1978 Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith document on apparition discernment

source of the unoffical English translation--1978 Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith document on apparition discernment (in French) - the sections in italics are opening and closing remarks by Joachim Bouflet [not reproduced here]- these remarks and the text from the CDF are taken from his book, jointly authored with Philippe Boutry, Un signe dans le ciel, (Grasset, Paris, 1997), pp. 396-99.

Preliminary Note: Origin and character of these norms.

At the time of the Annual Plenary Congregation during November 1974, the Fathers of this Sacred Congregation studied the problems relating to apparitions and supposed revelations, and the consequences which often result from these, and they arrived at the following conclusions:

1. Today more than formerly, the news of these apparitions is spread more quickly among the faithful thanks to the means of information ("mass media"); in addition, the ease of travel supports more frequent pilgrimages. Also, the ecclesiastical authority was itself brought to reconsider this subject.

2. Similarly, because of current instruments of knowledge, the contributions of science, and the requirement of a rigorous criticism, it is more difficult, if not impossible, to arrive as speedily as previously at judgements which conclude, as formerly happened, investigations into this matter (“constate de supernaturalitate, non constat de supernaturalitate”); and because of that, it is more difficult for the Ordinary to authorize or prohibit public worship or any other form of devotion of the faithful.

For these reasons, so that the devotion stirred up among the faithful by facts of this kind can appear as a disposition in full communion with the Church, and bear fruit, and so that the Church itself is able to ultimately distinguish the true nature of the facts, the Fathers consider that it is necessary to promote the following practice in regard to this matter.

So that the ecclesiastical authority is able to acquire more certainty on such or such an apparition or revelation, it will proceed in the following way:

a) Initially, to judge the facts according to positive and negative criteria (cf. below, n.1).

b) Then, if this examination appears favorable, to allow certain public demonstrations of cult and devotion, while continuing to investigate the facts with extreme prudence (which is equivalent to the formula: “for the moment, nothing is opposed to it”).

c) Finally, after a certain time, and in the light of experience, (starting from a particular study of the spiritual fruits generated by the new devotion), to give a judgement on the authenticity of the supernatural character, if the case requires this.

I. Criteria of judgement, concerning the probability at least, of the character of the apparitions and supposed revelations.

A) Positive criteria:

a) Moral certainty, or at least great probability, as to the existence of the fact, [revelation] acquired at the end of a serious investigation.

b) Particular circumstances relating to the existence and the nature of the fact:

1. Personal qualities of the subject—in particular mental balance, honesty and rectitude of moral life, habitual sincerity and docility towards ecclesiastical authority, ability to return to the normal manner of a life of faith, etc.

2. With regard to the revelations, their conformity with theological doctrines and their spiritual veracity, their exemption from all error.

3. A healthy devotion and spiritual fruits which endure (in particular, the spirit of prayer, conversions, signs of charity, etc).

B) Negative criteria:

a) A glaring error as to the facts.

b) Doctrinal errors that one would attribute to God himself, or to the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Holy Spirit in their manifestations (taking into account, however, the possibility that the subject may add something by their own activity—even if this is done unconsciously—of some purely human elements to an authentic supernatural revelation, these having nevertheless to remain free from any error in the natural order. Cf. St Ignatius, Spiritual Exercises, n. 336).

c) An obvious pursuit of monetary gain in relation with the fact.

d) Gravely immoral acts committed by the subject, or his associates, at the time of the facts, or on the occasion of these facts.

E) Psychic disorders or psychopathic tendencies concerning the subject, which would exert an unquestionable influence on the allegedly supernatural facts, or indeed psychosis, mass hysteria, or other factors of the same kind.

It is important to consider these criteria, whether they are positive or negative, as indicative standards and not as final arguments, and to study them in their plurality and in relation with the other criteria.

II. Intervention of the competent local Authority

1. As, at the time of a presumed supernatural fact, worship or an ordinary form of devotion is born in a quasi spontaneous way among the faithful, the competent ecclesiastical Authority has the serious obligation to inform itself without delay and to carry out a diligent investigation.

2. At the legitimate request of the faithful (when they are in communion with their pastors and are not driven by a sectarian spirit), the competent ecclesiastical Authority can intervene to authorize and promote various forms of worship and devotion if, assuming the criteria given above having been applied, nothing is opposed to it. But there must be vigilance nevertheless, to ensure that the faithful do not regard this way of acting as an approval by the Church of the supernatural character of the event in question (cf. above, Preliminary Note, c).

3. By virtue of his doctrinal and pastoral duty, the competent ecclesiastical Authority can intervene immediately of his own authority, and he must do so in serious circumstances, for example, when it is a question of correcting or of preventing abuses in the exercise of worship or devotion, to condemn erroneous doctrines, to avoid the dangers of a false mysticism etc.

4. In doubtful cases, which do not involve the welfare of the Church, the competent ecclesiastical Authority may refrain from any judgement and any direct action (more especially as it can happen that, at the end of a certain time, the supposedly supernatural event can lapse from memory); but he should not remain less vigilant about the event, in such a way as to be in a position to intervene with swiftness and prudence, if that is necessary.

III. Other Authorities entitled to intervene

1. The foremost authority to inquire and to intervene belongs to the local Ordinary.

2. But the regional or national episcopal Conference may intervene:

a) If the local Ordinary, after having fulfilled the obligations which fall to him, resorts to them for a study of the event in its entirety.

b) If the event assumes national or regional importance.

3. The Apostolic See can intervene, either at the request of Ordinary himself, or at the request of a qualified group of the faithful, or directly by virtue of the immediate right of universal jurisdiction of the Sovereign Pontiff (cf. above, IV).

IV. Intervention of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

1. a) The intervention of the Sacred Congregation can be agreed to be necessary either by the Ordinary, after he has fulfilled the obligations falling to him, or by a qualified group of the faithful. In this second case, vigilance is necessary so that the recourse to the Sacred Congregation is not motivated by suspect reasons (for example to force, in one way one or another, the Ordinary to modify his legitimate decisions, or to confirm the sectarian drift of a group, etc.)

b) It belongs to the Sacred Congregation to intervene of its own accord in serious cases, in particular when the event affects a broad portion of the Church; but the Ordinary will always be consulted, as well as the episcopal Conference, if the situation requires it.

2. It belongs to the Sacred Congregation to discern and approve the way of acting of the Ordinary, or, if it proves to be necessary, to carry out a new examination of the facts distinct from that which the Ordinary carried out; this new examination of the facts will be done either by the Sacred Congregation itself, or by a commission especially established for this purpose.

The present norms, defined in the plenary Congregation of this Sacred Congregation, were approved by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Paul VI, on February 24 1978.

At Rome, the Palace of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, February 27, 1978.

Francis, Cardinal Seper, Prefect, Fr. Jerome Hamer, O.P., Secretary.

Christian Order: True and False Martyrdom

here

True and False Martyrdom

FATHER PETER JOSEPH, S.T.D.

Here is an eyewitness account of St Cyprian's martyrdom, A.D. 258, in Carthage, near modern Tunis, the capital of Tunisia, North Africa:

The next day, September 14th, a great crowd gathered early in the morning near the Villa Sexti at the command of the proconsul, Galerius Maximus. Then the same proconsul, Galerius Maximus, ordered that Cyprian be brought to him that very day as he was sitting in the atrium at the Sauciolum. When he had been brought forward, the proconsul Galerius Maximus said to the bishop Cyprian, "Are you Thascius, known also as Cyprian?" The bishop Cyprian responded, "I am." The proconsul Galerius Maximus said, "Have you presented yourself to people as the head of a sacrilegious movement?" The bishop Cyprian responded, "I have." The proconsul Galerius Maximus said, "The most sacred emperors have ordered you to offer worship." The bishop Cyprian said, "I will not." Galerius Maximus said, "Have a care for your own interests." The bishop Cyprian responded, "In so just a matter there need be no reflection."

After he had spoken with his council, Galerius Maximus hesitatingly and unwillingly pronounced the sentence in words of this sort: "You have lived for a long time in a sacrilegious frame of mind, have gathered very many other members of this impious conspiracy around you and have set yourself up as an enemy of the Roman gods and their sacred rites. Our pious and most sacred princes, the august Valerian and Gallienus and our most noble Caesar, Valerian, have not been able to call you back to the observance of their worship. Therefore, since you are the author and admitted leader of the most worthless crimes, you will yourself be a warning for these people whom you have gathered around you in your crime. Respect for the law will be confirmed by your blood." Once he had said this, he read out the sentence from the tablet: "It has been decided that Thascius Cyprian is to be executed by the sword." The bishop Cyprian said, "Thanks be to God."

After this sentence, the crowd of the brethren said, "Let us also be beheaded with him." On this account a great commotion broke out among the brethren and a large crowd followed him. Cyprian was led into the field of Sextus. There he took off his mantle and hood, knelt down on the ground and prostrated himself in prayer to the Lord. When he had taken off his dalmatic and given it to the deacons, he stood erect and awaited the executioner. When the executioner came, Cyprian ordered his attendants to give the executioner twenty-five gold coins. Linen cloths and handkerchiefs were spread out in front of him by the brethren [Note: to collect the blood, as the relic of a martyr]. After that, blessed Cyprian put on the blindfold with his own hands, but since he was not able to tie the ends by himself, the priest Julianus and the subdeacon Julianus tied them for him.

In this manner the blessed Cyprian suffered death and his body was laid in a place nearby on account of the curiosity of the pagans. Then it was taken up at night with candles and torches and brought with prayer and great triumph to the cemetery of the procurator Macrobius Candidianus, which is near the pools. After a few days the proconsul Galerius Maximus died.

The most blessed martyr Cyprian suffered on the fourteenth of September under the emperors Valerian and Gallienus, but in the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom is honour and glory forever and ever. Amen."

We note three elements of his martyrdom: 1. put to death, 2. for Christ: for the Faith, for refusing to apostasize and offer false worship, etc., and 3. further, Christian joy and gladness to die for Christ's sake (virtuous model).

The true approach to martyrdom is to see it as a triumph. So the early Christians rejoiced when one of their number was faithful unto death. Similarly, during the persecutions of the 16-17th century, seminarians at the English College, Rome, used to gather at the foot of the chapel's painting of the Holy Trinity to sing a Te Deum whenever news arrived that a former student had been put to death for the Faith. It is a victory over the world, the flesh and the devil - everything that opposes your Christian life. It is the greatest way to die; it is the highest form of Christian death. See the section on martyrdom in the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2471-4.

Definition of martyrdom

The great moral theologian, Dominic Prummer O.P., says:

Acts of Fortitude. …these acts reach their peak in martyrdom. Martyrdom is the endurance of bodily death in witness to the Christian religion. Therefore three conditions must be verified for martyrdom: a) actual death; b) the infliction of death by an enemy out of hatred for Christianity. c) the voluntary acceptance of death. - Therefore the following are not genuinely martyrs: those who die by contracting disease in their care of lepers, those who suffer death for natural truths or for heresy, or who [indirectly] bring about their own death to safeguard their person. - The effect of martyrdom is the remission of all sin and punishment, since it is an act of perfect charity.

According to Christian doctrine, martyrdom renders the soul of the martyr worthy of immediate entrance into heaven. The Church prays to the martyrs but has never prayed for the martyrs.

Likewise, Dominican Fr Benedict Ashley says:

True martyrdom requires three conditions: (1) that the victim actually die, (2) that he or she dies in witness of faith in Christ which is directly expressed in words, or implicitly in acts done or sins refused because of faith, and (3) that the victim accepts death voluntarily. They are not martyrs who do not actually die, or die from disease, for the sake of merely natural truths, or heresy, or for their country in war, or through suicide, etc.

Fr Ashley explains:

'Martyr' is often used loosely of anyone who dies for the sake of any cause. But the Christian cause is in fact objectively true, and not a subjective illusion, as are many of the causes for which persons die sincerely but deludedly. Thus those who die for the sake of fanatical religious cults, or as terrorists, or for their own glory, however sincere, are not genuine martyrs, but are objectively suicides. Nor are those who die for a noble but merely human motive, as the parent who dies to save a child, or a soldier for his country, since such virtuous acts can pertain simply to the order of natural virtue.

In 2004, the Pope canonised Gianna Beretta Molla, an Italian mother. During her pregnancy with her fourth child, she was diagnosed with a large ovarian cyst. Her surgeon recommended an abortion in order to save Gianna's life. She refused that, of course, and refused any operation, since that would threaten the life of her baby. So she died a week after childbirth, in 1962, at the age of 39, heroically caring more for her unborn child than for her own life. Today that child is a physician herself, and involved in the pro-life movement in Italy. Her mother is not a martyr, but a hero of love, and her mother's sacrifice brought forth a harvest.

The sacred name of martyr belongs only to one who renders testimony to divine truth. A heretic in good faith who dies for Christ may be counted among the martyrs, but a contumacious heretic who dies for his sect is not a martyr because he does not testify to divine truth but to a (false) human teaching.

Blessed Damien of Molokai is a hero (of charity), but not a martyr. St Pio of Pietrelcina suffered enormously over 50 years with the stigmata, but is not a martyr. In the Missal, a saint who is a martyr is always named such. M. is placed next to their name for Martyr.

We count as an exception the Holy Innocents, whom the Church, although they lack the usual element of acceptance of death, nevertheless honours as martyrs in the liturgy because they died in the place of the infant Christ and received the Baptism of Blood.

Abortion victims cannot be counted as martyrs; they are victims but not martyrs. There is a movement, originating in Surbiton, London, to get them officially canonised - but this is a mistake. If they are martyrs, then every murder victim dying in a state of grace would be a martyr. This is seen to be false from the investigation the Church conducts into a claimed martyr.

For a claimed martyr, the object of the initial diocesan inquiry is threefold: (a) the candidate's life (b) martyrdom (c) reputation for martyrdom. The crucial question to establish martyrdom is: was this person killed for the faith? Not simply: was he murdered? - which is usually obvious.

Death itself might not occur immediately, but if the sufferings inflicted lead to death within a reasonable time, then that will count as martyrdom. In English law, it has been the practice to deem an act "murder" (or manslaughter) if death comes within a year and a day from the injury inflicted.

The Church has always held that martyrdom is equivalent to baptism for those not yet baptised. Baptism of Blood is the name given to this. It is Catholic doctrine that the Baptism of Blood blots out Original Sin, and all actual sin, together with the punishment due to it. This is evident from the words of Christ: He has absolutely promised salvation to those who give their lives for the Gospel: "he who loses his life for my sake will find it"; and again He says, "So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven". Moreover, from the Tradition of the Church: the Church honours as martyrs in heaven several who were never baptised: the Holy Innocents massacred by Herod; St Emerentiana (c. 304); one of the 22 Ugandan martyrs, St Mukasa Kiriwawanvu, who was still a catechumen. St Augustine says, "it would be an affront to pray for a martyr: we should rather commend ourselves to his prayers." (Sermon 159)

"Today the term 'martyr' is applied very freely to all sorts of people; for example, the Japanese kamikaze pilots, the Buddhists who burnt themselves as a protest to communism, and the Shiite soldiers in the Iran-Iraq ware are all called 'martyrs'. But this most honourable title, which means 'witness' has a specifically Jewish and Christian meaning."

The Blessed Virgin Mary, since she surpassed the martyrs in her sorrows, is called Queen of Martyrs, but strictly speaking she was not a martyr, since she did not die from her sorrows.

Witness and martyrdom in the Bible

The mission of Jesus was too difficult and too great to be accomplished by simple force. "It had to be accomplished through the much harder way of courageous suffering and dying in witness of the truth. Hence the New Testament model is not the warrior but the martyr, of which Jesus on the Cross is the supreme example, accompanied by his mother Mary, her heart pierced spiritually by the same lance that pierced the heart of her Son (cf. Lk 2:34-35)."

The strict concept of martyrdom is first clearly stated in the Bible in the story of the seven brothers and their mother (2 Macc 7) who died rather than eat pork which the Greek oppressors tried to force upon them to indicate their renunciation of the law and the covenant with God. But in the same persecution, Judas Maccabeus was not a martyr-although he died fighting for the Jewish Law-because he died fighting, not as one submitting to being killed.

Jesus Himself prophetically exhorted His disciples to be the witnesses of His life and His words. He even predicted in detail their lot: they will be chased from the Synagogue, betrayed by their own relatives, accused and hauled before kings and governors, and put to death for His name (Mt 10:17, 24; Lk 21:12).

The first Christian martyr after Jesus Himself was St Stephen, stoned to death in Jerusalem for preaching the Gospel. As they were stoning Stephen, he called out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Then he fell to his knees and cried out in a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them"; and when he said this, he fell asleep (Acts 7:59-60). Even during Our Lord's Public Ministry, St John the Baptist died a martyr's death, in witness to the law of God regarding marriage.

Thus the Christian martyr does not die out of hatred of the enemy as a soldier might, but out of love for his killers, as Jesus taught and lived (Mt 5:43-48). "No man has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends" (Jn 15:13), but for the Christian our enemies are also our friends as long as their conversion is possible. After Stephen: St Peter, St Paul, and St James the Apostle (Acts 12:2) were all martyrs, and following them a "great cloud of witnesses" (Heb 12:1). In the liturgy of the Church, special honour is given to the Virgin Martyrs (women and men, Rev 14:4) who are models of both the virtues of chastity and courage.

Christians who do not die for the faith, may yet share in martyrdom, as the Virgin Mary did, by being ready to die for it. Christians are engaged in a spiritual warfare:

Put on the whole armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take the whole armour of God, that you may be able to withstand. - Eph 6:11-13

Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world. - 1 Pet 5:8-9

The value of life and the value of martyrdom

Appreciating the dignity of man made in the image of God, we can appreciate the heinousness of the sin of murder (deliberate killing of an innocent) in any form: homicide, abortion, infanticide, or euthanasia. Human life is a sacred gift from God. No one may take his own life or that of another. From conception until death, innocent human life deserves respect and the protection of law.

However, sacred though life is, it is not the supreme good. We are not bound to do everything to save our life or that of another: in serious illness, one is not bound to accept expensive and burdensome treatments (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2278); in grave need, one may risk one's life to help others, or even make the supreme sacrifice. The Church honours the martyrs because they sacrificed their lives rather than give up greater and higher goods: the Faith, and union with God. The good of human life is ordained unto eternal life. The goods of bodily life are less in value than the good of spiritual life. Christ and the Church do not urge us to be ready to give up great things for lesser things: that would be an absurdity! It is our love for a higher good that justifies the sacrifice of lesser goods. At the same time, the high value of life tells us the value of martyrdom.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, martyrdom is the highest form of witness to the faith. One contemporary moral theologian writes: "The suffering and death of so many Christian martyrs up to the present time in confession of their religion is the most eloquent witness to the conviction of the Church that the faith may never be denied." Today, many people despise martyrdom. Why is that? Among other factors: loss of strong belief in the next life; loss of belief in the evil of apostasy, leading to the notion that pragmatically it is better to compromise even on essentials; lack of the virtue of fortitude, sapped by easy living; the belief that nothing is worth dying for.

The same moralist writes: "If a man is requested to deny God or to act against the divine will, e.g., to kill an innocent person, he must rather sacrifice his own life than contradict the supreme claims of God upon him. Martyrdom, by which a man lays down his life for Christ and his brothers, as Christ did for us (1 Jn 3:16), is the highest proof of love. 'Though few are presented with such an opportunity, nevertheless all must be prepared to confess Christ before men, and to follow Him along the way of the cross through the persecutions which the Church will never fail to suffer' (LG 42)."

Interestingly, when Jews today complain of what Christians did, or did not do, to save Jews from round-ups and death camps in World War II, they are basing their complaint on this doctrine that men should have given up their lives rather than participate in such heinous deeds; that, no matter what the cost, even if it meant being put to death by Nazis, they should have refused to perform acts against innocent Jews; that they should have been martyrs, if necessary.

"Itaque martyres non facit poena, sed causa."

This is one of the countless great sayings of St Augustine, who said: "Now they are true martyrs, of whom the Lord said, 'Blessed are they who suffer persecution for the sake of righteousness'. Not therefore for the sake of iniquity, or for the sake of an unholy division of Christian unity, but they who suffer persecution for the sake of righteousness-these are the true martyrs … The Lord Himself was crucified with thieves, but they whom suffering joined, the cause separated."

"'Look upon my judgement, my God and my Lord, look upon my cause' (Ps 34:23). Not upon my penalty, but upon my cause … For the penalty is similar for the good and the wicked. Therefore the penalty does not make martyrs, but the cause. For if the penalty made martyrs, all the mines would be full of martyrs, all chains would be dragging along martyrs, all who are slain by the sword would be crowned."

If the cause did not matter, but the mere fact of death, then we should be ready to die for any idea, no matter how false or absurd - as long as holding it leads to martyrdom!

The truth for which you suffer is crucial! One can admire mistaken people who suffer for their beliefs - but one cannot imitate them or commend them. If the truth of the cause, or the goodness of the virtue, were in question, or mistaken, there would be no reason to suffer for them: it would be the height of absurdity!

The Catholic Church never publicly honours non-Catholic "martyrs", because there is a defective element, more or less serious, in the content of their virtue of faith. When canonising the 22 Ugandan martyrs (St Charles Lwanga and his companions), in 1964, Pope Paul VI said, "Nor should we forget those others, of the Anglican communion, who died for the sake of Christ." He did not officially pronounce the Anglican ones 'martyrs' (it was not his office to do so in any case, since they were not members of his flock) but they could rightly be deemed such, since they died for Christ and Christian virtue - and not specifically for the Church of England vs the Catholic Church.

Real martyrs vs false martyrs

The word martyr is often used loosely and even falsely. I want to summarise my main points in eight propositions, and explain each one.

* Real martyrs do not kill themselves
* Real martyrs suffer harm but never inflict harm
* Real martyrs do not seek death but accept it when it comes
* The Christian martyr does not die out of hatred of the enemy, but out of love for Jesus
* Real martyrs die bearing witness to truth
* Martyrdom properly involves death, not just suffering, however intense
* Some people are victims but not martyrs
* Some people are heroes but not martyrs

1. Real martyrs do not kill themselves.

Suicide protestors dousing themselves with petrol, e.g., Buddhist monks in Vietnam in the 1960's; prisoners who hunger strike unto death, e.g., Bobby Sands in Maze prison in Northern Ireland in 1981, and Terence McSweeney, the Mayor of Cork, in 1920, whose bishop (rightly) said he could not receive Holy Communion or be anointed; Palestinian suicide bombers - all these are not martyrs.

2. Real martyrs suffer harm but never inflict harm.

Japanese kamikazes, or the September 11 Muslim kamikazes: their courage is extraordinary, but their beliefs are wrong, and their virtue is misguided-the Japanese ones less so, since it was in warfare.

The title of martyr is only given to those who do not try to save their lives by resistance. Archbishop Michael Sheehan, one-time co-adjutor Archbishop of Sydney, wrote, "Christ was slain by the enemies of truth, the enemies of God, and offered no resistance. The martyr's death is like the death of Christ; hence its great fruitfulness for the soul. Resistance, so far as it spoils the likeness to our Saviour's Passion, is inconsistent with martyrdom; that likeness is not, of course, spoiled in the case of one who resists an unchaste assailant solely for the purpose of escaping sin and defilement. Soldiers who fall on the battle-field, fighting for God or virtue, may be martyrs, but since, in their case, it would be difficult to establish that there is no admixture of any merely human motive, such as self-protection or the desire of distinction, the Church follows the rule that those who die as combatants must not be honoured as martyrs."

3. Real martyrs do not seek death but accept it when it comes.

Some of the early Fathers told their more zealous parishioners, "Do not go to the officers of the law and denounce yourselves as Christians!" St Thomas More did not seek martyrdom: he had great courage and prudence.

4. The Christian martyr does not die out of hatred of the enemy, but out of love for Jesus.

Thus the Church as a precautionary measure does not honour combatants as martyrs. However, they can be praised for their heroic deaths and for showing "no greater love than to lay down their lives for their friends." There is no canonised martyr whose last words expressed spite or anger or vengeance. Many of the English martyrs prayed for Queen Elizabeth who had decreed their execution, e.g., St Edmund Campion, and their love of enemies was always a powerful testimony to their Christian virtue and holiness.

5. Real martyrs die bearing witness to truth.

The fact of dying in itself does not render one a martyr. The Anglican boys murdered in Uganda were martyrs who died for Christian morality - but not the three Anglican bishops put to death under Queen Mary in 1555 and 1556: Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley and Thomas Cranmer, who died while holding out against the Catholic religion.

For martyrdom, it must be ascertained: first, that the killer hated the Faith, and second, that the victim died as a witness to the Faith or a Christian virtue. The cause, then, must be either a belief or a virtue. St Maria Goretti died for the virtue of chastity, and also while warning her assailant, "No, Alessandro, it is a sin; you will go to Hell." She was more concerned for his soul than for her own safety. Her heroic virtue, as well as that of her mother, was evident when her mother said to her in hospital, "Maria, you must forgive Alessandro." And Maria replied, "I have already."

St Thomas More died for the truth, for the Papacy, for the Catholic religion; he was not a 'martyr for conscience' as some people like to say. Australian political activist B.A. Santamaria (1915-1998) explained so well why this is so:

The Protestant Reformation had established the fundamental distinction between the Protestant and the Catholic positions. The Protestant took his stand on the ultimate sovereignty of the Bible and, subject to that, the finality of the private judgement of the individual conscience on matters of both faith and morality. The Catholic position was that, when either Pope or Council spoke 'authoritatively' on matters of faith or morals, the content of those declarations was binding on the conscience of the Catholic. If a Catholic believed that such definitions were outrageously wrong then he must come logically to the conclusion that the Church which promulgated them could not be guaranteed in the rightness of its declarations by God Himself. It was difficult to see what point there was in belonging to a Church whose basic claim had thus been falsified in the event. If, however, the Catholic believed that the fundamental basis of divine guidance on this quite restricted list of subject-matters was established, he was clearly bound by what was thus guaranteed.

There are strong arguments for both Protestant and Catholic positions, both of which have been held by strong intellects animated by high principles. But they are basically opposed positions. … The binding force of this external authority is the exact difference between the Catholic and the Protestant positions. It is in fact what the Reformation was all about. It is why Thomas More and John Fisher went to execution.

…In one of the more ironic manifestations of the general mood, St Thomas More was invoked as authority for the dubious proposition that the private conscience was the supreme arbiter of a Catholic's religious and moral beliefs: that so long as it was done in good conscience the obligation of Sunday Mass could be set aside (if the ceremony 'did you no good'), or that pre-marital sex was permissible (so long as the couple genuinely loved each other).

Some five centuries too late, one began to feel a little sorry for the martyred Chancellor. It was bad enough to be beheaded in the sixteenth century. It was much worse to become a cult figure in the twentieth. Because of the dramatic brilliance of Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons, he came to be regarded as the patron saint of 'protest', in the name of individual conscience against external authority: a kind of sixteenth-century Jane Fonda.

… it became necessary to point out that Thomas More was nothing of the kind. His carefully framed last words - 'the King's good servant, but God's first' - indicated the opposite.

… It is now claimed, with increasing emphasis, that Thomas is not only, in Bolt's words, a 'man for all seasons', but the common property of all Christian religious persuasions. For, it is said, he died for conscience, and this is the only thing which really matters. For this reason, Thomas More is sacred to all Christians, regardless of denomination, just as are Latimer and the Anglican martyrs, who also died, equally and undoubtedly, for conscience.

In our own age, we have seen Marxists, anarchists, Serbs, Croats, Macedonians, all die bravely for conscience. Like all brave men who die for ultimate conviction, they are worthy of our admiration, however one may judge their principles.

But it is a very different thing to imply either that the principles for which men die are all equally valid, because heroic men have died for all of them; or equally unimportant, since what matters is not the principles but the tribute of conscience, regardless of the principle, in the martyr's final testimony.

Such a view seems to make a nonsense of their decision to die at all. Why die violently, when what you think you are dying for is not of ultimate worth at all?

Sir Thomas More refused to attend Henry VIII's second marriage and he refused to sign the Act of Parliament making the King head of the Church in England. He never said, "I die for my conscience". Conscience is like a watch - you have to set it to the right time. It does not have a primacy. Truth, the Word of God, the teaching of the Church - all the same thing - have the primacy. Conscience is subject to them; not they to conscience. Cardinal George Pell of Sydney said in 2003, "I believe strongly in the importance of individual conscience. It is indispensable. … In the past I have been in trouble for stating that the so-called doctrine of the primacy of conscience should be quietly dropped. I would like to reconsider my position here and now state that I believe that this misleading doctrine of the primacy of conscience should be publicly rejected."

What about those who are sincere in their errors? God alone can judge them. However, we must remember that we have to give an account to God, not only of our actions but also of our beliefs, since we may have been guilty of refusing Him the obedience of faith. We are responsible for our beliefs; and there is culpability in rationalisation and seeking the easy way out of duty.

6. Martyrdom properly involves death, not just suffering, however intense.

Sometimes people say: "He was a martyr for the cause; he was martyred for standing up for his beliefs"-when a man loses his job or position or whatever, but not life itself. Sometimes the phrase white martyrs is used, meaning Christians, such as in China, who have endured decades of imprisonment or ill-treatment, e.g., Archbishop Dang S.J. who spent 22 yrs in prison in China, 7 of them in solitary confinement; Cardinal Francis Xavier van Thuan who died in 2002: he was imprisoned from 1975, at the fall of Saigon to the Communists, until 1988.

7. Some people are victims but not martyrs:

Victims murdered out of revenge or killed in a robbery. Blessed Mary of Jesus (Sr Deluil-Martiny) of Belgium, born 1841, murdered in 1884 by a freemason who had declared his intention to kill - but there was an element of personal revenge for losing his job as convent gardener.

8. Some people are heroes but not martyrs:

Policemen who are shot dead in the line of duty; firemen who die while fighting fires or trying to rescue people; rescue workers who perish while saving others or trying to do so.

The witness of the martyrs

The fortitude of the Church's martyrs has been miraculous: because some persecutions extended over decades or centuries (such as in the Roman Empire, or in recent centuries, China, Japan or Vietnam); because vast numbers of every rank and age have suffered, including little children; because they endured, without surrender, the most terrible tortures; because they were unmoved in the face of the attractive rewards promised them, if they yielded; because, in the throes of death, they gave a beautiful and superhuman manifestation of Christian virtue, of the joyful acceptance of death and suffering, and of the very spirit of Christ on the Cross, praying for the salvation of their enemies, and blessing their killers.

The blood of martyrs is the seed of Christians

"Crucify us [Christians], torture us, condemn us, grind us to dust; your injustice is the proof that we are innocent", says Tertullian to the Roman authorities. "Nor does your cruelty, however exquisite, avail you; it is, rather, an incitement to us. The more often we are mown down by you, the more we grow in number: the blood of Christians is the seed."

Martyrdom today

And the martyrdoms continue: it is estimated that every two weeks at least one Catholic missionary somewhere is put to death. There were more martyrs for Christ in the 20th century than in all the previous nineteen centuries put together. These countless deaths have not been without fruit. Now as earlier, the blood of martyrs is the seed of Christians: apart from that major fruit garnered by the martyrs themselves - undying glory in Paradise - the Church universal has continued to expand: in Africa, Catholics numbered two million in 1900, and now number 110 million. "Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat!": "Christ conquers, Christ reigns, Christ rules!"

The lesson for us today is clear: we have so little to complain of when we read the lives of the martyrs. We are called to be ready to lay down our lives; and we prepare ourselves by giving our lives to Christ. In the meantime, we are called to endure what we might loosely call "the martyrdom of daily duty." Performing our daily duties; being honest and virtuous even when this means being ostracised or mocked; refusing to compromise on our Christian morality; refusing to sell immoral devices; never voting for evil in a club or association; refusing to take part in dishonest or obscene enterprises; being faithful to our marriage even when our marriage partner has abandoned us.

"Be faithful unto death," says the Lord in Revelations 2:10, "and I will give you the crown of life."

The author is the Chancellor of the Maronite Diocese of Australia and editor of the revised edition of Archbishop Sheehan's Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine (Saint Austin Press, London 2001).

AN, Archbishop Ravasi, overcoming the mistrust between evolutionism and theology

Archbishop Ravasi, overcoming the mistrust between evolutionism and theology
An international conference has been presented at the Vatican, proposing a scientific examination of the work of Darwin, eliminating the ideological context of "evolutionist" and "creationist" that marks the mistrust between Darwinism and theology.

The Catholic Church is highly interested in this question. It has never condemned Darwin's work, and many popes, beginning with Pius XII, have affirmed that evolutionism is not in contrast with the faith.

Although Pius XII did say something about polygenism.

Google Books: The Specification of Human Actions in St. Thomas Aquinas, by Joseph Pilsner

Oxford University Press

Evangelium Vitae 73: The Catholic Lawmaker and the problem of a seriously unjust law

By: Angel Rodriguez Luno
Ordinary Professor of Moral Theology
Pontifical University of the Holy Cross (Rome)

By seriously unjust civil laws we mean laws which substantially injure the goods or rights that belong to the common good of the body politic, for example, fundamental human rights, public order, justice, etc., as well as laws which deprive such goods or rights of their necessary protection. (Civil laws could be unjust for other reasons, which need not be considered here. On the entire topic, the reader can consult Angel Rodriguez Luno, Etica General, 4 ed. [Pamplona: Eunsa, 2001], 271-273). Not only are those laws seriously unjust which allow the state to attack a human right, but also those through which the state fails in its duty to prohibit and punish, in a reasonable and proportionate way, the violation of fundamental human rights by others. It is clear that the law must contain certain penalties in order that the exercise of fundamental rights is in fact a reality in a given state. If the state does not protect fundamental rights from the illegitimate exercise of human freedom, the result will simply be domination by those who are more powerful (cf. on this point P. Haberle, Le liberta fondamentali nello Stato costituzionale [Rome: La Nuova Italia Scientifica 1993], 47). This last situation is the case with laws allowing abortion; these are the principal subject of this paper.

Effecting an unjust law such as one regarding abortion--analogous to giving a gun to someone you know is going to kill someone but is in need of a weapon? Or to deliberately not stopping someone from killing someone else?

Does a legislator need to know an unjust law is unjust in order to be guilty of wrong-doing? It seems so. Such an act it seems would be counter to general justice at the very least, and perhaps to other virtues as well. Imposing his will unjustly on others, through force--does it suffice for him to have awareness of its injustice if he does not will reciprocity? That he will be willing for someone else to legislate in the same way, if he were a subject? A tyrant knows for whose benefit he 'legislates.' (Does he know that he is taking more than he should?)

But what about 'good-intentioned' lawmakers? Can one support a law permitting abortion without knowing that they are hurting the common good? It seems this is possible. But is it likely that legislators do so not knowing that they are taking a human life, or offending justice? What sort of ignorance do they have, vincible or invincible? In the Western world, we are not dealing with people making laws from scratch--they have rejected the laws (and moral traditions) that they've inherited. Have they done so with a good conscience? Without sin? God knows.

(Law seeks to preserve justice.)

Towards a Critical Thomist Jurisprudence, by Anthony Fejfar

Worth the trouble of registering, downloading, and reading?

Zenit: Papal Address at French Institute

Papal Address at French Institute

Papal Address at French Institute

"Science Without Conscience Brings Only Ruin"

PARIS, SEPT. 13, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here is a Vatican translation of the brief and unscheduled discourse that Benedict XVI gave today upon his visit to the Institut de France. The institute groups five académies, the French Academy, the Academy of Fine Arts, the Academy of Humanities, the Academy of Science, and the Academy of Moral Sciences and Politics.

* * *

Mr Chancellor,
Dear Permanent Secretaries of the five Académies,
Dear Cardinals,
Dear brothers in the episcopate and the priesthood,
Dear friends from the Académies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

For me it is a very great honour to be received this morning under the Cupola. I thank you for the overwhelming expressions of kindness with which you have welcomed me, and for your gift of the medal. I could not come to Paris without greeting you personally. I am pleased to have this happy opportunity to emphasize my profound links with French culture, for which I have the greatest admiration. In my intellectual journey, contact with French culture has been particularly important. I therefore avail myself of this occasion to express my gratitude to it, both personally and as the successor of Peter. The plaque that we have just unveiled will preserve the memory of our meeting.

As Rabelais rightly asserted in his day, "Science without conscience brings only ruin to the soul!" (Pantagruel, 8). It was doubtless in order to contribute to avoiding the risk of such a dichotomy that, at the end of January of last year, and for the first time in three and a half centuries, two Académies of the Institut, two Pontifical Academies and the Institut Catholique in Paris organized a joint Colloquium on the changing identity of the individual. The Colloquium has illustrated the interest generated by broad interdisciplinary studies. This initiative could be taken further, in order to explore together the countless research possibilities in the human and experimental sciences. This wish is accompanied by my prayers to the Lord for you, for your loved ones and for all the members of the Académies, as well as all the staff of the Institut de France. May God bless you!

© Copyright 2008 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana

What vices can be tolerated for the sake of the common good?

In ST II II 96, 2:

I answer that, As stated above (90, A1,2), law is framed as a rule or measure of human acts. Now a measure should be homogeneous with that which it measures, as stated in Metaph. x, text. 3,4, since different things are measured by different measures. Whereforelaws imposed on men should also be in keeping with their condition, for, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21), law should be "possible both according to nature, and according to the customs of the country." Now possibility or faculty of action is due to an interior habit or disposition: since the same thing is not possible to one who has not a virtuous habit, as is possible to one who has. Thus the same is not possible to a child as to a full-grown man: for which reason the law for children is not the same as for adults, since many things are permitted to children, which in an adult are punished by law or at any rate are open to blame. In like manner many things are permissible to men not perfect in virtue, which would be intolerable in a virtuous man.

Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.

Could a case be made that abortion should be tolerated, because to prohibit it would lead to greater evils? (Moral evils, or just evils as in bad consequences?) And abortion is not of the same gravity as murder, in so far as it does not undermine society (peace and relations between citizens) as much as murder does?

Is there a difference between directly legislating "a right to abortion" and merely tolerating it? Is it correct to say that Roe v. Wade establishes this right through the right to privacy

If we take Aquinas as a guide, it would seem that the gravity of abortion is enough that it should be prohibited, and that it is something that can be avoided by the majority. As for any bad consequences that might arise from banning it, I do not see how they outweigh the injustice that is done through abortion.

Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John II have said that abortion is both a crime against the child and against society, and it undermines social life. I do wonder if the social impact is as great as murder--there is the subjective culpability of the women who have abortions to take into consideration, as well as their recognition (or lack of) of the humanity of the conceptum. Abortion does not seem to destroy peace in the same way as murder--though its acceptance can further the decline and eventual self-destruction of society. It does not seem to be an exaggeration to say that lust can have this much of an effect.

Hubert Van Zeller, The Gospel Priesthood
(doc)

available from Roman Catholic Books

Sandro Magister: Transplants and Brain Death. "L'Osservatore Romano" Has Broken the Taboo

Zenit: Interview With Mariologist Mark Miravalle, Part 2

The Mariology Gap

The Mariology Gap

Interview With Mariologist Mark Miravalle (Part 2)

By Irene Lagan

STEUBENVILLE, Ohio, SEPT. 4, 2008 (Zenit.org).- After the Second Vatican Council there was a gap in interest in Mariology, one that Mariologist Mark Miravalle has sought to fill with a comprehensive compilation of the Church's teaching on Mary.

Mark Miravalle, professor of theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville, is the editor of "Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, and Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons" (Queenship Publishing).

He will also be a speaker at the 22nd International Mariological Marian Congress, to begin Thursday in Lourdes.

The congresses, held every four years, are sponsored by the Pontifical International Marian Academy. This year's theme is "The Apparitions of the Most Holy Virgin Mary: Between History, Faith and Theology."

In part two of this interview with ZENIT, Miravalle comments on how the gap in Mariology came about, and how Pope John Paul II was key to filling it.

Part 1 of this interview appeared Wednesday.

Q: What is the purpose of the book?

Miravalle: The intention of this work is to compile a postconciliar, single volume on Mariology that would be helpful for priests, deacons, religious, seminarians, and consecrated persons (as well as for educated laity).

Before the Second Vatican Council, the U.S. Mariologist, Father Juniper Carol, produced a three-volume work on Mariology in which he essentially assigned a chapter to a respected theologian in the systematic study of the theology of Mary. Unfortunately there has not been a similar work done in English since the Council.

Over the years, many priests and religious have mentioned that they felt a certain "gap" in their previous formation with regard to the theology of Marian dogma and devotion, either during their seminary instruction or their religious formation. Our first intention with this work was therefore to serve clergy and religious as well as consecrated persons in filling that gap with a rich and a contemporary Mariology within the obvious limits of a single volume work.

I therefore contacted Mariologists from a diversity of countries, including Italy, Spain, France, Switzerland, and the United States, and as well from different universities and Mariological societies, and asked each to contribute one chapter concerning a dogmatic, doctrinal, liturgical or devotional truth about the Mother of the Lord, which would be in complete conformity with the directions of the Second Vatican Council, as well as conveying the Church's sublime tradition on the Mother of Jesus.

The work reflects what Pope Benedict would call a "hermeneutics of continuity" with the rich Mariology before the Council, coupled with the inspired Mariological insights of the Council and postconciliar magisterium, especially the extraordinary contributions of John Paul II. Hence, the work seeks to present the best of Classical Mariology, but also provide a contemporary theology of Mary as a result of the Second Vatican Council.

Q. How do you account for the lack of Mariological studies since the Council?

Miravalle: It is interesting that theologians like Cardinal Ratzinger have made reference to the years following the Council as a "decade without Mary." This is certainly not due to the Council's authentic Mariological teachings, but to various erroneous interpretations of the council that the council fathers as a whole sought to de-emphasize the role of Mary in the Church. The generous and genial Mariology of the "Totus Tuus" Pontiff, Servant of God John Paul II, was the greatest single corrective in returning Mariological trends back to the best of both classical Mariology and conciliar Mariology.

Q. What gave you the inspiration for this book?

Miravalle: Apart from the aforesaid need to fill in gaps of authentic Mariological study for some members of today's clergy, religious, and consecrated persons, was the papacy and person of John Paul II. Once again, I believe John Paul II single handedly directed a course of both Christo-typical (or Christ-centered) Mariology and ecclesio-typical (or Church-centered) Mariology at a time when it appeared theologians felt compelled to choose either one or the other.

John Paul's Mariology manifested the perfect harmony of appreciating how Our Lady uniquely participates as co-redemptrix in the redemption brought by Jesus Christ, and her subsequent role of maternal mediation and advocacy in service to humanity; and at the same time, how the Immaculate Mother of God is the perfect model for the people of God as co-redeemers and intercessors for each other and for all humanity. Hence, John Paul II's "both and" approach to understanding Mary's unique role with Jesus and being the perfect model in the life of the Church really points to the correct hermeneutic for understanding Mariology today.

Recently in August, Pope Benedict offered profound comments regarding the sufferings of John Paul II in his later life, sufferings which our present Holy Father said released a "redeeming force" of love through the "passion" of his Totus Tuus predecessor. That's precisely being a co-redeemer in Christ after the model of Mary Co-redemptrix.

The co-redemptive sufferings of Mary with Jesus become a perfect model of Christian co-redemption for every member of the Church.

Looking first at Mary's uniqueness in relation to Jesus will never take away from her relevance to the Church. As we see that we, as the People of God, did not give birth to Jesus; are not immaculately conceived; that we will not be immediately assumed into heaven at the end of our earthly life, and that we do not mediate grace for humanity as she does, should make clear to us the primacy of Mary as not simply the eldest daughter of the Church but as "Mother of the Church" and she holds perfections and subsequent roles beyond all others in the body of Christ.

At the same time, we are called to follow her example in the way we are called to suffer our daily crosses as members of the Church and unite them to the sufferings of Jesus and Mary for the redemption of others -- as did our co-redemptrix -- to be instruments of intercessory prayer for each other. As we battle on this earthly pilgrim journey for our own heavenly crowns, we can still revere her as the unique and unparalleled Queen of heaven and earth.

Q. Is there a particular emphasis in the book?

Miravalle: The challenge of the council fathers to theologians given in "Lumen Gentium" paragraph 54 was to continue the work regarding Mariological questions that still called for further study.

Foremost in this category would be how Mary shared in the saving mission of Jesus Christ, or the Mariological genus of what John Paul commonly termed, "maternal mediation." This is why there is a particular emphasis in these essays on Marian co-redemption and mediation.

Actually, several times already this year, Pope Benedict XVI has offered the same emphasis on Mary's role with Jesus in the historic redemption of humanity. For example, in his Feb. 11, 2008, letter on the World Day of the Sick -- so closely associated with Lourdes -- the Holy Father teaches Mary's unique sharing with Jesus in the redemptive passion at Calvary, and as well makes reference to Our Lady's sharing in the sufferings of her earthly children in the midst of their trials and crosses of today.

In his prayer composed for the people of China, the Pope addresses our Lady of Sheshan by recalling Mary's saving "Yes" at the annunciation in connection to her unique suffering of Calvary. The words of the prayer make explicit the connection between Mary's fiat and her cooperation in the work of redemption, ultimately allowing the sword of pain to pierce her own soul at Calvary.

So it appears that Pope Benedict is likewise contributing to "complete" the study and recognition of Our Lady's co-redemption and mediation for humanity.

Q: Does this volume seek to support the Church's efforts for a new evangelization?

Miravalle: As I mentioned previously, the book is intended to be a service to clergy, religious, and consecrated lay persons and all those who wish to gain a deeper understanding of what John Paul II used to call "the whole truth about Mary." But it's also a work for lay evangelists who find that preaching the truth about Mary is the best preparation for a full acceptance of Christ in the fullness of his Church.

The first great evangelization started with a "yes" from the Virgin of Nazareth. The second great evangelization at Guadalupe, which lead to the largest Catholic continent in the world, began by sending the Mother to prepare the way for the Son.

For the present third great evangelization, we should follow the same format as God the Father used for the first two: Prepare the way through the Virgin Mother of God.

The whole truth about Mary is the best means to teach the whole truth about Jesus and the truth about his saving incarnation, redemption and his Church. Teaching about Mary leads to belief in the real Jesus, both God and man. The uncompromised teaching of the full truth about Mary will always safeguard the full truth about Jesus, and hence serve to be the most efficacious and effective guiding star and mediating force for the present new evangelization.

--- --- ---

On the Net:

Miravalle's "Mariology": www.queenship.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=6568

Office for Social Justice, St. Paul and Minneapolis

Zenit: Interview With Mariologist Mark Miravalle, Part 1

Why Mary Appears

Why Mary Appears

Interview With Mariologist Mark Miravalle (Part 1)

By Irene Lagan

STEUBENVILLE, Ohio, SEPT. 3, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Private Marian apparitions serve to remind mankind that God exists, and to provide an opportunity to conduct a "global examination of conscience," according to Mariologist Mark Miravalle.

The professor of theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville will be a speaker at the 22nd International Mariological Marian Congress, to begin Thursday in Lourdes.

The congresses, held every four years, are sponsored by the Pontifical International Marian Academy. This year's theme is "The Apparitions of the Most Holy Virgin Mary: Between History, Faith and Theology."

Benedict XVI named Cardinal Paul Poupard, retired president of the Pontifical Councils for Culture and Interreligious Dialogue, as his special envoy to the Marian conference. The Pope will visit the shrine later this month for the 150th anniversary of the Marian apparitions.

Miravalle, author of "Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, and Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons" (Queenship Publishing), discusses in the first part of this interview with ZENIT the significance of the congress and the importance of Marian apparitions for our times.

Part 2 of this interview will appear Thursday.

Q. What is the significance of this congress, one week before the Pope's visit to Lourdes, and what is the significance of Benedict XVI's Lourdes pilgrimage?

Miravalle: The Holy Father does not hesitate to celebrate authentic Marian private revelation nor does the Church, as is evidenced by his Lourdes visit. Pope Benedict is quick to acknowledge one of the world's most renowned Marian fonts of conversion, grace and healing that has flowed to the five continents through the true apparitions of the Immaculate Conception at Lourdes.

Pope Benedict XVI, as did John Paul II before him, also acknowledges the organic connection between the Lourdes apparitions and the particular trials of the sick throughout the world, which is recognized every year on the Lourdes anniversary of Feb. 11, now designated as the World Day of the Sick.

This Holy Father is very much following the course of John Paul II in highlighting Our Lady's co-redemptive role with Jesus as the perfect model for the people of God on how we should patiently "offer up" our sufferings and illnesses in union with Christ for the mysterious release of grace for others, making us co-redeemers as well.

Hopefully, the anticipatory Mariological-Marian congress can help prepare for the Pope's visit by presenting and articulating the theology of the Church regarding Marian private revelation.

Q. What is the purpose of this congress?

Miravalle: I believe the purpose of the conference is to theologically and scientifically examine the domain of Marian private revelation, in its nature, its history, and its contemporary relevance.

As Rene Laurentin summarized, the Church essentially examines the three criteria of message, phenomena and spiritual fruits when discerning a reported revelation.

Laurentin also mentioned once that if Lourdes happened today it would probably not be accepted in light of the heightened scepticism and rationalism of our times. In this age of greater rationalism, materialism, consumerism and humanism, the possibility of the supernatural seems more and more diminished for the common person.

And yet, God continues to "interfere" in human history by sending the Mother of Jesus, particularly in times when a more rationalistic vision has made acts of Christian faith more difficult. The human family needs to be reminded, sometimes in a dynamic and supernatural way, that God exists, that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a universal call, that we all will be held responsible for our human choices, and that, over all, the world could benefit from a type of "global examination of conscience" on how well we are responding to the ubiquitous invitations from the "Hound of Heaven," as the poet [Francis] Thompson refers to God, for personal salvation and for world peace. But it remains up to us to respond.

The Church is appropriately both cautious and open to the domain of private revelation. She can never run the risk of losing credibility as guardian of public revelation by a too hasty confirmation of a reported private revelation, let alone something false. And yet, we can see the sublimely generous fruits of authentic Marian private revelation, which is but a heavenly spark to compel the world to living the saving message of the Gospel in the fullness of the Church, and as well to assist the Church's ongoing mission of evangelization.

Imagine the 16th century without Guadalupe, or the 19th and 20th centuries without Rue du Bac, Lourdes and Fatima. While always remaining obedient to the Church's definitive judgment on a given revelation, we should thank God for the tremendous graces and blessings brought to the world through the avenue of authentic Marian apparitions.

Q: Are there more reported and approved Marian apparitions in this age than in other ages?

Miravalle: There have been more apparitions approved in the contemporary era than in any other era in the Church's history. We must keep in mind that the nature and purpose of private revelation is never to replace public revelation contained in Scripture and Tradition, but rather to accentuate the more challenging aspects of the Gospel. For example, the call to be more generous in prayer, to fasting regularly, and to committed conversion, which alone leads to a spiritual peace of heart.

If true Marian apparitions are on the increase in our times, it means our age is in greater need of encouragement to live generously the prayer and sacramental life of the Church. We should be grateful, but we should also, as Blessed Pope John XXIII said in his Feb. 18, 1959, Lourdes address, "listen attentively to the salutary warnings of the Mother of God," which seek to "guide us in our conduct."

Q: What topic will you be discussing at the Lourdes congress?

Miravalle: My presentation will be on the theme of Mary's unique cooperation in the redemption as it appears in the 19th- and 20th-century approved Marian apparitions.

In the apparitions of the "Miraculous Medal" in 1830, Lourdes in 1858, Fatima in 1917, Amsterdam in 1945, and Akita, Japan, in the 1970s, the theme of Our Lady's co-redemption, as well as the Marian call for Christian co-redemption by the people of God is a pronounced, consistent theme.

The Mother of Jesus uniquely shared as "Co-redemptrix" with Jesus in accomplishing the world's redemption. But we are all called to offer prayer and penance to God in reparation for sin and for the conversion of sinners throughout this Marian message to the modern world.

Bernadette echoed Our Lady's call for "penance, penance, penance." Our Lady of Fatima asked the children visionaries to daily pray the rosary for conversion of sinners and world peace, to "make of everything you can a sacrifice," and Our Lady appeared as "Our Lady of Sorrows" during the Oct. 13, 1917, apparition of the solar miracle.

The statue of the Lady of All Nations at Akita, Japan, wept 101 times and the apparitions and phenomena were declared supernatural by Bishop [John] Ito of Niigata after consultation with Cardinal [Joseph] Ratzinger in 1984. The apparitions of the Lady of All Nations, approved by Bishop [Joseph] Punt of Amsterdam as authentic in 2002, furthered the call for Christian co-redemption as well as for the solemn definition of Mary as co-redemptrix, mediatrix and advocate.

It should be no surprise that the truth of Our Lady's unique role with Jesus in redemption as taught explicitly by the magisterium during the last two centuries is mirrored in the domain of ecclesiastically approved private revelation from the same historical time period.

Q. The theme of Mary as co-redemptrix is also the subject of discussion concerning a possible fifth Marian dogma. What would be the potential benefits of proclaiming this dogma at this time for the Church?

Miravalle: I believe a papal definition would have numerous positive effects for the Church. It would articulate this perennial doctrine of Our Lady's unique role, which is entirely dependent on Jesus Christ, divine and human redeemer of all, with the greatest possible scriptural and theological clarity. It's hard to think of a more a capable pontiff for such a definition than our own genial Pope-theologian, Pope Benedict, if he would so desire to make this proclamation.

I also believe that this dogma would serve the ecumenical mission of the Church by assuring other Christian traditions that the Catholic Church does distinguish between Jesus Christ as the divine and human Redeemer upon whom all redemption depends, and the unique participation of his immaculate human mother in the history of salvation.

The dogma would also focus the people of God upon their Christian duty to participate in the salvation of others. Would this not be the antidote to the isolation and loneliness of so many? Is this not answering the call to the new evangelism, and the call of Our Lady of Fatima to pray and do penance for the conversion of sinners? It would in fact be a clear answer on the part of the Church for all those who fear that suffering is meaningless. On the contrary, for the Christian, human suffering is always supernaturally and eternally redemptive.

--- --- ---

On the Net:

Miravalle's "Mariology": www.queenship.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=6568

A new blog: Philosophia Perennis

The origin of same-sex attraction

For some, not for all?

I am familiar with some of the stuff that has been published online and through Ignatius Press.
There are organizations like NARTH and Courage.

It's been a while since I've read the models presented in those books--I was thinking about the lack of affection from a father and the lack of security in one's self-image, coupled with the flexibility of human desire (in the will), and when it is subverted by emotional needs. Add to this a feedback loop (the use of pleasure)--self-abuse with pornography--would it not be possible to reinforce certain desires as a result? And if one is not clear on the distinction between love and affection and sex, could not one project a same-sex attraction back into memories of childhood? A desire for affection from others as a part of friendship is rather normal--it isn't the same as a desire for sex, though some think that the use of sex as a sign of affection justifies any sort of sex.
So one's own psychological need for affection, coupled with sexual appetite--could this not lead to same-sex attraction and temptations?

Because of the feedback loop, isn't it possible that anything can turn human beings on, with the right sort of stimulus-pleasure-reinforcement loop? What then of the promptings ab malo?

Is there a similar genesis in some women? New fact sheet.

I have read that babies who are not touched will become depressed and may even die. Human beings need to be touched as a part of their normal psychological development--and it seems to me that the sense of touch really is the most basic in communicating affection and perceiving it. The senses are tied to the development of psychic life and emotional well-being, and we should not be surprised that as animals, things can go haywire during emotional development, subverting reason, as it were, later in life.

In many cultures where the ideal for males is not to express themselves through their body may still be able to compensate through fathers who communicate affection through their words. But it is only one step away from the father who does not communicate his affection at all.


Dr. Joseph Nicolosi on Catholic Answers, August 25, 2008--mp3, Real.
I caught the last 10 minutes on Monday; Dr. Nicolosi talked about displaced affection.

B16: On the Pope's Mission

On the Pope's Mission

"To Make Present Among Men the Peace of God"

CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy, AUG. 24, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the address Benedict XVI delivered today before reciting the midday Angelus with several thousand people gathered in the courtyard of the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo.

* * *

Dear Brothers and Sisters!

This Sunday's liturgy addresses the twofold question that Jesus one day posed to his disciples, to us Christians, and to every man and woman. First he asks them: "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" They told him that for some he was John the Baptist come back to life, for others, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. Then the Lord directly asked the disciples: "Who do you say that I am?" Peter speaks decisively and with enthusiasm on behalf of all: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." A solemn proclamation of faith that the Church has continued to repeat ever since.

We too today desire to proclaim with deep conviction: Yes, Jesus, you are the Christ, the Son of the living God! We do this knowing that Christ is the true "treasure" for which it is worth sacrificing everything; he is the friend who never abandons us, because he knows the most intimate longings of our heart. Jesus is the "Son of the living God," the promised Messiah, who has come to earth to offer salvation and to satisfy the thirst for life and love that inhabits every human being. How much humanity would gain by welcoming this proclamation that brings joy and peace with it!

"You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." In response to this inspired profession of faith from Peter, Jesus says: "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

This is the first time that Jesus speaks of the Church, whose mission is the actuation of the great design of God to gather the whole of humanity into one family in Christ. The mission of Peter, and of his successors, is precisely to serve this unity of the one Church of God made up of pagans and Jews; his indispensable ministry is to make sure that the Church never identifies herself with any particular nation or culture, but that she be the Church of all peoples, to make present among men -- who are marked by countless divisions and contrasts -- the peace of God, the unity of those who have become brothers and sisters in Christ: This is the unique mission of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter.

Before the enormous responsibility of this task, I feel more and more the obligation and importance of the service to the Church and the world that has been entrusted to me. Because of this I ask you dear brothers and sisters to support me with your prayer, so that, faithful to Christ, together we can announce and bear witness to his presence in our time. May Mary, whom we confidently invoke as Mother of the Church and Star of Evangelization, obtain this grace for us.

[Following the Angelus, the Pope said the following:]

The growing tensions around the world in recent weeks is cause for lively concern. We must note, with bitterness, the threat of a progressive deterioration in the climate of confidence and cooperation that should characterize relations between nations. In the present circumstances, how can we not measure the difficulty with which humanity strives to form that common awareness of being the "family of nations" that John Paul II indicated as the ideal to the general assembly of the United Nations? We must deepen the awareness of being united by a common destiny, that, in the final analysis, is a transcendent destiny (Cf. "Message for the World Day of Peace," Jan. 1, 2006, No. 6), to avert the return to nationalistic conflicts that in other historical periods have had such tragic consequences.

The recent events have weakened the confidence in many that such experiences had been consigned to the past. But we must not give in to pessimism! We must instead actively commit ourselves to reject the temptation to confront new situations with old systems. Violence must be repudiated! The moral force of law, equitable and transparent negotiations to settle controversies, beginning with those linked to the territorial integrity and self-determination of peoples, fidelity to the word given, pursuit of the common good: These are some of the principal routes to take, with tenacity and creativity, to build fruitful and sincere relations and to guarantee to present and future generations times of concord and moral and civil progress!

Let us transform these thoughts and these desires into prayer, so that all the members of the international community and those, in particular, who have been given great responsibility, will work with generosity to re-establish the superior motivations of justice and peace. Mary, Queen of peace, intercede for us!

[Translation by Joseph G. Trabbic]

[Then the Holy Father greeted the people in several languages. In English, he said:]

I am happy to greet all the English-speaking pilgrims and visitors present for this Angelus prayer. Today's Liturgy reminds us that as Christians we profess with Simon Peter that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. As members of the Church may we always find the courage to live faithfully and bear witness in word and deed to Christ our Lord and Saviour. I wish you all a pleasant stay in Castel Gandolfo and Rome, and a blessed Sunday!

© Copyright 2008 -- Libreria Editrice Vaticana

Michael Liccione on the nature/grace question: Backward Christian soldiers

Pertinacious Papist has an interesting excerpt from a book written by Joseph Ratzinger in the mid-60s: Revisiting Pope Benedict on Ecumenism & Ecclesiology

Umberto Eco's homepage
Umberto Eco: Porta Ludovica - Author Homepage

Google Books: A Theory of Semiotics, Art and Beauty in the Middle Ages, more

AFP: Japanese create stem cells from wisdom teeth (via Drudge)

First skin, now wisdom teeth... what else will turn out to be a source of stem cells?

Scientists Use Skin To Create Stem Cells
Making Skin Cells Into Stem Cells Minus the Cancer | Wired Science
Human Skin Cells Reprogrammed Into Embryonic Stem Cells
Scientists Reach Stem Cell Milestone - TIME

From 2005: Stem Cell Breakthrough: No More Need to Destroy Embryos?

Avery Dulles, The Assurance of Things Hoped For

Google Books

Within the formal object some Scholastic theologians, seeking additional precision, distinguished the objectum formale quod (the formal object which is attained, and by reason of which the material object is attained) from the objectum formale quo (that by virtue of which the formal object is attained). They hold that the formal object “which” (quod) is attained in faith is God himself, the Creator and Lord, and that the formal object “by which” (quo) God’s authority becomes accessible is God’s action in revealing. Thus the formal object, completely stated, is the “authority of the revealing God.”

St. Thomas and others who emphasize the intellectual aspect of faith frequently characterize the formal object as the First Truth (prima veritas). Thomists frequently express the formal object “by which” (objectum formale quo) as “the authority of the First Truth in revealing” or “the truthfulness of God in speaking.” (188)

From the current issue of Humanitas: Phillip W. Gray, Political Theology and the Theology of Politics: Carl Schmitt and Medieval Political Thought

Michael Nielsen's project: Book: "The Future of Science"
Six Rules for Rewriting

Translations of Logica--Niggardly Phil's blog, Analytics Free for All

CDF, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation

Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation
Replies to Certain Questions of the Day

Cassiodorus

James J. O'Donnell's biography of Cassiodorus is available online. His Cassiodorus page.


Iirc, I've read reviews critical of his biography of St. Augustine, so I don't know if his biography of Cassiodorus is worth reading. But there do not seem to be many books about him.

James J. O'Donnell: Augustine of Hippo

UPenn site for Dr. O'Donnell. FM Interviews.

Other links:
CE
The Letters of Cassiodorus by Senator Cassiodorus - Project Gutenberg
Google Books: Cassiodorus: Explanation of the Psalms
Variae
Societas internationalis pro Vivario
Latin Library

Benedict XVI: ZENIT - On Boethius and Cassiodorus

David Gordon, Going off Rawls

Going off Rawls

He offers an ingenious substitute for utilitarianism. Instead of directly advancing a theory of his own, Rawls asks what we can do when faced with the fact that people do not agree on a common conception of the good. He answers that even if people do not agree on the good, they can accept a fair procedure for settling what the principles of justice should be. This is key to Rawls’s theory: whatever arises from a fair procedure is just.

But what is a fair procedure? Rawls again has an ingenious approach, his famous veil of ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake among themselves. One child cuts the cake, but he does not know who will get the shares. He is likely to divide the cake into equal shares, an arrangement that the children, no doubt grudgingly, will admit to be fair. By denying the child information that would bias the result, a fair outcome can be achieved.

Rawls’s veil of ignorance generalizes the point of this example. He asks that we imagine a situation, which he calls the original position, in which people do not know their own abilities, tastes, and conceptions of the good. Under this limit, individuals motivated by self-interest endeavor to arrive at principles of justice. People behind the veil of ignorance are self-interested but in crucial respects ignorant.

Rawls thinks that everyone, regardless of his plan of life or conception of the good, will want certain “primary goods.” These include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, income and wealth, and self-respect. Without these primary goods, no one can accomplish his goals, whatever they may be. Hence, individuals in the original position will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum amount of these primary goods. This is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings. If someone lacks these primary goods, they must be provided for him, if necessary at the expense of others.

Concretely, Rawls thinks that people will agree to two principles of justice. The first calls for the greatest liberty for each person, consistent with equal liberty for all. Surely, he suggests, even if you lack information about your actual goals, as the veil prescribes, you will want to be free to pursue whatever these goals turn out to be. Not only will people want liberty, Rawls thinks, they will give this principle priority over the other one, the principle of difference, which in part deals with distribution of economic goods. The two principles cannot be “traded off” against each other: economic equality, for example, cannot be achieved at the expense of liberty

A puzzle regarding Faith and authority

Aquinas on unbelief:

Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises it, according to Isaiah 53:1: "Who hath believed our report?" It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is in this sense that unbelief is a sin. (ST II II 10, 1)

and

Unbelief, in so far as it is a sin, arises from pride, through which man is unwilling to subject his intellect to the rules of faith, and to the sound interpretation of the Fathers. Hence Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45) that "presumptuous innovations arise from vainglory." (ST II II 10, 1 ad 3)

The puzzle that I would like to work on: What is the exact relationship between authority and Tradition and the supernatural virtue of Faith? If the content of the Faith is communicated through Sacred Tradition, can one reject the divinely-given authority of the Church and still have the true theological virtue of faith? And is it possible to accept that there is a divinely-instituted authority while misidentifying who holds that authority? In other words, is that error compatible with the virtue of faith? Can someone who truly believes in sola scriptura have the virtue of faith?

Aquinas on the hatred of God:

As shown above (I-II, 29, 1), hatred is a movement of the appetitive power, which power is not set in motion save by something apprehended. Now God can be apprehended by man in two ways; first, in Himself, as when He is seen in His Essence; secondly, in His effects, when, to wit, "the invisible things" of God . . . "are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Romans 1:20). Now God in His Essence is goodness itself, which no man can hate--for it is natural to good to be loved. Hence it is impossible for one who sees God in His Essence, to hate Him.

Moreover some of His effects are such that they can nowise be contrary to the human will, since "to be, to live, to understand," which are effects of God, are desirable and lovable to all. Wherefore again God cannot be an object of hatred if we consider Him as the Author of such like effects. Some of God's effects, however, are contrary to an inordinate will, such as the infliction of punishment, and the prohibition of sin by the Divine Law. Such like effects are repugnant to a will debased by sin, and as regards the consideration of them, God may be an object of hatred to some, in so far as they look upon Him as forbidding sin, and inflicting punishment. (ST II II 34, 1)

Now if someone knows that a commandment is divinely revealed, and refuses to follow it (and the matter is grave, etc.), that is a mortal sin. Perhaps it is possible to be in invincible ignorance even concerning some of the 10 commandments (broadly understood). However, if one knows that a precept is taught by the Church, and denies the validity of that precept by denying the authority of the one teaching it, is that a sin? Can a Catholic have 'legitimate' doubts about the authority of the Church and still have Faith? Would God move such a doubter through grace towards remedying his error?

Faith is not infused knowledge--it seems that God first move someone to believe in Him (this is easier if he has been baptized and received the infused virtue of Faith). And then, in order for him to receive what God has revealed to us, he must be moved to accept that there is an authority to impart this.

The Bible certainly teaches us certain truths--but is it enough? And does it claim to be the ultimate authority given to us here in this life? Someone who is ignorant of the Magisterium may be moved to accept various truths taught in the Bible through Faith. But certain misunderstandings or even errors may nonetheless remain, and cannot be purged until he is confronted with doubts or arguments against what he accepts on human faith.

Is the Bible so transparent that it can be understood apart from the Rule of Faith? It seems not...
The eunuch was looking for someone to explain the scriptures to him, recognizing (through grace?) that he needed a teacher. By what authority do bible teachers, scripture scholars or commenators teach the meaning of Sacred Scripture?How can their explanations be accepted on anything but human faith?

I was skimming through Cardinal Ratzinger's God's Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office. I should read through it when I have some time...