Calx Mariae issue 12, Spring 2021

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

St Joseph PATRON OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH

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 7 1 F O R D E TA I L S

FOCUS:

PROTECTOR OF THE FAMILY INCLUDING:

2021 IN THE LIGHT OF THE FATIMA MESSAGE AND RIGHT REASON b y P R O F. R O B E R T O D E M AT T E I VATICAN II DRAFT DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON CHASTITY, MARRIAGE, THE FAMILY AND VIRGINITY a schema that should have never been rejected 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 12

SPRING 2021

!

Y A D O T P U N G SI

JOIN OUR NEW ONLINE VIDEO CATECHISM COURSE A unique opportunity for children and their families to learn the timeless truths of the Catholic Faith according to the classic

Baltimore Catechism Presented by

FR ANTHONY PILLARI JCL, MCL, STL Produced by LYDIA KEOGH PLEASE VISIT:

www.olrfamilycatechism.com

MARIAE CALX

issue 12

spr ing 2 0 2 1

CONTENTS

2

From the editor

3 The profound tragedy of the “Pills by post” abortion scheme

by Liam Gibson 5 2021 in the light of the Fatima Message and right reason

by Prof. Roberto de Mattei 1 7 The eclipse of the Catholic Church is a far greater disaster than Biden’s election as US president

by John Smeaton

5

17

2 1

FOCUS: St Joseph Patron of the Universal Church Protector of the Family

23

Vatican II Draft Dogmatic Constitution on Chastity, Marriage, the Family and Virginity – a schema that should have never been rejected

by Maria Madise

37

A year dedicated to Amoris Laetitia – revisiting the key doctrinal errors enshrined in the Apostolic Exhortation

49

A short reading list of Catholic teaching on the family for confusing times

51

Quemadmodum Deus – Pope Pius IX's decree that declared St Joseph as Patron of the Universal Church

52 The Year of Saint Joseph – a great opportunity for the Church

by Prof. Roberto de Mattei 21

55

23

69

54

The Year of Saint Joseph indulgences

55

61

The fight of a family doctor an interview with Dr Thomas Ward

64

A letter from a Benedictine monk

The crisis of fatherhood

by Dr Joseph Shaw

69 The Holy Family

by Fr Konrad zu Löwenstein

2

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

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”.

I S S N :2 51 7- 64 55

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.

OF T H E FA M I LY 2 02 1

The global state of emergency has lasted over a year.

Our patience has been tried, yet “in your patience you shall possess your souls”. (Lk. 21:19) We can only be patient with what is undesired in the hope that it will change. While the overall desire seems to be for things to get “back to normal”, few of us would argue that things were normal before the crisis began. If we don’t desire what we had before, nor what we have now, what do we want?

Whatever we think of the crisis we can be certain that revolutionary forces manipulate it to their advantage. As Prof. de Mattei writes “the final goal of the Revolution ... is not a ‘new world order’ but organised chaos.” Revolution, he believes, “aims at undoing the work of creation and the Redemption to form the social reign of the demon, a Hell on earth which prefigures that of eternity, just as the social reign of Christ, Christian civilisation, prefigures the heavenly Kingdom. In this sense the Revolution has its essence in disorder, whereas Christian civilisation is order par excellence.” (See p. 5) This is the order we desire. Ultimately, society needs Christ – Omnia Instaurare in Christo, as St Pius X plainly reminds us in Notre Charge Apostolique. What aids this cause should be pursued, what hinders it must be abandoned.

In Lent especially, we seek to restore order within our souls while exercising patience with external disorder. St Joseph can surely help us in this task. St Joseph’s life was filled with emergencies: his concern for Mary when she was found to be with child (Mt. 1:19), providing a place for Jesus’ birth (Lk. 2:7), the stark prophecy of Simeon (Lk. 2:34), the flight into Egypt and protecting the Holy Family in a pagan land (Mt. 2:14,22), losing the Holy Child (Lk. 2:45) – what we know of his life are all moments of crisis.

There is no better guide for us today than St Joseph. No-one has been in greater need of God’s help and no-one on earth has relied more faithfully on His assistance. In his love for Jesus and Mary, St Joseph is unsurpassed.

In an extraordinary move, the Apostolic Penitentiary has offered us the opportunity to gain indulgences by honouring St Joseph. Even if this is merely an attempt to associate St Joseph with the promotion of Amoris Laetitia as the definitive teaching on the family – the graces promised to those who observe the Year of St Joseph are genuine gifts of God’s mercy, so much needed today.

(See Focus section p. 20) In the uncertainty and chaos that surrounds us, we may envy those who, in the past, could look to their leaders for guidance – especially those in the time of Christ who could follow Him so closely.

And yet, none of those who followed Him in Judea could receive Him as we do. Not even St Joseph under whose roof He dwelt, could be so close to Him as He is to us in the Holy Eucharist.

The unfathomable mystery of God’s love in sacrificing Himself for His creatures has wrought this union for us. The Cross is at the heart of Christian order, in a soul and in the world. A society that rejects the Cross, faces disorder and chaos. This is even more true of the human element in the Church which is leading the Bride of Christ into a Passion reflecting His. In this holy time, let us resolve to love the Cross and seek fervently the graces granted through the intercession of St Joseph, the Mirror of Patience, for the consolation of our Sorrowful Mother, and for the conversion and perseverance of her children.

EDITOR Maria Madise

© VOIC E

FROM THE EDITOR

OF THE “PILLS BY POST” ABORTION SCHEME

pro-life action

The profound tragedy

by L I A M G I B S O N

T

uesday, 30 March 2021, marks the 12-month anniversary of the introduction of the “Pills by post” abortion scheme to England. In that time, it has been shown to lack even the minimal level of protection for women and children which the law previously entailed. Despite ample evidence of the dangers of the scheme and the potential for widespread unlawful use of abortion drugs, the Johnson government is poised to make the practice permanent as it considers the submissions to the public consultation which concluded 26 February.

Under the temporary measures introduced during the Covid-19 lockdown in March 2020, Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, authorised abortion providers to supply Mifepristone tablets to women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy without an in-person consultation.1 Morally, such abortions are just as grievous as those supervised by medical personnel. However, if the “Pills by post” scheme becomes standard practice, it will have major medical and social implications.

The most significant of these would be the further trivialisation of abortion and the killing of unborn children in even greater numbers.

It has long been a goal of the abortion industry to maximise access to abortion while minimising oversight. In 2017, Prof. Lesley Regan of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists argued that abortion should be like “get[ting] your bunions sorted”.2 The “Pills by post” scheme has effectively made abortion drugs as easy to obtain as antibiotics.

“DIY” abortions mean that the number of clients for agencies like the British Pregnancy Advisory Service or Marie Stopes International is likely to increase. But because women will manage the procedure within their own homes, providers also stand to benefit from a reduction in their running costs. Women are told that if complications occur they should not contact the abortion provider but go directly to the nearest hospital emergency deS PR I NG 2021

partment. And complications with medical abortions are not uncommon. The overall incidence of adverse events is four times higher in medical abortion when compared with surgical methods – 20 per cent compared with 5.6 per cent3 and these become more likely as pregnancy progresses. One UK study found that more than half of women having abortions after 13 weeks required a subsequent surgical intervention.4 Already in May, health officials in the Midlands region alone were concerned by 13 incidents related to medical abortion which they described as “tragic”. These included two maternal deaths: “One case where the woman was found at home

3

pro-life action

the morning after starting the process and the second where a woman presented with sepsis and died very quickly in the A&E [department].”5 The police opened investigations into three other cases and one of these was an enquiry into the suspected murder of a baby born alive.

Research from Sweden suggests that a shift to home abortions may have been responsible for a doubling of complications in six years.6 The early indications are that England is likely to follow this trend. When Christian Concern commissioned an undercover survey of independent abortion providers, it revealed serious problems with the scheme.7 It was impossible through a telephone consultation to verify the stage of the pregnancy and therefore to recognise when women provided false or incorrect information, a fact that has grave implications for clinical safety.

Nor could remote consultations identify when women were acting under the direction of a third party as would be the case in an abusive relationship. Since intimate partner violence is strongly correlated with abortion,8 dispensing with in-person consultations is likely to result in more women being coerced into abortion.

Medical abortion is a more drawn-out process than surgical abortion and complications are more frequent. There is also evidence that women suffer more psychologically following this type of abortion. In 2011, a French study comparing surgical and medical abortion, post-traumatic stress disorder scores were not only high at 6 weeks after the abortion, but higher in the medical abortion group, even though these women had less advanced pregnancies.9 When a woman is responsible for managing the procedure herself it may lead to more adverse psychological consequences, perhaps in part because she is more likely to see her baby.

The gravity of DIY abortion can be summed up in the testimony of a young woman who, in 2016 witnessed the abortion of her housemate:

me mentally. It is something I can’t get out of my head. On bin collection day I couldn’t bring myself to put the bin out for collection. I didn’t want to throw a baby away. I didn’t know what to do.”10 Inevitably, the growing practice of DIY abortion will have a profound effect on our culture as a whole. In a society that accepts that tens of thousands of unborn children can be discarded as domestic waste, the dignity of every human being will only continue to diminish.

The results of the health department’s consultation on the “Pills by post” scheme is expected to be published later this year.

For more information on DIY abortion and how you can help oppose it, contact the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children or go to www.spuc.org.uk.

ENDNOTES: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Medical or chemical abortion generally involves a woman taking two drugs: Mifepristone (RU 486) – which normally ends the life of the unborn baby, followed 24-48 hours later by Misoprostol, which expels the baby’s body.

Sophie Borland, “Abortions on demand: Top medic says the rule that two doctors must sign for a termination should be scrapped”, Daily Mail, 16 Sept 2017.

Maarit Niinimäki, Anneli Pouta, Aini Bloigu et al., “Immediate complications after medical compared with surgical termination of pregnancy”, Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114(4): 795-804.

“For medical abortion after 13 weeks of gestation, surgical evacuation may be required either at the time for retained placenta or later for persistent retained products of conception. Quoted rates for surgical intervention vary widely between studies and across different regimens, from 2.5 per cent in one study up to 53 per cent in a UK multicentre study.” Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion, 2011, p. 42.

Email from NHS England & NHS Improvement, 21 May 2020, cited in the Second Witness Statement of Kevin Duffy in Appeal Against Refusal of Permission for Judicial Review Between R (Christian Concern) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, 16 July 2020.

I. Carlsson, K. Breding & P. Larsson, “Complications related to induced abortion: a combined retrospective and longitudinal follow-up study” (2018), BMC Women’s Health 18, 158.

Christian Concern, “Abortion at Home: A Mystery Client Investigation”, 20 January 2021.

C. C. Pallitto et al., “Intimate partner violence, abortion, and unintended pregnancy: results from the WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence” (2013) Int. J Gynecology Obstetrics 120:3-9.

C. Rousset et al., “Posttraumatic stress disorder and psychological distress following medical and surgical abortion” (2011), J. Reprod & Infant Psychology 29(5): 506-517.

Deborah McAleese, “Why we reported abortion pills girl to Northern Ireland police”, Belfast Telegraph 6 April 2016.

“…There was the baby on a towel. I didn’t expect the baby to be so fully formed. …He had fingers, little toes. Even now I just have a picture in my mind of it. Its wee foot was perfect. Even now I feel sick. It has done so much damage to

4

CAL X M ARIA E

analysis

2021

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FATIMA MESSAGE AND RIGHT REASON

by P R O F. R O B E RT O D E M AT T E I

Video presentation Lepanto Foundation, 5 January 2021 The Message of Fatima What really happened in 2020, the dramatic year which has just come to an end? And what awaits us in 2021?

What are the prospects for our times?

The panorama we have before us is hazy, difficult to survey, but I’ll try to do it from the stance of the highest principles and greatest certainties, in the light of which, the history of the world must be judged.

Among these great certainties, there is one more than any other that can help us find our way in the present and in the future: the Message of Our Lady of Fatima in 1917.

We know well that Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle and nothing can be added to it. The Message of Fatima does not belong to the patrimony of revealed faith. It is also true however, that whilst, among private revelations, some concern the spiritual perfection of individual souls, “ others have a social reach because they are meant for all mankind.

The Message of Fatima is a private revelation intended not only for the spiritual well-being of the three little shepherds who received it, but for the entire human race. And among all the private revelations of the last century, none have had as much recognition from the Church as Fatima has.

In the space of a hundred years, seven popes, from Pius XII to Francis have recognised and honoured Our Lady of Fatima, even if none have completely fulfilled Her requests.

In the year 2000, the Church officially revealed the so-called Third Secret of Fatima, the last part of the Message revealed to the three little shepherds: an unfulfilled prophecy we must always bear in mind.1 S PR I NG 2021

The prospect described by the Message of Fatima is tragic. The first tragedy that Our Lady presents to the children is the terrible vision of Hell into which the souls of unrepentant sinners fall.

The second tragedy is represented by the words of Our Lady Herself, whereby: “God is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.” If the world does not convert “Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated.”

The third part of the tragedy shows the Pope and with him: “Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-­hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.”

5

ANALYSIS

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. WELLCOME COLLECTION, LONDON.

A short sentence from Our Lady though, illuminates this tragic scenario with great hope: “But in the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she will be converted, and the world will enjoy a period of peace.”

The triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is announced as certain and unconditional: no matter what, it will happen. The chastisement preceding the triumph, on the other hand, is conditional: it will happen only if mankind does not convert. This conditional nature prevents us from speaking with absolute certainty about the chastisement, but the growing apostasy in mankind over recent years, indicates a quasi-irreversibility of the historical process which leads first to a Great Chastisement and then the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

6

The rules of reason The Message of Fatima requires our faith but faith is based on reason and reason has several basic rules we must follow.

Father Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange teaches that the rule of Wisdom is “explaining the inferior by means of the superior”, “according to the subordination of the causes that lead to the Prime Cause and the ultimate purpose of the universe, God, Prime Being, Prime Intelligence and Supreme Good.”2 Furthermore, in the cognitive process, certainty, which excludes any doubt, must not be confused with opinion, which admits possibility of error, or with hypothesis, which requires being demonstrated in order to become a given thesis.

The reasoning that one must follow to transform hypothesis into certainty is called demonstration.

Every demonstration is based on the principle of non-contradiction which constitutes the foundation of logic. Sophism or paralogism, a false reasoning, founded on logical errors and in the ultimate analysis, on the violation of the principle of non-contradiction, are opposed to true reasoning, based on logic. However, it is not possible to conserve logic without the help of grace, which illuminates the intelligence of man and strengthens his will. The spiritual life helps the rational activity of man.

Bad use of reason leads to the precedence of the imagination, a form of knowledge which does not follow logical steps, but is often determined by an emotional state. Reason is substituted by fantasy and demonstration is substituted by narrative. To explain the significance of the term phantasia, Aristotle indicates its derivation from light (pháos).3 Just as luminous stimulus generates visual sensations, thus the mind produces internally “phantasms” (phantásmata) or images that don’t always correspond to reality. Every image that makes an impression on our mind, therefore, must be verified by the light of reason, which is the highest faculty of the soul.

Certainties and opinions In the year 2020, everything started in January with the news of an epidemic that had its epicentre in China, in the city of Wuhan. Globalisation not only facilitated the spread of the virus, but the diffusion,

CAL X M ARIA E

2 0 2 1 i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e f at i m a m e s s a g e a n d r i g h t r e a s o n

in real time, of all the news regarding it, in such a way as to create excessive focus on it.

On 11 March, the World Health Organization (WHO), having initially minimised the event, later characterised it as a pandemic of a “coronavirus”, then baptised as Covid-19. None of us know for sure to what extent the statistical data communicated by the WHO and all the world governments are reliable either by defect or excess; nobody knows with certainty the real benefit of the measures taken to contain the pandemic, like masking and quarantine; nobody is able to speak with certainty about the effectiveness of the vaccines offered solemnly to the world on 27 December 2020. Regarding these last points, every one of us can have our opinions, and put forward hypotheses, but no-one is able to transform these hypotheses into certainties.

There is some factual evidence to take into account. The first, of an economic and social nature, was made manifest throughout 2020, with the failure of many small businesses, grave loss of income amongst the working and middle classes, unemployment and poverty, whilst nation states seem unable to deploy public funds successfully in their handling of the crisis. Consequences of a psychological nature due to the pandemic appear even graver, caused, in the first place, by the atmosphere of alarm and fear created all over the world. Fear of the virus has caused anguish, depression and even a number of suicides, in a society brought up on the denial of death and the worship of health and wealth. The West, which has not had the experience of a war in seventy years, has found itself defenceless faced with what was defined by the French President Macron as “a war against an invisible enemy”.4 Even graver than fear, it seems, is the loss of trust in our neighbour, mainly due in this case, to intolerance towards the frequently confusing and irrational restrictive measures imposed by governments. In some countries, these measures have shaken the foundations of the judicial system, as far as the relationship between emergency and individual liberties is concerned, especially in relation to religious liberty.5 In addition, the political class relied on healthcare experts to eradicate the pandemic, but deep

S PR I NG 2021

division was soon made manifest among the scientists. Behind them, an obscure fight seems to be unfolding among the great pharmaceutical companies, for whom the existence of a pharmacological dependence in the population is certainly convenient.6 Alongside the economic interests of these companies, there are those of the world’s financial capitals, since pharmaceutical industries need to be sustained as regards the research and commercialisation of their products. The production of vaccines involves competition between nation states, which are predisposed to fighting with no holds barred.7 As a result of all this, the trust citizens have in their governments and the political class is crumbling, but also as regards the scientific and medical professions. Distrust is increasing even towards the people close to us, of whom we thought highly yesterday, and now from one moment to another we no longer esteem them because their opinion is different from ours.

If the pandemic is blamed for these events, we would fall into the error of confusing the cause with the effects, which is one of the typical paralogisms criticised by Aristotle in his Sophistical Refutations.8 For example: the existence of a “healthcare dictatorship” or of an economic crisis after the pandemic does not constitute proof that the pandemic was unleashed or is being handled to create a healthcare dictatorship or an economic crisis.

A natural virus or product of a laboratory?

Alongside the diversity of opinions on the political and health measures following the pandemic, a plurality of hypotheses about the origins and the nature of the virus – still shrouded in mystery – have appeared. For most of the scientists the virus is of animal origins, caused, according to the evolutionist theories, by a “spillover” from bats to man. Spillover: The Evolution of Pandemics9 is the title of a paper written in 2012 by the American scientific publisher, David Quammen, who, at that time warned in advance of a possible dangerous coronavirus pandemic on the basis of data he had gathered during his studies.

There is, however, a second hypothesis, that noone has been able to exclude: the possibility of a synthetic origin of the pandemic. At Wuhan, there is in fact, a National Biosafety Laboratory, where 7

ANALYSIS

both civilian and military research is carried out on viruses potentially pathogenic for man. The Coronavirus might have leaked out of this laboratory by accident – as a “hazardous event” – or it might have been the instrument of a deliberate act of biological war.

The hypothesis of a virus leak from the Wuhan laboratory has been advanced in Italy since 25 January 2020 by the journalist Paolo Liguori,10 and in the U.S. from February by Steven Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute.11 Also the French Nobel Prize winner for medicine, Luc Montagnier, in an interview of 17 April12 sustained the thesis of the artificial origins of the virus, while on 3 May 2020, in an interview to ABC News, the U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, stated that “a remarkable quantity of proof indicates that the origins of Sars-CoV2 are from the Wuhan laboratory”.13 The person who has developed this hypothesis in most depth is the Italian researcher Joseph Tritto, in a study document entitled China Covid 19: The Chimera that Changed the World.14 Along with the hypothesis of an accidental leak from the Wuhan Laboratory, there is a second one, where the virus could be a product of Chinese bio-terrorism. A researcher from the University of Hong Kong, Li-Meng-Yan,15 who fled to the United States in April 2020, affirmed on the basis of her studies, that Covid-19 did not originate from nature but is a biological weapon deliberately created to kill. The Indian official Sharad S. Chauhan 8

is the author of a book entitled COVID 19 or Opportunistic Bioterrorism? A Virus from China set to Change World History,16 wherein he asserts that the virus was launched by China to change the world to their own advantage.

We must consider in this regard, that in 1999, a book was published by two Chinese officials, Qiao Lian and Wang Xiangsui, entitled Unrestricted warfare, wherein the authors sustained that China, in self-defence, should not hesitate in using all the instruments it has at its disposal, including biological weapons. And the Wuhan laboratory is certainly an important facility to produce these weapons.

The concept of “unrestricted warfare” reminds us of “asymmetric warfare”: a conflict in which one of the sides is obliged to defend themselves from an unidentifiable enemy, who uses unconventional weapons. The use of bio-technologies, informatics and artificial intelligence are part of the Chinese military strategy and are typical examples of asymmetric warfare.

An international treaty (Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention – BTWC), signed on 12 April 1972 and which came into effect on 26 March 1975, forbids the development and production of biological weapons. All the States in the European Union, the United States, Australia and Japan ratified it, but China did not. The Soviet Union adhered to the treaty, but this did not impede their launching of Biopreparat in the 1970s, a programme of military research in the biological and bacteriological sector.

At the beginning of the 1990s, the structure was officially dismantled, but it would seem that Russia has inherited most of the biological weapons developed during the Cold War. Biological warfare is a strategic sector which implies many advantages: it is warfare that produces an injurious or mortal effect on things and people and its true origin is difficult to identify; thus it can be waged in a concealed manner; furthermore, because of its hidden nature, this war strikes not only the bodies but also the morale of the population, who blame the damage, not on the ones who caused the crisis, but on those, inside their own countries, who are trying to deal with it. During the Cold War, international peace was guaranteed by “the balance of terror” between Russia and the United CAL X M ARIA E

2 0 2 1 i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e f at i m a m e s s a g e a n d r i g h t r e a s o n

States, both aware that the use of nuclear weapons would have provoked an immediate and devastating response from the other super-power. No deterrent is possible when nuclear weapons are replaced by biological ones, which, by their very nature, lend themselves to concealed use.

Russia is a declining power and China is an emerging power, but what the Russia of yesterday and the China of today have in common is an ideological system, indicated by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Divini Redemptoris of 19 March 1937 as being of a mendacious and intrinsically perverse nature.17 At Fatima Our Lady announced that Russia would spread its errors. Its errors are those of Communism, destined to spread far beyond the Russian borders, also in particular after the self-dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. China, like other countries, develops biological research in both the civilian and military fields. It is probable that the Coronavirus leaked from the Wuhan laboratory, whether it happened as an act of biological warfare or whether it happened in an accidental manner, during a military or health programme.

But this probability doesn’t change the hypothesis into certainty, until sure proof is presented.

For now the only absolute certitude is that the upheaval caused by the pandemic is undermining the process of globalisation that has taken place over the last thirty years, founded precisely on the role of China, which has made available its workforce to the West, while the West has opened wide its market to products Made in China.18 According to the most recent analyses, China will surpass the United States and will become the largest economy in the world by 2028, that is, five years sooner than was previously estimated. The acceleration came about following the pandemic, but merely basing the charges against China on the principle post hoc propter hoc, would be stretching logic.19 We won’t err however, if we trace back everything that happened in 2020 to the eternal plans of Divine Providence.

True and false conspiracies There is another hypothesis which is being diffused, most of all on the internet: one whereby a Western financial oligarchy had produced the pandemic and had controlled its diffusion, with the aim of

S PR I NG 2021

subjugating mankind to a one-world government.

If this were true, the Coronavirus would not have its origins in the Chinese laboratories, but in Western ones. The thesis of the American bacteriological attack was put forward in the first place by the Chinese Government, which, through the spokesman of the Foreign Minister, accused the United States of having brought the pathogen agent into China, during the Military World Games, the international military games held from 18 to 27 October in Wuhan in 2019.20 In Italy, the neo-Marxist intellectual, Diego Fusaro, who exercises a considerable influence in conservative circles, accused the West as early as 26 February 2020 on RadioRadio, affirming that the hypothesis “which presents the maximum points of coherence, is that in some way, there is the longa manus of the United States”. For Fusaro globalist ideology is the ideological superstructure of the capitalist structure turned into a single, borderless, global market. It aims at the creation of a new anthropological model: the individual without an identity, a pure product of the strategies of manipulation.

This totalitarian and freedom-destroying plan, for some Catholics, would coincide with the reign of the Anti-Christ. These ideas circulating in the blogosphere appear seductive to many, but are expressed in the form of “narration”, more than argumentation. What renders them fallacious is not the conspiratorial theory underlying them, but the presumption of establishing a theory through arguments of a merely circumstantial nature, for the most part inconsistent. For example, the fact that Bill Gates had predicted the pandemic and invested widely in vaccines demonstrates his capacity for prediction and his instinct for business affairs, but does not prove that he had created the virus.

Furthermore, blaming the pandemic on the dark interests of super-capitalism corresponds to affirming the primacy of economic interests in world events, overturning Father Garrigou-Lagrange’s principle, whereby we need “to explain the inferior with the superior”, and not vice-versa. Those who sustain these theses then, often use “flash sophism”, which consists in having recourse to generic phrases and

9

ANALYSIS

peremptory sentences, which do not convince the sage, but make an impression on the uneducated.21 Counter-revolutionary thought of the 19th and 20th centuries always affirmed the existence of a historical, anti-Christian plot.22 The simple dynamism of human passions and errors is not sufficient in fact to explain the revolutionary process which for centuries has been attacking the Church and Christian civilisation which was generated from it. With great logic and clarity, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira writes: “To produce such a coherent process, with such continuity, like that of the Revolution through the thousand vicissitudes of entire centuries, full of surprises and setbacks of all kinds, seems impossible to us without the action of successive generations of intelligently gifted conspirators of extraordinary powers. To think that the Revolution had reached the state it is now without such action, is equivalent to admitting that hundreds of alphabet letters thrown out a window can arrange themselves spontaneously on the ground, in a way to form a literary work, for example ‘The Hymn to Satan’ by Carducci.”23 The identification of the secret forces that move the Revolution require, however, accurate documentation, in-depth study and in the final analysis, great equilibrium.

When these theories are not well-founded, the suspicion arises that they are being spread by the revolutionary agents themselves to disqualify any criticism of the secret forces that move the Revolution. The best way possible to discredit the thesis of the anti-Christian plot is in fact that of envisaging fanciful conspiracies, verging on the absurd. It is rather similar to what happens with private revelations. The best way for the demon to negate authentic divine messages is to multiply false revelations in order to disparage and ridicule the true ones.

“Windows of opportunity” A rather different and absolutely reasonable argument is asserting that the revolutionary forces saw in the pandemic “a window of opportunity”.

The concept of the “window of opportunity” alludes to the theology of history whereby God is 10

the cause of all good in the universe, and when He permits evil He does so to draw a greater good from it. God is always the victor in history, and the demon is always defeated. The diabolic strategy, opposed to the divine, consists instead of trying constantly to do evil and to turn to evil every good in the universe which God, the author, created.

There is, therefore, “a window of divine opportunity” which consists in drawing good from evil and a “window of diabolical opportunity” which consists in drawing evil from good.

This relates also to the case of the Coronavirus, which the Revolution seeks to use as a “window of opportunity” in order to advance a situation of uncertainty. This is the underlying thesis of two contemporary, leftist exponents of culture: the Slovenian sociologist Slavoj Žižek and the French philosopher Edgar Morin. Žižek, in his book Virus: Catastrophe and Solidarity, maintains that for the Communist Revolution, at this moment, “everything is possible, in whatever direction, from the best to the worst”,24 whereas Morin in his book Switching Paths: The 15 lessons of the Coronavirus,25 affirms that the “post-Coronavirus, could be either apocalyptic or the bearer of hope”. For both of them the virus is an unexpected event, which must be exploited as a window of opportunity. It is what the Revolution is doing, by re-launching, for example, the theory of the “great reset”, the egalitarian elimination from which a new Utopian world should arise.

On 3 June 2020, the German economist Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, also called the “Davos Forum”, spoke of the “great opportunity” of a “great reset”,26 following the pandemic. But the concept of the “great reset” does not originate from the Coronavirus. Last year the Global Compact on Education had been planned in the Vatican on 14 May 2020, an event based on the idea of an ecological and globalist “great reset”.

This event did not take place, but was cancelled precisely due to the pandemic.

Whatever the origin of the virus, it is certain that the revolutionary forces are trying to manipulate the situation to their advantage. Within them there are probably diverse lines, since the revolutionary camp is in itself, divided. The final goal of the Revolution CAL X M ARIA E

2 0 2 1 i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e f at i m a m e s s a g e a n d r i g h t r e a s o n

“The final goal of the Revolution though, is not a ‘new world order’ but organised chaos.The Revolution aims at undoing the work of creation and the Redemption to form the social reign of the demon, a Hell on earth which prefigures that of eternity, just as the social reign of Christ, Christian civilisation, prefigures the heavenly Kingdom.

In this sense the Revolution has its essence in disorder, whereas Christian civilisation is order par excellence.” book Paradise Lost27 to identify the palace built by Satan in Hell. Pandemonium is a synonym for chaos, and diabolical chaos seems to be the underlying theme of the pandemic in progress.

ADORATION OF THE LAMB FROM THE GHENT ALTARPIECE (C.1426-1432).

THE VAN EYCK BROTHERS. SAINT BAVO CATHEDRAL, GHENT.

though, is not a “new world order” but organised chaos. The Revolution aims at undoing the work of creation and the Redemption to form the social reign of the demon, a Hell on earth which prefigures that of eternity, just as the social reign of Christ, Christian civilisation, prefigures the heavenly Kingdom. In this sense the Revolution has its essence in disorder, whereas Christian civilisation is order par excellence.

The word “pandemic”, which comes from the Greek πάνδημος (pándēmos), “that which interests all people”, is close to that of pandemonium, “all the demons”, which is made up of the Greek terms pân (all) and daimónion (demon). The term pandæmonium was coined by the English poet John Milton in his S PR I NG 2021

A lost opportunity We would need then to oppose the “great reset” by the revolutionaries with a “great reset”, of a contrary nature, based on the return of order and not on the establishment of disorder.28 Unfortunately, the men who govern the Church have not seen “the window of opportunity”, which the Coronavirus could have been for them.

What should the authorities in the Church have done, and what should all Catholics do, faced with a pandemic like the one attacking us?

First of all, the Church should be speaking about death, sin, divine judgment, and the choice that the Message of Fatima puts before us between conversion and punishment, individual and collective.

It is hardly surprising then if contemporary society, incapable of making any sense out of life, falls into anguish when faced with disease and death.

On the other hand, we are surprised at the silence of those who would have all the weapons to defeat, not death, but the anguish that surrounds it. They ought to recall that death and all the evils of humanity have their origins in sin; that public sin is graver than individual sin, and that God punishes social sins with plagues of diseases, wars, famine and natural disasters.

11

ANALYSIS

Original sin in fact does not exist in society, but there is the collective sin of men who are part of it.

And God punishes or rewards individual men in life and in eternity, but punishes and rewards societies in their earthly horizon, given that societies do not have eternal life, unlike men. If the world does not repent, and most of all if the men of the Church continue to be silent, the punishments which at the beginning are inflicted in a mild manner, are destined to escalate more and more, until arriving at the annihilation of entire nations, as Our Lady announced at Fatima.

And Fatima is not an apocalyptic narrative of human origin, but a divine announcement, recognised by the Church.

The end times On these first days of 2021, the horizon is still shrouded in mystery, but the gravity of the religious, political and social situation leads us to believe that we are living through the era of the end times, of which St Louis Grignion de Montfort and other saints have spoken. Not the last days preceding the advent of the Anti-Christ, but those preceding the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.29 The prophecy of Fatima assures us that we are not living in the age of the Anti-Christ, because Russia will be converted and a period of peace will be granted to the world. We don’t know how long this period of peace will last, but we have the

12

certainty that peace, which is the tranquillity of the natural and Christian order, belongs to our future.

St Pius X, who lived through the terrible crisis of modernism, feared that the perversity of mind in his times was “the beginning of the evils, reserved for the last days” and that perhaps “the Son of Perdition of whom the Apostle speaks was already in the world (2 Thess 2:3)”.30 He wrote these words in his first encyclical, E supremi apostolatus cathedra (4 October 1903), when Our Lady was yet to appear at Fatima. We, however, cannot ignore the promise of Fatima, which does not address the Anti-Christ and the end of the world, but the triumph of Her Immaculate Heart and the rebirth of Christian civilisation.

There is a substantial difference between the advent of the Anti-Christ and that of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The lordship of the Anti-Christ will be the supreme expression of evil in history. On that day Satan will reign over the world and the empire of evil will extend to the point that it will not be possible to escape the radical choice for or against Jesus Christ, by hiding. Christ Himself, at the height of the persecution, will defeat the Anti-Christ and will appear triumphant in His Parousia (Rev 6).

On the contrary, however, the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is the outcome of a historical process at the end of which various nations will be annihilated but Russia and other nations will be converted to the true Catholic Faith – and this conversion will be all the more spectacular inasmuch as Russia is a nation that has been dominated by Communism and still today lives under the deception of the Orthodox Religion. Our Lady revealed to Sister Lucia that the First and Second World Wars were part of this process, which experienced new convulsions before reaching its epilogue.

There is also a difference between the punishment of Hell, which Our Lady shows in the first part of the Fatima Message and the chastisement of nations which appears in the second and third part of the same Message. The punishment of souls, at the moment of death, is instantaneous, and is for eternity. But nations are not eternal and their punishment occurs in history, following a succession of events, which Our Lady indicates precisely: war,

CAL X M ARIA E

2 0 2 1 i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e f at i m a m e s s a g e a n d r i g h t r e a s o n

famine, persecution against the Church and against the pope. Some of these events may be natural disasters willed by God through His Angels, who are the executors of His plans in history, but other events are willed by men, who cause, with their own hands, their very self-destruction.

The Revolution, as little by little it nears its final goal, destroys itself. In fact, if it’s true that “the closer you are to a cause, the more you experience the effects”,31 the opposite also applies. If at the beginnings of the Revolution there is the will to destroy, the initial impetus is destined to wear off, little by little as the destruction comes with its final consequences; also because evil, which is the privation of being, cannot attain the extinction of being, from which it draws its very existence.

The drama of evil is this: it cannot destroy the last remnants of good that survive. Its power and energy are destined to crash against what remains solid amidst the liquefaction that Revolution produces. The last step of the process of auto-dissolution, which today is eroding the rock upon which the Church is founded, is destined therefore to see the death of the Revolution and the sprouting of an opposing principle of life: a path of restoration of Faith and morality, of the Truth and the social order to which it corresponds. This principle is the Catholic Counter-Revolution.

The “time of revolt” The Revolution has a single origin and trajectory, but when reaching the end of its course, it tends to become jagged in a chaotic manner. It ends in chaos, but it is also the end of the Revolution. As a result of the principle of heterogenesis of purpose, every Revolution in history has reversed the projects of its architects, towards the contrary. Even the project of the Universal Republic and of the “new world order”, is being transformed into a scenario of global chaos which is plain to behold. Protests and social clashes are spreading and the acts of disobedience against all authority are multiplying in a panorama of global disorder.

On the night of 14 July 1789, King Louis XVI learnt from the Duke La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt that the Bastille had been taken. The King asked: “Is it a revolt?” “No sire, it’s a revolution,” replied S PR I NG 2021

the Duke.32 The difference between a revolt and a revolution that emerges from this dialogue is not however an antithesis. Each Revolution is born in fact of a revolt in man’s tendencies. Nonetheless, the revolt is transformed into a Revolution when it is organised and has a programme and a driving direction. When, on the other hand, the Revolution loses its planning capacity, and its capacity to self-govern, it disintegrates and regresses, as it were, into a plurality of revolts, bound together only by the pathos of destruction.

Igor Safarevic documented the spirit of death and destruction that impregnated literally most of the socialist theories and movements in history that form their internal impetus. “The death of humanity is not only the predictable outcome of Socialism’s triumph, but it constitutes its very purpose.”33 Today is the time of revolts34 because the Revolution is in crisis. The rebels are the ecologists, the pacifists, the anti-racists, the militant LGBT, the Indignados, the Black Lives Matter and the informatic activists, who in failing to realise their projects, have chosen the path of permanent war.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the Marxist philosopher Toni Negri, in his book Impero,35 called for a “permanent global war”, not only against the national states, but against the multinational corporations, the United Nations, the World Bank and the Davos Club. Today Diego Fusaro calls the “dissenters” of both left and right to revolt. Fusaro’s books have significant titles: Welcome Back Marx and Antonio Gramsci: The Passion of Being in the World. There are no ambiguities in his ideas. His latest book Think Otherwise: The Philosophy of Dissent is an apologia for rebellion and revolutionary dissent.

What is dissent? Fusaro explains: “Revolution and rebellion, defection and protest, revolt and mutiny, antagonism and discord, insubordination and sedition, strikes and disobedience, resistance and sabotage, contestation and uprising, guerrilla war and insurrection, agitation and boycott: are all shape-shifting figures of dissent.”36

13

ANALYSIS

“We love order and we combat disorder.

Our struggle against disorder is called Counter-Revolution, a movement whereby order is re-established and restored.

The order that we want restored in its foundations is Christian civilisation, the image and earthly reflection of Paradise. Our Lady at Fatima gave the name of the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart to the victory of the Counter-Revolution.”

Fusaro praises the great rebels against the constituted order of history: Prometheus, Spartacus, Luther, the Anabaptists, Giordano Bruno up to Marx, Lenin, Martin Luther King, Che Guevara and the No Globals.37 The history of humanity, he asserts, begins with “the dissent of Adam and Eve in respect to the divine imperative, which impedes them from eating from the tree of knowledge: eritis sicut Dei”. “That original dissent despite having a high cost, permits man to become truly such, to stand up autonomous and free, faber fortunae suae, superior to the other creatures, given that, he alone can freely self-determine through his own responsible action.”38 Adam and Eve, like Prometheus, according to Fusaro, “never cease teaching us about the importance of dissent, but also, in a related manner, in their preferring a condition of torment and suffering (…) as opposed to servitude without effort and toil.”39 These are terrible words. Fusaro avoids mentioning that the first great rebel, the inspirer of Adam and Eve’s rebellion, the father of all dissent against the constituted order, was Lucifer. And Lucifer chose and continues to choose eternal suffering rather than depend on his Creator. Better suffering and death than obedience: this is Fusaro’s message, who is one of the best-known exponents of the techno-capitalist conspiracy theory, against which he incites revolt, in the name of the “philosophy of praxis”.

14

The light of Fatima in the darkness of night We live in the age of chaos, but we have one certainty: nothing that happens is casual or fortuitous; everything depends on Divine Providence. The designs of God are inscrutable, but are infallibly realised. God, through second causes, regulates the chain of cause and effect in our lives and in history.

We don’t know if Covid-19 is a natural or artificial event. What is certain is that every disaster that befalls man is a punishment, and punishments for impenitent mankind were predicted by Our Lady at Fatima.

To deny that the Coronavirus is a chastisement for the sins of men would not only be a rejection of the Fatima Message, but a profession of practical atheism, and in the final analysis, blasphemy.

Let’s leave it to the world to blaspheme, as Voltaire blasphemed when the earthquake happened in Lisbon in 1775.40 We turn our eyes to the Cova da Iria where in 1917 Our Lady entrusted to three little shepherds a message of tragedy and hope for humanity.

We oppose the philosophy of revolt – the philosophy of dissent, the philosophy of the Revolution, which has the demon as its prime inspiration – with the philosophy of obedience to the Divine Law, violated and offended all over the world.

It is for the sake of this supreme obedience, that we are ready to withdraw our obedience to men, even those of the Church, if grave circumstances require it. But if this happens, we do so with sor-

CAL X M ARIA E

row, we do so with respect. By renewing our spirit of obedience to God and His Law, we renew our love for the Church and our neighbour: for every brother whose will we wish to do, according to the priorities of dependency and hierarchy which regulate the universe.

We love order and we combat disorder.

Our struggle against disorder is called Counter-Revolution, a movement whereby order is re-established and restored. The order that we want restored in its foundations is Christian civilisation, the image and earthly reflection of Paradise. Our Lady at Fatima gave the name of the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart to the victory of the Counter-Revolution. This is our prospect for 2021, as it has been for all our life. And to hasten this triumph we launch an appeal to all men of good will in the year we celebrate the 450th anniversary of the Victory at Lepanto, and also the year dedicated to St Joseph, Protector of the Church and the Counter-Revolution.

The Message of Fatima is the light that guides us in the age of the Coronavirus.

Light of Fatima, Light without shadows, Immaculate Light, Light of the Dawn arising: we ask thee to illuminate our steps in the darkness of the night.

Prof. Roberto de Mattei is a former professor of Modern History and History of Christianity at the European University of Rome. He founded, and oversees, the Lepanto Foundation that operates in Washington and in Rome. He directs the magazine Radici Cristiane and the Corrispondenza Romana News Agency.

Endnotes: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, The Message of Fatima, Vatican City 2000.

Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P., Il senso del mistero e il chiaroscuro intellettuale, Italian translation Fede & Cultura, Verona 2019.

Aristotle, De anima, III, 3, 429, a 3.

«Nous sommes en guerre»: face au coronavirus, Emmanuel Macron sonne la «mobilisation générale», Le Monde, 17 March 2020.

Fabio Adernò, La libertà religiosa nella legislazione d’emergenza, in Covid-19 vs.

Democrazia. Aspetti giuridici ed economici nella prima fase dell’emergenza sanitaria, edited by Michele Borgato and Daniele Trabucco, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Naples 2020, pp. 77-102.

Cf. Joseph Tritto, Cina Covid-19. La chimera che ha cambiato il mondo, Cantagalli, Siena 2020, pp. 207-218. Even the boycott of a drug such as hydroxychloroquine must be framed within a struggle between Gilead Sciences, producer of Remdesivir and Sanofi, producer of Plaquenil (chloroquine).

Aldo Giannuli, Coronavirus: globalizzazione e servizi segreti. Come la pandemia ha cambiato e cambierà l’ordine mondiale, Ponte alle Grazie, Florence 2020, pp. 198-205.

Aristotle, Le confutazioni sofistiche, introduction, translation and comments by Paolo Fait, Laterza, Rome-Bari 2007.

S PR I NG 2021

15

ANALYSIS

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

John Milton, Paradise Lost, I, 753-756.

John Horvat II, Abbiamo bisogno di un great reset (ma non di quello che pensate); Fatima Oggi, 23 December 2020.

Cf. Roberto de Mattei, Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Apostolo di Fatima, Profeta del Regno di Maria, Edizioni Fiducia, Rome 2017, pp. 281-364.

Pius X, E supremi apostolatus cathedra; no 5.

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, q. 27, a. 5.

François Bluche cites the anecdote in his Dictionnaire des citations et des mots historiques, Éditions du Rocher, Paris 1997.

Igor Safarevic, Il socialismo come fenomeno storico mondiale, La Casa di Matriona, Milan 1980, p. 365.

Donatella Di Cesare, Il tempo della rivolta, Bollati Boringhieri, Turin 2020, pp. 10 ff.

Toni Negri, Impero. Il nuovo ordine della globalizzazione, with Michael Hardt, Rizzoli, Milan 2002.

Diego Fusaro, Pensare altrimenti. Filosofia del dissenso, Einaudi, Turin 2017, p. 3.

Ibid., pp. 3-4.

Ibid., p. 13.

Ibid., p. 14.

Poème sur le désastre de Lisbonne, in Œuvres complètes di Voltaire, Garnier, Paris 1877, t. 9, pp. 470-479.

c

o

m

in

g

so

o

n

26.

David Quammen, Spillover. L’evoluzione delle pandemie, Italian translation Adelphi, Milan 2014.

Paolo Liguori: Sindrome cinese, il virus nasce in un laboratorio militare di Wuhan; TGcom24, 22 January 2020.

Steven Mosher, Don’t buy China’s story: The coronavirus may have leaked from a lab, New York Post, 22 February 2020.

Le coronavirus, fabriqué à partir du virus du sida? La thèse très contestée du professeur Montagnier, Le Monde, 17 April 2020.

Enormous Evidence Coronavirus Came from Chinese Lab, The Guardian, 30 May 2020.

Joseph Tritto, Cina Covid-19. La chimera che ha cambiato il mondo, cit.

Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route; Zenodo, 14 September 2020.

Sharad S. Chauhan, Covid 19 Or Opportunistic Bioterrorism? A Virus from China Set to Change World History!, Unistar Books Pvt. Limited, 2020.

Pius XI, Encyclical Divini Redemptoris, 19 March 1937, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 29 (1937), p. 96 (pp. 65-106.)

Salvatore Santangelo, Geopandemia. Decifrare e rappresentare il caos, Castelvecchi, Rome 2020, pp. 17-18.

This is the response of the analysis carried out by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr.) in the annual report published on 26 December 2020.

Germana Leoni, Guerra biologica, in “NexusNewTimes”, no. 145 (October-November 2020), p. 28.

Fr. Enrico Zoffoli, Principi di filosofia, Edizioni Fonti Vive, Rome 1988, p. 554.

Cf. for example Mons. Henri Delassus, La conjuration antichrétienne: le temple maçonnique voulant s’élever sur les ruines de l’Eglise catholique, Paris 1910, 3 vol., with a preface letter from Cardinal Rafael Merry del Val. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, Rivoluzione e Contro-Rivoluzione, Sugarco, Milan 2009, p. 90.

Slavoj Žižek, Virus. Catastrofe e solidarietà, Ponte alle Grazie, Florence 2020.

Edgar Morin, Cambiamo strada. Le 15 lezioni del Coronavirus, translated into Italian

by Raffaello Cortina Editore, Trebaseleghe (PD) 2020.

World Economic Forum, The Great Reset; www.weforum.org/great-reset

New book

PUNISHMENT OR MERCY? The divine hand in the age of the Coronavirus

by R O B E R T O D E M A T T E I

A collection of articles and presentations from March 2020 to January 2021.

Soon available to order from www.voiceofthefamily.com CALX MARIAE PUBLISHING

is a far greater disaster than Biden’s election as US president

opinion

THE ECLIPSE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

by J O H N S M E AT O N

T

he outcome of the recent US presidential election, which will result in the killing of countless millions of human beings before birth worldwide, pales into insignificance in comparison with the universal eclipse of the Catholic Church.

The Joe Biden/Kamala Harris administration supports the slaughter of innocents by abortion for all nine months of pregnancy.

The Telegraph, a British newspaper, reported (28th January 2021): “President Joe Biden has revoked the controversial anti-abortion ‘global gag rule’ in the latest round of executive orders aimed at unravelling the Trump administration’s health policies.

“The rule, officially called the ‘Mexico City policy’, prohibited international charities from receiving United States funding if they provided education, referrals or services for legal abortions – even if they did not use the US money for those specific services. “… The White House said the policy change signals the administration’s support of ‘women’s and girls’ sexual and reproductive health and rights in the US, as well as globally’. “… As well as rescinding the global gag, Mr Biden ordered a review of Trump-era regulations which barred government-funded family planning clinics in the US from referring women for abortions.”

It’s a dark moment in world history, but the darkness is immeasurably deepened by the response of the world’s top Catholic leaders to Biden’s election.

Archbishop Gomez, the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB),

S PR I NG 2021

said on the occasion of the inauguration of Biden as US President: “Working with President Biden will be unique ... as he is our first president in 60 years to profess the Catholic faith. In a time of growing and aggressive secularism in American culture, when religious believers face many challenges, it will be refreshing to engage with a President who clearly understands, in a deep and personal way, the importance of religious faith and institutions.”

Does Archbishop Gomez understand the lie he is telling? Does he know that to profess the Catholic faith means to believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God? Does His Grace not understand that supporting abortion breaks the 5th Commandment? Is he unaware that Pius XI in Encyclical Casti Connubii, rejected the specious justifications of abortion and that Pius XII excluded all direct abortion, i.e. every act tending directly to destroy human life in the womb “whether such destruction is intended as an end or only as a means to an end”?1 If President Biden supported the legalised killing of African Americans, rather than the killing of unborn children, would Archbishop Gomez say “it will be refreshing to engage with a President who clearly understands, in a deep and personal way, the importance of religious faith and institutions”? Can the Archbishop explain the difference, in God’s eyes, between respecting the right to life of African Americans and respecting the right to life of unborn children?

At least, however, Archbishop Gomez makes reference to abortion later in his statement, albeit very weakly, saying: “Rather than impose further expansions of abortion and contraception, as he has promised, I am hopeful that the new President and his administration will work with the Church and others of good will.”

17

opinion

Pope Francis, on the other hand, makes no reference to Biden’s extreme abortion policies in his statement on the inauguration. He writes: “Under your leadership, may the American people continue to draw strength from the lofty political, ethical and religious values that have inspired the nation since its founding. At a time when the grave crises facing our human family call for farsighted and united responses, I pray that your decisions will be guided by a concern for building a society marked by authentic justice and freedom, together with unfailing respect for the rights and dignity of every person, especially the poor, the vulnerable and those who have no voice.”

There is not the slightest hint here of papal disapproval of the new President’s unequivocal commitment to what can reasonably be argued to be the greatest crime against humanity in world history.

The celebratory nature of statements made by church leaders on the ascent to the world’s most powerful political office of a man who, by reason of his unapologetic support for abortion alone, is totally unfit for this role, is deeply disturbing. It puts us in mind of, but it’s even worse than, the ugly scenes of young people celebrating in Dublin when, tragically, 66.4 per cent of those voting in Ireland’s 2018 abortion referendum supported the thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland permitting the Irish Parliament to legislate for the killing of unborn children.

Albeit, as the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children’s chief executive, I lead a non-confessional group, I have never hidden my Catholic faith during my 45 years working for the Society. There is no reason why any pro-lifer should do so. I consider that the Catholic Church was founded by God Himself, Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, in order to defeat Satan and to lead all people to Heaven.

Whatever the beliefs of pro-lifers may be, it’s clear that one comprehensive, consistent body of teaching on marriage, the family, human sexuality, and the sanctity of human life is found in the constant, unchangeable, teaching of the Catholic Church. However, tragically, that teaching is 18

now eclipsed by, above all, false teaching from so many of those who hold the office of bishop in the Church.

There is so much evidence of false teaching on the part of those who hold the office of Catholic bishops, including from the Bishop of Rome with his recently reported support for civil unions for same-sex couples, it’s hard to know where to begin – but, for me, here in Britain, nothing’s worse than the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales and their repeated expressions of support for the British government’s legislation which makes Relationships Education compulsory at primary school and Relationships and Sex Education compulsory at secondary school.

Not only have the bishops welcomed LGBT-inclusive Relationships and Sex Education in schools in England, they have said, on the subject of homosexuality, that an “exalted form of love exists just as powerfully in relationships between people of the same sex as it does in heterosexual relationships”; and they have welcomed as “compatible with the Catholic model curriculum” the government’s Final draft guidance on relationships education, relationships and sex education and health education (February 2019) which reaffirms in an intimidatory way the obligation of schools to teach LGBT content; and in which abortion is presented as one of the available options during pregnancy to which pupils must be signposted without any reference to parents.

With due reverence to my pastors, I affirm that the words of Our Lord apply to the members of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales: “And he said to his disciples: It is impossible scandals should not come. But woe to him through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and cast into the sea, than that he should scandalise one of these little ones.”

However, the scandal of Archbishop Gomez’s statement on Biden, on behalf of the US Catholic bishops, the scandal of the CBCEW, and all the scandalous statements of so many bishops throughout the world, including Pope Francis, which are currently eclipsing the glorious teaching of the Church on life and the family, must not cause faithful Catholics and tireless pro-life campaigners to despair. On the contrary, as Prof. Roberto de CAL X M ARIA E

t h e e c l i p s e o f t h e c at h o l i c c h u r c h

Mattei, the church historian, has said, there has never been a better time for the lay faithful to preach the Gospel, the whole of the Gospel, from the rooftops – encouraged by the rare exceptional bishops who, as faithful successors of the apostles, sacrifice the respect of their peers by courageously handing on the teaching of Christ.

In an entirely different and secular context, the English poet John Milton wrote: “The hungry sheep look up and are not fed.” The hungry sheep are all around us. At this time when so many are disturbed by the US presidential election and its possible consequences for life and for the family, as well as by historically unprecedented draconian restrictions of freedom imposed in apparently every country throughout the world, now is the time for the prolife movement to come out fighting and proclaiming the pro-life message in its fullness, namely that: •

•

A human being, made in the image and likeness of God from the moment of conception, is sacred and each and every human life is called to serve God in this life, from conception until natural death, and be happy with Him in the next.

Marriage, the exclusive, life-long union of one man and one woman, is the foundation of a

S PR I NG 2021

•

•

•

stable and flourishing society and is the greatest protector of children, born and unborn.

Marriage and the protection for human life before birth is mortally wounded by giving legal recognition to same-sex unions.

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.

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

Now is the time for Catholics and pro-life people of all religions and none to break their misplaced tactical silence on the fatal damage being done to marriage, to the family and to the protection of human life before birth by legal recognition of samesex unions; and to turn their backs on unethical political deals on abortion which sacrifice babies in cases of rape, or disability, or before the baby’s heart begins to beat, and to begin fearlessly to proclaim the whole truth about the sanctity of human life, marriage and the family.

Endnote: 1.

Address to the Biomedical Association “San Luca” (12 November 1944): Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, VI (1944-1945), 191; cf. Address to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives (29 October 1951), No. 2: AAS 43 (1951), 838.

19

THE HOLY FAMILY WITH A LAMB (1507). RAPHAEL. MUSEO DEL PRADO, MADRID.

focus

St Joseph

PATRON OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH PROTECTOR OF THE FAMILY

O

n 8 December 1870, when the Church was “beset by enemies on every side and oppressed by heavy calamities, so that impious men imagine that the gates of hell are at length prevailing against her,” Blessed Pope Pius IX acclaimed St Joseph as the Patron of the Universal Church. His decree Quemadmodum Deus (see p. 51) confirmed the truth that St Joseph protects the Church just as he defended the Holy Family – the model of every family, every temporal society and of the Church herself.

His successor, Pope Leo XIII, to whom it was revealed in 1884 that Satan would, for a time, be given increased power to work for the destruction of the Church, instituted a new devotion to St Joseph. In his encyclical letter Quamquam pluries (1889) he wrote: “During periods of stress and trial – chiefly when every lawlessness of act seems permitted to the powers of darkness – it has been the custom in the Church to plead with special fervour and perseverance to God, her author and protector, by recourse to the intercession of the saints – and chiefly of the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God – whose patronage has ever been the most efficacious.”

No matter how much stronger “the powers of darkness” have grown since the time of Pius IX and Leo XIII, we need not look for new remedies.

Leo XIII urged the faithful to combat evil through the Holy Rosary, but also directed us to St Joseph: “That God may be more favourable to Our prayers, and that He may come with bounty and promptitude to the aid of His Church, We judge it of deep utility for the Christian people, continually to invoke with great piety and trust, together with the Virgin Mother of God, her chaste Spouse, the Blessed Joseph; and We regard it as most certain that this will be most pleasing to the Virgin herself.”

21

THE HOLY FAMILY PREPARE TO FLEE FOR EGYPT. ENGRAVING BY F. POILLY AFTER G. RENI (1575-1642). WELLCOME COLLECTION, LONDON.

To understand the greatness of St Joseph, we must consider the importance of his mission. From all eternity he was chosen to be the guardian of the infant Son of God and, therefore, of His Body the Church. Pope Leo explains: “[T]he divine house which Joseph ruled with the authority of a father, contained within its limits the scarce-born Church. From the same fact that the most holy Virgin is the mother of Jesus Christ is she the mother of all Christians whom she bore on Mount Calvary amid the supreme throes of the Redemption; Jesus Christ is, in a manner, the first-born of Christians, who by adoption and Redemption are his brothers.

And for such reasons the Blessed Patriarch looks upon the multitude of Christians who make up the Church as confided specially to his trust – this limitless family spread over the earth, over which, because he is the spouse of Mary and the Father of Jesus Christ he holds, as it were, a paternal authority. It is, then, natural and worthy that as the Blessed Joseph ministered to all the needs of the family at Nazareth and girt it about with his protection, he should now cover with the cloak of his heavenly patronage and defend the Church of Jesus Christ.”

22

On 8 December 2020, the 150th anniversary of the Quemadmodum Deus, Pope Francis announced a “Special Year of St Joseph”. On this occasion, the Apostolic Penitentiary granted the faithful the opportunity to gain special indulgences (see p. 54).

This decree offers a priceless gift in this age of convulsions (see p. 52). Today thousands of unborn children are slaughtered; marriage is defiled by divorce, adultery, contraception and propagation of homosexuality; and children are robbed of their innocence. Worst of all, the pope himself is responsible for the spread of errors which risk leading countless souls towards damnation. It may not be surprising then, that Pope Francis has dedicated this year not only to the glorious St Joseph, but also to Amoris Laetitia, the most controversial document on the family in the history of the Church (see p.

37) – and yet it is merely the logical conclusion of Vatican II’s rejection of the authentic teaching on the family (see p. 23).

In every attack on the family or the Church, St Joseph is our protector. Because God entrusted him with the most precious portion of His flock, Jesus and Mary, the Church recognises him as the guardian of all Christendom. This year, as we venerate St Joseph as our protector on earth, let us also seek his intercession in Heaven for the fulfilment of the promise of Fatima and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart.

CAL X M ARIA E

Vatican II Draft Dogmatic Constitution on Chastity, Marriage, the Family and Virginity

A SCHEMA THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN REJECTED

by M A R I A M A D I S E

A

ddressing the Rome Life Forum in 2017, shortly before his death, Carlo Cardinal Caffarra, read from a letter he had received from the Fatima seer Sr Lucia: “Father, a time will come when the decisive battle between the kingdom of Christ and Satan will be over marriage and the family.”

Commenting on the letter, the Cardinal said he felt what Sr Lucia wrote to him then “is being fulfilled in these days of ours”, with the battle in the Church over marriage and the family.

This battle is decisive because the divinely established order of marriage reflects the union between Christ and His Church. Our salvation depends on this union and souls being won or lost is what the spiritual battle is all about. “Indeed, the bond of marriage is but a symbol of that union which God desires to contract with each human soul,” observed Don Pietro Leone in his excellent book The Family Under Attack.1 Many in the pro-life and pro-family movement woke up to the heat of this battle within the Church during the Family Synods in 2014-2015 and this was also when Voice of the Family was formed to mobilise the lay faithful for the fight. However, for many, it seemed that they woke up into a bad dream, only to realise that the battle had been raging for a long time.

Where should we begin to understand and fruitfully fight the decisive battle? We can trace it back to the Second Vatican Council. From there to the Communist infiltration of the clergy, to Revolutionary France, pass the Masonic plot against the Church, beyond the Reformation, back to Eden where, through the sin of our first parents, the S PR I NG 2021

23

focus

“We realised that the disordering of the ends of marriage during Vatican II lies at the heart of the attack we are fighting today.

During the Council, a schema on chastity, marriage, the family and virginity was rejected and with it the foundations of the moral law were eclipsed.” original order, created by God, became fallen.

The relationships between God and Man – and between man and woman – changed utterly and in an instant. That was when the lines of all future battles were drawn.

While marriage and the family were attacked in every subsequent phase of the Revolution, we realised that the disordering of the ends of marriage during Vatican II lies at the heart of the attack we are fighting today. During the Council, a schema on chastity, marriage, the family and virginity was rejected and with it the foundations of the moral law were eclipsed.

The Catholic Church had consistently provided the brightest beacon of Christian morality to orientate all people of good will to defend the principles of natural law on which a civilised society is founded. However, the rejection of a clear articulation of the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage and the family marked a decisive step towards the abandoning of the teaching itself and thus making a whole plethora of attacks on marriage and the family from within the Church possible.

While the Church in her human element seems to grow increasingly neglectful of the gospel and oblivious to the loss of souls, the greater our need to understand the importance of the decisive battle and to fight. This is our duty under canon law.

Canon 212 §3 states: “According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, [the faithful] have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the 24

DETAIL FROM THE GHENT ALTARPIECE (C.1426-1432).

THE VAN EYCK BROTHERS. SAINT BAVO CATHEDRAL, GHENT.

Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”

We must also bear in mind that the rejection of the traditional teaching on marriage and the family coincided with the rejection of the traditional liturgy.

The mystical marriage of Christ and His Church, lived in her liturgy, is the heavenly reminder for Catholic families of the ultimate goal of their domestic life. Denied this rich spiritual nourishment, fidelity to the Church’s teaching becomes far harder.

A draft of a dogmatic constitution on chastity, marriage, the family and virginity Prior to the Second Vatican Council in 1962, Pope John XXIII set up a committee headed by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, prefect of the Holy Office, to prepare schemata to serve as the basis for the CAL X M ARIA E

a s c h e m a t h at s h o u l d h av e n e v e r b e e n r e j e c t e d

upcoming discussions. Three months before the Council opened, the Pope ordered that seven of these schemata, including the draft dogmatic constitution on chastity, marriage, the family and virginity, were sent to the Council fathers.

According to Prof. Roberto de Mattei, the renowned historian, these were dense and articulate texts with “clear and persuasive language” containing “the best of what twentieth-century theology had produced”.2 The draft constitution on chastity, marriage, the family and virginity laid out a comprehensive vision with each section explaining the divinely established order in its origin, nature and dignity; its rights, duties and virtues, as well as the errors that ought to be rejected. It presented this vision in the context of the union of Christ and His Church: “[A]ll the Christian faithful constitute one great family which has arisen out of the at once virginal and spousal union of the Church with Jesus Christ, since never does the Saviour cease by the word of life and the grace of the Holy Spirit to render his Bride, purchased by his blood, most chastely fruitful.”4 It calls on the Council to “enhance and defend in a single dogmatic constitution both the chastity of those who are not married, its most beautiful flower – sacred virginity – and the chaste union and its celestial fruit, that is, the Christian family.”

At once we are presented with a vision that is beautiful and true, largely lost in the post-conciliar presentation of marriage: it is rooted in chastity and it bears precious fruit in consecrated virginity, especially priestly vocations. The offspring of human marriage, which provides multiplication for the human race, by the divine order, has also the privilege to bear children for the Church so that she can truly flourish. We may recall a story told by Bishop Athanasius Schneider. When the future Pope Pius X was consecrated a bishop, he went to see his mother. After kissing the episcopal ring of her son, she showed him her wedding ring and said, “Your ring is very beautiful, Giuseppe, but you wouldn’t have it if I didn’t wear my ring.”5

S PR I NG 2021

To fully understand the dignity of human marriage we must consider the dignity of the mystical marriage of Christ and His Church. The enemy understands this very well, for the real target of the attacks on human marriage is the mystical marriage. *** The schema begins by explaining the nature of “man’s dominion over his body insofar as this serves the propagation of the human race” and the “chastity of the unmarried”. Sex is ordered to marriage and its spiritual and material goods.

Consequently, evils, such as transgenderism, genital mutilation and sterilisation, IVF, all widespread today, are condemned with impressive foresight.

The document explains the value of chastity, by which “sexual relations … are so ennobled that they are worthy of man, created in God’s image, and of the Christian”. Although “the exercise of chastity differs in the unmarried and the married since only in the unmarried is continence linked with it; and in addition, while it ordinarily prepares the unmarried for marriage or for sacred virginity, for the married it is the splendour of marriage itself.”

It is emphasised that “although chastity is not the only, nor the first good of the moral life of men, an integral moral life cannot exist without it”. This is because impurity makes our judgement clouded.

“To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.” (Ti. 1:15) It strongly warns Catholic parents to resist school-based sex education: “Indeed it [the Sacred Synod] blames parents who out of excessive shame or false modesty neglect or take this serious obligation [‘sexual initiation’] lightly or who, thinking themselves incapable of it, entrust it to people who are not fit for it.”

Being reminded that the Church has the “right and duty to repudiate those who give scandal and especially the public corruption of sexual morality”, we may wonder whether bishops today would promote graphic sex education if they had remained “mindful of the Lord’s words against those who scandalise”.

25

focus

Among the errors it condemns are ideas that “actions … opposed to chastity are … demanded by nature itself ” and especially that “the most shameful love for persons of the same sex is the prerogative of a higher culture”. Claims that “the Church by her teaching on chastity harms a healthy and vigorous education of the young” are “harmful and wrong”. On the contrary, “these views are directly aimed at God, since God himself says through the Apostle: ‘Immorality or any impurity ... must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones’ (Eph. 5:3)”.

The second part of the schema, dedicated to marriage and the family, reaffirms the indissolubility of marriage and the hierarchy of its ends.

Because God ordained the multiplication of the human race by establishing marriage, it is, by origin, purpose and function, good and holy. Genesis tells us that God created them male and female, blessed them, saying: “Increase and multiply”. (Gen 1:28) The Catechism of the Council of Trent explains that this first command of God to man does not “impose on every individual an obligation to marry, but only declares the purpose of the institution of marriage”.6 The secondary purpose of marriage was also given in Genesis in its later passage: “It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like onto himself.” (Gen. 2:18) In his outstanding book The Family Under Attack, Don Pietro Leone, explains that “the two ends of marriage, together with its two properties” – procreation and mutual assistance – “were present from its institution then, whereas since catechism states that marriage was instituted before the fall, we can conclude that its third end, the remedy for concupiscence, existed only some time subsequent to its institution, namely after the fall with the onset of concupiscence”.7 The institution of marriage was raised by Christ to a Sacrament for the baptised: “By this sacramental character, the dignity, nobility and splendour of Christian spouses is so great that they themselves not only represent the most pure and most fruitful union of Christ with the Church (see Eph. 5:32-33), but they themselves, in the person of Christ and the Church,

26

are made, through a valid consent mutually manifested and accepted externally in the rite, the ministers of this Sacrament”.

The great effect of marriage being elevated to the dignity of the sacrament, which represents the union of Christ and His Church, is that although a marriage bond is formed by mutual consent of husband and wife, it cannot be dissolved by human will, just as Christ never separates from His Church.

“Restoring what had fallen, Christ established that not only Christian marriage but marriage for all be permanently one and, further, so indissoluble that it can never be dissolved by the will of the parties or indeed by any merely human authority.”

In fact, anything “which is proposed or done by men…against the unity and indissolubility of marriage, neither responds to the demands of nature or the good of society nor belongs to the progress of human culture, but rather is to be considered an act of no value, which reveals the most wretched moral regression of man the sinner from original justice.” In a word, “what offends the divine order can in no way profit the individual, the family, or civil society.”

The divinely established and ordered ends of marriage do not depend on the intentions of the contracting parties. “[T]he primary purpose is only the procreation and education of the offspring, even if a particular marriage was not fruitful.”

The absolute primacy of this end, which was given to man first in Genesis, is easily understood when marriage is considered in light of its supernatural model. The purpose of the union between Christ and His Church is to populate Heaven with souls. The first end of human marriage, “by the dignity of fatherhood and motherhood, cooperates with God, creator and sanctifier of souls, in the propagation and sanctification of the human race”.

Other ends of marriage – the mutual help and solace of the spouses and the remedy for concupiscence – arise from its nature but are only ever secondary. The authors of the schema strongly reject “the errors and theories by which is denied the immutable divine order with regard to the propCAL X M ARIA E

a s c h e m a t h at s h o u l d h av e n e v e r b e e n r e j e c t e d

“To fully understand the dignity of human marriage we must consider the dignity of the mystical marriage of Christ and His Church. The enemy understands this very well, for the real target of the attacks on human marriage is the mystical marriage.” erties and purposes of marriage” and “by which, in an inversion of the right order of values, the primary purpose of marriage is esteemed less than biological and personal values and conjugal love, in the objective order itself, is proclaimed to be the primary purpose”.

This is what the Church had always taught. St Clement of Alexandria taught in the second century that the purpose of marital union was procreation.

His opinion was shared by the Fathers. St John Chrysostom (347-407) instructed: “You are marrying your wife for the procreation of children and for moderation of life.” He continued that marriage was not instituted for wantonness or fornication, but for chastity.8 St Augustine (354-430) enumerated the three good things of marriage: children, fidelity, and

S PR I NG 2021

the sacrament. St Thomas (1225-1274) also taught that the principal end of matrimony, is the good of the children: “For nature intends not only the begetting of offspring, but also its education and development until it reach the perfect state of man as man, and that is the state of virtue.”9 St Thomas also ranks the evil of contraception immediately after the evil of homicide, “in that the first destroys human nature and the second prevents it coming into being”.10 Gregory IX (1145-1241) was the first pope to condemn contraception in Si Conditiones. Of later popes, Leo XIII (Rerum Novarum, 1891), Pius IX (Casti Connubii, 1930), and Pius XII (Allocution to the Italian midwives, 1951) have clearly affirmed the chief and primary purpose of marriage.

27

focus

“The great effect of marriage being elevated to the dignity of the sacrament, which represents the union of Christ and His Church, is that although a marriage bond is formed by mutual consent of husband and wife, it cannot be dissolved by human will, just as Christ never separates from His Church.” ily are necessary for an ordered life together and to secure the good of all the members.

“Although as human persons the man and the woman have the same dignity before God and enjoy full equality of rights in the matters that constitute the essence of the marriage contract, still the man naturally presides over the whole family, over the wife as the companion to be especially honoured and loved, and over the children who are to be nourished and educated.”

The parents’ “serious and divinely sanctioned duty…to educate their children” is especially true concerning “supernatural and eternal matters”.

Referring to St Augustine, the schema explains that concerning “these three divinely given goods, there are rights and obligations which spouses must duly keep; and among them… the good of children holds the first place. Children, therefore, must be lovingly received, generously nourished, religiously educated.”

Turning to the “divinely established order of Christian family” consisting of parents and children and arising out of a legitimate marriage, the document asserts that: “By its origin, nature, and goal, the family, like marriage, is sacred and, for Christians, holy, by which holiness the Christian family shines before all others.”

Due to its divine order, “the family is a true society, of itself preceding the other natural societies”.

Proper authority and the hierarchy within the fam28

“For marriage itself and the family also have the goal of increasing the body of the Church and augmenting the number of the elect. In educating their children, parents should give attention to natural and earthly matters, but maintain a correct assessment and degree of values. The sciences and pedagogical arts must be in conformity with true and Christian principles.”

The rights and duties of civil society towards the family are also discussed but the Church is the only institution with legitimate authority over the family: “By divine law the family is entrusted to the Church not only because marriage, from which it legitimately arises, first of all and in itself belongs to the Church; but also because the Church has from God the most serious right, one that is independent and inviolable by any human power, to impart Christian education by its teachers and schools not only to children

CAL X M ARIA E

a s c h e m a t h at s h o u l d h av e n e v e r b e e n r e j e c t e d

but also to parents, especially instructing them so that they are able to fulfil the obligations of their proper states in a Christian manner.”

This right belongs to the Church “both because of its universal teaching authority and also because of its spiritual motherhood towards children and parents”.

“For only the Church, through the administration of the sacraments, has access in the name of Christ to the sanctuary of the conscience of both parents and children. Conjugal and familial intimacy has, therefore, its own limits, even with regard to the members of the family themselves.”

The schema, therefore, condemns all theories that “deny the rights of the Church and of the family with regard to the education of children, or which assign primary rights in this area to civil authority”, as well as “those who directly support or formally cooperate in the passage of wicked laws about marriage and the family”.

Naturally, it forcefully condemns abortion, including therapeutic abortion, and all forms of contraception as intrinsically evil since “they corrupt the whole social order”.

The third part of the draft constitution deals with sacred virginity. Words cannot convey what a loss it is that this glorious flower of the family is no longer seen as an essential part of Catholic teaching on the family. Pope Pius XII writes in his encyclical Sacra Virginitas that “a chastity dedicated to God demands strong and noble souls, souls ready to do battle and conquer.”11 Don Pietro Leone also refers to St John Chrysostom, who said: “The root and the flower, too, of virginity is a crucified life”,12 for consecrated virginity is a life of sacrifice to God. The schema laments that “a state so singularly loved by God is diminishing”. Explaining this with “a worldly spirit, penetrating more easily today than before even into Catholic families” and also with “errors spread and propagated concerning the character of marriage and of sacred virginity”, it renews the condemnation of the Council of Trent of “those who dare to maintain that the marital state is to be preferred to the state of virginity or S PR I NG 2021

celibacy”. It also rejects “the view of those who claim that the bond of celibacy today is obsolete, indeed impossible today, exceeds the competence of the Church and should be relaxed according to the will of the subject”.

Finally, it exhorts Christian parents by prayer, purity of life, and veneration for the priestly and religious state, to foster sacred vocations, knowing that chaste marriage is then most greatly honoured when from it flow the flowers of sacred virginity. *** From this brief outline of the schema on chastity, marriage, the family and virginity, it is evident, that strong and healthy families foster vocations for a strong and healthy Church. And also, on the contrary, attacks on the family constitute attacks on religious vocations, in particular, on the priesthood.

The schema we have just considered is a systematic and accessible document on Catholic teaching on the family. In a real sense, it is a manual that families can draw guidance from.

The inversion of the ends of marriage Reportedly, in July 1962, having examined the schemata presented to him, Pope John XXIII optimistically declared: “The Council is done, by Christmas we can conclude!” In reality, by Christmas that year, all except the schema on the liturgy, had been rejected. The Council did not last three months, but three years.13 What happened, as Prof. Roberto de Mattei relates, was that a group of European and Latin American bishops and exponents of the nouvelle théologie mobilised to reject the schemata as too traditional. All references to chastity and virginity were removed and under the supervision of Léon-Joseph Cardinal Suenens (1904-1996), the archbishop of Malines-Brussels, what remained was absorbed by a new document on the relationship between the Church and the modern world. It became schema XVII and then schema XVIII, titled Gaudium et Spes. After lengthy and heated discussions, this was approved in December 1965 by an overwhelming majority.14 Gaudium et Spes appears to define marriage as an intimate communion of the married couple.

The issue of birth control was removed. According 29

focus

to Prof. de Mattei’s analysis, many of the Council fathers had accepted the Malthusian theories of population explosion and the need for birth control as a result, conflicting with those upholding the perennial Catholic teaching on marriage in the synod hall.15 Compared to the original schema, Gaudium et Spes is impoverished, equivocating and verbose.

Prof. de Mattei notes that the chapter dedicated to marriage and the family represents an unhappy synthesis of the two opposing views. But he also notes that: “The most surprising aspect of Gaudium et Spes is the lack of exposure to the traditional order of marriage purposes. It was, as in the case of many other texts of the Council, a substantially ambiguous document. Logic teaches that two values cannot ​​ be on a level of absolute equality.

In the event of a conflict, one or the other of the equivalent principles will prevail.”16 De Mattei suggests that the majority who voted on the document, assumed that the primary purpose of marriage was procreation as it had always been.

Progressive bishops, however, understood the significance of its apparent equation of the procreative and unitive ends of marriage and the lack of a forthright condemnation of birth control. He refers to Walter Cardinal Kasper, the very Cardinal who fifty years later framed the discussions of the family synod, who wrote at the time in Osservatore Romano: “In the conciliar texts, compromise formulas had to be found (...). Thus, the conciliar texts have in themselves an enormous potential for conflict; they open the door to selective reception in one direction or another.”17 This is the manoeuvre that popes before the council had warned against. In October 1941, Pius XII wrote: “…two tendencies must be avoided: the one which in examining the constitutive elements of the act of generation gives weight only to the primary purpose of marriage, as if the secondary purpose did not exist…; and that which considers the secondary purpose as equally prin-

30

cipal, losing it from its essential subordination to the primary purpose, which by logical necessity would lead to deadly consequences...”18 Humanae Vitae In the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, promulgated

by Paul VI, the ends of marriage were clearly inverted. Paragraph 12 on Union and Procreation states: “This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

“The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life – and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called.”

It could be argued that with this step, Humanae Vitae did not really settle the debate on contraception and openness to life at all. Once the procreation and education of children had been driven from its primary place in marriage, what is left, in fact, is never-ending damage control, insisting that “it is still important”.

Understandably, Catholics were relieved that Humanae Vitae did not allow artificial birth control, as it was predicted in progressive circles intoxicated by the sexual revolution. However, the more subtle attack on the hierarchy of the ends of marriage may have been just as fatal.

As Prof. de Mattei points out, if there is no objective natural order, what prevails is the relationship of the couple, open to concealing a disordered pleasure of the partners behind the appearance of love. The value of love at this point is measured in the pleasure that the personal union gives, or CAL X M ARIA E

a s c h e m a t h at s h o u l d h av e n e v e r b e e n r e j e c t e d

DETAIL FROM THE LAST JUDGEMENT ALTARPIECE (C.1450).FRA ANGELICO. GEMÄLDEGALERIE, BERLIN.

“Once principles or natural law and moral absolutes are abandoned, anything becomes possible, even the suggestion that there are positive elements in unrepentant mortal sin.” the commitment and stability of the relationship.

Furthermore, once the objective law of nature, founded upon the difference between the sexes, is abandoned, sexual morality and objective difference of sexes are replaced by personal preference.19 This process inevitably leads to what is indeed antithetical to true marriage – birth control, infidelity, homosexuality, etc. Man, tainted by sin, was now subjected to ever increasing temptation to reform laws of procreation, universally taught for centuries, according to his passions.

Don Pietro Leone also speaks of the rise of radical subjectivism and the “priority of Love over Truth”. Consequently, marriage is understood not within the objective moral law, but simply in terms of “love”. It is implied that the primary end of

S PR I NG 2021

marriage is “love” and the conjugal act as the “total self-giving love”, and contraception is presented as sinful on that basis.20 This mindset has enabled churchmen to argue that stable and faithful homosexual unions “have positive aspects” and “gifts to offer”.21 Once principles or natural law and moral absolutes are abandoned, anything becomes possible, even the suggestion that there are positive elements in unrepentant mortal sin.

The new morality, which emerged in 19581968, acted like a defrocking of Christian marriage.

First its glorious crown – consecrated virginity – was removed and it was uprooted from its natural soil, chastity. Thus, without roots and flowers, it is left to face the modern world, which rips its beautiful

31

focus

ornaments one by one. In its struggle for survival, it clings to what is left – the mere remnants of its order. The reality is, however, that once the divinely established order of marriage has been fractured, it fails to give true pleasure on a human level as well.

The emergence of subjectivism in morality, was obviously reflected in the revision of the liturgy. The focus turned away from God to people and what they desired. Don Pietro Leone observes: “This new Mass is essentially anthropocentric in a sense that it presents a movement away from God towards man… It may be yet more clearly seen in the practices to which this anthropocentrism has led in recent years, by a sort of inner dynamic: the use of the vernacular, the celebra-

tion of the Mass with the back to the tabernacle and facing the people, Communion in the hand, the autocelebration of the ‘Community’; not to speak of more heinous abuses, such as the vision of the Mass as a party or feast, creativity, clowns, dancing-girls, laughter, and applause.”22 A declaration of the Holy See of 1944 poses the question: “Can one admit the doctrine of certain modern writers who deny that the procreation and education of the child are the primary end of marriage, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinate to the primary end, but rather are of equal value and are independent of it?”

“The emergence of subjectivism in morality, was obviously reflected in the revision of the liturgy. The focus turned away from God to people and what they desired.”

32

CAL X M ARIA E

a s c h e m a t h at s h o u l d h av e n e v e r b e e n r e j e c t e d

They replied: “No, this doctrine cannot be admitted.”23 Nevertheless, as Don Pietro Leone points out, this modern view was admitted not only in the course of Vatican II and (albeit in covert form) in Humanae Vitae, but from then on also enshrined in the New Code of Canon Law, the (new) Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Familiaris Consortio, inter alia,24 forming generations of Catholics since then.

Where we are now By their fruits, you shall know them (Mt 7:16). The fruits of the Church’s moral, as well as liturgical, reforms show a radical decrease in both belief and practice. For example, two-thirds of American Catholics allegedly no longer believe in the Real Presence.25 There has been a significant decline in baptisms (both infant and adult), in Catholic marriages and a catastrophic drop in ordinations, enrolment of seminarians and vocations to the religious life. Already in 1982, the New York Times reported that “available church records show that 34,484 American annulment cases were decided in 1980, as against 448 in 1968”.27 Had a secular institution adopted a strategy with such disastrous effects, its leadership would have been held accountable and dismissed long ago.

Yet, many in the Church’s hierarchy remain committed to a strategy that contradicts Christ’s final command: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Mt 28:19) When we consider the scandal-ridden Church today, we may wonder whether abandoning the Traditional Mass and Divine Office, the spiritual weapons which had protected priests for centuries, was an invitation to the enemy to strengthen his offence. Having laid down their arms, priests were left increasingly vulnerable to attack. Similarly, without the traditional teaching on chastity and marriage, Catholic parents struggle as never before with the moral and religious formation of their children. A large Catholic family by its very existence contradicts the expectations of today’s society and even the modern church.

S PR I NG 2021

Of course, divorce, birth control, infidelity, sexual abuse, homosexuality and so forth were not unknown among Catholics before the Council.

However, all these evils were recognised as evil and as such, regarded as incompatible with life in the Church. However, today, when many churchmen are incapable or unwilling to do that, “the smoke of Satan,” that Pope Paul VI said in 1972 had “entered the temple of God”, is also suffocating the Catholic family.

Voice of the Family’s analysis of the family synod’s final report in October 2015 stated: “By striving towards bringing Catholic moral teaching in line with the norms prevailing in the modern world, the report pursues an approach that runs contrary to divine revelation and the natural moral law.”27 It drew attention to numerous problems in the synod’s final report, including an anthropocentric understanding of the gospel that alleges, for example, that the gospel is about “the dignity of the person, his/her freedom and respect for his/her rights”; the omission of any discussion of the fundamental vocation of the family with regards to man’s final end, which is union with God in heaven; the omission of any discussion of the natural law, which threatens the understanding of moral principles as immutable. Ultimately, the final report gravely endangered the most vulnerable members of the human family through its omissions and distortions of Catholic doctrine. More particularly: •

•

• •

by asserting that biological sex and socio-cultural “gender” can be distinguished, the report endorsed “gender theory”; by asserting that the family “cannot be the only place for formation in matters of sexuality” it threatened the rights of parents as the primary educators of their children; by using ambiguous language, it further undermined the teaching on the nature of marriage; by distorting the teaching on the nature and effects of mortal sin it paved the way for “divorced and remarried” Catholics to receive Holy Communion;

33

focus

•

•

by presenting a confused exposition on the nature of conscience it undermined the teaching on contraception; by failing to restate that the primary objection to artificial reproduction is the separation of the procreative and unitive ends of marriage it undermined the Church’s teaching on such practices.

This snapshot of the discussions of the synod of bishops demonstrates the extent of the battle over marriage and the family raging within the Church.

In the light of a decades-long systematic disordering of the meaning of marriage and the family, we should not be surprised by the fruits of the new morality. Statements and actions of the Church’s leadership that scandalise Catholics today, are mere symptoms of a fake morality pursuing its logical conclusions.

Consider the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV), founded to defend human life against abortion, contraception and IVF, now equating these evils with problems arising from immigration and poverty.

When the PAV’s mandates were changed, all its founding members were suspended and replaced.

Among its new members are scholars who reject the Catholic teaching on life, marriage and the family, such as Prof. Nigel Biggar, who advocates for abortion in certain circumstances.29 Consider the litany of population control advocates, who are now regular guests of the Holy See. Chief among them, Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, the architect of the UN’s anti-life and anti-family Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), is a special advisor to Pope Francis on sustainable development.

Sachs says that the SDGs, which include the goal of securing worldwide access to contraception and abortion by 2030, would not have been adopted without the support of Pope Francis in September 2015.30 In addition to Sachs, Archbishop Sanchez Sorondo, the Chancellor of the Pontifical Academies of Science and Social Sciences, has also invited Paul Ehrlich, whose book Population Bomb incited worldwide fear of population growth, as well as Bernie Sanders, the US abortion advocate and former presidential candidate, to address events at the Vatican. Archbishop Sorondo himself has said that

34

education helps women have fewer children – one or two children, not seven.31 Consider the Pope’s approval for contraception in certain cases of the Zika virus 32 or his comment that Catholics should not “breed like rabbits”.33 Instead of Catholic generosity in welcoming children following God’s command to “increase and multiply”, the UN’s warning of ecological crisis and overpopulation now seems to guide the thinking of the Holy See. Consider Italy’s leading proponent of abortion, Emma Bonino who, still proudly talks of the abortions she performed in her home in the sixties and her work to legalise abortion in Italy, was hailed

by Pope Francis as one of the nation’s “forgotten greats” for her work on immigration issues.34 Consider the pain of Catholic parents struggling to convince their children of the value of chastity in today’s sex-saturated world, when Pope Francis suggested that cohabiting couples could have the graces of a real marriage.35 Or the pain of couples struggling to remain faithful to their marriage vow, learning from the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia that Catholics in “irregular unions” may in fact be admitted to the sacraments – as well as from the Pope’s letter to the Bishops of Buenos Aires, in which he approved their guidelines for giving Holy Communion to civilly divorced and “remarried” Catholics living in adultery, made official in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.36 Consider the Pope’s endorsement of sex education in schools and the launching of a global education initiative, devoid of Catholic teaching, but seeking to partner with UN agencies and population control advocates, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.37 These and countless other examples are the logical outcome of an attempt to disorder the ends of marriage, creating the environment, where upholding the authentic Catholic teaching on life and the family within the Church seems optional or even inappropriate.

However, we must not forget that this is the battle between the Lord and the reign of Satan over marriage and the family and that this battle is decisive.

CAL X M ARIA E

a s c h e m a t h at s h o u l d h av e n e v e r b e e n r e j e c t e d

Conclusion The draft constitution on chastity, marriage, the family and virginity prepared for the Second Vatican Council acknowledged “how greatly the salvation of the Mystical Body of Christ depends on a right acknowledgment of the divine order with regard to marriage”. It refers to the “sources of divine Revelation” where “both the mystical union of Christ with the Church and other mysteries of religion are more than once presented under the analogies of marriage and the family”. The schema said: “By this very fact the Holy Spirit is already intimating that marriage and family are not fleeting and changeable human inventions but proceed from God, the author of nature and of grace, ‘with whom there is no alteration or shadow of change’ (Jas. 1:17). For this reason, so that the institution, purpose, and functions of chaste marriage and of the Christian family may be known more clearly, that their importance, nobility, and beauty may shine more fully and may be more

SPR I NG 2 0 2 1

effectively defended from the shadows of errors arising everywhere, the Sacred Synod…intends to propose what God himself willed when he created man male and female and gave him a helpmate like himself (see Gen 1:27; 2:18-24 and 5:2; Mt 19:4) and what Jesus Christ, by restoring marriage and raising it to the dignity of a Sacrament, divinely entrusted to the Church as a basic and never changeable law.”

The attacks on human marriage are targeted at the mystical marriage. In the complete organism of the Church nothing works in isolation from the entire edifice of the teaching and practice. Moral teaching is the doctrine that guides human conduct towards the good and every normative change entails a doctrinal change.

Don Pietro Leone also concludes that the attack on marriage and the family on the individual and social level draws its strength “not least from an attack yet more fundamental and deadly”: “an attack against the Church herself and conducted within her bosom, particularly in her 35

focus

doctrine and liturgy, so that man obstructed from attaining the Truth and from adoring God, turns away from him towards man, whose features he no longer recognises.”38 As Catholics, we need to understand that the Church’s tradition, teaching and practice, are woven together. Not one thread can be cut from it without damaging the entire tapestry. It falls to us to restore the pattern of this beautiful tapestry – both in liturgy and in moral teaching.

It is the duty of all Catholics, whatever our state of life, to repel every attack on marriage and the family, especially from within the Church. Given the fundamental importance of the institution of marriage and the family for our faith and the flourishing of the salvific marriage between Christ and His Church on earth, it is clear that everyone must fight this decisive battle over marriage and the family, whatever the cost.

In the message that came via Sr Lucia to Cardinal Caffarra, Our Lady revealed: “Those who work for the sanctity of marriage and the family will always be fought and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue.” But, Sr Lucia’s letter concluded, “Do not be afraid, because Our Lady has already crushed his head.”

Let us pray, for God to send us generals – good cardinals and bishops to lead us in battle. We are mere foot soldiers, the little children of Our Lady, the most insignificant part of the Church Militant.

But it is the most insignificant part of her body, the heel, that will crush the head of the devil. In the end, the Immaculate Heart will triumph and only if we share in the fight, shall we share in the joy of her triumph.

This paper was originally prepared for the Latin Mass Society’s podcast series Iota Unum.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

Don Pietro Leone, The Family Under Attack, Loreto Publications, Fitzwilliam (2005), p. 150.

St John Chrysostom, On Marriage and Family Life, transl. Catherine P. Roth and David Anderson, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood, NY (2003), p.74, p.85.

Supplement, Q 41. A1., quoted in William Siebenmorgen, “What does Saint Thomas Aquinas say about Marriage?”, Return to Order, https://www.returntoorder. org/2017/05/saint-thomas-aquinas-say-marriage/ ee Don Pietro Leone The Family Under Attack, Loreto Publications, Fitzwilliam (2005), p. 72.

Sacra Virginitas no. 49.

Don Pietro Leone The Family Under Attack, Loreto Publications, Fitzwilliam (2005), p.165.

Roberto de Mattei, “Il Conciliatore”, Il Foglio, 12 July 2014.

See Roberto de Mattei, Il primo schema sulla famiglia e sul matrimonio del Concilio Vaticano II, Edizioni Fiducia, 2015.

See Don Pietro Leone The Family Under Attack, Loreto Publications, Fitzwilliam (2005), p.74.

See Roberto de Mattei, Il primo schema sulla famiglia e sul matrimonio del Concilio Vaticano II, Edizioni Fiducia, 2015.

Ibid. Card. Walter Kasper, “A council still on the way”, L’Osservatore Romano, 12 April, 2013.

Pius XII, Speech, 3 October 1941 (AAS 33 [1941], 423).

See Roberto de Mattei, Il primo schema sulla famiglia e sul matrimonio del Concilio Vaticano II, Edizioni Fiducia, 2015.

Don Pietro Leone, The Family Under Attack, Loreto Publications, Fitzwilliam (2005), p. 30-31.

III Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Relatio post disceptationem, 13 October 2014.

Don Pietro Leone, The Family Under Attack, Loreto Publications, Fitzwilliam (2005), p. 33-34.

AAS XXXVI, p. 103, quoted in Don Pietro Leone, The Family Under Attack, p. 206.

Don Pietro Leone, The Family Under Attack, p. 206.

Pew Research Center, “Just one-third of U.S. Catholics agree with their church that Eucharist is body, blood of Christ”, 5 August 2019.

“Catholics get record number of annulments”, New York Times, 6 January 1982.

Matthew McCusker, “Analysis of the final report of the Ordinary Synod on the Family”, Voice of the Family, 10 March 2016.

Fr Antonio Spadaro, Interview with Pope Francis, 19 August 2013, http://www. vatican.va/content/francesco/ en/speeches/2013/september/documents/papafrancesco_20130921_intervista-spadaro.html Pete Baklinski, “Pope Francis appoints abortion supporter to Vatican pro-life academy”, LifeSiteNews, 13 June 2017.

Lianne Laurence, “Pope’s climate encyclical ‘made possible’ passage of pro-abortion SDGs: UN leader”, LifeSiteNews, 22 July 2016.

Claire Chretien, “Vatican bishop: ‘We don’t know exactly’ what the Church teaches on procreation; ‘education’ help women have one kid instead of seven”, LifeSiteNews 9 March 2017.

“Zika virus: Pope hints at relaxation of contraception ban”, British Broadcasting Corporation, 18 February 2016.

Gerard O’Connell, Full Transcript of Pope's Press Conference on Flight from Manila, America Magazine, 19 January 2015.

John-Henry Westen, “Pope calls Italy’s foremost abortion promoter one of nation’s ‘forgotten greats’”, LifeSiteNews, 25 February 2016.

John-Henry Westen, “Pope Francis: Most Catholic marriages are null, some ‘cohabitations’ are ‘real marriage’”, LifeSiteNews, 17 June 2016.

Dorothy Cummings McLean, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers”, LifeSiteNews, 4 December 2017.

Diane Montagna, “Vatican urged to partner with top population controllers on pope’s Global Education Pact”, LifeSiteNews, 14 February 2020.

Don Pietro Leone, The Family Under Attack, Loreto Publications, Fitzwilliam (2005), p. 200.

Endnotes: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

36

Don Pietro Leone, The Family Under Attack, Loreto Publications, Fitzwilliam (2005), p. 154.

Roberto de Mattei, “Il Conciliatore”, Il Foglio, 12 July 2014.

Ibid. [As recorded by Mons. Vincent Fagiolo (1918-2000)].

This and all subsequent quotes are taken from “A Draft Dogmatic Constitution on Chastity, Marriage, the Family and Virginity”, translated by Fr. Joseph A. Komonchak, https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/on-the-sexual-order.pdf Bishop Athanasius Schneider, “The Catholic family is the first bulwark against the current great apostasy”, a talk delivered at the Rome Life Forum, held at the Angelicum on 19 May 2017.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baronius Press (2018), p. 314.

CAL X M ARIA E

A YEAR DEDICATED TO AMORIS LAETITIA Revisiting the key doctrinal errors enshrined in the Apostolic Exhortation

by V O I C E O F T H E FA M I LY

This paper was originally published in May 2016, shortly after the publication of Amoris Laetitia. We re-publish it in view of the launch of the year dedicated to Amoris Laetitia.

Introduction The release of Amoris Laetitia on 8 April 2016 marked the end of the synodal process that was launched back in October 2013, when it was announced that two synods would be held to discuss the pastoral challenges facing the family and the role of the family in the modern world. This synodal process was increasingly marked by controversy as it become clear that a powerful group of cardinals and bishops were attempting to promote heretical doctrines under the guise of synodal and papal teaching, in order to obscure the teaching of the Catholic Church across a wide number of areas related to human life, marriage and the family.

It was because of these increasing concerns that the Voice of the Family coalition was founded in August 2014. A team from Voice of the Family was present in Rome at both the Extraordinary Synod in October 2014 and the Ordinary Synod in S PR I NG 2021

October 2015. Both of these assemblies witnessed serious divisions between synod fathers who upheld Catholic teaching on marriage and the family and those who wished to supplant it.

Voice of the Family’s primary intention at both synods was to provide assistance to those synod fathers who were striving to defend and promote the Church’s teaching. We also sought to accurately report what was taking place at the synods in order to assist the wider Catholic public make sense of events. It was to this end that we produced in-depth analyses of the most important of the synodal documents.

Amoris Laetitia is the concluding document of the synodal process. In this paper we wish to give a brief overview of some of the document’s most serious problems, with particular regard to Voice of the Family’s three core principles.

•

•

•

First, that marriage, the exclusive, life-long union of one man and one woman, is the foundation of a stable and flourishing society and the greatest protector of children, born and unborn Secondly, that the separation of the procreative and unitive ends of the conjugal act, which is intrinsic to the use of contraception, has acted as a major catalyst of the “culture of death” Thirdly, that parents are the primary educators of their children and that the protection of this right is essential for the transmission of the Catholic faith and for building a new “culture of life”.

Marriage and Amoris Laetitia We, like many others, first became concerned about the synodal process as a result of the address given

by Walter Cardinal Kasper to the consistory of Cardinals held on the 20 February 2014.

37

focus

“If Amoris Laetitia was intended to teach what the Catholic Church has always taught, this could have been made perfectly clear by simply restating the Church’s traditional teaching in a clear and unambiguous manner.

This could have been easily done by quoting from one of the many ecclesiastical documents that has already addressed this question.”

In this address Kasper proposed the admission of divorced Catholics, living in invalid second unions, to the sacraments of Penance and Holy Communion without true repentance and amendment of life.

This address, which was explicitly praised by Pope Francis, was the opening salvo in a concerted campaign to use the synodal process to superimpose false doctrine to obscure the Church’s teaching on this issue.

Indeed, upon the publication of Amoris Laetitia the first question that everyone seemed to ask was: “Has the Apostolic Exhortation changed Catholic teaching in this area?”

The first remark we must make then is that it is of course impossible for there to be any change in Catholic teaching on this issue. No authority on earth can annul the words of Our Lord Himself, or the constant tradition of the Church, which teaches that marriage is an indissoluble union, which is brought to an end only by the death of one of the spouses. Nor can any authority on earth negate the words of St Paul on the Eucharist, upheld by the constant Tradition of the Church, that “he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself ”. (1 Cor. 11:29) It is on these unmovable foundations that the Church proclaims her immutable doctrine, that those obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

The question that we should be asking is not “Does Amoris Laetitia change Catholic teaching?”

38

which it cannot do, but “Does Amoris Laetitia contain statements which contradict or undermine the Church’s unchangeable teachings?”

The answer that we must give to that question is a definitive “yes”. There are statements in Amoris Laetitia which directly contradict the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church, and there are further statements that undermine it without directly contradicting it.

Before discussing these contradictions and ambiguities it is important to point out that if Amoris Laetitia was intended to teach what the Catholic Church has always taught, this could have been made perfectly clear by simply restating the Church’s traditional teaching in a clear and un-

CAL X M ARIA E

re visiting the ke y doctrinal err ors of a moris laetitia

ambiguous manner. This could have been easily done by quoting from one of the many ecclesiastical documents that has already addressed this question.

With one simple unambiguous statement Pope Francis could have put an end to much of the confusion caused by the synodal process and brought clarity and peace to many troubled Catholics.

However, he has chosen not to do this.

It would be impossible in this paper to discuss all the different ways in which Amoris Laetitia, in its more than 250 pages, undermines Catholic doctrine on this and many other matters, so we will go straight to the most erroneous sections of the document, which are mostly found in Chapter Eight, a chapter entitled “Accompanying, Discerning and Integrating Weakness”.

Encouragement to adultery?

A particularly troubling subsection of Chapter Eight is entitled “The discernment of ‘irregular’ situations”.

In the first two paragraphs of this subsection, nos 296 and 297, we find two similar statements.

In paragraph 296 Pope Francis writes: “The way of the Church is not to condemn anyone forever”.

And in paragraph 297 he writes: “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves.”

This latter statement is clearly in error. In the gospels Our Lord Himself speaks many times about the possibility of men and women being condemned forever as a result of sin; “depart from me you cursed into the everlasting fire”. He represents Himself as saying on the day of judgment, “and these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting”. (Mt. 25:41,46) And, the Church, while always desiring and working for the conversion of sinners, nonetheless, will refuse the sacraments indefinitely to those who fail to repent of grave sin.

S PR I NG 2021

The “logic of the gospel” and the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church, both respect the free will of the individual, including when they choose to remain in grave sin.

It is in this context that Pope Francis begins explicit discussion of the question of the “divorced and remarried”. He explains that “divorced and remarried” Catholics find themselves in a variety of different situations and draws attention to one case in particular, that is, “a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins.” [emphasis added] Now, let us remember that what is being discussed here is an adulterous union, a union which directly violates the sixth commandment, and the words of Our Lord recorded in the gospels. Amoris Laetitia is suggesting here that a union which violates the fidelity owed to the marriage vows can itself display “proven fidelity”, that a union contrary to the command of Christ, can display “Christian commitment”, and that an adulterous union can be the place for “generous self giving”.

Pope Francis’s reference to “the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins” is a reference to the conviction an individual might have that abandoning a new union would cause harm to children that have come from that union, or to the other party.

The Church has acknowledged that in certain cases parents might continue to live in the same home for the sake of children, but only “as brother and sister” in complete continence. Francis here asserts a footnote suggesting that “complete continence” might, in some cases, not in fact be possible or even desirable.

The footnote, no. 329, reads: “In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are 39

focus

lacking, ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers’.”

This extraordinary claim is of course gravely wrong, because: •

•

•

First, all sexual acts outside of a valid marriage are intrinsically evil and it is never justifiable to commit an intrinsically evil act, even in order to achieve a good end.

Secondly, because one cannot speak of “faithfulness” when referring to a union that itself violates the fidelity due to the original marriage.

By using the word “faithfulness” Amoris Laetita is again conferring a degree of legitimacy on adultery.

Thirdly, to imply that children might suffer because their parents live chastely is clearly to suggest that it can sometimes be beneficial to children that their parents continue to commit adultery. The implication of this is that it might sometimes be appropriate to tolerate, or even, perhaps, as would be the logical consequence, to encourage, adultery.

And this is not the end of the problems with this footnote. The final part of the note, the words “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers”, is taken from the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes.

Now this section of Gaudium et Spes, understood in its own context, is already problematic. But Pope Francis exacerbates the problem by taking words originally written about married couples and applying them to those living in adultery.

We cannot therefore avoid the conclusion that in paragraph 297, and its accompanying footnote 329, Amoris Laetitia not only seems to suggest tolerating adultery but actually suggests that adulterous acts might in some cases be necessary for the good of children.

Paragraphs 301 & 303 The idea that sin can sometimes be beneficial or appropriate is not restricted to paragraph 297. In paragraph 301 we read that it:

40

“can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.

More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding ‘its inherent values’, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.”

In other words, there are certain concrete situations in which a person cannot do other than commit sin.

And in paragraph 303 Amoris Laetitia states: “…that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage.”

And it goes on to say: “Conscience can do more than recognise that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.”

In other words, there can be cases, according to Amoris Laetitia, where in “certain situations” that are “objectively” contrary to “our understanding of marriage” that is, the Church’s understanding, there can be acts that do not “correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel”, which can yet be recognised as “what God himself is asking”.

That is, it would seem that the document is suggesting that there are cases, when God can be asking a person, in a particular situation, to do something that is objectively wrong.

These few sentences raise a number of questions, especially in light of other passages in the document; some of these will be considered very briefly under the following headings: “situation ethics”, “fundamental option”, “gradualism” and the “natural law”.

CAL X M ARIA E

re visiting the ke y doctrinal err ors of a moris laetitia

Situation ethics The Church teaches that conscience refers to the judgement of the practical intellect by which men apply the principles of the natural law “written in their hearts” (Rom 2:15) to concrete situations to determine what should be done or left undone.

As philosopher Romano Amerio explains: “The knowledge of universal rules is only one half of morals. The other half, that goes to make up a complete moral judgement, consists in relating particular circumstances to the demands expressed in law.”1 So-called “situation ethics” adopts a contrary approach. As Pope Pius XII taught: “The distinctive mark of this morality is that it is in fact in no way based on universal moral laws, for instance, on the Ten Commandments, but on the real and concrete conditions or circumstances in which one must act, and according to which the individual conscience has to judge and choose. This state of things is unique and valid but once for each human action. This is why the supporters of this ethics affirm that the decision of one's conscience cannot be commanded by universal ideas, principles, and laws...”2 In the paragraphs of Amoris Laetitia presented above we see conscience presented as reaching the conclusion that a particular action, that is not in conformity with the objective law, can not only be tolerated, but can even be what God desires. The paragraph thus reflects the approach of situation ethics, which rejects universal and binding moral norms and denies that there are certain acts which are intrinsically evil and can never be committed in any situation.

Fundamental option Closely related to situation ethics is the theory of “fundamental option” which separates individual moral acts from a person’s overall moral orientation.

It holds that a person can commit specific gravely immoral acts while remaining fundamentally oriented to God. That is, a person could remain in a state of friendship with God while committing acts S PR I NG 2021

that fulfil the traditional criteria for mortal sin. On the contrary, each and every mortal sin extinguishes the life of charity in the soul. The Council of Trent defined: “In opposition also to the subtle wits of certain men, who, by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent, it is to be maintained, that the received grace of Justification is lost, not only by infidelity whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever, though faith be not lost; thus defending the doctrine of the divine law, which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the unbelieving, but the faithful also (who are) fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liars with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins; from which, with the help of divine grace, they can refrain, and on account of which they are separated from the grace of Christ.”3 And St Thomas Aquinas teaches: “Now every mortal sin is contrary to charity by its very nature, which consists in man's loving God above all things, and subjecting himself to Him entirely, by referring all that is his to God. It is therefore essential to charity that man should so love God as to wish to submit to Him in all things, and always to follow the rule of

DETAIL FROM THE APOTHEOSIS OF SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS (1631). FRANCISCO DE ZURBARÁN. MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, SEVILLE.

41

focus

DETAIL FROM THE MARRIAGE OF THE VIRGIN (1504). RAPHAEL. PINACOTECA DI BRERA, MILAN.

“Amoris Laetitia speaks of marriage as a gospel ideal, without seeming to acknowledge that it is also a reality in the natural order.”

His commandments; since whatever is contrary to His commandments is manifestly contrary to charity, and therefore by its very nature is capable of destroying charity. …

“Now it is evident that through every mortal sin which is contrary to God's commandments, an obstacle is placed to the outpouring of charity, since from the very fact that a man chooses to prefer sin to God's friendship, which requires that we should obey His will, it follows that the habit of charity is lost at once through one mortal sin. Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 12) that ‘man is enlightened by God's presence, but he is darkened at once by God's absence, 42

because distance from Him is effected not by change of place but by aversion of the will.’”4 Gradualism A third approach evident in Amoris Laetitia is that of the “law of gradualness”, which, according to the most common usage of the term, maintains that the obligation of obedience to the moral law only imposes itself gradually as a person matures and develops and becomes capable of observing the law. This would mean that an individual is not in fact obliged to live according to the fullness of the moral law at certain points in his or her lifetime.

As Romano Amerio has written, gradualism is the “synthesis of the errors of both systems” described above.

CAL X M ARIA E

re visiting the ke y doctrinal err ors of a moris laetitia

Amerio continues: “In fact, the moral law is an absolute that demands total obedience, even though the wills that have to conform to it may be weak and may often tend towards a conformity to the law without being strong enough to reach it.

To assert a graduality in the moral imperative itself, would be to compromise the ideal and unchanging moral order of things; a graduality in one’s responding to the law’s requirements is, on the other hand, a simple psychological fact stemming from the changeableness of human wills.”5 However, throughout the synodal process the “law of gradualness” was frequently invoked by those pursuing ideas in opposition to Catholic teaching.

In the interim report of the 2014 Extraordinary Synod the “law of gradualness” was explicitly used to justify the admission to Holy Communion of the “divorced and remarried”. However, due to opposition from synod fathers all direct references to it were removed in the Extraordinary Synod’s final report and only one indirect reference can be found in the final report of the Ordinary Synod.

Amoris Laetitia on the other hand includes a subsection, in Chapter Eight, entitled “Gradualness in pastoral care”. This section, and indeed the whole document, is pervaded by the implication that the Church’s teaching on marriage presents an ideal that is to be aimed at, rather than a reality that is binding on all.

Natural law This reduction of the moral life to the level of an ideal leads us to consideration of the document’s approach to the natural law. Time and time again Amoris Laetitia speaks of marriage as a gospel ideal, without seeming to acknowledge that it is also a reality in the natural order.

Throughout the synodal process we have observed efforts to eliminate reference to the natural law and the use of language which conflates the natural and supernatural orders.

In Amoris Laetitia Pope Francis proposes a false understanding of the natural law. In paragraph 305 he states that the natural law cannot be presented as S PR I NG 2021

“an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making decisions.”

This is simply false. The natural law is the eternal law of God, as imprinted on rational creatures, to direct us to our final end. It is real and objective, not merely a source of “inspiration” for a “deeply personal process of making decisions”.

In all our analyses of the synodal documents, Voice of the Family has warned that the abolition of the concept of an immutable natural law has been at the heart of the radical agenda pursued over the last two years. Amoris Laetitia confirms the worst of our fears.

“Mitigating Factors in Pastoral Discernment”

It is in the context of this denial of the natural law that the most direct contradiction of Catholic teaching regarding the reception of the sacraments by “divorced and remarried” Catholics is to be found. In the subsection of Chapter Eight entitled “Mitigating Factors in Pastoral Discernment” the document correctly notes that it is possible for a person to commit an objectively grave sin while not being subjectively culpable of mortal sin. It goes on to state that a person in this state can “be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end”.

What help then should the Church offer to those who are living in a state of objective grave sin?

I imagine that most of us would answer that she ought to share the teachings of the Church with clarity and charity, because it is those teachings that ultimately lead to happiness, in this world and the next.

But what kind of help does Pope Francis foresee? In footnote 351, which refers directly to the quote above, he states, of those living in objective grave sin, with no present intention to amend their lives, that: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, ‘I want to remind priests that 43

focus

the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy’ (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038).

I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak’ (ibid., 47: 1039).”

Pope Francis is stating here that individuals who are living in public grave sin can, in certain cases, be admitted to both the sacraments of Penance and Holy Communion while remaining in their sinful lifestyle, if it is determined that their sin is inculpable.

This statement is incompatible with the teaching and discipline of the Catholic Church. This teaching requires that all those living in an objective state of public grave sin be denied Holy Communion.

This remains true if an individual is not subjectively guilty of mortal sin. It is the objective reality that takes precedence in determining whether an individual is to be admitted to Holy Communion.

Furthermore, the scandal caused by the reception of the Eucharist by the “divorced and remarried” is not removed simply because a priest has come to the conclusion that a particular individual has no subjective guilt. What the rest of the flock see is simply a person obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin being admitted to Holy Communion.

It is also extremely difficult to conceive of an appreciable number of cases where a person will remain without culpability for mortal sin after engaging in a proper process of discernment with a faithful priest. Clearly the duty of any priest in dealing with a “divorced and remarried” person is to share with them the truth of the Church's teaching. The moral law, after all, is an intrinsic part of the order established by God. If a person is living in permanent grave sin, they are doing something which is harmful to themselves and to the common good, even if they have not been culpable of sin up to that point. It would be a serious failing of both justice and charity for any priest to abandon a person to a life of objective sin, and that is exactly what would be done if the priest left a person in ignorance as to the nature of their sin or confirmed them in it.

44

It is quite clear then that Amoris Laetitia directly contradicts the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church on the question of the admission of “divorced and remarried Catholics” to Holy Communion.

The “culture of death” Voice of the Family’s second core principle is “that the separation of the procreative and unitive ends of the sexual act, which is intrinsic to the use of contraception, has acted as a major catalyst of the ‘culture of death’”.

We can deal with this point much more briefly than the first because, unfortunately, the Church’s teaching on contraception is undermined by the same erroneous approaches that we have outlined above. Situation ethics, fundamental option, gradualism and the denial of the natural law, have all been used over the last fifty years to undermine the Church’s teaching on the use of contraception.

Amoris Laetitia makes no direct reference to contraception, despite the devastating consequences of the use of contraceptives in many areas of human life, not least the killing of unborn children by abortifacient methods. The consistency of this omission, which can be seen throughout the synodal documents, and also in Laudato Si, would seem to reflect the approach adopted by Pope Francis in his 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro in which he said, “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible.”

Amoris Laetitia certainly fails to grapple with the scale of the threat to unborn children, the elderly and the disabled. Estimates indicate that over two billion unborn lives have been destroyed by abortion over the last century. Yet in a document addressing challenges to the family, which is more than 250 pages long, there are only a small number of passing references to abortion. There is no mention at all of the destruction caused by artificial methods of reproduction, which have also resulted in the loss of millions of human lives.

There is no reference to the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church on contraception, which is to be found in the encyclical letter Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XI. Humanae Vitae is mentioned in

CAL X M ARIA E

re visiting the ke y doctrinal err ors of a moris laetitia

“The moral law, after all, is an intrinsic part of the order established by God. If a person is living in permanent grave sin, they are doing something which is harmful to themselves and to the common good, It would be a serious failing of both justice and charity for any priest to abandon a person to a life of objective sin, and that is exactly what would be done if the priest left a person in ignorance as to the nature of their sin or confirmed them in it.” failure to clearly restate what the Church actually teaches about contraception.

As far as same-sex unions are concerned Amoris Laetitia states, in paragraph 52, that: “We need to acknowledge the great variety of family situations that can offer a certain stability, but de facto or same-sex unions, may not simply be equated with marriage.” [emphasis added] This implies:

the context of “responsible parenthood” and the exercise of conscience by spouses in this area, for example paragraph 82 states that Humanae Vitae “highlights the need to respect the dignity of the person in morally assessing methods of regulating birth”, paragraph 222 states that “decisions involving responsible parenthood presupposes the formation of conscience” and that “parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God”. Such statements, which in another context might not be troubling, do give cause for concern given the false approaches to moral theology adopted in the document and the

S PR I NG 2021

1. that “same-sex unions” are one of the “great variety of family situations” 2. that “same-sex unions” offer a “certain stability” and 3. that “same-sex unions” can be “equated” with marriage on some level, if not “simply”.

This approach reflects that adopted in the interim report of the Extraordinary Synod and the Instrumentum Laboris of the Ordinary Synod and which was rejected twice by the synod fathers. It has been adopted nonetheless in Amoris Laetitia despite the quotation in paragraph 251 of a document of the contemporary Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which states that there are “no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and the family”.

45

focus

Sex Education In the final section of this analysis we will discuss Amoris Laetitia in the light of the rights of parents as the primary educators of their children, especially with regards to sex education.

First, we must note that Amoris Laetitia does make reference to the fundamental right and duty of parents to act as the primary educators of their children. In paragraph 84 the document speaks of the Church’s role in supporting families in the raising of children and goes on to state that: “At the same time I feel it important to reiterate that the overall education of children is a ‘most serious duty’ and at the same time a ‘primary right’ of parents. This is not just a task or a burden, but an essential and inalienable right that parents are called to defend and of which no one may claim to deprive them.”

The problem is that this assertion of parental rights is found in Chapter 1 of the document and not in the chapter actually entitled “Towards a Better Education of Children”. In this chapter, no 7, which is twenty-two pages long there is no mention of the rights of parents. Even more problematic is that there is a subsection of Chapter 7, entitled “The Need for Sex Education”. This subsection on “The Need for Sex Education” makes no reference to the role of parents at all, though it does make reference to “educational institutions”. Indeed, the clear implication of this subsection seems to be that sex education is something to be carried out by educational institutions and not by parents.

Given that a whole chapter is dedicated to the education of children, it does seem extraordinary that the only reference to parental rights is in a completely different chapter, in which they are not particularly relevant. Indeed, given the gravity of the threat to parental rights, especially in the area of sex education, it is a matter of serious concern that this reference, brief enough already, has been separated from its proper context and placed in a completely different part of the document, more than one hundred pages earlier.

There is in fact an urgent need to reassert the authentic teaching of the Church on sex education:

46

“Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers. …

“In this extremely delicate matter, if, all things considered, some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and who have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known in traditional Christian education, and are adequately described by Antoniano cited above, when he says: ‘Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find occasions for and inducements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend to details… Speaking generally, during the period of childhood it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice.’”6 Yet in Amoris Laetitia, in a section explicitly intended to argue for “The Need for Sex Education” parents are not mentioned at all, but “educational institutions” are.

And what is this sex education that is so desperately needed? To see the reality of sex education we need look no further than the World Health Organisation’s “Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe”. These guidelines suggest the following

CAL X M ARIA E

re visiting the ke y doctrinal err ors of a moris laetitia

topics should be taught to children who fall into the specified age brackets:

“violation of sexual rights” “right to abortion”

0-4 “enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body” “early childhood masturbation” “right to explore gender identities”

Now, we are not suggesting that Amoris Laetitia directly proposes this kind of sex education. Yet it is certainly the case that the document fails to come even close to discussing the real threat facing children. We read, for example, that today the“language of sexuality” is “sadly impoverished”, and that “sexuality” is “trivialised”. Such criticisms of modern sex education are grossly insufficient, considering that the purpose of this subsection is to discuss the need for sex education.

It is important to note here that this is not the first time during this pontificate that the attitude of those in positions of authority in Rome towards parental rights have given us cause for concern.

We have described in our analyses of both the Instrumentum Laboris and the final report of the Ordinary Synod how both of these documents denied

4-6 “same-sex relationships” “respect for different norms regarding sexuality” 9-12 “differences between gender identity and biological sex” “sexual rights” as “defined by IPPF [International Planned Parenthood Federation]” 15+ “acceptance and celebration of sexual differences” S PR I NG 2021

47

focus

parents their full rights over the education of their children by stating, quite explicitly, that the family “cannot be the only place for teaching sexuality”.

Furthermore, Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si in its six paragraphs on “Educating for the Covenant Between Humanity and the Environment” (209-215), makes no reference at all to parents, despite the work of education being primarily their responsibility. This is very troubling given the close associations between the environmental movement and the population control lobby. Who exactly will be carrying out this education in environmentalism?

Is it not likely that it will be environmental charities that work for the reduction of human population through promoting access to contraception and abortion?

In this connection it is worth drawing attention to workshops held in the Vatican, under the auspices of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) in November 2015 to discuss how to use children as “agents of change” to implement environmentalism and “sustainable development”. The briefing document for this event said that schools would have to “absorb” the Sustainable Development Goals, the same Sustainable Development Goals that include calls for universal access to “reproductive health”, a term which is defined by UN bodies and powerful western governments, including the US government, as including access to abortion and contraception, including abortifacient forms. At this event Pope Francis’s representatives met with some of the world’s leading proponents of population control, such as Dr Jeffrey Sachs, special adviser to Ban Ki-Moon to discuss common action. The briefing warned against “parents” and “agencies” that, “basing themselves on religious principles, oppose scientific evidence to the detriment of children”.

The manner in which parental rights are treated in Amoris Laetitia does little to reassure us that there has been any change of direction in the Vatican.

Would we say that this is a wonderful document, except for the paragraphs in which it encourages reception of the Eucharist by individuals living in public adultery and suggests that adultery might be beneficial for children? Would we say that there was much to be learnt, except when it seems to propose situation ethics, fundamental option and gradualism and attacks the very foundations of natural law?

Clearly this is not possible. A document which contains doctrinal error cannot be considered an appropriate means for propagating Catholic truth.

Therefore, it is of the most urgent necessity to warn all Catholics against the false doctrine of Amoris Laetitia and urge them to pray for the teachers who propagate it. It must be repudiated either by Pope Francis or by one of his successors. In the meantime, the grave errors contained within it cannot go unchallenged.

Endnotes: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, pp 455-56.

AAS, 1952, pp 413-419.

Council of Trent, Decree on Justification.

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II:II q.24 a.12.

Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, p469.

Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, No. 65-67.

Conclusion If we were asked to recommend a document on marriage and family life, perhaps by somebody interested in the Catholic faith, or by a young person exploring the Church’s teaching, would we be able to recommend Amoris Laetitia?

48

CAL X M ARIA E

A SHORT READING LIST OF CATHOLIC TEACHING ON THE FAMILY

for confusing times

It is a characteristic of our time that the boundaries separating what is true from what is false have become obscured, even in the Church. If we wish to dispel confusion and restore clarity we must turn to the source of the truth which is authentic Catholic teaching. With ambiguous or even erroneous teaching often placed on a par with the truth, we may be able to recognise inconsistencies and contradictions, but it is also necessary to draw on the sources of authentic teaching in order to remain firm in our witness to the immutable truth of Christ. The fact that Pope Francis has dedicated this year both to St Joseph as well as to Amoris Laetitia only serves to demonstrate how intense this need has now become.

Above all, it should prompt us to desire that the true teaching on marriage and the family be ever more illuminated in our souls, in the Church and in the world. Under the unfailing patronage of St Joseph, we present this short list of selected readings which hopefully will help us as we orientate ourselves in pursuit of truth and clarity.

Arcanum Divinae Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Christian Marriage (1880)

Arcanum teaches that since family life is the germ of society, and marriage is the basis of family life, the healthy condition of civil no less than of religious society depends on the inviolability of the marriage contract. The argument of the encyclical runs as follows: The mission of Christ was to restore man in the supernatural order. That should benefit man also in the natural order; first, the individual; and then, as a consequence, human society. Having laid down this principle, the encyclical deals with Christian marriage which sanctifies the family, i.e. the unit of society. The marriage contract, divinely instituted, had from the beginning two properties: unity and indissolubility. Through human weakness

S PR I NG 2021

and wilfulness it was corrupted in the course of time; polygamy destroyed its unity, and divorce its indissolubility. Christ restored the original idea of human marriage, and to sanctify more thoroughly this institution He raised the marriage contract to the dignity of a sacrament. Mutual rights and duties were secured to husband and wife; mutual rights and duties between parents and children were also asserted: to the former, authority to govern and the duty of training; to the latter, the right to parental care and the duty of reverence. Christ instituted his Church to continue His mission to men. The Church, true to her commission, has always asserted the unity and indissolubility of marriage, the relative rights and duties of husband, wife, and children; she has also maintained that, the natural contract in marriage having been raised to the dignity of a sacrament, these two are henceforth one and the same thing so that there cannot be a marriage contract amongst Christians which is not a sacrament. Hence, while admitting the right of civil authority to regulate the civil concerns and consequences of marriage, the church has always claimed exclusive authority over the marriage contract and its essentials, since it is a sacrament. The encyclical shows by the light of history that for centuries the church exercised, and the civil power admitted, that authority. But human weakness and wilfulness began to throw off the bridle of Christian discipline in family life; civil rulers began to disown the authority of the church over the marriage tie; and rationalism sought to sustain them by establishing the principle that the marriage contract is not a sacrament at all, or at least that the natural contract and the sacrament are separable and distinct things. Hence arose the idea of the dissolubility of marriage and divorce, superseding the unity and indissolubility of the marriage bond. The encyclical points to the consequences of that departure in the breaking up of family life, and its evil effects on society at large.

It points out as a consequence, that the Church, in asserting its authority over the marriage contract, 49

focus

has shown itself not the enemy but the best friend of the civil power and the guardian of civil society. In conclusion, the encyclical commissions all bishops to oppose civil marriage, and it warns the faithful against the dangers of mixed marriages. (Source: www.newadvent.org)

Casti Connubii Encyclical of Pope Pius XI on Christian Marriage (1930)

The doctrine of the Church on marriage was affirmed as definitive and binding by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Casti Connubii of 31 December 1930. In this document, the pope calls the attention of the entire Church and all of the human race to the fundamental truths on the nature of marriage, an institution not of men, but conceived by God Himself, and on the blessings and benefits society derives from it. The first purpose is procreation – which doesn’t mean simply bringing children into the world, but educating them, intellectually, morally, and most of all spiritually, to help them attain their eternal destiny, which is Heaven. The second purpose is the mutual assistance of the spouses, which is not only a material assistance, nor only a sexual, sentimental intent, but primarily an assistance and spiritual union.

The encyclical contains a clear and vigorous condemnation of contraceptive methods, defined as “shameful actions and intrinsically dishonest”.

Thus: “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin” (56). (Extract from “To understand Humanae Vitae, read Casti Connubii” by Prof. Roberto de Mattei, published on Rorate Caeli, 5 July 2018.)

50

THE FAMILY UNDER ATTACK A Philosophical and Theological Defense of Human Society

By Don Pietro Leone, Fitzwilliam: Loreto Publications, (2015) In our days the war against God and His Church has become deeper and broader than at any time in history. No longer are the powers of darkness content to attack only the institutional Church that God founded. The truth is that human nature that God the Father created is now the subject of the adversary’s most violent persecution, and through the undermining of the very concept of human nature and the natural law enshrined in it the enemies of God hope to make any consideration of the concept of “super-nature” and supernatural life disappear from the minds of men.

The Church has always been the true guardian of not only supernatural life, but of the natural law as well. Since the natural law is the law that God put into our nature and it is discernible in the light of reason, the Church, speaking for God, is the champion of sound reasoning. With the natural law as well as supernatural law governing human sexuality and family life under attack, Don Pietro Leone has risen to defend (and to properly distinguish) those areas, so that those who wish to defend the Church and human society in our age may have sound teaching upon which to base their actions.

In the course of this treatment of these topics he makes a detailed critique of certain novel presentations of themes spread by many from the time of the Second Vatican Council onwards. Amongst these doctrines is one he terms “Magisterial Personalism” and another called the “Theology of the Body”. Drawing upon scholastic philosophy and the perennial teaching of the Church, Don Pietro brings light to a subject recently plunged into obscurity and darkness that is not currently being dispelled successfully, even by the guardians of Truth themselves. (Source: www.loretopubs.org)

CAL X M ARIA E

QUEMADMODUM DEUS On 8 December 1870, The Sacred Congregation of Rites promulgated the following decree, which communicated the decision of Pope Pius IX to declare St Joseph Patron of the Universal Church, and which also raised St Joseph’s feast of 19 March to the rank of double of the first class.

As God appointed Joseph, son of the patriarch Jacob, over all the land of Egypt to store up corn for the people, so, when the fullness of time was come, and He was about to send to earth His only-begotten Son, the Saviour of the world, He chose another Joseph, of whom the first had been the type, and He made him lord and ruler of His household and possessions, the Guardian of His greatest treasures.

And Joseph espoused the Immaculate Virgin Mary, of whom was born by the Holy Ghost, Jesus Christ our Lord, who deigned to be reputed before men as the Son of Joseph, and was subject to him. And Him whom so many kings and prophets desired to see, Joseph not only saw, but abode with, and embraced with paternal affection, and kissed, yea, and most sedulously nourished, even Him whom the faithful should receive as the Bread come down from Heaven, that they might obtain eternal life.

On account of this sublime dignity which God conferred on His most faithful Servant, the Church has always most highly honoured and lauded the Most Blessed Joseph next after his spouse, the Virgin Mother of God, and has implored his intercession in all her great necessities.

And now that in this most sorrowful time the Church herself is beset by enemies on every side and oppressed by heavy calamities, so that impious men imagine that the gates of hell are at length prevailing against her, the Venerable Prelates of the whole Catholic world have presented to the Sovereign Pontiff their own petitions and those of the faithful confided to their care, praying that he would vouchsafe to constitute St Joseph Patron of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, when at the Sacred Ecumenical Council of the Vatican they renewed still more fervently this their petition and prayer, Our Most Holy Lord, Pius IX, Pope, moved thereto by recent deplorable events, was pleased to comply with the desires of the Prelates, and to commit to the most powerful patronage of the Holy Patriarch Joseph both himself and all the faithful and solemnly declared him Patron of the Catholic Church, and commanded his festival, occurring on the 19th of March, to be celebrated as a double of the first class, but without an octave on the account of Lent.

Further, he ordained that on this day, sacred to the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God and Spouse of the Most Chaste Joseph, a declaration to that effect should by this present Decree of The Sacred Congregation of Rites be published.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

S PR I NG 2021

51

THE YEAR OF SAINT JOSEPH

A great opportunity for the Church

An extract from an article by Roberto de Mattei, published on Rorate Caeli, 19 December 2020.

O

n 8 December 1870, Blessed Pius IX with the decree Quemadmodum Deus, declared Saint Joseph to be Patron of the Catholic Church. This decree gave canonical form to the truth according to which Saint Joseph protects the Church as he protected with his authority the Holy Family during his life.

To celebrate the 150th anniversary of the decree of Pius IX, Pope Francis announced a Year of Saint Joseph, from 8 December 2020 to 8 December 2021. On this occasion, the Apostolic Penitentiary, which is the supreme tribunal of the Church, granted to the faithful the extraordinary gift of special indulgences. In fact, with a decree of Cardinal Mauro Piacenza, Major Penitentiary of the Church, published in conformity with the will of Pope Francis: “the Apostolic Penitentiary grants the Plenary Indulgence according to the usual conditions

52

(sacramental confession, Eucharistic Communion, and prayer according to the intentions of the Holy Father) to the faithful, who with a soul detached from any sin, will participate in the Year of Saint Joseph, in the ways which the same Congregation indicates.”

The foreseen ways for obtaining the indulgence are numerous. Among these are the recitation of the Holy Rosary in the family, the recitation of the Litany of Saint Joseph, or any prayer to Saint Joseph legitimately approved, like the prayer “To Thee, O Blessed Joseph”, especially on the occasions of 19 March, 1 May, and on the feast of the Holy Family, the 19th of every month, and every Wednesday, the day dedicated to recalling the Saint.

Few have understood the relevance of this decree of the Sacred Penitentiary. We know, in fact, that an indulgence is the remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sin already remitted, which the faithful gain by the intervention of the Church, which has the power to dispense the treasures of the satisfaction of Christ and of the CAL X M ARIA E

Saints. The Church is not an invisible reality, but a juridically perfect society, equipped with all the means to operate in view of fulfilling her mission.

Pope Francis can be criticised, even severely, but as long as he is considered the legitimate Vicar of Christ, the juridical acts which he puts into being are valid, as long as they are not in contradiction with the Tradition of the Church. This is not the case for the indulgences which he, as Pope, has all the right to bestow, in virtue of the power of the keys given to Peter and his successors: “And I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in Heaven.” (Mt 16:19).

He who negates the validity of these indulgences, accepts, at least de facto, the thesis that Pope Francis is a false or illegitimate Pope, head of a “church” different from the Catholic Church. He who, while considering him Pope, ignores or minimises the worth of his juridical act, assumes the responsibility

of a missed increase in grace, and in the glory of many souls, and of a missed freeing of other souls from Purgatory. Every member of the faithful, in fact, can gain for himself the indulgences, both partial and plenary, or apply them to the dead through suffrages.

It is not easy to gain a plenary indulgence, because a disposition of soul which excludes every attachment to even venial sin is necessary. However, every indulgence, even partial, is a great gift of the Church, especially because it cancels out, in whole or in part, the punishments due to sin, on earth or in Purgatory. We cannot judge the intentions of Pope Francis, but we must take note of the fact that with his decree, he has offered a precious aid to faithful Catholics who need the special assistance of Grace in the time of convulsion in which we live. After the Blessed Virgin Mary, no other human creature had the faith of Saint Joseph and no one was more logical and reflective than he. In the year dedicated to him, let us ask Saint Joseph to grant us the sense of the Faith, and the use of reason necessary to orient us, without getting lost, toward the Divine Cave of Bethlehem.

Novena to St Joseph

By Fr. Louis Lallemant, S.J. (1587-1633) It consists in turning to St Joseph four times a day (it does not matter when or where) and honouring him in the four points of: 1. ST JOSEPH’S FIDELITY TO GRACE. Reflect on this for a minute, thank God and ask through St Joseph to be faithful to grace.

2. ST JOSEPH’S FIDELITY TO THE INTERIOR LIFE. Reflect, thank God, and ask.

3. ST JOSEPH’S LOVE OF OUR BLESSED LADY. Reflect, thank God, and ask.

4. ST JOSEPH’S LOVE FOR THE DIVINE CHILD. Reflect, thank God, and ask.

(Only one point to be taken for each visit.)

N.B. This novena has been found so efficacious that one is advised to be sure that one really wants what one asks for.

THE YEAR OF SAINT JOSEPH INDULGENCES From 8 December 2020 to 8 December 2021 of work may find employment and the work of all people may be more dignified; 5. to the faithful who shall recite the Litanies to Saint Joseph (for the Latin tradition), or the Akathistos to Saint Joseph, in their entirety or at least some part of it (for the Byzantine tradition), or some other prayer to Saint Joseph, proper to other liturgical traditions, in favour of the Church persecuted ad intra and ad extra and for the relief of all Christians who suffer any form of persecution.

A

ccording to the decree granted by the Holy See, the Plenary Indulgence is granted under the customary conditions (sacramental confession, Eucharistic communion and prayers according to the Pope’s intentions*) to the faithful who, with a soul detached from any sin, shall participate in the Year of Saint Joseph, in the occasions and with the modalities indicated by the Apostolic Penitentiary: 1. to those who shall contemplate the Lord’s Prayer for at least 30 minutes, or participate in a Spiritual Retreat of at least one day which involves a meditation on Saint Joseph; 2. to those who, after the example of Saint Joseph, shall fulfil a work of corporal or spiritual work of mercy; 3. or the recitation of the Holy Rosary in families and among betrothed; 4. to those who shall daily entrust their life to the protection of Saint Joseph, and all faithful who shall invoke through prayer the intercession of the Worker of Nazareth, so that those in search

54

6. to the faithful who shall recite any prayer legitimately approved or act of piety in honour of Saint Joseph, for example, “To Thee, O Blessed Joseph”, especially on the occasions of 19 March and 1 May, on the Feast of the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, on the Sunday of Saint Joseph (according to the Byzantine tradition), on the 19th of every month and every Wednesday, the day dedicated to the Saint’s memory, according to the Latin tradition.

The gift of the Plenary Indulgence extends particularly to the elderly, the sick, the suffering and all those who for legitimate reasons are unable to leave the house, and who with a soul detached from any sin and with the intention to fulfil, as soon as possible, the three customary conditions in their own home or wherever the impediment detains them, shall recite an act of piety in honour of Saint Joseph, Comfort of the Sick and Patron of a Happy Death, faithfully offering to God their suffering and the hardships of their life. *The intentions of the Sovereign Pontiff for which we pray as a necessary condition for gaining plenary indulgences are: • • • • • •

The exaltation of the Church The propagation of the Faith The extirpation of heresy The conversion of sinners Concord between Christian princes and rulers The further welfare of the Christian people CAL X M ARIA E

interview

a view from the trenches

THE FIGHT OF A FAMILY DO CTOR An interview with Dr Thomas Ward

Calx Mariae had the pleasure of speaking with Dr Thomas Ward, a life-long dedicated family doctor, to get his perspective on the enormous challenges that Catholic families are facing today. Dr Ward has been a relentless fighter for the family on many fronts, not least as a corresponding member of the Pontifical Academy for Life until it was fundamentally reformed in 2017. He is the founder and president of the National Association of Catholic Families in the UK, Ireland and Australia. He and his wife Mary are parents of six and grandparents of 18 children.

CALX MARIAE: You started out as a family doctor in the 70s when the sexual revolution was at its height. What impact did you see this having on families? What impact did it have on how you practiced medicine?

DR THOMAS WARD: Yes, coming so soon after the 1968 sexual revolution in Paris and the rejection by so many churchmen of the truth taught in Humanae Vitae, the early 70s was not an easy time.

It is difficult for people today to understand the seismic change that took place in the Church at the time before and after the publication of Humanae Vitae.

Perhaps an anecdote will help people understand. I remember as a boy in the 50s in Scotland, the tragic sudden death of a young married lady and the genuine consternation amongst many Catholics when word somehow got around that she had been using contraception. People feared for her salvation. Contrast this with the situation in the late 70s, by which time Catholics who did not contracept had become very rare. I remember speaking to a family doctor in the Catholic heartland of Scotland who told me that she had met only twenty patients who did not use contraception.

There had been a moral revolution.

So not unsurprisingly it became difficult for me as a seriously Catholic doctor to find a job.

S PR I NG 2021

However, eventually I found a rural practice in East Anglia where I worked for thirty years.

The population was largely post-Protestant non-believing with 4 per cent nominally Catholic.

Overwhelmingly my patients were kind, tolerant and often appreciative of my ethical position.

Being seen as a sign of contradiction was much less appreciated by my colleagues who took a diametrically opposite ethical stance than by my patients or indeed by some Catholic clergy.

Perhaps the saddest example of clerical attitudes occurred when in 1975 we gave a pregnant 15-year-old Catholic girl a home. My wife, also a doctor, spoke to the girl at length in an effort to identify the pressures upon her. Like so many other young people that I met in practice, she had been indoctrinated by teenage magazines and sex education, often emanating from the Family Planning Association under its many masks. However, in her case, the most interesting influence was the priest, school chaplain, who had written all of the contraceptive methods on the blackboard. When asked, “Was contraception wrong?” he replied that he did not know. Sadly, the children were less indecisive.

Many of the 15-year-olds were already contracepting. When parents contracept, so do their children.

CM: The case of Victoria Gillick in the early 80s was a landmark decision which continues to affect family life. What was the case and what was your involvement with it?

TW: I would like to preface my answer with a quotation from Humanae Vitae, regarding the issue fundamental to your question which is contraception.

“Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for 55

interview

the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty?....

It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.”

(Humanae Vitae no. 17, emphasis added) From the early 70s it had become evident to me as a family doctor, from speaking to many young girls, that they were being indoctrinated into early contraceptive sex. Since this also involved many young Catholic girls, I turned for help for these young people to the priest with the diocesan responsibility for youth. He promised he would consult the bishop and get back to me. Having heard nothing I phoned him. He asked dismissively, “Was I surprised at immorality amongst young people?”

I replied this was not immorality but rather more an orchestrated massacre. He did not care. Nor did others I consulted.

That was forty years ago. Something had to be done. I approached our Anglican vicar, an Anglican headmaster (who with his family subsequently became Catholic) and an Anglican nurse. They were horrified at the plight of young Catholics. We decided to write a pamphlet on the sexual pressures on young people. In classical English tradition we became pamphleteers!

Providentially our little group made contact with a Mrs Valerie Riches, the secretary of an academic think tank studying the agencies promoting the sexualisation of young people. She told us of her investigations into the vast network of national and international agencies, ideological, commercial and political, working together to promote this sexualisation and its necessary prerequisite, the removal of parents’ rights.

To learn that the worldwide assault on young people on an industrial scale was fully calculated, caused us, as parents of two little girls, many

56

sleepless nights. Helpfully Valerie organised a press conference at which the Queen’s Gynaecologist press-released our pamphlet. Our mouse had roared!

Later Valerie Riches and her husband became Catholics.

But back to the big picture. In 1973, the state, under the influence of the birth control lobby, provided contraception to all, irrespective of age. A year later the government enforced this in a legal Memorandum of Guidance which forbade doctors from telling parents when a child of whatever age asked for contraceptives and subsequently abortion.

We fine-tuned our resistance and targeted this Memorandum. With the support of millions of parents we fought a campaign, achieving huge media coverage. We targeted the Queen, the Prime Minister and leaders of major religions (Cardinal Hume was the least enthusiastic). Whilst many priests individually gave us support, the dominant section of the English Catholic Establishment – episcopal, as well as lay, including medical – were unsupportive.

We opposed the Medical Defence Union, which legally underpinned the Memorandum. We opposed our local Area Health Authority which was putting the Memorandum into effect. When the local Community Health Council seemed sympathetic to parents it was subjected to threats from the Family Planning Association.

When local action failed we went to law. In what was to become the most important socio-legal case of the 80s, a heroic Catholic mother of ten, Mrs Victoria Gillick sought a legal ruling declaring the Memorandum unlawful.

In 1983 in the High Court she lost. Just prior to her then going to the Court of Appeal in 1984, I mobilised over two thousand doctors, including some of the most eminent in the land. With huge media coverage we rebelled against the General Medical Council’s similar diktat that doctors might speak to parents on any health matters without the child’s permission – any that is, except contraception and abortion.

In the Court of Appeal Victoria Gillick won and for the following ten months doctors were prohibited from providing contraceptives or abortion

CAL X M A R IA E

the fight of a fa mily doctor

to underage girls without parental knowledge or consent.

During these ten months the attendance at contraceptive clinics fell dramatically. The abortion and illegitimacy figures fell.

Tragically, we could have won. Many politicians were with us. Indeed, the Speaker of the House of Commons said that the Gillick case was the most crucial socio-legal issue of the decade. Public opinion was overwhelmingly with us. We had substantial support in the media, from Anglican and Evangelical clergy and from the Chief Rabbi.

It was a watershed moment. One essential element was missing and I believe that it would have been decisive: the convinced and robust support of the English Catholic hierarchy. Crucially it was absent.

Parents lost in the Law Lords (today known as the Supreme Court). The moment had passed.

In 1985 parental rights to consent to general medical treatment were greatly diminished. In 1994 the courts removed parental rights to know about their under age child having an abortion. (In spite of high quality clinical studies showing that parental notification in the case of abortion requests reduces underage abortion by 10-20 per cent).

CM: Is there any hope of protecting parental rights in the UK while the Gillick ruling is in effect?

TW: Yes, I believe there is. The courts have so far declined invitations to rigidly define “Gillick competence” and I believe that if a doctor decides that a child under 16 years is not able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge (i.e is not “Gillick competent”), he can in his duty of care for the child involve the parent against the child’s wishes.

This would be particularly so with the support of a colleague’s second opinion. In a medical setting it is in the doctor’s power of decision to involve parents although it would not be a clinical decision without legal jeopardy.

To put it otherwise, there is no absolute legal prohibition on breaking confidence with a minor as there was previously with the Memorandum of Guidance. Interestingly and encouragingly, fairly recently the Bell v Tavistock legal case considered whether puberty blockers could be prescribed to

S PR I NG 2021

under-16s with gender dysphoria and concluded they could not have Gillick competence.

CM: It has become increasingly difficult for doctors to remain in general practice without becoming involved in the provision of birth control or referring patients for abortion or IVF. What advice would you give to young Catholics who might be thinking about entering the medical profession?

TW: It has been difficult, very very difficult, for decades on account of these ethical problems and when I retired, absolutist pro-life doctors had almost been eliminated from general practice.

However, I would make several points. The General Medical Council’s guidance does not require doctors with a conscientious objection to abortion to refer patients, even to another GP. Also, abortion on demand, although widely accepted, is not legal and the BMA does not wish to restrict conscientious objection on abortion, fertility treatment or withdrawal of life sustaining treatment.

Well, that is the official position. In reality, general practice is a minefield, especially regarding contraception, post coital “contraception” and IVF. I took an unequivocally pro-life stand, but of course patients are not stupid and they knew that they could avoid seeing me, or seek a second opinion after seeing me.

However, it may surprise your readers that being a sign of contradiction does have its compensations and even its rewards.

57

interview

I still have the satisfaction of seeing a lovely girl whom I prevented being aborted now out and about with her own pretty little girls. They would not exist had I conceded.

I have even been presented with champagne by a patient to whom I refused an abortion!

I was able to help a patient with post abortion psychosis whom nobody else could help because they had organised and carried out the abortion.

I was very surprised one day when a social worker who was not my patient and had been ethically hostile to me came into my consulting room saying, “Yes, I opposed you but now that I am pregnant, I will not have any other doctor touching me.”

Grandmothers, the last of a generation brought up as Protestants, brought their pregnant granddaughters to me requesting an abortion in full knowledge that I would not do it.

Patients came to me for protection from other parts of the country.

On another occasion an older lady came to me requesting abortion. It turned out that her main justification was that her house was too small. To my horror, I found myself promising her a house if she kept the baby! My practice was in a rural area and after much feverish political string pulling, I got her the house. So she had a new house and a new baby.

As a young house doctor, my professor warned me to be careful about the advice I gave because some might actually take it. I encouraged people to have children and many actually took it. Yes, there are compensations but the ethical challenges are grave and deeply worrying. I think that my advice to a young person, sadly, would be to avoid general practice. It simply is too much of an ethical minefield. But I might be wrong.

CM: The National Association of Catholic Families plays a different role to many other organisations which seek to defend family life in that it works with actual families. What were your aims when you founded the NACF and what lessons have you learned through your engagement with families?

TW: The National Association of Catholic Families (NACF) is an association of Catholic families who give one another mutual moral, spiritual and social

58

support in today’s culture which is so threatening to our families.

We are inspired both by Pope John Paul II’s vision of the family and by the model he proposed for us, namely the Holy Family of Nazareth. His appeal to us is that we love one another.

The NACF is founded on the family catechesis of the popes. Our work is therefore based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Familiaris Consortio, The Holy See’s Charter of the Rights of the Family and of course Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae. We endeavour to be a living family catechesis answering St John Paul’s call for “families to become what they are”.

By linking Catholic families locally, nationally and internationally, always on the simple basis of mutual support, our Association spread over the years from England to Ireland, Continental Europe, Arabia, Australia and America. We know that we are bringing up our children in a culture which is more and more dominated by extreme hostility to the family, to life and to the Church.

Families have few friends – in schools, amongst clerics, doctors and the state. They depend on other families.

It had become clear to me in the light of the ruling of the House of Lords on the Gillick case that in reality, the priority for our families was survival rather than civil rights. There was no point in having civil rights and no Catholic families.

We also know that with the grace of God, our mutual support enables us to overcome the culture of death and to replace it with Jesus’ civilisation, the Civilisation of Love.

Our Blessed Lady is enthroned in the homes of all of the families of Local Group leaders, who in turn, encourage the member families of their Local Groups to enthrone Our Lady as Queen of their family.

Our intention is to help provide the graces necessary for the survival and well being of the families of our Association.

We are supported by the prayers of very many priests and contemplatives throughout the world.

For thirty six years we have had a very beautiful National Pilgrimage of families to the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham and for my wife, Mary CAL X M ARIA E

the fight of a fa mily doctor

“As a young house doctor, my professor warned me to be careful about the advice I gave because some might actually take it. I encouraged people to have children and many actually took it.” to love their mother. Apart from the commitment to his marriage, what priorities do you think are most important for Catholic fathers?

TW: In my opinion, as a family doctor, the crisis of fatherhood is itself a manifestation of a crisis of manhood resulting from a toxic cultural mix of feminism and male chauvinism.

To become a good husband and father a man must be gentle, strong and manly.

St John Paul, upon whose teachings the National Association of Catholic Families is based, taught that for authentic conjugal love a husband must live

DR THOMAS WARD WITH HIS WIFE MARY AND GRANDCHILDREN.

and me, it is a special joy that we now have the third generation of our members attending. God has been good.

CM: Sex and Relationships Education is now compulsory in all secondary schools in England, including Catholic schools. What can parents do to protect their children from these dangers?

TW: In two words – home school.

Regarding so-called Catholic schools, we pulled our children out of them thirty five years ago in order to protect their faith. We found non-Catholic schools to be less toxic.

Incidentally, I should point out that this evil rubbish is not limited to secondary schools but it is very cruelly also imposed on little children in primary schools with no legal option for parents to withdraw their children.

CM: The crisis in the family has sometimes been characterised as a crisis of fatherhood. A holy priest in the pro-life movement used to say that the most important thing a father can do for his children is S PR I NG 2021

“a very special friendship with his wife profoundly respecting her equal dignity. Such fathers will have a unique and irreplaceable importance to the psychological, moral and general well being of their families. Fathers whose behaviour is inspired by masculine dignity are a model for their sons, and they inspire respect, admiration and very importantly security in their daughters.

The spiritual example of such a father is almost irreplaceable.”

Andre Frossard, a friend of St John Paul was deeply moved by his words: “My father was wonderful,” he said, “and almost all my childhood memories refer to him”. The Pope then pointed out that the many sorrows his father had experienced, rather than causing him to turn in on himself, had instead opened up “immense spiritual depths”: “His pain became prayer. [...] The simple fact of seeing him on his knees in prayer had a decisive influence on my formative years.”

Finally and crucially, fathers must courageously share with their wives their role as the primary educators of their children. It is God given and irre-

59

interview

placeable. Fathers must never allow it to be usurped by any authority clerical or lay.

•

CM: How and why did you first become involved with the Vatican and what was that experience like?

TW: After the Appeal Court had found in favour of Mrs Gillick and forbade doctors from prescribing contraceptives to underage girls without parental knowledge and consent, two friends of very different characters told me that I should go to Rome and tell the Pope that parents’ rights had been restored in Britain.

I thought they were crazy. However, after getting their apparently preposterous proposal, we bought a large Peugeot Familiale, a trailer tent and we all drove to Rome where somewhat miraculously, our whole family received two simultaneous invitations to be present at this saintly Pope’s private Mass. Afterwards we met and all spoke with him. He gave me his blessing and on what he called my “acteeveetays”. Our lives changed. A great adventure had begun. May his prayers and teaching bring hope to our families in today’s apocalyptic ecclesial and cultural collapse.

• •

•

•

They recommend that you stay close to your extended family and encourage them in their Faith, blood being thicker than water.

They emphasise the need for the mother to stay at home to be available to the children.

Catholic families should strive to be in the world but not of the world including the virtual world of the internet which whilst it can be useful is also dangerous.

They stress the importance of the virtue of hope even if we have to survive and prosper in a possible future without priests and the Sacraments.

Finally, I personally would stress the absolute necessity of mutual support of other fully faithful Catholic families.

CM: Where can people find out more about the NACF? TW: Do drop me a line at: DrThomasWardmb@yahoo.co.uk

CM: What is most important for Catholic families today? How can they survive, how can they thrive?

TW: I have put your question to certain members of the National Association of Catholic Families whom I know have a track record of success in bringing up their children in the Faith.

They are all quite uncompromising on sound doctrine and their total commitment to the education and protection of their children. These are the points upon which they insist: • •

•

•

60

The centrality of the Mass, Eucharistic devotion and the Sacraments, especially Confession.

That you teach your children how to pray and to pray daily. They specify the Holy Rosary and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy.

The children must know the authentic teachings of the Church by being taught the catechism, preferably in the company of other authentic Catholics.

The children must receive sound moral education and a sound moral example from their parents.

CAL X M ARIA E

reflection

THE CRISIS OF fatherhood

by DR J O S E P H S H AW

T

he “man crisis” has slowly become the object of mainstream study.

In 2015 the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) produced a report called “The ABC of Gender Inequality in Education”, based on figures from the respected PISA international educational survey. These showed that boys are lagging behind girls in a number of measurable ways: for example, girls outperform boys in reading in all countries, and women outnumber men in tertiary education. The report was picked up by The Economist, which devoted a five-part essay to “The Weaker Sex”: men, subject as they are to higher rates of unemployment, imprisonment, and premature death.

The Church has its own “man crisis”. Congregations contained roughly equal numbers of men and women up to the 1970s, but since then the number of men attending has fallen even faster than the number of women, leaving them outnumbering men by about two to one in British and American congregations.

Both the secular and ecclesial man-crisis have generated official statements of concern, but very little policy response.

Intriguingly, the PISA figures show that the gap between boys and girls in their school marks narrows when test scripts are anonymised. Hostility to boys, or to masculinity, among teachers, would certainly explain a reluctance to make changes designed to benefit boys. The things which might make school more appealing to boys, such as contact sports, the study of men in history and literature, a competitive spirit, and school discipline, can easily be taken to symbolise, embody, and encourage masculine traits.

S PR I NG 2021

In a similar way, if you pointed out that Latin, ritual, incense, and Gregorian Chant have a track record of making the Mass more palatable to men, the instinct of many bishops and liturgists would be that these things are suggestive of a masculine religion and a masculine conception of God, the extirpation of which is more important than drawing our missing men back to the life of the Sacraments.

These are surface phenomena, however. The crisis of masculinity in the Church and the World is fundamentally a crisis of fatherhood. It is because fatherhood is no longer a functioning ideal, that boys and young men lack motivation in school, and young men brought up as Catholic, as Pope John Paul II expressed it, tend to “abdicate their proper Church responsibilities, allowing them to be fulfilled only by women” (Christifideles Laici (1988) 52).

In the secular world, the connection is very clear.

As The Economist expressed it in the essay already mentioned, particularly referring to American working class men, their “ideas of the world and their place in it are shaped by old assumptions about the special role and status due to men in the workplace and in the family, but they live in circumstances where those assumptions no longer apply.”

This is a roundabout way of saying that hard work once made sense for adolescent boys and young men, because it was the route to a secure family life of comfort and honour, but this is no longer the case. Modern homes can be short on male comfort and honour, and any investment in a family is vulnerable to high rates of separation and divorce.

Despite some recognition of the motivational roots of the problem, men’s failure to provide for partners and offspring tends to be addressed only as a moral failing, as if large-scale behavioural change could be brought about just by exhortation and shaming. Similarly, in a Christian context, attempts 61

reflection

“Hard work once made sense for adolescent boys and young men, because it was the route to a secure family life of comfort and honour, but this is no longer the case.

Modern homes can be short on male comfort and honour, and any investment in a family is vulnerable to high rates of separation and divorce.” to get men back to church often begin and end with emotional manipulation. Among Evangelical Protestants, there is a whole genre of sermon which presents the preacher as the only real man in the room. He, after all, is exercising authority, but the guys in the pews are wimps, not real men, because they are not shouldering the heavy burden of the masculine role with sufficient conviction.

The problem with this approach is that a wholly servile conception of this role is not going to motivate anyone to take it up, but an understanding of it which emphasises the dignity of men would be unacceptable to feminists. Nearly all Christian leaders seem to have opted not to offend the fem-

inists. These leaders may not be as masculine as they would like us to think.

A proper understanding of the male role must start with fatherhood, noting that central to the concept of human fatherhood is God’s fatherhood.

Fatherhood is not the only image we are given of God in Scripture, but it is a dominating one. God is the Father of His “son”, His people, the Israelites and the Christians. This image is not interchangeable with the idea of God being a mother, because the biological, psychological, and legal relationship of a father to a son is not interchangeable with that of a mother and a child. God’s protection and provision for, and authority over, the Church is a model, specifically, for a human father.

THE HOLY FAMILY WITH A BIRD (C.1650). BARTOLOMÉ ESTEBAN PEREZ MURILLO. MUSEO DEL PRADO, MADRID.

62

CAL X M ARIA E

t h e c r i s i s o f f at h e r h o o d

It is often pointed out that God is neither male nor female, and this is true, but as He reveals Himself to us in Scripture, He is indisputably masculine: the traits most applicable to Him are those most applicable to men, which is to say, they are masculine traits.

Those influenced by Feminism can find it profoundly troubling to hear that the apex of the Chain of Being, God, is a father. Their response has been to erase as completely as possible anything redolent of masculinity in the teaching and discipline of the Church, and in the liturgy, and to transform even the role of the priest from that of a pastor willing to lay down his life for his flock, and an agent of sacrifice, to a member of the “caring professions”.

The rejection of the fatherhood of God naturally undermines human fatherhood, of which it is the model and source. Feminists do not simply dislike the traditional conception of fatherhood: some of them would like to eliminate any possible conception of fatherhood as completely as biologically possible, deliberately opting to bring up children in the total absence of any male who might be taken as a father-figure.

Feminists dislike human fatherhood for exactly the reasons they dislike divine fatherhood. They point to the way that the prestige of this position has been abused by fathers and father-figures who are negligent and abusive. It is relevant to note, therefore, that a society in which fatherhood has been comprehensively ridiculed and side-lined, our own, has experienced the greatest explosion of abusive father-figures in history.

The abuser, in fact, is able to flourish precisely where real fatherhood has been destroyed or rendered ineffective. He does not see himself as part of a hierarchy or network of authority, under God and in a context of other fathers of families. He is the tyrant of a clique which he likes to keep as isolated from the outside world as possible. His ideal victims are those who lack fathers, and are therefore willing to tolerate exploitation in return for the semblance of affection. One of the most revealing images of the abuse crisis, to me, has been the police arresting fathers who were picketing houses where they knew their daughters were being abused. When the state refuses to uphold the authority of fathers, they hand S PR I NG 2021

power to manipulative rapists. The answer to the abuse of authority, in fact, is not the abdication of authority, but the use of authority.

The Feminist attack on fatherhood as a category of thought has changed the conceptual landscape.

Today it is not enough to say to young men that their failure to marry, have children, and get involved in the life of the Church, is a failure of true masculinity and paternity. These young men cannot respond to an ideal which is not coherently presented to them, or is presented only to be held up to contempt.

The Church’s ancient liturgical tradition speaks powerfully of the majesty and authority of God, of love, sin, and sacrifice, through its words, its ceremonies, and its whole ethos. It presents to us the ideal of the Heavenly Father, and by doing so creates an environment in which masculinity and fatherhood can be understood, respected, and modelled.

The ideal of fatherhood must also be reflected in the structures of the Church, and by those who exercise authority in her. The clerical abuse crisis has revealed not only that a small proportion of priests are abusive fathers, but that a much larger proportion of bishops are unwilling to use their authority to protect the most vulnerable members of their flocks.

The good shepherd, our Lord says, lays down his life for this sheep. The possessor of fatherhood has the courage to use his authority in defence of the weak, and is willing to endure the public humiliation which may result. This is a fatherhood modelled by Christ, who accepts even death for the good of His children, is not afraid to use His authority, and whose majesty is undiminished by insult and rejection.

Dr Joseph Shaw teaches Philosophy in Oxford University.

He has published on Ethics and Philosophy of Religion and has edited a book on the liturgy: The Case for Liturgical Restoration: Una Voce Position Papers on the Extraordinary Form (Angelico Press). He is the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales and Secretary of Una Voce International. He is married with nine children..

63

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

A letter from a Benedictine monk T H E W E A P O N S O F O BE D I E N C E I I I : T E M P E R A N C E Calx Mariae is pleased to publish the fifth 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.

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.”

64

THE VISION OF SAINT BENEDICT. ENGRAVING BY C. GUÉRIN AFTER G.G. SERANGELI AFTER E. LE SUEUR (1616-1655). WELLCOME COLLECTION.

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

A

t the beginning of Chapter 4 of the Rule, St Benedict places at the top of the instruments of good works the two great commandments: First of all, love the Lord God with your whole heart, your whole soul and all your strength, and love your neighbour as yourself.1 Our Lord in the Gospels says that there is no commandment greater than these because the others are mere explanations or consequences of these two. We can say the same about the list of 72 instruments of good works: they are mere explanations of the first two instruments or commandments. And since the first two commandments are commandments to love, we can say that the Rule of St Benedict, like the Gospel itself, is a teaching on love, on how to love properly.

Indeed, it is in our ability to love that we human beings most resemble God. But here we must be

is a rational and spiritual love, and can therefore be commanded.

Life offers many examples of this higher, spiritual and sacrificial kind of love: a destitute mother who eats very little, or nothing at all, in order to save the small quantity of food she has for her little children; the hard-working father who denies himself the comfort of remaining in bed so as to provide for his family; and finally, the soldier who separates himself from his loved ones and risks his very life in order to defend his country in battle. In each of these situations we can see a higher kind of love at work, the love of which Our Lord says: “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”2 It should not surprise us that the word for love used by our Lord in this passage is not amor, but dilectio, the sacrificial kind of love.

“It is in our ability to love that we human beings most resemble God. But here we must be careful because our modern languages have a limited and poor vocabulary when it comes to speaking about love. Latin, on the other hand, like Greek, has a richer ability to speak about love, a richness that we encounter in the Rule of St Benedict.” careful because our modern languages have a limited and poor vocabulary when it comes to speaking about love. Latin, on the other hand, like Greek, has a richer ability to speak about love, a richness that we encounter in the Rule of St Benedict, for St Benedict, like the Latin Bible, distinguishes between two aspects of love. There is, to begin with, a sensible love that arises from pleasurable feelings in the senses and emotions that is called amor in Latin.

In addition to this kind of love, however, Latin also recognises a higher kind of love, one that is rational and spiritual and capable of abstaining from and even renouncing the pleasurable love of amor in order to choose a higher and greater good, and this kind of love is called dilectio in Latin. Whereas amor resides in the affections, and therefore cannot be commanded, dilectio resides in the will, since it S PR I NG 2021

This sacrificial love overrides a lower form of love in order to choose a higher good. We can observe that in order to practice dilectio, the higher love, we need the virtues of discretion, in order to discern what the higher good is, and fortitude, in order to embrace the pain entailed in denying ourselves some pleasure. And this ultimately is brought about by the virtue of temperance, which teaches us to have the proper attitude towards pleasure, so that we are not mastered or enslaved by it, and so that we are free to choose and cling to the highest good, which is God Himself. The spiritual life is thus a training in love, and the goal of our spiritual discipline is that we love God not only with the rational and elective love of dilectio, but also with the affective and sensible love of amor, as the Psalmist prays: “for thee my soul hath thirsted; for thee my 65

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

flesh, O how many ways!” (Ps 62:2); “for thee my flesh and my heart hath fainted away: thou art the God of my heart, and the God that is my portion forever” (Ps 72:26); “my heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the living God” (Ps 83:3).

The actual state of the fallen man, however, is quite different: though we have been cleansed from original sin through Baptism, we nevertheless suffer from the effects of original sin. One of these effects is concupiscence, through which we have an inordinate, and at times disordered, love for bodily pleasure. If we are not careful, our spiritual enemies will use our concupiscence to separate us definitively from God, as St Benedict says in Chapter 7 of the Rule, “and rightly are we taught not to do our own will when we take heed to the warning of Scripture: ‘There are ways which to men seem right, but the ends of them plunge into the depths of hell.’” (Prov 16:25) St Benedict continues shortly thereafter saying, “we must be on our guard, therefore, against evil desires, for death lies close by the gate of pleasure. Hence the Scripture gives this command: ‘Go not after your concupiscences.’” (Sir 18:30) Notice that in this last quotation concupiscence is in the plural: concupiscences. We can understand this to

mean that if our desire is not collected and directed towards the One God, it will be dispersed into a multiplicity of desires that fragment, deplete and frustrate our soul. And the two main passions that concupiscence divides itself into are gluttony and lust, also known as fornication.

Let us try to understand the nature of these two vices. Unlike the passions of pride and vainglory, which can be completed entirely without the body, as is seen in the case of the devil himself who is an entirely spiritual being, the vices of gluttony and lust can be consummated only with bodily action. Since these sins involve both the body and soul at some level, St John Cassian tells us in the 5th Conference that we need a two-fold cure in order to remedy these maladies, i.e. we need a cure that involves both the body and the soul. St Benedict states the same when speaking of the ladder of humility: “for we call our body and soul the sides of the ladder, and into these sides our divine vocation has inserted the different steps of humility and discipline we must climb”. Thus, in addition to the spiritual concern for the soul which is expressed in prayer and meditation on the Scriptures, there must be a bodily dimension that is expressed in fasting and absti-

ST BENEDICT FEEDS THE MONK (C.1508). IL SODOMA. FRESCO FROM THE LIFE OF ST. BENEDICT IN THE GREAT CLOISTER OF THE BENEDICTINE MONASTERY OF MONTE OLIVETO MAGGIORE IN TUSCANY.

66

CAL X M ARIA E

a Let ter fr om a benedictine monk

“St Benedict states when speaking of the ladder of humility: ‘we call our body and soul the sides of the ladder, and into these sides our divine vocation has inserted the different steps of humility and discipline we must climb’.

Thus, in addition to the spiritual concern for the soul which is expressed in prayer and meditation on the Scriptures, there must be a bodily dimension that is expressed in fasting and abstinence, to combat gluttony, and removal from the body of seductive images and matter, watchfulness and vigils, and solitude to combat lust.” nence, to combat gluttony, and removal from the body of seductive images and matter, watchfulness and vigils, and solitude to combat lust. St Benedict gives us a more complete list in Chapter 4: “not to commit adultery…not to covet…to deny oneself in order to follow Christ; to chastise the body; not to become attached to pleasures; to love fasting… not to be addicted to wine; not a great eater…to listen willingly to holy reading; to devote oneself frequently to prayer…not to fulfil the desires of the flesh; to hate one’s own will…to love chastity”.

In order to grow in chastity, night vigils have always been recognised by the monastic tradition as helping the monk to overcome the passion of lust, especially when wedded to prayer and fasting. Thus, according to St Benedict, the monk should always rise while it is still dark, and during the winter shortly after midnight, in order to spend part of the night in the praise of God and silent personal prayer.

Furthermore, living in separation from the world helps the monk to practice custody of the eyes and to avoid unnecessary temptations to chastity. Herein lies one of the great reasons for the importance of the monastic enclosure in the Rule of St Benedict: it helps to safeguard and ensure the monk’s growth in chastity. For this reason, St Benedict establishes that “the monastery should, if possible, be so constructed that within it all the necessities, such S PR I NG 2021

as water, mill and garden are contained, and the various crafts are practiced. Then there will be no need for the monks to roam outside, because this is not at all good for their souls.” (RB 66) But the saints are in agreement that gluttony is the gateway to lust; therefore, in order to successfully master our impulses and unruly desires in the area of sexuality, we must exercise ourselves in fasting and abstinence.

Herein lies much of St Benedict’s preoccupation with fasting and the specific rules he lays down for his monks.

Concretely this means that a monk should generally abstain from the meat of four-footed animals (RB 39) and that he fast on ordinary days (i.e. not Sundays or feast days) by limiting his food intake to one meal which is taken at the ninth hour for most of the year (roughly between 2 and 4pm, depending on the time of year), or in the evening during Lent, or at midday in the summer months (RB 41). Although he is allowed to drink a small portion of wine with his meal (roughly one glass), he is encouraged to renounce even this for the love of God, for “those to whom God gives the strength to abstain must know that they will earn their own reward.” (RB 40) Indeed, St Benedict reminds us of the numerous texts from the ancient tradition in which “we read that monks should not drink wine at all, but since the monks of our day cannot 67

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

be convinced of this, let us at least agree to drink moderately, and not to the point of satiety, for ‘wine makes even wise men go astray.’” (Sir 19:2) What is clear from this is that St Benedict allows wine somewhat reluctantly; it is an act of condescension to human weakness and not a carte blanche endorsement of drinking. It is also clear that he sees wine, and thus alcoholic beverages, as forming part of the meal, that is, as part of the bodily nourishment one derives from eating and drinking. The idea of “recreational drinking”, of drinking for the mere enjoyment of it, would certainly have been foreign to his mentality, and would probably have seemed scandalous and sinful to him.

St Benedict tells us to drink not to the point of satiety, non usque ad satietatem. It must be frugal, just enough to meet the needs of the body so that we can work and serve God as we are required to. The same principle is observed in food: we must not indulge in eating until our belly is filled and expands, for this means that we are eating not for the purpose of nourishing our body, but for the mere pleasure it affords. Usually such overindulgence is accompanied by indigestion, something which horrified St Benedict and which he therefore sought to keep far from his monks, “for nothing is so inconsistent with the life of any Christian as overindulgence.

Our Lord says: ‘Take care that your hearts are not weighed down with overindulgence.’” (RB 39; Lk 21:34) Rather, the monk should moderate his behaviour in this area, so that his soul may be saved and that his body may not be unjustly deprived of the nourishment that it needs, in accordance with what St Benedict says regarding the abbot, that “he should so regulate and arrange all matters that souls may be saved and the brothers may go about their activities without justifiable grumbling.” (RB 41) The 5th Conference of St John Cassian helps to explain more deeply why we must be perennially watchful against the vice of gluttony. Indeed, he identifies this passion with the unclean spirit Christ speaks about in the Gospel3 which returns to the house it had left with seven spirits more wicked than itself, “which will be more bitter to you than the passion which had been overcome in the beginning, and they will soon drag you to worse kinds of sins”. The worse kinds of sins he has in mind are 68

the typically pagan sins of idolatry and blasphemy.

St Basil the Great, in his celebrated encomium on fasting which we read at Matins for the 4th Sunday of Lent, likewise draws a connection between gluttony and idolatry. Commenting on the episode of the golden calf from the Book of Exodus he says, “in one moment, on account of their gluttony, that people, though instructed in the worship of God by the greatest miracles, most shamefully fell into the idolatry of the Egyptians. From which, if we consider both at the same time, we may see that fasting leads to God, and delights destroy salvation.”

We read in chapter 8 of the Life of St Benedict that, upon reaching the heights of Monte Cassino, he destroyed the pagan idols that were worshiped by the inhabitants of that place, as St Martin had done before him. Even in our own day there are brave souls who laudably destroy pagan idols in imitation of St Benedict and St Martin.

But we must remember that St Benedict’s definitive victory over idolatry came not through visible actions of idoloclasm (if I may permit myself this neologism) but by instilling in the souls of his disciples a deep love for temperance and chastity, by which we are able to cling to the One True God in single-hearted worship and love.

ENDNOTES: 1.

2.

3.

In primis Dominum Deum diligere ex toto corde, tota anima, tota virtute; deinde proximum tamquam seipsum. Cf Mt 22:37; Mk 12:30; Lk 10:27.

Maiorem hac dilectionem nemo habet ut animam suam ponat quis pro amicis suis (Jn 15:13).

Lk 11:14-28; the Gospel reading for the third Sunday of Lent

CAL X M ARIA E

by FR KONRAD ZU LÖWENSTEIN

T

o understand the nature of the Holy Family, we must first understand the ends of the family. The ends of the Holy Family, like that of any family and of any marriage are two: the good of the children and the good of the spouses.

The good of the children is the first end of the family and consists in the procreation and education of children. In the case of the Holy Family, the procreation is not the work of a man, St Joseph, but of God Himself. And the fruit of this procreation is not a man, not a human person, but a Divine Person, Jesus Christ.

This is a great perfection of the Holy Family: that the procreation of the Son, the first end of the family, is the work of God Himself, and its fruit is equally God Himself. In other words, in the case of the Holy Family, the father is God and the son is God.

the holy fa mily

THE HOLY FAMILY As to this procreation of the Son, the most Blessed Virgin Mary and St Joseph are not simply passive, but collaborate with the eternal designs of God, because their matrimonial bond and their common life offer the context for the Nativity of the Son – they collaborate with God, and they collaborate not in a carnal manner but in a virginal manner, and therefore more perfectly.

The good of the spouses is the second end of the Holy Family – the good of the spouses, or in other words, their mutual assistance. Their mutual assistance also possesses a great perfection because it is directed to a goal more sublime than in any other family: that is, to the upbringing and care of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Now these two ends of any family – namely, the good of the children and the good of the spouses

THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT (C.1515). VITTORE CARPACCIO. NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART, WASHINGTON.

S PR I NG 2021

69

the holy fa mily

– have as their ultimate goal the sanctification of the children and the sanctification of the spouses.

The Holy Family constitutes an exception in this respect, because the sanctification does not derive from the parents but from the Son. He has no need of sanctification because He is the Holy One Himself, and is indeed the fount of the sanctification of His Mother and of His adoptive father, St Joseph.

We can say, then, that while the glory of the Holy Family resides in the glory of its members: the Lord Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and St Joseph; the glory of the marriage resides in its perfect accomplishment of the ends of marriage – that is to say, in the first place the procreation and education of the offspring, and in the second place the mutual assistance of the spouses.

For the Holy Family, the procreation is by God of God; the education is by God; the mutual assistance is for the upbringing and care of God. May the Divine Graces enlighten and strengthen all men to pursue the ideal presented to us by the Holy Family! May they inundate with their light the twilight ranks of Freemasonry; all the covens of the United Nations and the European Union, their works of stealth and darkness, their machinations to massacre and to pervert innocence: to destroy the individual and the family, and to subvert the whole of society! May they enlighten the clergy and the hierarchy in their inglorious flirtations with the vanities of the world!

May they enlighten the worldlings with their boasts of romantic ‘conquests’ when the only conquest is that of themselves by the Devil! May they enlighten those in irregular relationships and give them the strength to order their lives to the law and to the love of God! May they enlighten all to discard the whole panoply of contraception, abortion, divorce, and whatsoever else with which they may have armed themselves in their battle against Truth itself, and all parents who want to reduce their offspring to the very minimum and to entrust them to carers in homes devoid of their presence!

And finally, may they enlighten, strengthen, and cover with the mantle of peace all Catholic families who are seeking, to the glory of God, to raise up numerous children in the exercise of charity, purity, 70

and of all the Christian virtues, in the practice of the One True Religion, in adoration of the One True God: the Blessed and Most Holy Trinity, after the example and by the intercession of the Most Blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary and St Joseph, her most chaste spouse!

May light and strength flow forth from the Divine and human Heart of the unutterably glorious Infant Jesus, to draw all hearts to Him: to draw all hearts to follow His example of self – annihilation, renunciation, abasement, humility, meekness, simplicity, innocence, purity, and love; to draw all hearts into the supreme and spiritual home and haven of the most Holy Family, with St Joseph as their foster-father, guardian, and protector; with Our Blessed Lady as their most glorious Mother; and the Infant Child Himself as their Brother, their Saviour, and their God!

THE BLESSED VIRGIN AND SAINT JOSEPH WITH THE CHRIST CHILD. ENGRAVING BY J. JENKINS AFTER N. POUSSIN (1594?-1665). WELLCOME COLLECTION, LONDON.

CAL X M A R IA E

SU B SC R IB E O D A Y !

T

T

SUBSCRIPTION FORM

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 June 2021. 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 13, June 2021).

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 12, March 2021).

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

SPRING 2021 . CM12

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

S PR I NG 2021

71

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

MARIAE CALX

MAGAZINE Rebuilding our Christian civilisation

Voice of the Family’s quarterly magazine Calx Mariae (Heel of Mary) seeks to contribute to the rebuilding of Christian civilisation by providing essential coverage and analysis in the areas of life, family and culture.

WOR L D W IDE S HIPPING AVAIL ABL E F O R M O R E I N F O R M AT I O N, P L E A S E V I S I T:

voiceofthefamily.com/calxmariae

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