reflections on the affections of the sacrificial love of Christ in the Eucharist: “By instituting His Sacrament, Jesus perpetuated the sacrifices of His Passion. … He was acquainted with all the new Judases; He counted them among His own, among His well-beloved children. But nothing of all this could stop Him; He wanted His love to go further than the ingratitude and malice of man; He wanted to outlive man’s sacrilegious malice. He knew beforehand the lukewarmness of His followers: He knew mine; He knew what little fruit we would derive from Holy Communion.

But He wanted to love just the same, to love more than He was loved, more than man could make return for. Is there anything else? But is it nothing to have adopted this state of death when He has the fullness of life, a glorified and supernatural life?

Is it nothing to be treated and considered as one dead? In this state of death Jesus is without beauty, motion or defense; He is wrapped in the Sacred Species as in a shroud and laid in the tabernacle as in a tomb. He is there, however; He sees everything and hears everything. He submits to everything as though He were dead. His love casts a veil over His power, His glory, His hands, His feet, His beautiful face and His sacred lips; it has hidden everything.

It has left Him only His Heart to love us and His state of victim to intercede in our behalf.”9 St. Peter Julian Eymard wrote the following moving and almost mystical profession of the Eucharistic love of Christ, with an ardent appeal for Eucharistic reparation: “The Heart which endured the sufferings with so much love is here in the Blessed Sacrament; it is not dead, but living and active; not insensible, but still more affectionate. Jesus can no longer suffer, it is true; but alas! man can still be guilty towards Him of monstrous ingratitudes. We see Christians despise Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament and show contempt for the Heart which has so loved them and which consumes itself with love for them.

To spurn Him freely they take advantage of the veil that hides Him. They insult Him with their irreverences, their sinful thoughts, and their criminal glances in His presence. To express their disdain CAL X M A R IA E

a c r u s a d e of e u c h a r i s t i c r e pa r at i on

PIERCING OF CHRIST'S SIDE (1430). FRA ANGELICO. SAN MARCO, FLORENCE. PUBLIC DOMAIN

for Him they avail themselves of His patience, of the kindness that suffers everything in silence as it did with the impious soldiery of Caiphas, Herod, and Pilate. They blaspheme sacrilegiously against the God of the Eucharist. They know that His love renders Him speechless. They crucify Him even in their guilty souls. They receive Him. They dare take this living Heart and bind it to a foul corpse.

They dare deliver it to the devil who is their lord!

No! Never even in the days of His Passion has Jesus received so many humiliations as in His Sacrament! Earth for Him is a Calvary of ignominy.

In His agony He sought a consoler; on the Cross He asked for someone to sympathize with His afflictions. Today, more than ever, we must make amends, a reparation of honor, to the adorable Heart of Jesus. Let us lavish our adorations and our love on the Eucharist. To the Heart of Jesus living in the Most Blessed Sacrament be honor, praise, adoration, and kingly power for ever and ever!”10 In his last encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Pope John Paul II left us luminous exhortations with which he stressed the extraordinary sanctity of the Eucharistic mystery and the duty of the faithful to treat this sacrament with utmost reverence and ardent love. Of all his exhortations, this statement stands out: “There can be no danger of excess in our care for this mystery, for ‘in this sacrament is recapitulated the whole mystery of our salvation’ (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 83, a. 4c).” (n. 61)

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

It would be a pastorally urgent and spiritually fruitful measure for the Church to establish in all dioceses of the world an annual “Day of Reparation for the crimes against the Most Holy Eucharist”. Such a day could be the octave day of the Feast of Corpus Christi.

The Holy Spirit will give special graces of renewal to the Church in our days when, and only when, the Eucharistic Body of Christ will be adored with all Divine honours, will be loved, will be carefully treated and defended as really the Holiest of Holies. Saint Thomas Aquinas says in the hymn Sacris sollemniis: “O Lord, visit us to the extent that we venerate you in this sacrament” (sic nos Tu visita, sicut Te colimus). And we can say without doubt: O Lord, you will visit your Church in our days to the extent that the modern practice of Communion in the hand will recede and to the extent that we offer to you acts of reparation and love.

In the current so-called “COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency”, horrible abuses of the Most Blessed Sacrament have increased still more. Many dioceses around the world mandated Communion in the hand, and in those places the clergy, in an often humiliating manner, deny the faithful the possibility to receive the Lord kneeling and on the tongue, thus demonstrating a deplorable clericalism and exhibiting the behaviour of rigid neo-Pelagians. Furthermore, in some places the adorable Eucharistic Body of Christ is distributed by the clergy and received by the faithful with household or disposable gloves. The treating of the Blessed Sacrament with gloves suitable for treating garbage is an unspeakable Eucharistic abuse.

In view of the horrible maltreatments of Our Eucharistic Lord – He being continuously trampled under foot because of Communion in the hand, during which almost always little fragments of the host fall on the floor; He being treated in a minimalistic manner, deprived of sacredness, like a cookie, or treated like garbage by the use of household gloves – no true Catholic bishop, priest or lay faithful can remain indifferent and simply stand by and watch.

There must be initiated a world-wide crusade of reparation to and consolation of the Eucharistic Lord.

As a concrete measure to offer to the Eucharistic Lord urgently needed acts of reparation and consolation, each Catholic could promise to offer monthly at least one full hour of Eucharistic adoration, either before the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle or before the 49

focus

PHOTO CREDIT: DON ELVIR TABAKOVIĆ, CAN. REG.

“As a concrete measure to offer to the Eucharistic Lord urgently needed acts of reparation and consolation, each Catholic could promise to offer monthly at least one full hour of Eucharistic adoration, either before the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle or before the Blessed Sacrament exposed in the monstrance.”

Blessed Sacrament exposed in the monstrance. The Holy Scripture says: “Where sin abounded, grace did more abound” (Rm. 5:20). We can add analogously: “Where Eucharistic abuses abounded, acts of reparation will more abound.”

The day when, in all the churches of the Catholic world, the faithful will receive the Eucharistic Lord, veiled under the species of the little sacred host, with true faith and a pure heart, in the biblical gesture of adoration (proskynesis), that is, kneeling, and in the attitude of a child, opening the mouth and allowing oneself to be fed by Christ Himself in the spirit of humility, then undoubtedly will the authentic spiritual springtime of the Church come closer. The Church will grow in the purity of the Catholic Faith, in the missionary zeal of salvation of souls, and in the holiness of the clergy and the faithful. Indeed, the Lord will visit His Church with His graces to the extent that we venerate Him in His ineffable sacrament of love (sic nos Tu visita, sicut Te colimus).

God, grant that through the Eucharistic crusade of reparation, there may increase the number of adorers, lovers, defenders, and consolers of the Eucharistic 50

Lord. May the two little Eucharistic apostles of our time, St. Francisco Marto and the soon-to-be-Blessed Carlo Acutis (beatification on 10 October 2020), and all of the Eucharistic saints, be the protectors of this Eucharistic crusade. For, as St. Peter Julian Eymard reminds us, the irrevocable truth is this: “An age prospers or dwindles in proportion to its devotion to the Eucharist. This is the measure of its spiritual life, faith, charity, and virtue.”

H.E. Bishop Athanasius Schneider is the auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan and titular bishop of Celerina. He is a member of the Canons Regular of the Holy Cross of Coimbra.

Bishop Schneider was born in Tokmok, Kirghiz SSR in the Soviet Union. In 1973, shortly after making his first Holy Communion by the hand of Bl. Oleksa Zaryckyj, priest and martyr, he left with his family for Germany. He was ordained a priest in 1990. From 1999 he taught Patristics at Mary, Mother of the Church Seminary in Karaganda. In 2006 he was consecrated Bishop and in 2011 he was transferred to the position of auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of Astana. He is the General Secretary of the Bishops’ Conference of Kazakhstan.

Bishop Schneider has written a book entitled Dominus est, a plea for the worthy administration of Holy Communion, and addressed a range of critical issues for Catholics today in a book-length interview with Diane Montagna entitled Christus Vincit.

ENDNOTES: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, The Whole Truth About Fatima, vol. I, pp.13111312.

Sister Lucia, Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words. Sister Lucia’s Memoirs, Fatima 2007, p.172.

Ibid., p.147.

Ibid., p.156.

Ibid., p.157; 163.

Blaise Pascal, Pensées, n. 553.

Cardinal Karol Wojtyła, Sign of Contradiction, chapter 17, “The prayer in Gethsemane”.

Cardinal Franzelin, De Eucharistia, pp.199-200, cited in Antonio Piolanti, Il Mistero Eucaristico, Firenze 1953, pp.225-226.

St. Peter Julian Eymard, The Real Presence, 29. The Most Blessed Sacrament is not Loved!, III. St. Peter Julian Eymard, The Real Presence, 43. The Sacred Heart of Jesus, III.

CAL X M A R IA E

prayer of the crusade of reparation

to the eucharistic heart of jesus My God, I believe, I adore, I trust, and I love you!

I ask pardon for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not trust and do not love you. (3 times) O Divine Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, behold us prostrate with a contrite and adoring heart before the majesty of your redeeming love in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

We declare our readiness to atone by voluntary expiation, not only for our own personal offenses, but in particular for the unspeakable outrages, sacrileges, and indifferences by which you are offended in the Most Blessed Sacrament of your Divine love in this our time, especially through the practice of Communion in the hand and the reception of Holy Communion in a state of unbelief and mortal sin.

The more unbelief attacks your Divinity and your Real Presence in the Eucharist, the more we believe in you and adore you, O Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, in Whom dwells all the fullness of the divinity!

The more your sacraments are outraged, the more firmly we believe in them and the more reverently we want to receive them, O Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, fountain of life and holiness!

The more your Most Blessed Sacrament is denigrated and blasphemed, the more we proclaim solemnly: “My God, I believe, I adore, I trust, and I love you! I ask pardon for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not trust and do not love you”, O Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, most worthy of all praise!

The more you are abandoned and forgotten in your churches, the more we want to visit you, who are dwelling amongst us in the tabernacles of our churches, O Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, House of God and Gate of Heaven!

The more the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is deprived of its sacredness, the more we want to support a reverent celebration of Holy Mass, exteriorly and interiorly oriented towards you, O Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, Tabernacle of the Most High!

The more you are received in the hand of standing communicants, in a manner lacking a sign of humility and adoration, the more we want to receive you kneeling and on the tongue, with the lowliness of the publican and the simplicity of an infant, O Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, of infinite majesty!

The more you are received in Holy Communion by uncleansed hearts in the state of mortal sin, the more we want to do acts of contrition and cleanse our heart with a frequent reception of the Sacrament of Penance, O Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, our Peace and Reconciliation!

AU T UMN 2 0 1 8

51

The more hell works for the perdition of souls, the more may our zeal for their salvation burn by the fire of your love, O Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, salvation of those who hope in you!

The more the diversity of religions is declared as the positive will of God and as a right based in human nature, and the more doctrinal relativism grows, the more we intrepidly confess that you are the only Savior of mankind and the only way to God the Father, O Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, King and center of all hearts!

The more Church authorities continue to be unrepentant about the display of pagan idols in churches, and even in Rome, the more we will confess the truth: “What agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Cor. 6:16), the more we will condemn with you “the abomination of desolation, standing in the holy place” (Mt. 24:15), O Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, holy Temple of God! The more your holy commandments are forgotten and transgressed, the more we want to observe them with the help of your grace, O Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, abyss of all virtues!

The more sensuality, selfishness, and pride reign amongst men, the more we want to dedicate our lives to you in the spirit of sacrifice and self-abnegation, O Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, overwhelmed with reproaches!

The more violently the gates of hell storm against your Church and the rock of Peter in Rome, the more we believe in the indestructibility of your Church, O Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, source of all consolation, who does not abandon your church and the rock of Peter even in the heaviest storms!

The more people separate from each other in hatred, violence, and selfishness, the more intimately we as members of the one family of God in the Church want to love each other in you, O Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, full of goodness and love!

O Divine Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, grant us your grace, that we may be faithful and humble adorers, lovers, defenders, and consolers of your Eucharistic Heart in this life, and come to receive the glories of your love in the beatific vision for all eternity. Amen.

My God, I believe, I adore, I trust, and I love you!

I ask pardon for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not trust and do not love you. (3 times) Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament, pray for us!

St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Peter Julian Eymard, St. Francisco Marto, St. Padre Pio, and all Eucharistic Saints, pray for us!

+ Athanasius Schneider

52

Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

CAL X M A R IA E

TRUE LAW A c o l u m n b y M AT T H E W M C C U S K E R

lessons from history

What St.Thomas teaches us about

SCENE OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS REFUTING THE HERETICS, FROM THE WAY OF SALVATION (1367). FRESCO BY ANDREA DI BONAIUTO. SANTA MARIA NOVELLA, FLORENCE.

I

n response to the Covid-19 outbreak governments worldwide have enforced draconian regulations, restricting some of the most fundamental liberties of free societies – the right of free association, the right to earn one’s daily bread by honest labour, and even the right to leave one’s own home. They have also used the crisis to further violate fundamental rights – such as violating the right-to-life by expanding provision of “home abortion”.

In the face of these violations of the most basic rights, there has been a high level of compliance, often on the grounds that “it is the law” and must be obeyed.

It will therefore be useful to consider the traditional teaching of the Church on the nature of law.

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

WHAT IS LAW?

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that the following is a complete definition of law: Law is “an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated”.1 Everything that conforms to this definition is a law.

Nothing that fails to conform to this definition can ever be a true law, no matter what the purported lawgiver may claim.

We will examine each element of the above definition in more detail, but first we will briefly describe the four kinds of laws.

53

lessons from history

THE FOUR KINDS OF LAW

St. Thomas teaches that there are four kinds of law.

1. The eternal law: by this law God governs “the whole community of the universe” by His “Divine Reason” and “Divine Providence”. St. Thomas teaches that “the very idea of the government of things in God the Ruler of the universe, has the nature of a law.”2 All creation is subject to the eternal law: “all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends.”3 2. The natural law: the “participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law.”4 By this law, imprinted on every human being, we are directed towards our proper natural ends: “the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light.”5 3. The human law: while the natural law directs us in “a general and indeterminate” way, it is often necessary for human happiness for legitimate authority to make “more particular determination of certain matters”.6 For example, while the natural law is sufficient for us to know that we shouldn’t kill others by poisoning, human law may give more precise regulations on how water companies use certain toxic chemicals.

All human law is derived from the principles of the natural law.7

54

commands these internal acts through the divine law.10 • human law cannot punish all human acts, “since while aiming at doing away with all evils, it would do away with many good things, and would hinder the advance of the common good.”11 “In order, therefore, that no evil might remain unforbidden and unpunished, it was necessary for the Divine law to supervene, whereby all sins are forbidden.” 12 All four forms of law conform entirely to the definition of law given by St. Thomas, namely that law is “an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated.”13 We will now examine each part of the definition in more detail, but with emphasis on its implications for laws promulgated by human beings. The eternal law, the natural law and the divine law are all promulgated by God Himself, for the common good, and in accordance with His Eternal Reason.14 A LAW IS AN ORDINANCE OF REASON

“Law” states St. Thomas “is a rule and measure of acts, whereby man is induced to act or is restrained from acting”, consequently “it belongs to the law to command and to forbid.”15 All truly human acts must accord with reason.16 Therefore laws, which induce man to act or restrain him from acting, must also accord with reason.17 No command contrary to reason can have the nature of law:

4. The divine law: this has been revealed by God to direct us to our supernatural end. St. Thomas gives four reasons why a divinely revealed law is necessary:

“in order that the volition of what is commanded may have the nature of law, it needs to be in accord with some rule of reason.”17

• the natural law directs us to natural happiness but not to supernatural happiness8 • our human judgement can suffer from “uncertainty… especially on contingent and particular matters… therefore, that man may know without any doubt what he ought to do and what he ought to avoid, it was necessary for man to be directed in his proper acts by a law given by God, for it is certain that such a law cannot err.”9 • human laws can only regulate external acts. Yet virtue requires also interior acts. Therefore, God

Furthermore, as stated above, human law is derived from the natural law, “consequently every human law has just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law.”19 A LAW IS ORDAINED TO THE COMMON GOOD

Laws are always directed to the common good of the community for which they are ordained, whether that be the Church or the state. And the primary end of every law must be the end of human life itself, namely CAL X M A R IA E

w h a t s t. t h o m a s t e a c h e s u s a b o u t t r u e l a w

the whole people or to a public personage who has care of the whole people: since in all other matters the directing of anything to the end concerns him to whom the end belongs.”23 If a private person – someone who does not have legitimate authority – tries to make or enforce a law this is null and void.24 The force of laws passed by legitimate authority is diminished – and perhaps made entirely null – if the laws they pass are contrary to the universal custom of a people: “to a certain extent, the mere change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the observance of laws, seeing that what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave.

Consequently, when a law is changed, the binding power of the law is diminished, in so far as custom is abolished.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1476). CARLO CRIVELLI. NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON. PUBLIC DOMAIN

happiness; “the law must needs regard principally the relationship to happiness.”20 Those civil laws called “just” are those “which are adapted to produce and preserve happiness and its parts for the body politic”.21 It follows from this that any command which is contrary to the common good, does not have the nature of law: “Consequently, since the law is chiefly ordained to the common good, any other precept in regard to some individual work, must needs be devoid of the nature of a law, save in so far as it regards the common good.”22 A LAW IS MADE BY LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY

Laws are directed to the common good. Therefore, only the whole community, or those with legitimate authority over the whole community, can make laws.

As Thomas teaches: “Now to order anything to the common good, belongs either to the whole people, or to someone who is the viceregent of the whole people. And therefore the making of a law belongs either to

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

“Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from some very great and very evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case, due to the fact that either the existing law is clearly unjust, or its observance extremely harmful. Wherefore the jurist says that ‘in establishing new laws, there should be evidence of the benefit to be derived, before departing from a law which has long been considered just.’”

Indeed, custom itself can have force of law: “Augustine says: ‘The customs of God’s people and the institutions of our ancestors are to be considered as laws. And those who throw contempt on the customs of the Church ought to be punished as those who disobey the law of God.’”25 Furthermore, if a people are: “free, and able to make their own laws, the consent of the whole people expressed by a custom counts far more in favour of a particular observance, that

55

lessons from history

does the authority of the sovereign, who has not the power to frame laws, except as representing the people.”26

Laws by their nature are made for the good of a particular community. Therefore, they must be duly applied to that community to have the nature of law.

2. “Laws” that are contrary to a “human good”, but which do not command something intrinsically evil.

These “laws” are also unjust and “a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all”. They are “acts of violence rather than laws”. Consequently “such laws do not bind in conscience”, except perhaps in certain individual circumstances, “in order to avoid scandal or disturbance.”31

As St. Thomas states:

SUMMARY

A LAW IS DULY PROMULGATED

“Wherefore, in order that a law obtain the binding force which is proper to a law, it must needs be applied to the men who have to be ruled by it.

Such application is made by its being notified to them by promulgation. Wherefore promulgation is necessary for the law to obtain its force.”27 The manner of promulgation will differ from society to society.

DO WE HAVE TO OBEY AN UNJUST LAW?

In general, we are bound to obey true laws: “If they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience, from the eternal law whence they are derived, according to Proverbs 8:15: ‘By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things.’”28 There will of course be certain circumstances in which even true laws are not binding, for example, laws can cease to bind if their application becomes harmful:

Any purported law, whether made by ecclesiastical or civil authority, which either (a) is contrary to reason, (b) is contrary to the common good of the community for which it is made, (c) is made by an individual lacking legitimate authority or (d) is not duly promulgated, is in and of itself null and void.

I suggest that in our times these are important principles to bear in mind.

Matthew McCusker has a Master’s Degree in History from the University of York, where he specialised in ecclesiastical history.

He currently works for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children as General Secretary and Director of Fundraising.

He can be contacted at: matthewmccusker@spuc.org.uk.

ENDNOTES: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

“Now it happens often that the observance of some point of law conduces to the common weal in the majority of instances, and yet, in some cases, is very hurtful. Since then the lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens most frequently, by directing his attention to the common good. Wherefore if a case arise wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed.”29 But what of laws that do not fulfil the definition of true law?

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

St. Thomas separates these into two categories.

1. “Laws” that are contrary to the “divine law”, such as a law which commands something sinful; “laws of this kind must nowise be observed, because, as stated in Acts 5:29, ‘we ought to obey God rather than man.’” 30 56

30.

31.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II. I q.90 a.4 II. I q.91 a.1 II. I q.91 a.2 II. I q.91 a.2 II. I q.91 a.2 II. I q.91 a.3 II. I q.95. a.2 II. I q.91 a.4 II. I q.91 a.4 II. I q.91 a.4 II. I q.91 a.4 II. I q.91 a.4 II. I q.90 a.4 II. I q.91 a.1-4 II.I q.90 a.1 II. I q.1 a.1 II.I q.90 a.1 II.I q.90 a.1 II. I q.95. a.2 II. I. q.90 a.2 II. I. q.90 a.2 II. I. q.90 a.2 II. I. q.90 a.3 II. I. q.90 a.3 II.I q.97 a.3 II.I q.97 a.3 II. I. q.90 a.4 II.I q.96. a II.I q.96 a.6 II. I. q.96 a.4 II. I. q.96 a.4

CAL X M A R IA E

book revie w

in a field hospital

X-RAY OF THE PRIEST Fr. T h o m a s C re a n O P re v i e w s t h e n e w b o o k b y Fr. A r m a n d d e M a l l e r a y F S S P

M

any priests by now must have learned to use the Roman missal of 1962 not while at seminary but afterwards. There are books, DVDs, and online videos available from which to learn. But perhaps many priests have felt that they could also do with some help to fill gaps in the ascetical and spiritual instruction which they received during their years of seminary. If so, they are likely to profit from Fr. Armand de Malleray’s new book, X-Ray of the Priest in a Field Hospital.

Fr. de Malleray’s name will no doubt be familiar to many readers of Calx Mariae. A priest of the Fraternity of St. Peter, and rector of St. Mary’s church in Warrington, he oversees the apostolate of the Fraternity in England and has been preaching retreats to clergy for a dozen years or so. Well aware of the challenges facing the clergy in contemporary Britain, he writes especially to encourage priests in their vocation, and to remind us that priestly sanctity is at least as necessary, and by God’s grace still as possible, as ever.

The book contains eight chapters, each being a “practical meditation” on some aspect of priestly life.

The first is boldly titled “The fourteen stations of priestly apostasy”. The author ingeniously makes the descent of the missionary priest in Martin Scorsese’s film Silence a template for similar, though less dramatic descents, in priests’ lives from fervour to frigidity. He reminds us of the importance of small things, such as grace before meals or getting out of bed at a fixed time. There are useful remarks on the choice of leisure activity and on the need for fraternal relations with other clergy that go beyond “purely administrative” contacts, as well as reminders for priests to be on

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

their guard against prestigious academic publications that subtly undermine the faith. On this last point, he helpfully reminds us about a current error in sacramental theology which tends to lessen sacerdotal zeal, namely the view that “sacramental acts evoke but don’t convey divine grace” – what the philosopher Thomas Pink has recently called “the sacraments as salvation theatre”.

Chapter two, “Ordained a Priest in Dachau”, tells the story of a young German, Karl Leisner. He was sent to Dachau near the start of World War II while still a deacon, for remarks made against the regime.

He was able to be ordained a priest only toward the end of the war, and his health was such that he was able to offer the sacrifice of the Mass only once before he died. He was beatified by Pope John Paul II. It is a striking meditation on a life that from the world’s point of view was wasted, but which was and therefore is supernaturally fruitful, and which is in some way a template for every faithful priestly life.

Chapter three is entitled “Handling The Right Body”. It is a brief apologia for the celibacy of the clergy. The author explains how the intimacy with Christ conferred by ordination makes it very fitting that clergy forego marital intimacy. He also notes how celibacy is both sustained by and manifests the truth of the Eucharist and the Mass: “Priestly celibacy implies that the Eucharistic Body of Christ is real enough to reward man’s chastity.”

Chapter four, “In persona Christi”, is a series of meditations on the theme of personhood. After some philosophical and theological remarks on this most Christian of concepts, Fr. de Malleray returns to his 57

practical advice on the priestly life. I was struck by his warning of the danger of certain kinds of prayer which neglect the personhood of man and God. For while “no priest can fall gravely if he prays earnestly”, yet “what if a priest mistakes prayer with breathing techniques, and theologal union with mental relaxation”? The author believes that “no few priests (not to mention other consecrated persons and the laity) have been so misled, with dire consequences for their spiritual life, their orthodoxy and their ministry”. The key question is: “By prayer, do I mean to communicate with Someone, or to dissolve into something?”

Still on the theme of personhood, the author reminds us that as well as having pastoral care for his visible parishioners, the priest must also give his attention frequently to those whom he calls the “invisible persons”: by this he means the angels, the suffering souls of purgatory, the unborn, the Eucharistic Christ, and our Lady and the saints.

In chapter five, “Unfolding the Holy Shroud”, the author develops another ingenious comparison, this time between the shroud of Turin and the deposit of faith. The mysterious data present on the shroud have not changed since the resurrection, but the shroud was slowly unfolded, first of all literally (one presumes) in the cenacle, and then metaphorically by the investigations of sindonologists down the years. In the same way, the deposit of faith was established by the time of the death of the last apostle, but, to some extent, its riches are brought into light over the course of the centuries. The author also offers practical advice on how the clergy are to respond when “disconcerting statements” are issued by authorities within the Church, for example on marriage or capital punishment. Here, a 2014 document from the International Theological Commission on the sensus fidei turns out to be perhaps surprisingly useful.

Chapter six addresses the subject, sometimes controversial, of “Priestly unity and concelebration”.

Without rejecting modern “sacramental concelebration”, he argues that when it becomes habitual, six disadvantages follow, for the Church and for the priest himself. He also holds that when a Mass is concelebrated, only one sacrifice is offered, with all that that implies for the reduction in the flow of graces upon the mystical Body. This is a question to which there has been surprisingly little attention paid, although Fr. de Malleray refers us to the important study by the French Carmelite, Fr. Joseph de Sainte-Marie (d. 1985). He also mentions the danger that “concel58

ebration might conveniently dispense bishops and priests from mentioning the ‘elephant in the room’, namely, disunity in doctrine, liturgy and law (including moral law)”. Such concelebrations, he observes, would conceal and thus perpetuate disunity rather than prevent it.

Chapter seven, entitled, “Building the bride”, draws a parallel between the creation of Eve and the Eucharistic origin of the Church. It is one of the more meditative, even lyrical, sections of the book. I was struck by his comparison of Gen. 2:22 and Jn. 2:20: “Jesus seems to apply to a building, the temple, the verb ‘to raise’ which is used in the Bible about human persons. Conversely, in Genesis, the verb ‘to build’ normally applied to buildings was used in reference to Eve, a human person.”

The final chapter has a different audience. Called “Consecrated to God, body and soul”, it is addressed not principally to those who are already priests, but to those who may become so, and even more, to those who may enter the religious state, since, as he writes: “Fallen men and women are more likely to save their immortal souls in a community mandated by the Church for that explicit purpose.” While perfectly aware of the difficulties that stand in the way of a revival of religious life in Britain, he writes: “The young generation may be called to found its own orders, or re-found or import some. Extreme caution is needed here against pride, rashness, inexperience and illusions. God is the one who calls to religious life, and also the one who can raise founders and foundresses in a given time and country. But when devout Catholics look at the urgent needs, it is timely for them to beg God for a revival of religious life here in Britain.”

It is not an easy thing for a priest to write a book of advice for other priests, especially when that advice includes warnings. We can be grateful to Fr. de Malleray that he was willing to undertake this delicate task, and even more, that he has accomplished it with charity and tact, and in a way fitted not to depress but to inspire those who read it.

Details: “X-Ray of the Priest in a Field Hospital”

By Fr. Armand de Malleray FSSP 176 pages, Arouca Press ISBN: 978-1-989905-01-2 (paperback) ISBN: 978-1-989905-02-9 (hardcover)

CAL X M A R IA E

the weapons of obedience i: prudence Calx Mariae is pleased to publish the third in a series of letters from a Benedictine monk. Each letter discusses one of the most important virtues and principles in the Rule of St. Benedict – the rule on which the Western monastic tradition and Christian civilisation in Europe were founded.

fa i t h of o u r fat h e r s

A Letter from a Benedictine monk

In the Prologue of his Rule, St. Benedict, the patron saint of Europe writes: “We have therefore to establish a school of the Lord’s service, in the institution of which we hope we are going to establish nothing harsh, nothing burdensome. But if, prompted by the desire to attain to equity, anything be set forth somewhat strictly for the correction of vice or the preservation of charity, do not therefore in fear and terror flee back from the way of salvation of which the beginning cannot but be a narrow entrance.

For it is by progressing in the life of conversion and faith that, with heart enlarged and in ineffable sweetness of love, one runs in the way of God’s commandments, so that never deserting His discipleship but persevering until death in His doctrine within the monastery, we may partake by patience in the suffering of Christ and become worthy inheritors of His kingdom.”

After looking at humility and obedience in the Rule of St. Benedict, in this edition we continue with the virtue of prudence. May these reflections help us to fulfil the duties of our state in life.

ST. BENEDICT SENDING MAURO TO FRANCE AND PLACIDO TO SICILY (1540). BARTOLOMEO NERONI. FRESCO FROM THE LIFE OF ST. BENEDICT IN THE GREAT CLOISTER OF THE BENEDICTINE MONASTERY OF MONTE OLIVETO MAGGIORE IN TUSCANY.

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

59

I

n my last letter I spoke about the virtue of obedience and its importance in the teaching of St. Benedict. Our holy father sees the whole of monastic life as an exercise in obedience to God, so that we may return to Him through that very obedience.

He recognises, however, that such intense and lifelong obedience is no easy task for fallen man who has become acquainted with disobedience; indeed, who has solidly befriended this enemy through long and extensive familiarity. To be separated from this disobedience, and, moreover, to vanquish it as a sworn foe, will require a pronounced war, and thus St. Benedict admonishes the monk to take up the mighty and marvelous weapons of obedience.

Let us reflect on the nature of these weapons of obedience. What is clear is that they help us succeed in being obedient, and that without them we easily fall into disobedience. The disobedience of our first parents is thus instructive for us in this regard. In Genesis we read that prior to Eve’s sin she was deceived by the serpent: “And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.” Upon hearing and accepting this lie of the

devil, this pernicious manipulation of the truth, “the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat.”

We see three things that concurred in this disobedience. First, the woman’s intellect was deceived; second, her bodily desire was kindled; third (a point which is not explicitly mentioned by Sacred Writ but which can easily be deduced), she lacked the necessary strength to repel the temptation so as to be faithful to God. The cause of her disobedience, therefore, as well as that of her husband, was threefold: an incorrect and deceived understanding, an inordinate desire, and a sluggish will whose dynamism had been sapped by sloth. We can surmise that she would have been obedient had she rather had an accurate understanding of the truth and a will that was both free from inordinate desires and sufficiently strong enough to overcome the threat the serpent’s temptation posed to her blessedness, which consisted in friendship with God. The foregoing analysis helps us to understand the human soul. It is, indeed, endowed with three capacities or aspects: the intellectual, the desiring, and the spirited. The intellectual part exercises the blessed gift

DETAIL FROM ADAM AND EVE (1526). LUCAS CRANACH THE ELDER. COURTAULD INSTITUTE OF ART, LONDON. PUBLIC DOMAIN

of reason; it determines what is to be done or sought and thus should steer the other two parts of the soul, as Plato and other philosophers taught long ago. The desiring part of the soul is the seat of the wants and yearnings that arise from the God-given instinct for preservation of self and species as well as the desire for personal fulfilment and happiness. The spirited part of the soul, finally, is the seat of the vitality, energy and drive that impel a person to overcome the obstacles that either impede the acquisition of some good or threaten its own well-being. When these parts of the soul are properly ordered – when they work well and in harmony with each other so as to favour the health and happiness of the person – then such a person is virtuous. Each part of the soul, furthermore, has a particular virtue that corresponds to it; these are known as the cardinal virtues since they are the hinges (cardo in Latin means hinge) upon which our whole moral activity turns. Thus, the virtue that orders the intellectual part of the soul is prudence, the virtue that orders the desiring part of the soul is temperance and the virtue that orders the spirited part of the soul is fortitude. And since no man is an island, as the saying goes, but lives in relation to others, the virtue that orders our relationships with others is called justice. These virtues, then, can rightfully be called those mighty and marvelous weapons that enable us to succeed in our endeavor to obey God. Let us now focus on the first, and most important, of these virtues, that of prudence. The Latin adjective prudens is actually a contraction of the longer word providens, which means far-seeing, and thus the very word for prudence, prudentia, is linked with providentia, with providence. It is therefore a virtue that gives us a birds-eye, or better, God’s-eye view of reality, allowing us to deduce and intuit the effects of various actions.

St. Benedict mentions this virtue by name in Chapter 61 when discussing the reception of visiting monks. It sometimes occurs that a monk from another monastery may notice problems or difficulties that he may be able to help with; in the case that he should “with all humility and love make some reasonable criticisms or observations”, St. Benedict admonishes the abbot to “prudently consider” (tractet prudenter) the monk’s advice, for God may have sent him for this very purpose. We see how an essential element of prudence consists in listening to and learning from others, in seeing all men as potential channels of God’s wisdom, a point St. Benedict underlines in Chapter 3 when he

says that “often the Lord reveals what is better to the younger” members of the community.

Later in Chapter 64, when discussing the kind of man the Abbot should be, he says, “He must hate faults but love the brothers. When he must punish them, he should use prudence (prudenter agat) and avoid extremes; otherwise, by rubbing too hard to remove the rust, he may break the vessel. He is to distrust his own frailty and remember not to crush the bruised reed (Is. 42:3). But this we do not mean that he should allow faults to flourish, but rather, as we have already said, he should prune them away with prudence and love (prudenter et cum caritate) as he sees best for each individual.” The emphasis here is that prudence is essentially the mean between extremes, and that this mean, this right measure, will change from person to person and from situation to situation.

But the importance of the virtue of prudence in the Rule of St. Benedict can best be gleaned by considering the two virtues that are inseparably connected and, indeed, synonymous with it: discretion and wisdom. The Latin word discretio comes from the verb discerno, which means to separate, distinguish or judge; discretion is thus that aspect of prudence that makes the necessary distinctions that enable us to judge rightly, and it is under this name, i.e. discretion, that the monastic tradition has most zealously promoted the virtue of prudence. St. Benedict is an heir of this tradition, and he sets forth his precious inheritance most clearly in the same Chapter 64 that we have already visited. When speaking of the Abbot he says, “whether the task he assigns concerns God or the world, he should be discerning and moderate (discernat et temperet), bearing in mind the discretion of holy Jacob, who said: If I drive my flocks too hard, they will all die in a single day (Gen. 33:13). Therefore, drawing on this and other examples of discretion, the mother of virtues, he must so arrange everything that the strong have something to yearn for and the weak nothing to run from.”

It is hard to overestimate the importance of this passage. In it St. Benedict has distilled, and passed on, some of the most essential of all monastic insights.

The immediate source for this passage is the second conference of St. John Cassian, which is entirely dedicated to discretion. The monastic authority on whose teaching this conference bases itself is none other than St. Anthony the Great, the first and father of all monks. We are told that on one occasion all

DETAIL FROM ST. ANTHONY ABBOT TEMPTED BY A HEAP OF GOLD (C.1435),

BY MASTER OF THE OSSERVANZA. METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART, NEW YORK. PUBLIC DOMAIN

the fathers of the desert were gathered together to discuss monastic perfection, and the virtue that most conferred this perfection; some considered the chief virtue to be fasting, others solitude, others thought it consisted in silence, while yet others hospitality. At length Anthony himself stood up and said: “All these things which you have mentioned are indeed needful, and helpful to those who are thirsting for God, and desirous to approach Him. But countless accidents and the experience of many people will not allow us to make the most important of gifts consist in them. For often when men are most strict in fasting or in vigils, and nobly withdraw into solitude, and aim at depriving themselves of all their goods so absolutely that they do not suffer even a day's allowance of food or a single penny to remain to them, and when they fulfil all the duties of kindness with the utmost devotion, yet still we have seen them suddenly deceived, so that they could not bring the work they had entered upon to a suitable close, but brought their exalted fervor and praiseworthy manner of life to a terrible end. Wherefore we shall be able clearly to recognise what it is which mainly leads to God, if we trace out with greater care the reason of their downfall and deception. For when the works of the above-mentioned virtues were abounding in them, discretion alone was wanting, and allowed them not to continue even to the end. Nor can any other reason for their falling off be discovered except that as they were not sufficiently instructed by their elders they could not obtain judgment and

discretion, which passing by excess on either side, teaches a monk always to walk along the royal road, and does not allow him to be puffed up on the right hand of virtue, i.e., from excess of zeal to transgress the bounds of due moderation in foolish presumption, nor allows him to be enamored of slackness and turn aside to the vices on the left hand, i.e., under pretext of controlling the body, to grow slack with the opposite spirit of luke-warmness. For this is discretion, which is termed in the gospel the eye, and light of the body, according to the Savior’s saying: The light of your body is your eye: but if your eye be single, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye be evil, your whole body will be full of darkness (Mt. 6:22-23): because as it discerns all the thoughts and actions of men, it sees and overlooks all things which should be done…”

St. John Cassian concludes: “And so by the judgment of the blessed Anthony as well as of all others it has been laid down that it is discretion which leads a fearless monk by fixed stages to God, and preserves the virtues mentioned above continually intact, by means of which one may ascend with less weariness to the extreme summit of perfection, and without which even those who toil most willingly cannot reach the heights of perfection. For discretion is the mother of all virtues, as well as their guardian and regulator.”

Discretion, as we have seen, is that virtue by which we avoid excess and extremes and judge things aright; as a man practices discretion over time and acquires experience, his discretion matures and becomes wisdom, which is the knowledge that comes from experience and years, a knowledge that is less discursive and more intuitive, less theoretical and more connatural. It is this virtue, wisdom, the mature and refined expression of prudence, that St. Benedict desires to see in his monks, above all in the Abbot. The monk who listens to and obeys the detailed advice St. Benedict gives in the Prologue is thus compared to the wise man of the Gospel who built his house on the rock; in the eleventh step of humility we are encouraged to be brief in our speech, for “a wise man is known by his few words”; as we attend to God in the Divine Office we are admonished to “sing wisely”, i.e. so that the thoughts of our mind are in harmony with what we sing;1 the Abbot

is to deal with brothers who are spiritually sick as a “wise physician”;2 and finally, wisdom must animate the officials of the monastery, especially the cellarer and the porter (who must be a senex sapiens – a wise elder), for “the house of God should be in the care of wise men who will manage it wisely.”3 If wisdom, as a perfected form of prudence and discretion, is such a powerful virtue, how can we acquire and grow in it? The fathers’ response is twofold.

First of all, it is not something we can acquire on our own merits; it a gift of God, indeed, it is one of the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, and in its train follow understanding, counsel and knowledge, those other gifts of divine grace that raise merely human prudence to the level of a supernatural habitusor aptitude. But we can prepare ourselves to receive this gift, and since we are dealing with the virtue that discerns what is true and correct, we must first prepare ourselves for it by learning the truth about ourselves, that is, by an

accurate self-knowledge, which is nothing other than humility. We are thus brought full-circle to chapter 7 of the Rule and the steps of humility. Moreover, the fathers are unanimous in their view that nothing so thwarts the acquisition of wisdom as do pride and vainglory, those perennial enemies of truth which, because of their insatiable desire for exalted personal excellence or uninterrupted human praise, blind one’s eyes to the reality about oneself, and consequently, about reality itself.

Pray earnestly for the gift of prudence! Flee from pride and vainglory so that you may be found worth of receiving such a gift! I leave you with the words of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who has given us a beautiful prayer to Christ, the Wisdom of God, in order to obtain the gift of Wisdom.

ENDNOTES: 1.

2.

3.

Rule of St. Benedict, n.19 Rule of St. Benedict, n.27-28 Rule of St. Benedict, n.53

CONCLUDING PRAYER OF SERMON 50

ON THE CANTICLE OF CANTICLES by

S T. B E R N A R D O F C L A I RVAU X O Wisdom, who powerfully encompass Thy creation by establishing and containing all things and sweetly arrange all beings by fulfilling and ordering their desires; so direct our actions that we may faithfully carry out what our temporal circumstances demand, and so dispose our affections that we may love as your eternal truth requires, so that each one of us may securely glory in Thee and say, “He set in order charity in me”. For truly, O Christ, Thou art the power and the wisdom of God, the Bridegroom of the Church, our Lord and God blessed forever and ever. Amen.

O Sapiéntia, quae attíngis a fine usque ad finem fórtiter in instituéndis et continéndis rebus et dispónis ómnia suáviter in beándis et ordinándis afféctibus: dírige actus nostros prout nostra temporalis necéssitas poscit, et dispone afféctus nostros, prout tua véritas aetérna requírit, ut possit unusquísque nostrum secúre in te gloriári et dícere: quia ordinávit in me caritátem. Tu es enim Dei virtus et sapiéntia, Christus Sponsus Ecclésiae, Dóminus noster, Deus benedíctus in saécula. Amen.

saints for our time 64

our tutor in perseverance

ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI

by MARIA MADISE

O

ne could easily imagine that, with due effort at a decisive moment, one could imitate a certain heroic act of a saint. But considering perseverance in virtue throughout many years, a life in the constant presence of Jesus and Mary, puts one’s quest for sainthood in a true perspective. Perseverance is a challenge in all ages, but it is particularly important for us today if we wish to keep growing in our faith while virtually everything and everyone around us contradict it. Clearly, we need the support of good examples.

St. Alphonsus Liguori stood out as a beacon of perseverance in the eighteenth century, an era that was not marked by deep Catholic spirit and eventually produced the French Revolution. On a recent visit to the Redemptorist foundation in Pagani, Campania, however, I was reminded of how brightly his example shines in our days.

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori was born in 1696 in Naples – the city that has given the Church more saints than any other in Italy. He became a doctor of civil and canon law already at the age of sixteen and embarked on a highly successful legal career. Losing an important case, at the age of twenty-seven, led him to abandon the practice of law and become an advocate in the great cause of the salvation of souls instead. Following his ordination to the priesthood, he dedicated himself to the service of the most neglected souls in the area. In 1732 he founded the Missionary order of the Most Holy Redeemer (Redemptorists).

The progress of the new order remained turbulent throughout the lifetime of St. Alphonsus, to the extent that he was excluded from the houses of his own order in the Kingdom of Naples. Nevertheless, after his death, the order spread to many parts of the world and its founder was raised to the altars.

St. Alphonsus was truly a spiritual giant of his time.

Much could be (and has been) said of his long and fruitful life. He was at once a missionary, preacher, confessor, bishop, theologian, writer, poet, composer, musician, artist, and was proclaimed a Doctor of the

ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI

Church by Pope Pius IX. By itself, his Moral Theology (1748) – teaching a middle way between the extremes of being lax or over-rigorous, and born of St. Alphonsus’s vast pastoral experience – would be enough to consider him an extraordinary figure. However, in this small sketch, we will consider three important lessons this illustrious saint teaches us with the example of his life.

1. DO NOT WASTE TIME St. Alphonsus made a vow not to lose a single moment of time. And this vow he kept. The intensity with which he worked, as well as the remarkable amount of work he did, gives witness to his enormous tenacity of purpose and unyielding perseverance.

Within an intense life of apostolic work, he produced an impressive 111 books with original illustrations and composed hymns. Having practised the harpsichord several hours a day as a boy, he had become an accomplished player.

His spiritual work was no less impressive. After his arduous missionary years, St. Alphonsus was made a bishop of the small diocese of Agatha dei Goti.

He laboured relentlessly to feed the poor, instruct the

CAL X M A R IA E

ignorant, reform his seminary and convents, renew the spirit in his clergy, bring honour to the study of theology, discipline scandalous noblemen and women leading immoral lives, while, reportedly, begging pope after pope to let him resign his office because he was doing nothing for his diocese.1 To all this work we must add his many hours of daily prayer and great austerities despite his ill health.

While making the most of the days and hours given to him in this life, St. Alphonsus considered his time most profitably spent in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament: “Be assured that the time you will thus spend with devotion before this most divine Sacrament will be the most profitable to you in life and the source of your greatest consolation in death and in eternity.”2 Indeed, St. Alphonsus kept death constantly in mind.

His gentle nature, animated with burning love for souls, recognised the importance of using our time on earth well – the only time we have to gain our eternal home, heaven. According to his first biographer, Tannoia, he had “a tender charity towards all who were in trouble; he would go to any length to try to save a vocation; and he would expose himself to death to prevent sin”.3 A graphic depiction of a skeleton decorated the wall of his little chapel in Pagani. The line below the bones, devoured by mice and worms, reads “Oh, you who read this, see what you will be one day”.

2. PERSEVERE ON THE RIGHT COURSE WITH DEATH BEFORE YOUR EYES Death is a certainty. And according to St. Alphonsus, virtually the only thing we can be sure of in this life.

Yet, he said, “all know that they must die; but many are deceived by picturing to themselves death at such a distance as if it could never come near them.”4 In his excellent book Preparation for death, St. Alphonsus reminds us of the admonition of St. Jerome, that many begin well, but few persevere. Saul, Judas, Tertullian, began well but ended badly because they did not persevere in grace.5 St. Matthew tells us, “He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved” (Mt. 24:13) and St. Alphonsus urges us to pray for perseverance: “Dear Jesus, give me the gift of love for you. Let me never again feel complacent over the trials you endured for me. I want to love you always. Give me perseverance in loving you.”

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

“You have begun a good life; thank the Lord for it: but St. Bernard warns you that the reward, though promised to him who begins, is only given to him who perseveres… It is not enough to run for the prize; but we must run until we obtain it: ‘So run, that you may obtain,’ says the Apostle.”6 We will win if we run and persevere on the course.

Today when society, by and large, is not only against the faith but also against reason, perseverance gives us a complete programme for life: perseverance in lively faith when much around us is barren and arid; perseverance in hope when the world prompts us to despair; perseverance in charity when there is much to provoke our anger; but also to persevere in discipline even if no-one else does; to persevere in continence when chastity is ridiculed and innocence attacked; perseverance in modesty of dress when no-one seems to care; perseverance in dignity and manners when coarseness and vulgarity have become the norm. Today when things in the world as well as in the Church seem to go from bad to worse, it is perseverance that is asked of us. Perseverance in all goodness for the love of God Who created all things perfect.

If we persevere, we may conclude our earthly exile with the words of St. Paul: I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.

(2 Tim. 4:7) St. Alphonsus’s practical advice for living well was simply to “spend the remaining days of life with death before your eyes.” The state of life we wish to be in when we die, he urges us to choose now.

“Make haste, and amend in time; resolve to give yourself truly to God, and begin from this time at least a life which may not be an affliction, but a consolation to you at the hour of death. Give yourself up to prayer; frequent the Sacraments, quit dangerous occasions, and, if necessary, leave even the world; secure your eternal salvation; and be convinced that to secure this no precaution can be too great.”7 Although St. Alphonsus was sickly for much of his life, his final years were marked by very serious and trying ailments, especially arthritis, which caused him great pain and confined him to a wheelchair. But this wheelchair became his prie-dieu, in it, he was taken daily to the Via Crucis. He was also miraculously present in spirit at the death-bed of Pope Clement XIV 65

that his devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and to Our Lady was extraordinary.

The intimate union with our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, so beautifully taught in his little book “Visits to the Blessed Sacrament”, took truly the form of a real presence at the house of the foundation in Pagani. St. Alphonsus’s room was next to the Blessed Sacrament and even arranged so that he could see the tabernacle at most times.

“If anything could shake my faith in the Eucharist, it would not be the doubt as to how bread and wine could become flesh… because I should answer that God can do everything; but if I ask myself how could He love us so much as to make Himself our food, I can only answer that this is a mystery of faith above my comprehension, and that the love of Jesus cannot be understood.”9

ST. ALPHONSUS'S PRIVATE CHAPEL IN PAGANI, CAMPANIA.

in Rome. For three days he remained praying in his chair, only finishing when the Pope had died.

3. ST. ALPHONSUS TOOK MARY FOR HIS OWN According to St. Alphonsus, Mary is our life for two reasons: 1) she obtains for us the pardon of our sins, and 2) she obtains for us perseverance. But she is also our life through her love for God, which is a fire so intense that “it would in a moment inflame heaven and earth” and that in comparison to it “all the flames of the burning love of the seraphim were as cool breezes”. However, St. Alphonsus considers her love for us no less remarkable: “..as there is none among the blessed spirits who loves God more than Mary, so there is, and can be none, except God, who loves us more than this our most loving mother. If the love of all mothers for their children, of all husbands for their wives, and of all saints and angels for their devoted servants, were united, it would not be so great as the love that Mary bears to one soul alone.”8

Also in St. Alphonsus’s rooms, even as they are preserved today, Our Lady remains strongly present, as the Mother of purity and the Mother of sorrows; the image of Our Lady of Good Counsel was always on his table.

St. Alphonsus, a faithful son of Mary, died in her bosom. Thus, his lifelong preparation for a good death was rewarded. In the evening of 31 July 1787, St. Alphonsus weakened by approaching death, whispered: “Give me my lady.” An image of Our Lady was placed in his hands, which he held and prayed with during the night. He died the next day at the stroke of the noon Angelus. At the age of 91, his perpetual prayer on earth was answered: “Grant that I may love You always; and then do with me what You will.”

ENDNOTES: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Catholic Encyclopaedia, https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01334a.htm St. Alphonsus Liguori, “Visits to the Blessed Sacrament”, TAN Books, Charlotte 2016, p.xviii.

Catholic Encyclopaedia St. Alphonsus Liguori, “Preparation for death”, TAN Books, Charlotte 2010, p.19 St. Alphonsus Liguori, “Preparation for death”.

Ibid.

Ibid.

St. Alphonsus Liguori, “The Glories of Mary”, Catholic Way Publishing, London 2014.

St. Alphonsus Liguori, “Meditations on the Way of the Cross”, Catholic Truth Society, London 2017.

It was reported on three different occasions that while preaching in his missions, a ray of light from a picture of Our Lady darted towards St. Alphonsus and he fell into an ecstasy. The saint’s biographer confirms

66

CAL X M A R IA E

SU BS C RI BE D AY !

T

TO

SUB S CRIP TIO N FO RM

Dear reader of Calx Mariae,

hank you for your interest in our magazine. Here is your opportunity to help us share the truth of Christ and love for our Catholic Faith. Calx Mariae is a quarterly magazine with the next issue being available in December 2020.

If you are interested in receiving Calx Mariae in the future, or in supporting our work, please fill in the form below.

Please write in BLOCK CAPITALS.

Please note, this subscription form is for UK ONLY. If you would like the magazine to be posted anywhere else in the world, please visit: voiceofthefamily.com/calx-mariae Title: Full name: Address: Postcode: Telephone: Email:

PLEASE SELECT FROM THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS: I would like to make an annual subscription from the next issue of Calx Mariae magazine (Issue 11, December 2020).

GBP18.00, including postage to UK addresses. You will receive a copy of the next four issues of Calx Mariae magazine.

I would like to order

copies of the current issue of Calx Mariae magazine (Issue 10, September 2020).

I wish to make a one-off donation of £ for this copy and to help Voice of the Family spread and defend the Catholic Faith and the truth about human life and the family.

VISIT voiceofthefamily.com/calx-mariae TO SUBSCRIBE or PAY ONLINE! £5.00/ S I N G L E C O P Y or £1 8.00 / A N N UA L SU B S C R I P T I O N

AU T UMN 2020 . C M10

GBP 5.00/copy, including postage to UK addresses.

WAYS TO MAKE A PAYMENT: 1. To make a payment online, please visit: voiceofthefamily.com/calx-mariae 2. To make a donation by CHEQUE, please make it payable to “Voice of the Family”, and return it to us using the pre-paid envelope enclosed.

3. To make a ONE-OFF payment or donation using your Credit/Debit card, please provide your card details below.

Card number: Expiry date: Name on card:

From the UK: Please return this form in the pre-paid envelope provided, or send to FREEPOST SPUC From overseas: SPUC, UNIT B, 3 WHITACRE MEWS, STANNARY STREET, SE11 4AB, UK Voice of the Family is a coalition of pro-life and pro-family organisations whose work is undertaken through the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC Pro-Life Ltd), a company registered in England and Wales. Payments are managed by SPUC and used to support the work of Voice of the Family.

SPUC will add your name, address and telephone number to our database so that we can contact you by post or telephone about campaigns and opportunities to donate.

We will keep your details safe and will not sell, swap or give them away. You can change your preferences anytime by email: dataprotect@spuc.org.uk or call: 020 7091 7091. You can view our privacy policy at spuc.org.uk/privacy-policy.

I A M A L S O H A P P Y F O R Y O U T O C O N TA C T M E BY E M A I L

AU T UMN 2 0 2 0

67

YOUR COMMENTS: .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. ..............................................................................................................................................

“It is my pleasure to recommend Voice of the Family’s magazine, Calx Mariae.

Its title, with its allusion to the protoevangelium (Gen 3:15), should remind us that the Holy Virgin’s victory over our ancient enemy is already assured.

I hope that its presentation of the beauty of Catholic teaching will contribute to the rebuilding of Christian civilisation. I pray that its content will help all those who read it to draw ever closer to our Blessed Mother at this time of trial for the Church - like St John, those who remain close to her will not abandon the Lord. I would encourage readers to assist this wonderful apostolate with their prayers and generous support.”

Bishop Athanasius Schneider,

O.R.C.

“…she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel” (Gen 3:15)