Embedded Files
NOTICETHIS WEBPAGE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
See Also
OPINIONWhy Faithful Catholics Can Receive Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics
Written on 21 August 2024by Juan P. Flores
Written on 21 August 2024by Juan P. Flores
Held on 8 November 398, St. Aurelius presided over more than two hundred bishops, including St. Augustine, at the regional synod in Carthage. Of its one hundred and four chiefly disciplinary canons, some radical schismatics grossly misapply two, wrongly instructing Catholics to neglect to receive grace-giving sacraments from those who espouse theological errors yet to be formally condemned by the Church.
Any baptized person who publicly and pertinaciously rejects a dogma of the Catholic Church— therefore becoming separated from God and His Church, is a formal heretic, and anyone who openly supports such a person in his heresy sins gravely.
“A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.”—Epistle to Titus 3:10-11,Douay-Rheims Bible
Based upon this admonition, Catholics have long been instructed to shun the preaching, writings, and assemblies of heretics, yet as St. Paul the Apostle here does not specify to what extent each sort of heretic is to be avoided, the Catholic Church has provided guidance through her consistent disciplinary decisions since antiquity.
“With heretics one must neither pray nor sing psalms. Whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or laic: let such be excommunicated.”—Canons 72-73,Regional Council of Carthage IV, 398
Such heretics congregate in obviously non-Catholic "churches" or conventicles, properly called conciliabules. Throughout history, the Church has issued prohibitions against supporting groups (such as the Lutherans and Anglicans) that have been notoriously heretical either in law (explicitly being declared excommunicated) or notorious in fact (openly rejecting the Catholic faith without any concealment). The ecumenical council at the Lateran clarifies that these rules apply specifically once the Church has denounced these heretics as such.
“Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics… If any refuse to avoid such persons after they have been pointed out by the Church, let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction.”—Constitution 3, “On Heretics,"Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215
The Church teaches that a delict, such as heresy, is considered notorious in fact only when it cannot be concealed by even dishonest arguments; hence, the obligation to avoid a heretic only applies if he has been officially declared so, or if he is so notorious that he cannot somehow conceal or excuse his crime in law. The latest canon law of the Roman Church contains the distinctions between public, notorious in law, and notorious in fact: a delict is notorious in fact when it is public and so notorious that it can in no way be concealed or excused.
“A Crime is public: (1) if it is already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so; (2) Notorious by notoriety of law, [if it is] after a sentence by a competent judge that renders the matter an abjudicated thing, or after a confession by the offender made in court in accord with Canon 1750; (3) Notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circumstances that no clever evasion is possible and no legal excuse could excuse [the act] (4) Occult, if it is not public; materially occult, if the delict is hidden; formally occult, if imputability [is not known]…” —Canon 2197 § 1-4,Code of Canon Law, 1917
Furthermore, the indefectible Catholic Church has occasionally allowed Catholics to exchange the sacrament of matrimony with heretics, indicating that communication in a sacrament with a heretic does not necessarily entail communication in the sin of a heretic, as the transgression rests in disobeying the very interdiction of the Church. For the sacrament of the Eucharist, similarly, theologians such as Navarro, Sanchez, Suarez, and Hurtado postulate that it can indeed be permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear Mass said by them.
“[...H]eretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their Mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their Mass.”—Question LXXXII, Article IX, Part III,St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae
The Church knows that the sin of abusing her sacraments is committed by the undeclared heretics themselves, not by the Catholics who recur to the sacraments, so she explicitly reiterates that the faithful are free without scruples to receive the sacraments from the hands of those undeclared heretics who abuse them.
“To avoid scandals and many dangers and relieve timorous consciences by the tenor of these presents we mercifully grant to all Christ's faithful that henceforth no one henceforth shall be bound to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration or reception of the sacraments or in any other religious or non-religious acts whatsoever, nor to avoid anyone nor to observe any ecclesiastical interdict, on pretext of any ecclesiastical sentence or censure globally promulgated whether by the law or by an individual; unless the sentence or censure in question has been specifically and expressly published or denounced by the judge on or against a definite person, college, university, church, community or place. Notwithstanding any apostolic or other constitutions to the contrary, save the case of someone of whom it shall be known so notoriously that he has incurred the sentence passed by the canon for laying sacrilegious hands upon a cleric that the fact cannot be concealed by any tergiversation nor excused by any legal defense. For we will abstinence from communion with such a one, in accordance with the canonical sanctions, even though he be not denounced.”—“Ad Evitanda Scandala,”Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, “ 1418
Cardinal de Lugo cites the papal bull as he affirms the permissibility of receiving sacraments from priests who hold heretical positions while noting that the virtue of charity compels one, when possible, to impede the sin of the heretical minister administering unworthily.
“So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their excommunication...”—Disputatio XXII,Cardinal John de Lugo S.J., Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae, 1646
Priests who administer valid traditional sacraments, even if they retain communion with heretics and propagate what are manifestly grave theological errors, do not need to be avoided until they are declared as such by the Church. This has been the practice of the Church throughout history. The absolute obligation to definitively avoid someone such as the then-only suspected heretic Nestorius comes with a declaration, such as the one which St. Cyril of Alexandria asked of Pope Celestine.
“We have not confidently abstained from communion with him (Nestorius) before informing you of this; condescend, therefore, to unfold your judgment, that we may clearly know whether we ought to communicate with him who cherishes such erroneous doctrine.”—“The Council of Ephesus: Historical Introduction”The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 1996.Under the Anglican persecutions, there were priests who administered true Communion to remnant Catholics in the traditional rite of the Church before going on to participate in the sacrilegious Anglican rite. Edward Rishton, a Catholic priest who was tried and condemned to death with Bl. Edmund Campion, recounts how faithful Catholics received Communion from such heretics in their state of necessity without succumbing to their heresy or receiving the invalid bread which the heretical priests gave to others.
“At the same time they had Mass said secretly in their own houses by those very priests who in church publicly celebrated the spurious liturgy, and sometimes by others who had not defiled themselves with heresy; yea, and very often in those disastrous times were on one and the same day partakers of the table of our Lord and of the table of devils, that is, of the blessed Eucharist and the Calvinistic supper.”—Fr. Edward Rishton, The Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism, 1585
Fr. Rishton never condemned these people as heretical, and neither does the Church, whose discipline explicitly allows Catholics to do likewise.
“[…T]he faithful may for any just cause ask the sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them… But from an excommunicated vitandus or one against whom there is a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may only in danger of death ask for sacramental absolution according to canons 882, 2252, and also for other sacraments and sacramentals in case there is no one else to administer them.”—Canon 2261.2-3,Code of Canon Law, 1917
There can be no doubt that receiving grace-giving sacraments from undeclared heretics in itself is no sin at all. Faithful Catholics should rather die than communing with heretics officially condemned by the Church such as the so-called Anglicans, Patriotic Catholics, or Orthodox, yet they do not need to deprive themselves of the graces of the sacraments just because the only available minister of those sacraments is a heretic waiting to be declared as such by the Church in the future. The undue burden that schismatics like Fr. Anthony Cekada and Richard Ibranyi purport to impose on the faithful, banning them from receiving sacraments from undeclared heretics, can be dismissed as contrary to the discipline of the universal Church.
“A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.”—Epistle to Titus 3:10-11,Douay-Rheims Bible
Based upon this admonition, Catholics have long been instructed to shun the preaching, writings, and assemblies of heretics, yet as St. Paul the Apostle here does not specify to what extent each sort of heretic is to be avoided, the Catholic Church has provided guidance through her consistent disciplinary decisions since antiquity.
“With heretics one must neither pray nor sing psalms. Whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or laic: let such be excommunicated.”—Canons 72-73,Regional Council of Carthage IV, 398
Such heretics congregate in obviously non-Catholic "churches" or conventicles, properly called conciliabules. Throughout history, the Church has issued prohibitions against supporting groups (such as the Lutherans and Anglicans) that have been notoriously heretical either in law (explicitly being declared excommunicated) or notorious in fact (openly rejecting the Catholic faith without any concealment). The ecumenical council at the Lateran clarifies that these rules apply specifically once the Church has denounced these heretics as such.
“Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics… If any refuse to avoid such persons after they have been pointed out by the Church, let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction.”—Constitution 3, “On Heretics,"Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215
The Church teaches that a delict, such as heresy, is considered notorious in fact only when it cannot be concealed by even dishonest arguments; hence, the obligation to avoid a heretic only applies if he has been officially declared so, or if he is so notorious that he cannot somehow conceal or excuse his crime in law. The latest canon law of the Roman Church contains the distinctions between public, notorious in law, and notorious in fact: a delict is notorious in fact when it is public and so notorious that it can in no way be concealed or excused.
“A Crime is public: (1) if it is already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so; (2) Notorious by notoriety of law, [if it is] after a sentence by a competent judge that renders the matter an abjudicated thing, or after a confession by the offender made in court in accord with Canon 1750; (3) Notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circumstances that no clever evasion is possible and no legal excuse could excuse [the act] (4) Occult, if it is not public; materially occult, if the delict is hidden; formally occult, if imputability [is not known]…” —Canon 2197 § 1-4,Code of Canon Law, 1917
Furthermore, the indefectible Catholic Church has occasionally allowed Catholics to exchange the sacrament of matrimony with heretics, indicating that communication in a sacrament with a heretic does not necessarily entail communication in the sin of a heretic, as the transgression rests in disobeying the very interdiction of the Church. For the sacrament of the Eucharist, similarly, theologians such as Navarro, Sanchez, Suarez, and Hurtado postulate that it can indeed be permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear Mass said by them.
“[...H]eretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their Mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their Mass.”—Question LXXXII, Article IX, Part III,St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae
The Church knows that the sin of abusing her sacraments is committed by the undeclared heretics themselves, not by the Catholics who recur to the sacraments, so she explicitly reiterates that the faithful are free without scruples to receive the sacraments from the hands of those undeclared heretics who abuse them.
“To avoid scandals and many dangers and relieve timorous consciences by the tenor of these presents we mercifully grant to all Christ's faithful that henceforth no one henceforth shall be bound to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration or reception of the sacraments or in any other religious or non-religious acts whatsoever, nor to avoid anyone nor to observe any ecclesiastical interdict, on pretext of any ecclesiastical sentence or censure globally promulgated whether by the law or by an individual; unless the sentence or censure in question has been specifically and expressly published or denounced by the judge on or against a definite person, college, university, church, community or place. Notwithstanding any apostolic or other constitutions to the contrary, save the case of someone of whom it shall be known so notoriously that he has incurred the sentence passed by the canon for laying sacrilegious hands upon a cleric that the fact cannot be concealed by any tergiversation nor excused by any legal defense. For we will abstinence from communion with such a one, in accordance with the canonical sanctions, even though he be not denounced.”—“Ad Evitanda Scandala,”Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, “ 1418
Cardinal de Lugo cites the papal bull as he affirms the permissibility of receiving sacraments from priests who hold heretical positions while noting that the virtue of charity compels one, when possible, to impede the sin of the heretical minister administering unworthily.
“So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their excommunication...”—Disputatio XXII,Cardinal John de Lugo S.J., Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae, 1646
Priests who administer valid traditional sacraments, even if they retain communion with heretics and propagate what are manifestly grave theological errors, do not need to be avoided until they are declared as such by the Church. This has been the practice of the Church throughout history. The absolute obligation to definitively avoid someone such as the then-only suspected heretic Nestorius comes with a declaration, such as the one which St. Cyril of Alexandria asked of Pope Celestine.
“We have not confidently abstained from communion with him (Nestorius) before informing you of this; condescend, therefore, to unfold your judgment, that we may clearly know whether we ought to communicate with him who cherishes such erroneous doctrine.”—“The Council of Ephesus: Historical Introduction”The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 1996.Under the Anglican persecutions, there were priests who administered true Communion to remnant Catholics in the traditional rite of the Church before going on to participate in the sacrilegious Anglican rite. Edward Rishton, a Catholic priest who was tried and condemned to death with Bl. Edmund Campion, recounts how faithful Catholics received Communion from such heretics in their state of necessity without succumbing to their heresy or receiving the invalid bread which the heretical priests gave to others.
“At the same time they had Mass said secretly in their own houses by those very priests who in church publicly celebrated the spurious liturgy, and sometimes by others who had not defiled themselves with heresy; yea, and very often in those disastrous times were on one and the same day partakers of the table of our Lord and of the table of devils, that is, of the blessed Eucharist and the Calvinistic supper.”—Fr. Edward Rishton, The Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism, 1585
Fr. Rishton never condemned these people as heretical, and neither does the Church, whose discipline explicitly allows Catholics to do likewise.
“[…T]he faithful may for any just cause ask the sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them… But from an excommunicated vitandus or one against whom there is a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may only in danger of death ask for sacramental absolution according to canons 882, 2252, and also for other sacraments and sacramentals in case there is no one else to administer them.”—Canon 2261.2-3,Code of Canon Law, 1917
There can be no doubt that receiving grace-giving sacraments from undeclared heretics in itself is no sin at all. Faithful Catholics should rather die than communing with heretics officially condemned by the Church such as the so-called Anglicans, Patriotic Catholics, or Orthodox, yet they do not need to deprive themselves of the graces of the sacraments just because the only available minister of those sacraments is a heretic waiting to be declared as such by the Church in the future. The undue burden that schismatics like Fr. Anthony Cekada and Richard Ibranyi purport to impose on the faithful, banning them from receiving sacraments from undeclared heretics, can be dismissed as contrary to the discipline of the universal Church.
See Also
OPINIONSome Effects of the Anti-Human Epidemic of Irrational Cynophilia
Written on 9 June 2019by Juan P. Flores
Written on 9 June 2019by Juan P. Flores
The Catholic Church suppressed the superstitious veneration of the dog Guinefort, who saved a baby from a viper and was wrongly put to death for it according to a medieval legend, as the Dominican friar Stephen de Bourbon (1190-1261) described; some deluded parents would subject infants to grave dangers in hopes of being assisted by the dog's spirit. In the present day, other delusions in favor of canines over humans have poisoned the minds of many, bringing untold harm upon society.
One can read how the inspired words of Sacred Scripture do not cast canines in a good light, as King David in his Psalm CXXI begs the Lord to spare him from the mouth of the dog, and dogs who return to their vomit are cited as an example of fools by Solomon in his Proverbs and by St. Peter in his second epistle. Likewise, St. John the Evangelist in the Apocalypse numbers unbelievers as “dogs,” according to commentator Rev. Fr. Robert Witham (1667–1738), alongside sorcerers, fornicators, murderers, and idolaters, while St. Paul notes that the Judaizers are, as the author Ambrosiaster (IV c. AD) comments, like dogs that first bark and then mutilate the flesh with savage bites.
“Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.”—Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians 3:2, DRA
Dogs undoubtedly can be dangerous creatures. It is a well-known fact that most dog bites are never reported to authorities, and yet in the United States, for example, there are approximately 4.5 million on record: one bite serious enough to be reported for every fifty inhabitants! Putting aside those just maimed, disfigured, and torn to pieces, hardly anyone besides Almighty God knows how many people die every year as a result of dog attacks worldwide, ever stripped of their opportunity to hear of the Redeemer of mankind and be saved in the one true Church, particularly given that anecdotes show the majority of those killed by these beasts are young children. God knows how much good could have been otherwise accomplished by those people savagely cut down by these animals, and likewise He knows the moral culpability these people (the beast's owners) bear for their reckless actions, which some misguided people may dismiss as benign. Moral theologians, however, make it clear that reckless murder is still murder nonetheless.
“[G]reat evil arising from grave negligence is seriously sinful even though only voluntary in the cause[...]”—Thomas Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology for English-Speaking Countries, 1925
The blood of the victims of these reckless homicides surely must call to Heaven for vengeance, and these murderers who callously let their beasts maim and kill innocent people will be held accountable either in this life or in the next.
“When [...] the untoward death of a person is the outcome of an action which is prohibited [i.e. letting dangerous beasts loose] precisely because of the founded likelihood of its having this fatal result, then in the court of conscience the doer is held to be guilty in spite of his disclaimer of all intention in the matter.”—“Homicide,” Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, 1910
Indeed, the words of Holy Writ, penned by the Holy Law-Giver Moses, prescribe the death penalty for those who are guilty of letting their animals kill fellow men, or at least a death indemnity from those whose guilt is uncertain. It is also a sane biblical principal to euthanize any animal that kills a human.
“But if the ox was wont to push with his horn yesterday and the day before, and they warned his master, and he did not shut him up, and he shall kill a man or a woman: then the ox shall be stoned, an his owner also shall be put to death. And if they set a price upon him, he shall give for his life whatsoever is laid upon him. If he have gored a son, or a daughter, he shall fall under the like sentence.”—Exodus 21:29-31, DRA
Besides being mauled to death, vicious dogs have other means to inflict, wittingly or not, an ignominious death on humans, with the possibility of heavy modern vehicles literally crushing away their ability to receive absolution and extreme unction. It is difficult to establish how many earthly lives have been snuffed out in such manner, yet the frequency of such cases is made evident by their mention in legal commentaries dedicated to such subjects.
“Drivers who encounter a loose dog in the road automatically swerve to avoid hitting it, which can cause them to run into another car, a pedestrian, or other objects on the side of the road. If a driver slams on his or her brakes to avoid hitting a loose dog, they can end up being rear-ended by the driver behind them.”—Michael Jeandron, “Who is liable if an off-leash dog causes a car accident?” (Extracted from a webpage from a US Personal Injury Law Firm)
In this time of apostasy, valid ministers of the sacraments are few and far between. If reckless dog owners persist in causing vehicles to crush bystanders or leading people to veer into incoming traffic, there might be more fatal victims, with eternal consequences for everyone involved. Witnesses may have their conscience disturbed for the rest of their lives, especially as one cannot count on most people having access to good confessors or firm spiritual guidance.
One would be remiss to not condemn those whose reckless dog ownership leads to death, yet too infrequently are condemnations issued against those selfish persons who scare innocent people passing near their property with their aggressive hounds. They often leave only a flimsy fence between their frightful beasts and people who have done them no ill so as to have their peace disturbed with the prospect of either getting maimed and killed by the hounds, or in some jurisdictions, from going through an arduous legal process in case they happen to use a weapon in their own defense. In some cases, they have caused pedestrians and cyclists passing by to veer into incoming traffic, and in many more they constantly disturb the peaceful environment which pilgrims and travelers could use to effectively pray and meditate on their journey. One should have trust in the perfect justice of the Divine Majesty. Let us trust with perfect faith and hope that the good Lord will punish their selfish recklessness, and for audaciously treating their fellow man with such callous disdain, that their lack of hospitality will be reciprocated! Their actions come from their wholehearted selfishness to protect their own things at the expense of the peace and tranquility of others. How distant is greeting strangers with the harassment of a vicious dog from the counsel of the Gospel, which calls for believers to welcome strangers as if they were in the presence of Christ.
“All guests who present themselves are to be welcomed as Christ, for he himself will say: I was a stranger and you welcomed me (Matt 25:35). Proper honor must be shown to all, especially to those who share our faith (Gal 6:10) and to pilgrims.”—Rule of St. Benedict of Nursia, Chapter 53: 1-2
Law enforcement should fulfill their duty under pain of sin and stop neglecting to enforce ordinances against unleashed and unrestrained dogs. An illustrative example of police negligence infamously manifested in Bucharest, Romania on 2 September 2013 with the death of the four year old boy Ionuț Anghel and injury of his brother, both caused by unrestrained dogs roaming the city parks. Later investigations revealed the dog to have belonged to an organization devoted to the purported interests of such savage beasts: these foolish activists recklessly had let the beasts roam the streets and advocated against common-sense laws to extirpate the plague of stray dogs infesting the country. It can be rightly said that these people betray their own species in diabolical treason to the natural order established by the Almighty.
“While Catholic ethical doctrine insists upon the merciful treatment of animals, it does not place kindness towards them on the same plane of duty as benevolence towards our fellow-men. Nor does it approve of unduly magnifying, to the neglect of higher duties, our obligations concerning animals. Excessive fondness for them is no sure index of moral worth; it may be carried to un-Christian excess; and it can coexist with grave laxity in far more important matters. There are many imitators of Schopenhauer, who loved his dog and hated his kind.”—James Fox, “Cruelty to Animals,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908
With erring philosophers, irresponsible dog owners, and radical animal advocates joining hands as traitors to the interests of the human species, people in diverse parts of the world are losing their God-given rights and even children in recreation as they have done for millennia must now be mindful of not only wild beasts prowling around at night, but also domestic ones in the day! This anti-human disease of the mind is also contributing to a demographic catastrophe, as even the most infamous modernists have noted. The left-wing U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D- NY) in 1967 rightly bemoaned that Americans “spend $75 billion a year on armaments and $3 billion a year on dogs” while many children go hungry.
“And today [...] there is a certain selfishness. The other day, I spoke about the demographic winter that exists nowadays: people do not want to have children, or just one and no more. And many couples do not have children because they do not want to, or they have just one because they do not want any more, but they have two dogs, two cats…. Yes, dogs and cats take the place of children.”—Jorge Bergoglio, “Udienza Generale” 5 January 2022
While the situation seems alarming to anyone with common sense or at least an instinct to prefer their own species over others, one can find consolation in that if natural laws remain unimpeded through the passage of time, those who value dogs over humans will inevitably raise less children, and therefore their problematic anti-human ideology will progressively cease to be a blight on this world. One can also pray that the Lord grants parents the wisdom to implant in their children values informed by divine revelation and right reason, and children the grace to keep their thoughts and actions in line with the same.
“Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.”—Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians 3:2, DRA
Dogs undoubtedly can be dangerous creatures. It is a well-known fact that most dog bites are never reported to authorities, and yet in the United States, for example, there are approximately 4.5 million on record: one bite serious enough to be reported for every fifty inhabitants! Putting aside those just maimed, disfigured, and torn to pieces, hardly anyone besides Almighty God knows how many people die every year as a result of dog attacks worldwide, ever stripped of their opportunity to hear of the Redeemer of mankind and be saved in the one true Church, particularly given that anecdotes show the majority of those killed by these beasts are young children. God knows how much good could have been otherwise accomplished by those people savagely cut down by these animals, and likewise He knows the moral culpability these people (the beast's owners) bear for their reckless actions, which some misguided people may dismiss as benign. Moral theologians, however, make it clear that reckless murder is still murder nonetheless.
“[G]reat evil arising from grave negligence is seriously sinful even though only voluntary in the cause[...]”—Thomas Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology for English-Speaking Countries, 1925
The blood of the victims of these reckless homicides surely must call to Heaven for vengeance, and these murderers who callously let their beasts maim and kill innocent people will be held accountable either in this life or in the next.
“When [...] the untoward death of a person is the outcome of an action which is prohibited [i.e. letting dangerous beasts loose] precisely because of the founded likelihood of its having this fatal result, then in the court of conscience the doer is held to be guilty in spite of his disclaimer of all intention in the matter.”—“Homicide,” Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, 1910
Indeed, the words of Holy Writ, penned by the Holy Law-Giver Moses, prescribe the death penalty for those who are guilty of letting their animals kill fellow men, or at least a death indemnity from those whose guilt is uncertain. It is also a sane biblical principal to euthanize any animal that kills a human.
“But if the ox was wont to push with his horn yesterday and the day before, and they warned his master, and he did not shut him up, and he shall kill a man or a woman: then the ox shall be stoned, an his owner also shall be put to death. And if they set a price upon him, he shall give for his life whatsoever is laid upon him. If he have gored a son, or a daughter, he shall fall under the like sentence.”—Exodus 21:29-31, DRA
Besides being mauled to death, vicious dogs have other means to inflict, wittingly or not, an ignominious death on humans, with the possibility of heavy modern vehicles literally crushing away their ability to receive absolution and extreme unction. It is difficult to establish how many earthly lives have been snuffed out in such manner, yet the frequency of such cases is made evident by their mention in legal commentaries dedicated to such subjects.
“Drivers who encounter a loose dog in the road automatically swerve to avoid hitting it, which can cause them to run into another car, a pedestrian, or other objects on the side of the road. If a driver slams on his or her brakes to avoid hitting a loose dog, they can end up being rear-ended by the driver behind them.”—Michael Jeandron, “Who is liable if an off-leash dog causes a car accident?” (Extracted from a webpage from a US Personal Injury Law Firm)
In this time of apostasy, valid ministers of the sacraments are few and far between. If reckless dog owners persist in causing vehicles to crush bystanders or leading people to veer into incoming traffic, there might be more fatal victims, with eternal consequences for everyone involved. Witnesses may have their conscience disturbed for the rest of their lives, especially as one cannot count on most people having access to good confessors or firm spiritual guidance.
One would be remiss to not condemn those whose reckless dog ownership leads to death, yet too infrequently are condemnations issued against those selfish persons who scare innocent people passing near their property with their aggressive hounds. They often leave only a flimsy fence between their frightful beasts and people who have done them no ill so as to have their peace disturbed with the prospect of either getting maimed and killed by the hounds, or in some jurisdictions, from going through an arduous legal process in case they happen to use a weapon in their own defense. In some cases, they have caused pedestrians and cyclists passing by to veer into incoming traffic, and in many more they constantly disturb the peaceful environment which pilgrims and travelers could use to effectively pray and meditate on their journey. One should have trust in the perfect justice of the Divine Majesty. Let us trust with perfect faith and hope that the good Lord will punish their selfish recklessness, and for audaciously treating their fellow man with such callous disdain, that their lack of hospitality will be reciprocated! Their actions come from their wholehearted selfishness to protect their own things at the expense of the peace and tranquility of others. How distant is greeting strangers with the harassment of a vicious dog from the counsel of the Gospel, which calls for believers to welcome strangers as if they were in the presence of Christ.
“All guests who present themselves are to be welcomed as Christ, for he himself will say: I was a stranger and you welcomed me (Matt 25:35). Proper honor must be shown to all, especially to those who share our faith (Gal 6:10) and to pilgrims.”—Rule of St. Benedict of Nursia, Chapter 53: 1-2
Law enforcement should fulfill their duty under pain of sin and stop neglecting to enforce ordinances against unleashed and unrestrained dogs. An illustrative example of police negligence infamously manifested in Bucharest, Romania on 2 September 2013 with the death of the four year old boy Ionuț Anghel and injury of his brother, both caused by unrestrained dogs roaming the city parks. Later investigations revealed the dog to have belonged to an organization devoted to the purported interests of such savage beasts: these foolish activists recklessly had let the beasts roam the streets and advocated against common-sense laws to extirpate the plague of stray dogs infesting the country. It can be rightly said that these people betray their own species in diabolical treason to the natural order established by the Almighty.
“While Catholic ethical doctrine insists upon the merciful treatment of animals, it does not place kindness towards them on the same plane of duty as benevolence towards our fellow-men. Nor does it approve of unduly magnifying, to the neglect of higher duties, our obligations concerning animals. Excessive fondness for them is no sure index of moral worth; it may be carried to un-Christian excess; and it can coexist with grave laxity in far more important matters. There are many imitators of Schopenhauer, who loved his dog and hated his kind.”—James Fox, “Cruelty to Animals,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908
With erring philosophers, irresponsible dog owners, and radical animal advocates joining hands as traitors to the interests of the human species, people in diverse parts of the world are losing their God-given rights and even children in recreation as they have done for millennia must now be mindful of not only wild beasts prowling around at night, but also domestic ones in the day! This anti-human disease of the mind is also contributing to a demographic catastrophe, as even the most infamous modernists have noted. The left-wing U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D- NY) in 1967 rightly bemoaned that Americans “spend $75 billion a year on armaments and $3 billion a year on dogs” while many children go hungry.
“And today [...] there is a certain selfishness. The other day, I spoke about the demographic winter that exists nowadays: people do not want to have children, or just one and no more. And many couples do not have children because they do not want to, or they have just one because they do not want any more, but they have two dogs, two cats…. Yes, dogs and cats take the place of children.”—Jorge Bergoglio, “Udienza Generale” 5 January 2022
While the situation seems alarming to anyone with common sense or at least an instinct to prefer their own species over others, one can find consolation in that if natural laws remain unimpeded through the passage of time, those who value dogs over humans will inevitably raise less children, and therefore their problematic anti-human ideology will progressively cease to be a blight on this world. One can also pray that the Lord grants parents the wisdom to implant in their children values informed by divine revelation and right reason, and children the grace to keep their thoughts and actions in line with the same.
See Also
OPINIONA Critique of Public Education
Written on 7 May 2016by Juan P. Flores
Written on 7 May 2016by Juan P. Flores
An essay written for tenth grade English class, it brings up some of the problems a Catholic boy would have with public education, particularly in the current state of the Unitedstatian regime.
Government education is an unfortunate rupture from a long historical precedent of religious institutions taking initiatives to develop and provide methods of education to communities without the command or intervention of other civic establishments. Public education consequently stands forever in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching as it was explicitly condemned by Pope Pius IX, who in his Syllabus of Errors decreed that Catholics may not approve of any “system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith” and denounced the notion of a public school in which only “the knowledge of merely natural things [and] the ends of earthly social life” are regarded. The adverse consequences that arise from government education greatly outweigh its obvious value in civic society as it provides an opportunity for weakening the moral state of children, providing an unbalanced and distorted view of history, and for imposing on them the often imperfect views and wishes of the government and their lobbying parties.
The fragile moral state of children is often degraded due to the side effects of public education, which presents morally unacceptable views that are derived from the teaching of morally questionable principles and by introducing immoral principles to children. Science educators are often forced to teach humanist theories such as human evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and heliocentrism in schools without any mention of their highly controversial status in the scientific community, presenting a unipolar view of the natural world to students, who often looking no further than their schooling in these topics, develop a deistic and existential perspective of the natural world. The introduction of the theory of human evolution has been disastrous to civilization, for the social philosophies derived from the pseudo-scientific conclusions of Charles Darwin present a survivalist and animalistic view of humanity devoid of any morality or theology. These godless philosophies, suggesting that the survival of one rests on its natural superiority to others, have provided justifications for heinous atrocities such as genocide and total war, which display a complete lack of compassion and mercy for others. Beside the humanist theories taught in classes, the liberal policies enforced in schools, as well as the popular culture to which the schools are subjected to present challenges to the moral and spiritual development in children. The coeducation method, which is a standard in most public schools, has also a long precedent of historical condemnation by religious authorities such as St. Augustine and Pope Pius XI, who called it out as a system “founded upon naturalism [...] the denial of original sin [and] a deplorable confusion of ideas that mistakes a leveling promiscuity and equality, for the legitimate association of the sexes,” standing in direct contradiction with both natural and divine law, and in opposition to the maintenance of Christian modesty, which he declares is “gravely impaired by any kind of exhibition in public. These declarations hold true to this day, as modesty is not only disregarded in gymnastic activities and deportment but also in academic environments, where immodest dress serves to bring unnecessary occasions of sin to people with strong sexual impulses and desires. Further aggravating sexual depravity, sexual miseducation is added in compliance with government mandates to the science or health curricula of schools, where unethical practices such as chemical birth control are often covered as viable alternatives to abstinence. Public education has become consequently subject to cultural trends, which tend to take offense to traditional societal standards, exalting abhorrent fashions and behaviours which are propagated by morally unprincipled celebrities who often seem diabolically influenced themselves. Indecent language, riddled with vulgar expressions, loathsome gestures, and a distinctive irreverence to sacred subjects in so many public schools is so common that to many students it has becomes no longer morally questionable to engage in these thoughts and behaviours. Public education proves to have an adverse influence on the spiritual growth of children and therefore leads to moral decay in society.
The historical perspectives often taught in public schools offer underlying criticisms for the past actions of Christians, Europeans, and conservative groups; the teaching materials seem to have particular inclinations against Western Civilization and the Catholic Church. For example, European History classes in public schools are filled with horrendous slander against the Catholic church, faulty analogies used to denigrate conservatives, and an inconspicuous anti-European bias. The vicious anti-papist slander published about trials managed by the Holy Spanish Inquisition, which through historical review have been proven to be fabrications and exaggerations from bigoted anti-Spanish Protestant propagandists such as Reginaldus Montanus, continue to be propagated in public schools. The defensive military expeditions led by Pope Urban II in response to the brutal massacres, conquests, and expansionist efforts of the Ottoman Turks against the Byzantine Empire and Christian pilgrims are often presented as an example of European aggression. The inconspicuous attacks against European conservatism culminate in grotesque descriptions and depictions of human rights abuses and war crimes committed by the seemingly conservative yet socialist Nazi regime during the Second World War, while the simultaneous slaughter of millions of Orthodox Christians and Russian patriots by the Bolsheviks under Joseph Stalin does not get covered in much detail in the classroom. Rather, a single perspective of history is presented; the Talmudic death toll of six million is constantly cited while it becomes seemingly forbidden to mention the Judean declaration of war against Germany which led to the Kristallnacht, the torture used at the infamous Nuremberg trials to extract false confessions from innocent Germans, and the atrocities committed against political dissenters and Polish clergy by the Nazis. Nazi book burning events present them with an opportunity to falsely connect them with the pious practice of burning pornography and other harmful literature in public bonfires. Even the Index of Forbidden Books established under the Council of Trent receives searing condemnation in classroom environments while the Muslim destruction of the Library of Alexandria by Caliph Omar in AD 642 is not even included in the history curriculum. The history curriculum shows its dislike of Western culture with its strong condemnations against Christian Europeans for running the African slave trade while neglecting to mention the Muslims turks and arabs who had massive slave trade systems of their own. World history curriculums often horribly depict the actions of Spanish conquistadors in the Americas, citing their apparent destruction of Amerindian cultures while avoiding any detailed mentions of the human sacrifices, idolatry, and other evils which were commonplace before their arrival. In the United States, the thanksgiving holiday, first celebrated by Spanish missionaries and Natives in Florida, is replaced with apocryphal accounts of Puritan pilgrims gathering with Natives for a thanksgiving feast in Massachusetts. The biased teaching of history in public schools demonstrates the control that certain groups and individuals have on what is taught, yet their control of education is not limited to history.
The public-school systems in most western countries are subjected to the complete control of the government and therefore are subjected to the policies of legislators and their special interests. The extensiveness of the control that governments possess over public schools have been made more evident with the imposition of federally mandated standards in schools, the favors given to some special interests, and the excessive rights granted to the military. Public schools are completely subject to federally mandated curricula which have been created and implemented to massively collect both student and teacher data, to indoctrinate students into one way of thinking, and to put an end to the tradition of local education. In the United States, for example, leftist politicians seeking to widen the overreach of the federal government have broadly imposed new Common Core curricula in public schools. which not only present developmental obstructions for many students but unlike earlier curricula, were created without the support of early childhood educators and with no pilot testing on any students. Also in North America, the power and influence possessed by biotechnology companies is made evident in the references made to genetically modified crops in science textbooks, where instead of being mentioned as potential dangers to environmental and human health, they are labeled as positive developments to science and agriculture. This further demonstrates that public schools are susceptible to being used by often evil groups and individuals to serve their own interests by using the curricula to shift the future public opinion in their favor. Because many young children are susceptible to government propaganda, public schools are prone to be misused as military recruitment centers, where often members of the armed forces advertise for the immoral cause of joining an organization whose general purpose has historically rested in killing and being killed by enemies, fellow human beings, to serve the selfish interests of a country, a cause, or their representatives.
Public schools, although they provide important foundational knowledge and skills needed for civilized people to know and understand, serve to weaken the moral state of children, to present an incomplete view of history inclined against Christian and conservative thought, and through an extensive internal bureaucracy to transmit the fallible ideologies and positions of the governments who manage them. The massive apostasy occurring within the Catholic Church makes certain that the weak and corrupt clergy in the hierarchy will never retake control of parochial education and put it back in the hands of ordained and learned men of God; the secular progressives who with continue to gain power in the governments have made it their goal to hasten and radicalize the secularization of the State. With the cultural and moral decay ongoing in most of the world, it is unlikely that any true restoration of education will occur. The solution then becomes increasingly the role of the parents, who should resist the cultural evils, teach traditional doctrine and morality to their children, and inform them about the influence of special interests in the government. In most public schools, the role of the students rests in them heeding to the positive demands of their parents if they are made, researching the questionable facts presented in schools, and resisting politically motivated propaganda.
The fragile moral state of children is often degraded due to the side effects of public education, which presents morally unacceptable views that are derived from the teaching of morally questionable principles and by introducing immoral principles to children. Science educators are often forced to teach humanist theories such as human evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and heliocentrism in schools without any mention of their highly controversial status in the scientific community, presenting a unipolar view of the natural world to students, who often looking no further than their schooling in these topics, develop a deistic and existential perspective of the natural world. The introduction of the theory of human evolution has been disastrous to civilization, for the social philosophies derived from the pseudo-scientific conclusions of Charles Darwin present a survivalist and animalistic view of humanity devoid of any morality or theology. These godless philosophies, suggesting that the survival of one rests on its natural superiority to others, have provided justifications for heinous atrocities such as genocide and total war, which display a complete lack of compassion and mercy for others. Beside the humanist theories taught in classes, the liberal policies enforced in schools, as well as the popular culture to which the schools are subjected to present challenges to the moral and spiritual development in children. The coeducation method, which is a standard in most public schools, has also a long precedent of historical condemnation by religious authorities such as St. Augustine and Pope Pius XI, who called it out as a system “founded upon naturalism [...] the denial of original sin [and] a deplorable confusion of ideas that mistakes a leveling promiscuity and equality, for the legitimate association of the sexes,” standing in direct contradiction with both natural and divine law, and in opposition to the maintenance of Christian modesty, which he declares is “gravely impaired by any kind of exhibition in public. These declarations hold true to this day, as modesty is not only disregarded in gymnastic activities and deportment but also in academic environments, where immodest dress serves to bring unnecessary occasions of sin to people with strong sexual impulses and desires. Further aggravating sexual depravity, sexual miseducation is added in compliance with government mandates to the science or health curricula of schools, where unethical practices such as chemical birth control are often covered as viable alternatives to abstinence. Public education has become consequently subject to cultural trends, which tend to take offense to traditional societal standards, exalting abhorrent fashions and behaviours which are propagated by morally unprincipled celebrities who often seem diabolically influenced themselves. Indecent language, riddled with vulgar expressions, loathsome gestures, and a distinctive irreverence to sacred subjects in so many public schools is so common that to many students it has becomes no longer morally questionable to engage in these thoughts and behaviours. Public education proves to have an adverse influence on the spiritual growth of children and therefore leads to moral decay in society.
The historical perspectives often taught in public schools offer underlying criticisms for the past actions of Christians, Europeans, and conservative groups; the teaching materials seem to have particular inclinations against Western Civilization and the Catholic Church. For example, European History classes in public schools are filled with horrendous slander against the Catholic church, faulty analogies used to denigrate conservatives, and an inconspicuous anti-European bias. The vicious anti-papist slander published about trials managed by the Holy Spanish Inquisition, which through historical review have been proven to be fabrications and exaggerations from bigoted anti-Spanish Protestant propagandists such as Reginaldus Montanus, continue to be propagated in public schools. The defensive military expeditions led by Pope Urban II in response to the brutal massacres, conquests, and expansionist efforts of the Ottoman Turks against the Byzantine Empire and Christian pilgrims are often presented as an example of European aggression. The inconspicuous attacks against European conservatism culminate in grotesque descriptions and depictions of human rights abuses and war crimes committed by the seemingly conservative yet socialist Nazi regime during the Second World War, while the simultaneous slaughter of millions of Orthodox Christians and Russian patriots by the Bolsheviks under Joseph Stalin does not get covered in much detail in the classroom. Rather, a single perspective of history is presented; the Talmudic death toll of six million is constantly cited while it becomes seemingly forbidden to mention the Judean declaration of war against Germany which led to the Kristallnacht, the torture used at the infamous Nuremberg trials to extract false confessions from innocent Germans, and the atrocities committed against political dissenters and Polish clergy by the Nazis. Nazi book burning events present them with an opportunity to falsely connect them with the pious practice of burning pornography and other harmful literature in public bonfires. Even the Index of Forbidden Books established under the Council of Trent receives searing condemnation in classroom environments while the Muslim destruction of the Library of Alexandria by Caliph Omar in AD 642 is not even included in the history curriculum. The history curriculum shows its dislike of Western culture with its strong condemnations against Christian Europeans for running the African slave trade while neglecting to mention the Muslims turks and arabs who had massive slave trade systems of their own. World history curriculums often horribly depict the actions of Spanish conquistadors in the Americas, citing their apparent destruction of Amerindian cultures while avoiding any detailed mentions of the human sacrifices, idolatry, and other evils which were commonplace before their arrival. In the United States, the thanksgiving holiday, first celebrated by Spanish missionaries and Natives in Florida, is replaced with apocryphal accounts of Puritan pilgrims gathering with Natives for a thanksgiving feast in Massachusetts. The biased teaching of history in public schools demonstrates the control that certain groups and individuals have on what is taught, yet their control of education is not limited to history.
The public-school systems in most western countries are subjected to the complete control of the government and therefore are subjected to the policies of legislators and their special interests. The extensiveness of the control that governments possess over public schools have been made more evident with the imposition of federally mandated standards in schools, the favors given to some special interests, and the excessive rights granted to the military. Public schools are completely subject to federally mandated curricula which have been created and implemented to massively collect both student and teacher data, to indoctrinate students into one way of thinking, and to put an end to the tradition of local education. In the United States, for example, leftist politicians seeking to widen the overreach of the federal government have broadly imposed new Common Core curricula in public schools. which not only present developmental obstructions for many students but unlike earlier curricula, were created without the support of early childhood educators and with no pilot testing on any students. Also in North America, the power and influence possessed by biotechnology companies is made evident in the references made to genetically modified crops in science textbooks, where instead of being mentioned as potential dangers to environmental and human health, they are labeled as positive developments to science and agriculture. This further demonstrates that public schools are susceptible to being used by often evil groups and individuals to serve their own interests by using the curricula to shift the future public opinion in their favor. Because many young children are susceptible to government propaganda, public schools are prone to be misused as military recruitment centers, where often members of the armed forces advertise for the immoral cause of joining an organization whose general purpose has historically rested in killing and being killed by enemies, fellow human beings, to serve the selfish interests of a country, a cause, or their representatives.
Public schools, although they provide important foundational knowledge and skills needed for civilized people to know and understand, serve to weaken the moral state of children, to present an incomplete view of history inclined against Christian and conservative thought, and through an extensive internal bureaucracy to transmit the fallible ideologies and positions of the governments who manage them. The massive apostasy occurring within the Catholic Church makes certain that the weak and corrupt clergy in the hierarchy will never retake control of parochial education and put it back in the hands of ordained and learned men of God; the secular progressives who with continue to gain power in the governments have made it their goal to hasten and radicalize the secularization of the State. With the cultural and moral decay ongoing in most of the world, it is unlikely that any true restoration of education will occur. The solution then becomes increasingly the role of the parents, who should resist the cultural evils, teach traditional doctrine and morality to their children, and inform them about the influence of special interests in the government. In most public schools, the role of the students rests in them heeding to the positive demands of their parents if they are made, researching the questionable facts presented in schools, and resisting politically motivated propaganda.
See Also
OPINIONDiscarding Locke’s Tabula Rasa
Written on 9 December 2015by Juan P. Flores
Written on 9 December 2015by Juan P. Flores
An essay written for tenth grade English class, showing continuous adherence to Catholic principles.
In his theory of tabula rasa, Locke claimed that people are born deprived of any inherent knowledge or mental content. This misguided theory must be rejected as it violates natural law and stands in direct contradiction with the essential truth of original sin. It is [rightly] believed that men are born with an ancestral sin which goes back to the consumption of the forbidden fruit at the garden of Eden. From this Biblical dogma, it is concluded that one is born not only with an inherent inclination to do good in the image of God, but also with an inclination to sin due to the inevitable effects of original sin. Until baptism, all people will be inclined to sin regardless of how they are brought up. The inherent need for the mercy of God is reflected in the human need for religious cult, which developed in many isolated regions across the world even before the revelations of Abraham. Many people develop concupiscence without knowing the reason of such, which could not be possible if he were only a blank slate at birth. All people also are born with a conscience or inherent sense of good and evil, due to the historical consumption of the forbidden fruit. This inherent moral knowledge, which could not exist in such universality under the theory of the tabula rasa, demonstrate how no human is born with a blank slate. Furthermore, many instincts such as hunger, pain, fear, bodily growth, and facial recognition, are put in place at birth, and do not simply emerge during development as the tabula rasa theory would implicate. They are clearly the result of an Intelligent Designer who also uses natural processes to predetermine the physical and mental abilities one will possess in his life. Demonstrating this, the intelligence quotients which determine individual cognitive abilities are known to remain unaltered for an individual in changing environments. Some innate qualities which are evident at birth are the cause of natural biological processes. It is widely acknowledged that inherited genetic traits are exhibited not only in the form of distinctive physical characteristics but also by a series of tendencies toward different physical and mental abilities which often correspond with factors that come in place before birth. For example, even when placed in countries far from their ethnic origin, there are racial tendencies which may predispose people of African origin to perform well at aerobic sporting events and others which may predispose people of European and Asian descent to perform better in academic circumstances. While these tendencies can be altered by environmental factors and are subject to exceptions, observable racial differences which sometimes appear overwhelmingly clear are defined before birth in defiance of the notion of there being only a blank slate possessed at birth. People have also been shown to have an intrinsic behavioral programming resembling that of his family even when adopted at a very early age. For example, it is common for a boy who never met his parents or extended family to walk in a way resembling his father or mother. Mental conditions such as major depression and schizophrenia can also be consistently inherited without the environments necessary to instigate these diseases. Both inherent biological differences and the universal effects of original sin clearly could not be exhibited in one who is said to be born with a blank slate. Many of the inner qualities of someone may be swayed and forced to change, but most people will grow up to be as they were born. While everyone is given free will by God to perform good works to author their own soul, concluding that there is no knowledge that can be inherited and shown through dispositions in life is irrational and illogical. The authority of the Bible regarding original sin and of natural law regarding biological predispositions must be applied to scrutinize and discard any literal interpretation of Locke’s theory of tabula rasa.
See Also
OPINIONOn the Meaning of the Predicate “Co-Redemptrix”: Part II(Über den Sinn des Prädikates ‘Miterlöserin’)
Original Imprimatur, 15 April 1925Written by Fr. Ferdinand Heinrich SchüthTranslated and Supplemented with QuotationsAdapted by Juan P. Flores
Original Imprimatur, 15 April 1925Written by Fr. Ferdinand Heinrich SchüthTranslated and Supplemented with QuotationsAdapted by Juan P. Flores
“The question how far Catholic faith and devotion are justified in honoring the Virgin Mother of Christ as the immediate cooperatrix Redemptoris in the sense which accords to her the title of Mediatrix ad Christum omnium gratiarum has been discussed by theologians[...] Dr. Barthmann, professor of dogmatic theology, published a treatise in which he controverted the opinion previously advanced by the well known apologist Dr. Scheeben that Mary through her dignity as the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the God-man participated in the merits of the Redemption. Dr. Scheeben drew his conclusion from the analogy to Eve as divinely destined helpmate of the first man created from the same substance Mary counteracting the fall of Adam as mother of the Incarnate Word became the new Eve by whose mediation the human race was regenerated in Christ.” (American Ecclesiastical Review, Volume 73, edited by Herman Joseph Heuser)
We would like to draw your attention to a distinction whose significance will soon be recognized: there are things with cause [Ursache, or causa efficiens in latin], and there are others with co-cause [Mitursache, or concausa or also causa secundaria in latin]. The latter can only be said where the same type of causality is involved (in eodem genere causae) and where we have a division or supplementation of one cause by the other, e.g. when two horses can only pull a cart together. It is easy to see that this must also be taken into account with the term co-redemptrix. [...] Let us now take a closer look at Scheeben's explanations and Bartmann's polemic against them.
Scheeben expressed himself with all the clarity one could wish for about the meaning and limitation of this epithet of Mary as “co-redemptrix.” Even though in the latter passage, partially quoted by Bartmann [...] he maintains the legitimacy of the name in a very specific and limited sense, he only wants to render the use of the term unobjectionable with the explicit form of the restriction. He disapproves of the name even more emphatically in the other passage [..] where he deals with it ex professo. At least it should never be used without an explicit restrictive clause, especially with regard to the sacrifice of redemption and because it can be thought of as Mary's own co-sacrifice. In any case, however, as Scheeben says [...] Mary can be described as a cooperatrix redemptoris from the point of view of her activity accompanying Christ's act of redemption, or following on from it and running alongside it, but not as a co-redemption because through this activity she in no way gives or pays the price of redemption herself.
Because co-redemptrix without any addition offers this meaning or at the same time the meaning of an independent co-sacrifice, the use of this title or predicate simply as co-redemptrix is openly and decisively disapproved of by Scheeben.
Here we only want to clarify the question about the use of the title co-redemptrix.
It is easy to see that co-redemptrix in form and meaning offers the concept of co-cause as we have defined it. Scheeben is therefore quite right when he objects to the use of this title simply and without express restriction, since the expression could almost inevitably lead to the fact that Mary's cooperation is at least understood as supplementary and in the same kind of causality as Christ's act of redemption. We even had to state that, despite Scheeben's objection, this interpretation is attributed to him. One can see how Bartmann's entire argument [...] against Scheeben misses the mark. What he proves against the expression co-redemptrix is expressly rejected by Scheeben. What Scheeben maintains in the sense of a true cooperation (cooperatrix redemptoris), Bartmann's proofs do not rule out.
But let us look at the proofs more closely. The Church herself is quite cautious in its doctrinal statements and speaks only of Christ alone as our Redeemer. It has never used the expression co-redemptrix used by some theologians. When it tolerates the formula “Thou cause of our salvation” or “Thou mother of grace” in the Litany of Loreto, this is to be understood in the sense of the Ephesian Mother of God or the Mother of Christ, Mother of our Redeemer. Unto us, Mary has given birth the Savior of the world and is in this respect the beginning of our Salvation.
Now, the Church in its doctrinal statements:a) The Bull Ineffabilis Deus is surely a doctrinal statement. With all caution it associates the woman with the sole Redeemer as a helping companion (adjutorium simile) in the victory over the serpent; thus it recognizes in her a true cooperatrix redemptoris. And if the Church in its caution never uses the expression co-redemptrix, then Scheeben has given the reason for this. But apart from the expressions already cited which are equivalent in the true sense of the expression co-redemptrix, Bartmann himself must have found the formulas of the Loreto Litany to be all too equivalent, since he firstly claims that the Church merely tolerates these expressions and secondly tolerates this only in a sense. The beginning of our Salvation is not the cause.b) As far as the matter itself is concerned, we do not want to repeat what we have cited in part I for the truth of cooperation in the true sense and also for the difference between the resulting mediation of the mediator and the intercession of the saints. We would just like to emphasize once again a saying so familiar to the Fathers: reparatrix parentum or reformatrix protoplastorum, which cannot be explained by physical motherhood as only the beginning of redemption, nor by the intercession of the mighty saints as such, and must therefore certainly be considered equivalent. This is only the most evident from the testimonies of the patristic period.c) From the present day and at least in the general sense from doctrinal statements, the equivalent should be the administra redemptionis, which recurs so often in the encyclicals on the Rosary, which is not only equivalent in general to Scheeben's cooperatrix redemptionis as the meaning of the co-redemptrix, but also specifically— as we would like to note here— through the word and in the context of the encyclical of 22 September 1891, is exactly equivalent to the “Diacona” at the sacrifice of the cross, whereby Scheeben wants to explain and replace the co-redemptrix precisely in relation to this most real act of redemption.
“The Eternal Son of God, about to take upon Him our nature for the saving and ennobling of man, and about to consummate thus a mystical union between Himself and all mankind, did not accomplish His design without adding there the free consent of the elect Mother, who represented in some sort all human kind, according to the illustrious and just opinion of St. Thomas, who says that the Annunciation was effected with the consent of the Virgin standing in the place of humanity.”—Pope Leo XIII, Octobri Mense, "On the Rosary," 1891
The equivalence in the sense of the explanation of the type and manner of cooperation represented by Scheeben is also evident from the fact that Leo XIII, as we have seen, also uses the Connubium divinum in the encyclical Octobri mense to justify that title, thus also co-redemptrix, in a restricted sense, with reference to St. Thomas (Part III, Question 30, Article 1). What Thomas and, accordingly, Suarez [...] and other commentaries say on this passage, Scheeben has only developed further.
“Article 1. Whether it was necessary to announce to the Blessed Virgin that which was to be done in her?Objection 1. It would seem that it was unnecessary to announce to the Blessed Virgin that which was to be done in her. For there seems to have been no need of the Annunciation except for the purpose of receiving the Virgin's consent. But her consent seems to have been unnecessary: because the Virginal Conception was foretold by a prophecy of ‘predestination,’ which is ‘fulfilled without our consent,’ as a gloss says on Matthew 1:22. There was no need, therefore, for this Annunciation.Objection 2. Further, the Blessed Virgin believed in Incarnation, for to disbelieve therein excludes man from the way of salvation; because, as the Apostle says (Romans 3:22): ‘The justice of God (is) by faith of Jesus Christ.’ But one needs no further instruction concerning what one believes without doubt. Therefore the Blessed Virgin had no need for the Incarnation of her Son to be announced to her.Objection 3. Further, just as the Blessed Virgin conceived Christ in her body, so every pious soul conceives Him spiritually. Thus the Apostle says (Galatians 4:19): ‘My little children, of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you.’ But to those who conceive Him spiritually no announcement is made of this conception. Therefore neither should it have been announced to the Blessed Virgin that she was to conceive the Son of God in her womb.On the contrary, It is related (Luke 1:31) that the angel said to her: ‘Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son.’I answer that, It was reasonable that it should be announced to the Blessed Virgin that she was to conceive Christ. First, in order to maintain a becoming order in the union of the Son of God with the Virgin—namely, that she should be informed in mind concerning Him, before conceiving Him in the flesh. Thus Augustine says (De Sancta Virgin. iii): ‘Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ, than in conceiving the flesh of Christ’; and further on he adds: ‘Her nearness as a Mother would have been of no profit to Mary, had she not borne Christ in her heart after a more blessed manner than in her flesh.’Secondly, that she might be a more certain witness of this mystery, being instructed therein by God.Thirdly, that she might offer to God the free gift of her obedience: which she proved herself right ready to do, saying: ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord.’Fourthly, in order to show that there is a certain spiritual wedlock between the Son of God and human nature. Wherefore in the Annunciation the Virgin's consent was besought in lieu of that of the entire human nature.Reply to Objection 1. The prophecy of predestination is fulfilled without the causality of our will; not without its consent.Reply to Objection 2. The Blessed Virgin did indeed believe explicitly in the future Incarnation; but, being humble, she did not think such high things of herself. Consequently she required instruction in this matter.Reply to Objection 3. The spiritual conception of Christ through faith is preceded by the preaching of the faith, for as much as ‘faith is by hearing’ (Romans 10:17). Yet man does not know for certain thereby that he has grace; but he does know that the faith, which he has received, is true.”—St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (Part III, Question 30, Article 1)
d) Finally, the view that is most intimately connected with the two doctrines of universal motherhood and cooperation in redemption, that Mary is the mediator, treasurer, depositary and distributor of all graces, is represented here by the highest bearer of the Church's teaching office. We must have emphasized this in general terms earlier. He explained here specifically against Bartmann. Pius X also cites these three aspects in his circular letter on the anniversary of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1904.
“It cannot, of course, be denied that the dispensation of these treasures is the particular and peculiar right of Jesus Christ, for they are the exclusive fruit of His Death, who by His nature is the mediator between God and man. Nevertheless, by this companionship in sorrow and suffering already mentioned between the Mother and the Son, it has been allowed to the august Virgin to be the most powerful mediatrix and advocate of the whole world with her Divine Son (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus). The source, then, is Jesus Christ ‘of whose fullness we have all received’ (John 1:16), ‘from whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in charity’ (Ephesians 4:16). But Mary, as St. Bernard justly remarks, is the channel; or, if you will, the connecting portion the function of which is to join the body to the head and to transmit to the body the influences and volitions of the head— We mean the neck. Yes, says St. Bernardine of Sienna, ‘she is the neck of Our Head, by which He communicates to His mystical body all spiritual gifts’”—Pope Pius X, Ad diem illum laetissimum, "On the Immaculate Conception," 1904
The Blessed Virgin is therefore the Mother of God and the Mother of men, quoting St. Augustine in De virginitate (chapter 6).
"And on this account, that one female, not only in the Spirit, but also in the flesh, is both a mother and a virgin. And a mother indeed in the Spirit, not of our Head, Which is the Saviour Himself, of Whom rather she was born after the Spirit: forasmuch as all, who have believed in Him, among whom is herself also, are rightly called children of the Bridegroom: but clearly the mother of His members, which are we: in that she wrought together by charity, that faithful ones should be born in the Church, who are members of That Head: but in the flesh, the mother of the Head Himself. For it behooved that our Head, on account of a notable miracle, should be born after the flesh of a virgin, that He might thereby signify that His members would be born after the Spirit, of the Church a virgin: therefore Mary alone both in Spirit and in flesh is a mother and a virgin: both the mother of Christ, and a virgin of Christ; but the Church, in the Saints who shall possess the kingdom of God, in the Spirit indeed is altogether the mother of Christ, altogether a virgin of Christ: but in the flesh not altogether, but in certain a virgin of Christ, in certain a mother, but not of Christ. Forsooth both faithful women who are married, and virgins dedicated to God, by holy manners, and charity out of a pure heart, and good conscience, and faith unfeigned, because they do the will of the Father, are after a spiritual sense mothers of Christ. But they who in married life give birth to (children) after the flesh, give birth not to Christ, but to Adam, and therefore run, that their offspring having been dyed in His Sacraments, may become members of Christ, forasmuch as they know what they have given birth to."—St. Augustine, De virginitate (chapter 6)
Likewise, she too was rightly made the restorer and reparatrix of lost men [...] and finally the dispenser of all the treasures of grace with reference to St. Bernard. Bartmann will have to admit that all this is in direct contradiction with his entire understanding and that it is without doubt equivalent to the title co-redemprix in the declared and expressly limited sense of not co-cause but cause with and in Christ as cooperatrix redemptoris. Here, too, he can object, no less than with the equivalent titles in the Litany of Loreto and the Salve Regina, that this is only tolerated by the Church, but rather that these are each time formal doctrinal statements, even if not a dogmatic decision.
Scheeben expressed himself with all the clarity one could wish for about the meaning and limitation of this epithet of Mary as “co-redemptrix.” Even though in the latter passage, partially quoted by Bartmann [...] he maintains the legitimacy of the name in a very specific and limited sense, he only wants to render the use of the term unobjectionable with the explicit form of the restriction. He disapproves of the name even more emphatically in the other passage [..] where he deals with it ex professo. At least it should never be used without an explicit restrictive clause, especially with regard to the sacrifice of redemption and because it can be thought of as Mary's own co-sacrifice. In any case, however, as Scheeben says [...] Mary can be described as a cooperatrix redemptoris from the point of view of her activity accompanying Christ's act of redemption, or following on from it and running alongside it, but not as a co-redemption because through this activity she in no way gives or pays the price of redemption herself.
Because co-redemptrix without any addition offers this meaning or at the same time the meaning of an independent co-sacrifice, the use of this title or predicate simply as co-redemptrix is openly and decisively disapproved of by Scheeben.
Here we only want to clarify the question about the use of the title co-redemptrix.
It is easy to see that co-redemptrix in form and meaning offers the concept of co-cause as we have defined it. Scheeben is therefore quite right when he objects to the use of this title simply and without express restriction, since the expression could almost inevitably lead to the fact that Mary's cooperation is at least understood as supplementary and in the same kind of causality as Christ's act of redemption. We even had to state that, despite Scheeben's objection, this interpretation is attributed to him. One can see how Bartmann's entire argument [...] against Scheeben misses the mark. What he proves against the expression co-redemptrix is expressly rejected by Scheeben. What Scheeben maintains in the sense of a true cooperation (cooperatrix redemptoris), Bartmann's proofs do not rule out.
But let us look at the proofs more closely. The Church herself is quite cautious in its doctrinal statements and speaks only of Christ alone as our Redeemer. It has never used the expression co-redemptrix used by some theologians. When it tolerates the formula “Thou cause of our salvation” or “Thou mother of grace” in the Litany of Loreto, this is to be understood in the sense of the Ephesian Mother of God or the Mother of Christ, Mother of our Redeemer. Unto us, Mary has given birth the Savior of the world and is in this respect the beginning of our Salvation.
Now, the Church in its doctrinal statements:a) The Bull Ineffabilis Deus is surely a doctrinal statement. With all caution it associates the woman with the sole Redeemer as a helping companion (adjutorium simile) in the victory over the serpent; thus it recognizes in her a true cooperatrix redemptoris. And if the Church in its caution never uses the expression co-redemptrix, then Scheeben has given the reason for this. But apart from the expressions already cited which are equivalent in the true sense of the expression co-redemptrix, Bartmann himself must have found the formulas of the Loreto Litany to be all too equivalent, since he firstly claims that the Church merely tolerates these expressions and secondly tolerates this only in a sense. The beginning of our Salvation is not the cause.b) As far as the matter itself is concerned, we do not want to repeat what we have cited in part I for the truth of cooperation in the true sense and also for the difference between the resulting mediation of the mediator and the intercession of the saints. We would just like to emphasize once again a saying so familiar to the Fathers: reparatrix parentum or reformatrix protoplastorum, which cannot be explained by physical motherhood as only the beginning of redemption, nor by the intercession of the mighty saints as such, and must therefore certainly be considered equivalent. This is only the most evident from the testimonies of the patristic period.c) From the present day and at least in the general sense from doctrinal statements, the equivalent should be the administra redemptionis, which recurs so often in the encyclicals on the Rosary, which is not only equivalent in general to Scheeben's cooperatrix redemptionis as the meaning of the co-redemptrix, but also specifically— as we would like to note here— through the word and in the context of the encyclical of 22 September 1891, is exactly equivalent to the “Diacona” at the sacrifice of the cross, whereby Scheeben wants to explain and replace the co-redemptrix precisely in relation to this most real act of redemption.
“The Eternal Son of God, about to take upon Him our nature for the saving and ennobling of man, and about to consummate thus a mystical union between Himself and all mankind, did not accomplish His design without adding there the free consent of the elect Mother, who represented in some sort all human kind, according to the illustrious and just opinion of St. Thomas, who says that the Annunciation was effected with the consent of the Virgin standing in the place of humanity.”—Pope Leo XIII, Octobri Mense, "On the Rosary," 1891
The equivalence in the sense of the explanation of the type and manner of cooperation represented by Scheeben is also evident from the fact that Leo XIII, as we have seen, also uses the Connubium divinum in the encyclical Octobri mense to justify that title, thus also co-redemptrix, in a restricted sense, with reference to St. Thomas (Part III, Question 30, Article 1). What Thomas and, accordingly, Suarez [...] and other commentaries say on this passage, Scheeben has only developed further.
“Article 1. Whether it was necessary to announce to the Blessed Virgin that which was to be done in her?Objection 1. It would seem that it was unnecessary to announce to the Blessed Virgin that which was to be done in her. For there seems to have been no need of the Annunciation except for the purpose of receiving the Virgin's consent. But her consent seems to have been unnecessary: because the Virginal Conception was foretold by a prophecy of ‘predestination,’ which is ‘fulfilled without our consent,’ as a gloss says on Matthew 1:22. There was no need, therefore, for this Annunciation.Objection 2. Further, the Blessed Virgin believed in Incarnation, for to disbelieve therein excludes man from the way of salvation; because, as the Apostle says (Romans 3:22): ‘The justice of God (is) by faith of Jesus Christ.’ But one needs no further instruction concerning what one believes without doubt. Therefore the Blessed Virgin had no need for the Incarnation of her Son to be announced to her.Objection 3. Further, just as the Blessed Virgin conceived Christ in her body, so every pious soul conceives Him spiritually. Thus the Apostle says (Galatians 4:19): ‘My little children, of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you.’ But to those who conceive Him spiritually no announcement is made of this conception. Therefore neither should it have been announced to the Blessed Virgin that she was to conceive the Son of God in her womb.On the contrary, It is related (Luke 1:31) that the angel said to her: ‘Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son.’I answer that, It was reasonable that it should be announced to the Blessed Virgin that she was to conceive Christ. First, in order to maintain a becoming order in the union of the Son of God with the Virgin—namely, that she should be informed in mind concerning Him, before conceiving Him in the flesh. Thus Augustine says (De Sancta Virgin. iii): ‘Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ, than in conceiving the flesh of Christ’; and further on he adds: ‘Her nearness as a Mother would have been of no profit to Mary, had she not borne Christ in her heart after a more blessed manner than in her flesh.’Secondly, that she might be a more certain witness of this mystery, being instructed therein by God.Thirdly, that she might offer to God the free gift of her obedience: which she proved herself right ready to do, saying: ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord.’Fourthly, in order to show that there is a certain spiritual wedlock between the Son of God and human nature. Wherefore in the Annunciation the Virgin's consent was besought in lieu of that of the entire human nature.Reply to Objection 1. The prophecy of predestination is fulfilled without the causality of our will; not without its consent.Reply to Objection 2. The Blessed Virgin did indeed believe explicitly in the future Incarnation; but, being humble, she did not think such high things of herself. Consequently she required instruction in this matter.Reply to Objection 3. The spiritual conception of Christ through faith is preceded by the preaching of the faith, for as much as ‘faith is by hearing’ (Romans 10:17). Yet man does not know for certain thereby that he has grace; but he does know that the faith, which he has received, is true.”—St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (Part III, Question 30, Article 1)
d) Finally, the view that is most intimately connected with the two doctrines of universal motherhood and cooperation in redemption, that Mary is the mediator, treasurer, depositary and distributor of all graces, is represented here by the highest bearer of the Church's teaching office. We must have emphasized this in general terms earlier. He explained here specifically against Bartmann. Pius X also cites these three aspects in his circular letter on the anniversary of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1904.
“It cannot, of course, be denied that the dispensation of these treasures is the particular and peculiar right of Jesus Christ, for they are the exclusive fruit of His Death, who by His nature is the mediator between God and man. Nevertheless, by this companionship in sorrow and suffering already mentioned between the Mother and the Son, it has been allowed to the august Virgin to be the most powerful mediatrix and advocate of the whole world with her Divine Son (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus). The source, then, is Jesus Christ ‘of whose fullness we have all received’ (John 1:16), ‘from whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in charity’ (Ephesians 4:16). But Mary, as St. Bernard justly remarks, is the channel; or, if you will, the connecting portion the function of which is to join the body to the head and to transmit to the body the influences and volitions of the head— We mean the neck. Yes, says St. Bernardine of Sienna, ‘she is the neck of Our Head, by which He communicates to His mystical body all spiritual gifts’”—Pope Pius X, Ad diem illum laetissimum, "On the Immaculate Conception," 1904
The Blessed Virgin is therefore the Mother of God and the Mother of men, quoting St. Augustine in De virginitate (chapter 6).
"And on this account, that one female, not only in the Spirit, but also in the flesh, is both a mother and a virgin. And a mother indeed in the Spirit, not of our Head, Which is the Saviour Himself, of Whom rather she was born after the Spirit: forasmuch as all, who have believed in Him, among whom is herself also, are rightly called children of the Bridegroom: but clearly the mother of His members, which are we: in that she wrought together by charity, that faithful ones should be born in the Church, who are members of That Head: but in the flesh, the mother of the Head Himself. For it behooved that our Head, on account of a notable miracle, should be born after the flesh of a virgin, that He might thereby signify that His members would be born after the Spirit, of the Church a virgin: therefore Mary alone both in Spirit and in flesh is a mother and a virgin: both the mother of Christ, and a virgin of Christ; but the Church, in the Saints who shall possess the kingdom of God, in the Spirit indeed is altogether the mother of Christ, altogether a virgin of Christ: but in the flesh not altogether, but in certain a virgin of Christ, in certain a mother, but not of Christ. Forsooth both faithful women who are married, and virgins dedicated to God, by holy manners, and charity out of a pure heart, and good conscience, and faith unfeigned, because they do the will of the Father, are after a spiritual sense mothers of Christ. But they who in married life give birth to (children) after the flesh, give birth not to Christ, but to Adam, and therefore run, that their offspring having been dyed in His Sacraments, may become members of Christ, forasmuch as they know what they have given birth to."—St. Augustine, De virginitate (chapter 6)
Likewise, she too was rightly made the restorer and reparatrix of lost men [...] and finally the dispenser of all the treasures of grace with reference to St. Bernard. Bartmann will have to admit that all this is in direct contradiction with his entire understanding and that it is without doubt equivalent to the title co-redemprix in the declared and expressly limited sense of not co-cause but cause with and in Christ as cooperatrix redemptoris. Here, too, he can object, no less than with the equivalent titles in the Litany of Loreto and the Salve Regina, that this is only tolerated by the Church, but rather that these are each time formal doctrinal statements, even if not a dogmatic decision.
Google Sites
Report abuse