Here’s an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. (H/T Lex Communis)

Excerpt:

During the war, the pope was far from silent: In numerous speeches and encyclicals, he championed human rights for all people and called on the belligerent nations to respect the rights of all civilians and prisoners of war. Unlike many of the pope’s latter-day detractors, the Nazis understood him very well. After studying Pius XII’s 1942 Christmas message, the Reich Central Security Office concluded: “In a manner never known before the pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order … Here he is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward the Jews and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals.” (Pick up any book that criticizes Pius XII, and you won’t find any mention of this important report.)

In early 1940, the pope acted as an intermediary between a group of German generals who wanted to overthrow Hitler and the British government. Although the conspiracy never went forward, Pius XII kept in close contact with the German resistance and heard about two other plots against Hitler. In the fall of 1941, through diplomatic channels, the pope agreed with Franklin Delano Roosevelt that America’s Catholics could support the president’s plans to extend military aid to the Soviet Union after it was invaded by the Nazis. On behalf of the Vatican, John T. McNicholas, the archbishop of Cincinnati, Ohio, delivered a well-publicized address that explained that the extension of assistance to the Soviets could be morally justified because it helped the Russian people, who were the innocent victims of German aggression.

Throughout the war, the pope’s deputies frequently ordered the Vatican’s diplomatic representatives in many Nazi-occupied and Axis countries to intervene on behalf of endangered Jews. Up until Pius XII’s death in 1958, many Jewish organizations, newspapers and leaders lauded his efforts. To cite one of many examples, in his April 7, 1944, letter to the papal nuncio in Romania, Alexander Shafran, chief rabbi of Bucharest, wrote: “It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews … The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance.”

Lots more about the preceding Pope (Pius XI) at the main article.

Just for the record, I’m an evangelical Protestant, not a Roman Catholic.

Related Posts

• Was Nazi torturer Josef Mengele influenced by Christianity or Darwinism?
• Does the Bible condone slavery?
• Was Hitler a Christian? Is Nazism similar to Christianity?
• Another way that the secular left kills millions of people
• Should atheists or Christians be blamed for communism’s 100 million deaths?
• Who is more responsible for the mass murders of history? Christians or atheists?
• Contrasting the moral values of an authentic Christian with an authentic Darwinist
• The link between Darwinism, nihilism and public school shootings
• Atheism, Christianity and the problem of evil and suffering
• Can atheists be moral?

A very good defense of Pope Pius XII on the website of Israeli newspaper Haaretz yesterday. Emphases and notes mine.

Much-maligned pontiff

by Dimitri Cavalli

Some things never go away. The controversy over Pope Pius XII’s actions during World War II was recently reignited when Pope Benedict XVI signed a decree affirming that his predecessor displayed “heroic virtues” during his lifetime. When the pope visited the Great Synagogue of Rome on Sunday, Riccardo Pacifici, president of Rome’s Jewish community, told him: “The silence of Pius XII before the Shoah still hurts because something should have been done.”

This was not the first time the wartime pope, who is now a step closer to beatification, has been accused of keeping silent during the Holocaust, of doing little or nothing to help the Jews, and even of collaborating with the Nazis. To what extent, if any, does the evidence back up these allegations, which have been repeated since the early 1960s?

On April 4, 1933, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, the Vatican secretary of state, instructed the papal nuncio in Germany to see what he could do to oppose the Nazis’ anti-Semitic policies.

On behalf of Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Pacelli drafted an encyclical, entitled “Mit brennender Sorge” (“With Burning Anxiety”), that condemned Nazi doctrines and persecution of the Catholic Church. The encyclical was smuggled into Germany and read from Catholic pulpits on March 21, 1937.

Although many Vatican critics today dismiss the encyclical as a light slap on the wrist, the Germans saw it as a security threat. For example, on March 26, 1937, Hans Dieckhoff, an official in the German foreign ministry, wrote that the “encyclical contains attacks of the severest nature upon the German government, calls upon Catholic citizens to rebel against the authority of the state, and therefore signifies an attempt to endanger internal peace.”

Both Great Britain and France should have interpreted the document as a warning that they should not trust Adolf Hitler or try to appease him.

After the death of Pius XI, Cardinal Pacelli was elected pope, on March 2, 1939. The Nazis were displeased with the new pontiff, who took the name Pius XII. On March 4, Joseph Goebbels, the German propaganda minister, wrote in his diary: “Midday with the Fuehrer. He is considering whether we should abrogate the concordat with Rome in light of Pacelli’s election as pope.”

During the war, the pope was far from silent: In numerous speeches and encyclicals, he championed human rights for all people and called on the belligerent nations to respect the rights of all civilians and prisoners of war. Unlike many of the pope’s latter-day detractors, the Nazis understood him very well. After studying Pius XII’s 1942 Christmas message, the Reich Central Security Office concluded: “In a manner never known before the pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order … Here he is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward the Jews and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals.” (Pick up any book that criticizes Pius XII, and you won’t find any mention of this important report.)

In early 1940, the pope acted as an intermediary between a group of German generals who wanted to overthrow Hitler and the British government. Although the conspiracy never went forward, Pius XII kept in close contact with the German resistance and heard about two other plots against Hitler. In the fall of 1941, through diplomatic channels, the pope agreed with Franklin Delano Roosevelt that America’s Catholics could support the president’s plans to extend military aid to the Soviet Union after it was invaded by the Nazis. On behalf of the Vatican, John T. McNicholas, the archbishop of Cincinnati, Ohio, delivered a well-publicized address that explained that the extension of assistance to the Soviets could be morally justified because it helped the Russian people, who were the innocent victims of German aggression.

Throughout the war, the pope’s deputies frequently ordered the Vatican’s diplomatic representatives in many Nazi-occupied and Axis countries to intervene on behalf of endangered Jews. Up until Pius XII’s death in 1958, many Jewish organizations, newspapers and leaders lauded his efforts. To cite one of many examples, in his April 7, 1944, letter to the papal nuncio in Romania, Alexander Shafran, chief rabbi of Bucharest, wrote: “It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews … The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance.” [Ironic, since many later did forget...]

The campaign against Pope Pius XII is doomed to failure because his detractors cannot sustain their main charges against him – that he was silent, pro-Nazi, and did little or nothing to help the Jews – with evidence. Perhaps only in a backward world such as ours would the one man who did more than any other wartime leader to help Jews and other Nazi victims, receive the greatest condemnation. [It shows the power of populaist theory. As long as it sound good, people will believe it, despite the evidence against it.]

Dimitri Cavalli is an editor and writer in New York City. He is working on books on both Pope Pius XII and Joe McCarthy, the late manager of the New York Yankees.

The so-called American conservative movement is not conservative in the sense that many of its proponents would suggest. In reality, American conservatism, in many ways seeks to preserve and reassert classical liberalism. In fact, the entirety of the American political spectrum is liberal in different ways and varying degrees—but it is unmistakably and manifestly liberal.

This should come as no surprise since many of the Founding Fathers were men of the Enlightenment and there is no more obvious case than that of Thomas Jefferson, the author of that quintessential Enlightenment masterpiece The Declaration of Independence. The philosophical paradigm by 1776 had already shifted—anthropology was evolving toward an increasingly false view of man and the natural law (because the philosophical concept of “nature” was changing) was something different than that articulated by classical philosophers, which had been incorporated into the Christian tradition.

The American legal tradition seeking to adhere to the letter of the social contract, i.e. The Constitution of the United States of America, seems to have individual liberty at issue in every question of law. This, to be sure, is not something to be regarded as a problem in and of itself, insofar as the operative definition of liberty is not philosophically false and the norms of justice, in the classical sense, are not contradicted.

To the learned mind, it is patently clear that the predominant philosophical paradigm, anthropological assumptions on human nature, concept of the nation-state, view of society, of freedom, of responsibility, and so forth found in the Western world is undoubtedly borne of Enlightenment thinking. The United States is most certainly no exception. In America, across the political spectrum, there is a dubious philosophical premise, that of an abstract ideal of autonomy, which, no matter how admirable or attractive it may seem, is radically incomplete. Indeed, man does possess a free will, but the form of freedom requires content.

Freedom is of no use to any rational creature that lacks concepts of which to value things, particularly when living in a metaphysically-solipsistic vacuum, arbitrarily willing “this” or “that,” with no conception of an objective order of things that he should freely act in accord with to his own fulfillment, to which he has an obligation to discover and follow, and to which he must conform all created realities, under his influence, in the temporal order to—including his own government.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ definition of law as “nothing other than a certain dictate of reason (rationis ordinatio) for the common good, made by him who has the care of the community and promulgated” is a view contrary to most modern thinking. In the Catholic intellectual tradition, law is based upon reason, which is in conformity with God; law is not arbitrary human edicts based merely on custom, will, politics, powers, pragmatics, or even negative liberty. The transition from natural law philosophy to legal positivist absolutism—which claims there is no inherent or necessary connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics, rejecting the subordination of human law to both the natural law and the Eternal Law (this is a serious issue in the Western legal tradition)—is resultant of the rise of liberalism. Certainly it is not that the philosophies borne of the Enlightenment do not have some truth to them, and perhaps in some fashion they acutely demonstrate the complexities of human law—particularly its abuse and other practical concerns as laws are fashioned and implemented in certain times and places in history. Yet the unmistakable problem of the philosophical assumptions of which liberalism arose from, in its historical context, presents a rejection, and in fact, a conscious break from the classical philosophical traditions adopted into and transformed by the Christian faith that endured largely unchallenged until the so-called Age of the Enlightenment (hence, the argument, the Western world is distinctly liberal, even its conservatives.)

The objective order of things, to which, we must conform ourselves is direly in need of rediscovery, especially in light of the current economic crisis being faced around the globe. Nearly a year ago, the question was raised, “…given the state of the American economy, it has become a question of Catholic political thought in the American political tradition…what is an authentic Catholic approach to economic life?” It seems that this question can hardly be answered without simultaneously answering a second question, which, of course would be the proper role and limits of government.

With the United States “galloping toward socialism” under Democratic governance according to political conservative observers, it supposedly seems more necessary than ever that “free market principles,” which to some minds is synonymous with laissez-faire practices, be adhered to for the sake of American economic “prosperity.” It is for this very reason that it seems essential that the question of Catholic teaching on economic life be revisited and explored further, with particular attention to underlying philosophical assumptions, particularly given the growing free market fundamentalism brewing, even in Catholic circles.

In the Catholic tradition the purpose of economic life is human flourishing not merely more economic growth. Simply put, the economy is at the service of man, not man at the service of the economy. The service of economic activity then is the common good, which the Church reiterates by emphasizing the “universal destination of goods.”

It goes without question that the presumption that the economy is a freestanding sphere of life with its own rules and that more is better is explicitly contrary to Catholic social teaching. Rapid economic growth, though good, mistakenly becomes equated with the social good. From a Catholic perspective, the economy serves a higher good; if the economy booms, but human dignity suffers, the result is unmistakably evil. Pope John XXIII makes precisely this very point in Mater et Magistra:

“If the organization and structure of economic life be such that the human dignity of workers is compromised, of their sense of responsibility is weakened, or their freedom of action is removed, then we judge such an economic order to be unjust, even though it produces a vast amount of goods, whose distribution conforms to the norms of justice and equity.”

The Holy Father, of course, is not implicitly endorsing some collectivist statist form of economic life such as an excessively centralized and state-managed socialist economy, which has also won papal criticism. There is such a thing as legitimate inequality, which springs forth from a diversity of functions called for by the organization of society. Every nation must have men to fill public office and others to carry out different professions, both necessary and useful or the common good, and these callings require different aptitudes and qualities. There is inequality of condition, in the position of intellectual advantages, fortune, and social position which arises, in certain circumstances, both from different gifts and temperaments.

There is also inequality that is the result of the sin of individuals, arising from the disorder of persons, of society, and the unjust distribution of wealth and resources in the world.  This sort of inequality is unacceptable. Pope John XXIII makes it manifestly clear in Mater et Magistra that “all forms of economic enterprise must be governed by the principles of social justice and charity.”

The ultimate aim of economic activity is, and must be, the common good. The common good is the end of the laws of the State. The problem today is that the common good is radically and deeply misunderstood, even by practicing Catholics. To properly understand the common good, the fundamental principles concerning human sociability ought to be borne in mind in order that the common good be distinguished from its counterfeits and false substitutes, such as what one would find in the language of the utilitarians:  the greatest good for the greatest number.

Since the Enlightenment the common good has been undermined by various schools of individualism whose principal difficulty—in coming to an authentic understanding of the common good—involve confusion regarding orders of means and ends and, in some case, the problem of universals. The quintessential Thomist of the twentieth century, Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain in his phenomenal work Man and the State puts it this way:

The aim of society is not the mere aggregate of the individual goods of each of the persons who constitute the nation-state. Such a formula would dissolve society as such for the benefit of its parts, and would lead to an “anarchy of atoms.” It would amount either to a frankly anarchic conception or to the old disguised anarchic conception of bourgeois materialism, according to which the entire duty of society consists in seeing that the freedom of each one be respected, thereby enabling the strong freely to oppress the weak.

There is a common work to be accomplished by the social whole as such, by that whole of which human persons are parts, and which is not “neutral,” which is itself engaged, held by a temporal calling. And thus the persons are subordinated to this common work…concerning what is deepest in the person, his eternal calling…to which society itself and its common work is subordinated.

The end of society is the common good, the good of the body politic. But if one fails to grasp the good of the body politic is a common good of human persons—as the social body itself is a whole made up of human persons—which entails by the natural law responsibilities and obligations on each person as well as natural rights rooted in the dignity of each person—this formula may, and has, lead to other errors of the collectivist or totalitarian type. The common good of society is neither a simple collection of private goods, nor a good belonging to a whole which draws the parts to itself, as if they were pure means to serve itself alone.

The common good, then, is the lasting realization of exterior conditions and it includes material things. But “good” has moral significance and implies such—it is that which perfects the human person as a rational and free creature in having provided satisfaction not only of his material and physical needs but also of his noble aspirations as a man—the satisfaction of his intellectual, artistic, cultural, and spiritual needs and thus provides peace, security, confidence, and happiness. Pope John XXIII declares, in perfect harmony with this, that “the economic prosperity of any people is to be assessed not so much from the sum total of goods and wealth possessed as from the distribution of goods according to the norms of justice, so that everyone in the community can develop and perfect himself.”

It goes without saying that the Catholic understanding of the common good and economic life is intricately tied to the question of the legitimate role of the government. Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum establishes the ultimate objective of civil government:

“The foremost duty of the rulers of the state should be to make foremost duty of the rulers of the state should be to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, shall be such as of themselves to realize public well-being and private property… considered in its nature…the civil power is set up to attend to the common good which is the supreme end that gives human society its origin.”

Venerable Pope Pius XII makes a comparable claim in Summi Pontificatus:

“It is the noble prerogative and function of the State to influence, aid and direct the private and individual activities of national life that they converge harmoniously towards the common good. That good can neither be defined according to arbitrary ideas nor can it accept for its standard primarily the material prosperity of society, but rather it should be defined according to the harmonious development and the natural perfection of man.” 

The Holy Fathers, in harmony with the developing body of Catholic social thought, establish that it is the government’s foremost responsibility, adhering to certain principles and within the legitimate constitutional framework of a nation’s system of governance, to be a steward of the common good and to regulate the exercise of ownership to facilitate the universal destination of goods. The reason is rather straightforward: if man is to attain his destiny through upright living in the temporal order, it is most important to realize that this temporal order (political, economic, social) does not itself constitute by its organization, institutions, structures, and spirit, an obstacle to the supreme destiny of the human person and of mankind. For this reason, the service of the common good is primarily the proper mission of the State. Pope Pius XII virtually verbatim makes this precise argument, stating “all economic and political activity of the state is ordered towards the lasting realization of the common good.”

This perspective, which takes a positive disposition, strikes a chord with the Aristotelian idea that the fundamental role of the State is to create, within the constraints of legitimate political and ethical principles, a society of virtuous citizens. All activities of the State are pre-ordained, as it were, toward this end. It is self-evident that this perspective contradicts the Enlightenment disposition toward negative role of the government, which reduces the role of the State to police and defense functions and to providing categorically necessary social goods, and guaranteeing maximum autonomous freedom via minimal regulation.  The limitations of government is certainly recognized in Catholic social teaching, but the Church’s understanding of the proper role of government in society arises from her discerning its place in the grander scheme of things—in the economy of salvation—in which everything has its place and function.

Given such an understanding of the role of government and the common good, in comparison to its actual contemporary reality, Pope Pius XII’s reflection is spot on:

“The main reason for the decadence of society is that today the common good is ignored, disowned, ridiculed, and betrayed. There is a race for selfish pleasure and a coalition of private and corporate interests against the common good.”

Too often the unquestionably consistent and unanimous papal criticism of laissez-faire liberal capitalism and its almost inherent opposition to the common good is ignored by modern society, Catholics included. Pope Leo XII in Rerum Novarum criticized liberal capitalism noting the “enormous fortunes of some few individuals, and the utter poverty of the masses.” This statement remains exactly right, particularly given the varying, but similar figures, stating that an incredibly small minority of people own beyond-staggering percentages of global wealth. Forty years after Rerum Novarum, Pope Pius XI declared that “a veritable economic dictatorship” was forming. The Holy Father argued that these disorders, by and large, resulted from the divorce of economic science from natural law morality and social ethics:

“The ultimate consequences of the individualist spirit in economic life are those which you yourselves…see and deplore: Free competition has destroyed itself; economic dictatorship has supplanted the free market; unbridled ambition for power has likewise succeeded greed for gain; all economic life has become tragically hard, inexorable, and cruel. To these are to be added the grave evils that have resulted from an intermingling and shameful confusion of the functions and duties of public authority with those of the economic sphere—such as, one of the worst, the virtual degradation of the majesty of the State, which although it ought to sit on high like a queen and supreme arbitress, free from all partiality and intent upon the one common good and justice, is a slave, surrendered and delivered to the passions and greed of men. And as to international relations, two different streams have issued from the one fountain-head: On the one hand, economic nationalism or even economic imperialism; on the other, a no less deadly and accursed internationalism of finance or international imperialism whose country is where profit is.”

Pope Pius XII, following his predecessors, could not be more stridently critical.

“It too often happens that it is no longer human needs which, according to their natural and objective importance, order the economic life and use of capital, but, on the contrary, it is capital and its ambitions for gain which determine which needs will be satisfied and to what extent. In such circumstances it is not human work in the service of the common good which attracts and uses capital but, on the contrary, capital which disposes as its pleasures of both man and his work, like bowls in the hand of the player.”

“The narrow calculations of egoists, tending to corner economic resources and the materials of common use so that nations less favored by nature remains outside.”

“Wherever capitalism is based on false ideas and assumes a limitless right over its own property, without admitting any subordination to the common good, the Church has always condemned it as contrary to the natural law.”

Pope John XXIII, not surprisingly, continues the trend of his predecessors.  

“One may not take as the ultimate criteria in economic life the interests of individuals or organized groups, nor unregulated competition, nor excessive power on the part of the wealthy, nor the vain honor of the nation or its desire for domination, nor anything of this sort. Rather, it is necessary that economic undertakings be governed by justice and charity as the principal laws of social life.”

“Our heart is filled with profound sadness when we observe…a wretched spectacle…whole continents, receive too small a return from their labor…they and their families must live in conditions completely out of accord with human dignity.

Pope Paul VI in Populorum Progressio strongly condemns the negative consequences of liberal capitalism, citing the common good as the foundation of all economic activity.

“However certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having neither limits nor concomitant social obligations. This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the “international imperialism of money. Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man.”

“We must repeat that the superfluous goods of wealthier nations ought to be placed at the disposal of poorer nations. The rule, by virtue of which in times past those nearest us were to be helped in time of need, applies today to all the needy throughout the world. And the prospering peoples will be the first to benefit from this. Continuing avarice on their part will arouse the judgment of God and the wrath of the poor, with consequences no one can foresee. If prosperous nations continue to be jealous of their own advantage alone, they will jeopardize their highest values, sacrificing the pursuit of excellence to the acquisition of possessions. We might well apply to them the parable of the rich man. His fields yielded an abundant harvest and he did not know where to store it: “But God said to him, ‘Fool, this very night your soul will be demanded from you…’”

“Extreme disparity between nations in economic, social and educational levels provokes jealousy and discord, often putting peace in jeopardy…For peace is not simply the absence of warfare, based on a precarious balance of power; it is fashioned by efforts directed day after day toward the establishment of the ordered universe willed by God, with a more perfect form of justice among men.”

“‘He who has the goods of this world and sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?’ Everyone knows that the Fathers of the Church laid down the duty of the rich toward the poor in no uncertain terms. As St. Ambrose put it: ‘You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his.’ You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich. These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional.”

“No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, ‘as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.’ When ‘private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,’ it is for the public authorities ‘to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.’”

Pope John Paul II set forth moral parameters, in which, many capitalist ideals could be implemented in a social economy and he even suggests that it probably should not be coined as “capitalism.” The Holy Father, however, most certainly did not contradict his predecessors in opposing laissez-faire liberal capitalism.

 “…if by ‘capitalism’ is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.”

“More and more, in many countries of America, a system known as neoliberalism prevails; based on a purely economic conception of man, this system considers profit and the law of the market as its only parameters, to the detriment of the dignity of and the respect due to individuals and peoples. At times this system has become the ideological justification for certain attitudes and behavior in the social and political spheres leading to the neglect of the weaker members of society. Indeed, the poor are becoming ever more numerous, victims of specific policies and structures which are often unjust.”

“It is necessary to state once more the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine: the goods of this world are originally meant for all. The right to private property is valid and necessary, but it does not nullify the value of this principle. Private property, in fact, is under a ‘social mortgage,’ which means that it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods .” 

Perhaps no recent pope has been more critical of liberal capitalism and its implications for socio-economic justice than Pope Benedict XVI, which should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Joseph Ratzinger or his family’s history on the subject (cf. Georg Ratzinger).

“Today’s international economic scene, marked by grave deviations and failures, requires a profoundly new way of understanding business enterprise…The conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from ‘influences’ of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way…in the long term, these convictions have led to economic, social and political systems that trample upon personal and social freedom, and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they promise.”

“The economic sphere is neither ethically neutral, nor inherently inhuman and opposed to society…it is part and parcel of human activity and precisely because it is human, it must be structured and governed in an ethical manner.”

“True development does not consist primarily in ‘doing.’ The key to development is a mind capable of thinking in technological terms and grasping the fully human meaning of human activities… Even when we work through satellites or through remote electronic impulses, our actions always remain human, an expression of our responsible freedom. Technology is highly attractive because it draws us out of our physical limitations and broadens our horizon. But human freedom is authentic only when it responds to the fascination of technology with decisions that are the fruit of moral responsibility.”

Papal criticism of liberal capitalism, no matter how often dismissed or thoroughly ignored, remains markedly clear: it, in its totality, that is, laissez-faire capitalism is not reconcilable with the social doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Source:  Splendor of the Church

In an email to Federico Pascual Jr.’s column “Postscript,” printed in the December 23, 2008 edition of the newspaper Philippine Star, Fr. Eric M. O. Genilo, S.J. Assistant Professor of Moral Theology at the Loyola School of Theology, Ateneo de Manila University wrote: “The word ‘infallibility’ has been often abused by both lay people and some clerics to bolster their moral arguments, as most recently seen in the debates on the Reproductive Health Bill. Your presentation is correct in saying that infallibility is only asserted by the Pope ex cathedra and is rarely used.

“Generally, a papal document has to state explicitly that the pope declares the teaching infallible. Thus Humanae Vitae is not an infallible document – it is still authoritative at the highest level but is open to improvement.

“…There is in the Vatican II documents another way of asserting infallibility, not by ex cathedra statement, but by the ordinary teaching authority of the Church which has a number of conditions that require practically universal agreement on a matter of faith or morals.

“So far no teaching has been universally accepted and formally recognized as infallible using this alternative method. Not even Humanae Vitae…” [1]

Contrary to the above assertions, I maintain that Fr. Genilo, S.J.’s understanding of papal infallibility is seriously wrong: it restricts papal infallibility to solemn ex cathedra definitions (he writes: “infallibility is only asserted by the Pope ex cathedra and is rarely used”), not taking into account that Pope Paul VI’s condemnation of contraception in the Encyclical Humanae Vitae is, in fact, an infallible exercise of the ordinary papal magisterium.

Aside from contraception, the Church’s condemnations of the intrinsic evils, for example, of direct abortion, homosexual acts, adultery, fornication, masturbation, and euthanasia, have also been taught infallibly [2] by the universal ordinary magisterium. The core of Catholic moral teaching as summarized in the Ten Commandments, precisely as these precepts have been traditionally understood by the Church (e.g., the Roman Catechism), has, in fact, been taught infallibly by the universal ordinary magisterium. Yet Fr. Genilo, S.J., following fellow dissenter Francis Sullivan, S.J., asserts that no specific moral norms have been proposed infallibly by the universal ordinary magisterium. The reason for this assertion is because, according to Sullivan and many other proportionalists, the Church simply cannot teach infallibly by its ordinary magisterium any specific moral norm, an erroneous claim made based on 1. the misunderstanding of Canon 749, paragraph 3 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law (Canon 1312, paragraph 3 of the 1917 Code) which would limit infallibility to solemn ex cathedra definitions ; 2. the denial of moral absolutes in the area of specific moral norms because of their assertion that no object chosen can be intrinsically evil in view of their notion of an act as a “whole” or “totality,” where an object freely chosen such as contraception, for example, traditionally condemned as intrinsically evil, becomes for them a mere physical, ontic or premoral, and not moral, evil, and justified when done by couples for proportionate reasons [3] ; 3. the denial of moral absolutes because of the ongoing and open-ended character of human experience [4]; and 4. because of the adoption of Rahner’s dualistic transcendental anthropology which holds that “concrete” human nature, different from “transcendental” human nature, is subject to radical change. [5]

Fr. Genilo, S.J. asserts in his writings and Ateneo handouts that the Church’s doctrine on contraception is not infallible, and therefore, one can responsibly dissent from it. He maintains that the Church’s teaching on contraception is wrong and that married couples can practice contraception for proportionate reasons. In his Ateneo course handout notes to his students, Fr. Genilo, S.J. counsels married couples to use non abortive contraceptives. [6]

Another Ateneo Jesuit, Fr. Ruben Tanseco, who has openly defied many infallibly taught Church teachings for decades, likewise denies that the universal ordinary magisterium has taught the doctrine on contraception infallibly, and forcefully advocates and counsels the use not only of condoms but even oral contraceptives for married couples [7] . Oral contraceptives have been scientifically shown to have an abortifacient mechanism [8] ; nevertheless, Fr. Tanseco, S.J. erroneously denies that birth control pills cause early abortions.

In his 1992 book The Church and Birth Control, Auxiliary Bishop of Manila (later bishop of Novaliches) Teodoro C. Bacani, commenting on Pope Paul VI’s Encyclical Humanae Vitae, writes: “Now you ask: is the teaching of the pope against contraception an infallible statement? And the answer is: it is not! In other words, is there a possibility that the pope can be mistaken? The honest answer is, ‘Yes, there is a possibility that the pope is mistaken.” [9] 16 years later, in his book, Catholics and HB 5043 (Reproductive Health Bill, 2008), Bishop Emeritus of Novaliches Bacani still maintains his dissent on the question of contraception, writing: “We accept the Church’s teaching against direct contraception and direct sterilization, as official Catholic teaching, or authoritative teaching without claiming that it is infallible and irreversible.” [10]

Against Fr. Genilo, S.J., Fr. Tanseco, S.J. and Bishop Bacani, I hold that the specific norm condemning contraception as taught by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae is infallible by the ordinary papal magisterium, and that this doctrine has been taught infallibly by the universal ordinary magisterium, meeting the conditions of Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, no. 25 for its infallible exercise.

Fr. Genilo, S.J., Fr. Tanseco, S.J. and Bishop Bacani are not alone in their dissent from Church teaching on contraception. Dissenters who deny that the Church’s doctrine on contraception has been taught infallibly by the universal ordinary magisterium are legion. These dissenters include Charles E. Curran, Louis Janssens, Karl Rahner, S.J. Bernard Häring, Franz Böckle, Franz Scholz, Bruno Schüller, Timothy E. O’Connell, Daniel Maguire, Peter Chirico, Richard Gula, Richard McCormick, S.J., Francis Sullivan, S.J., Garth Hallett, S.J. and Vincent Genovesi, S.J. These dissenters maintain that the Magisterium’s teaching on contraception is not infallible, is wrong, and must be reversed. Dissenting ex-priest Gregory Baum writes that not only is the teaching of the Church on contraception not infallible but that the Church is incapable of teaching infallibly the natural moral law. [11] Not only did the influential Jesuit Karl Rahner dissent from Humanae Vitae, but his Kantian-Heideggerian inspired immanentist transcendental theology holds that the possible range of infallible moral teaching extends to “hardly any particular or individual norms of Christian morality,” [12] such as is, for example, the norm on contraception. This is where he stands, for he, like the misanthropic Heraclitus of old, advocates a human nature in radical flux, in constant evolution, the enduring universal nature of man yielding little in the way of moral maxims. [13] Sulpician proportionalist Peter Chirico rejects infallibility for all the Church’s specific moral teaching. [14] In his book Birth Control and Natural Law, Canon Drinkwater denies that the Catholic doctrine on contraception has been taught infallibly by the universal and ordinary magisterium, maintaining the reformability of the teaching. [15] In his widely read book Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church, Jesuit Francis Sullivan maintains that the Church cannot teach infallibly on the specific norms of the natural moral law. [16] Another Jesuit, Garth Hallett, denies that infallibility extends to prescriptive moral teachings (those that attempt to command or forbid behaviour). [17] For Richard McCormick, S.J., the Catholic Church has never taught infallibly in the area of concrete moral norms in the exercise of its ordinary universal magisterium. [18] For Daniel Maguire [19], Richard Gula [20], Peter Chirico [21], and Charles E. Curran [22], no specific moral norms taught by the magisterium (norms forbidding the intentional killing of innocent human life [as in direct abortion], adultery, fornication, contraception, direct sterilization, etc.) have been infallibly proposed. In his book Contemporary Problems in Moral Theology, Curran states: “There has never been an infallible pronouncement or teaching on a specific moral matter; the very nature of specific moral actions makes it impossible, in my judgment, to have any infallible pronouncements in this area.” [23]
On the other hand, able defenders of the magisterium [24] have not been lacking. Eminent Catholic theologians have written books or articles maintaining that the Catholic Church’s doctrine on contraception has been taught infallibly by the universal ordinary magisterium. These theologians include John C. Ford, S.J. [25], Germain Grisez [26], Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, O.P. [27], former Papal Theologian of the Pontifical Household, John Finnis [28], Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. [29], Marcelino Zalba, S.J. [30], current Vicar General of Opus Dei Msgr. Fernando Ocariz [31], Catholic University of America moral theologian William E. May [32], and Karol Woytyla (later Pope John Paul II), who writes in his commentary on Humanae Vitae published a year after the Encyclical: “The teaching of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae regarding the essential principles of an ethical regulation of births is marked by all the characteristics of the infallible ordinary teaching of the Church. This means that one is dealing with a teaching based upon the authority of God and imparted in His name.” [33]

In Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, no. 25, we find four conditions for the infallible exercise of the universal ordinary magisterium, namely:
1. That the bishops be in communion with one another and with the Pope;
2. That they teach authoritatively on a matter of faith and morals;
3. That they agree in one judgment; and
4. That they propose this as something to be held definitively.

The first condition, that the bishops be in communion with one another and with the Pope, does not mean that they must formally act as a body in a strictly collegial manner. Rather, it is necessary and sufficient that these bishops remain bishops within the Catholic Church.

The second condition, that the bishops teach authoritatively on a matter of faith and morals, requires that the bishops be acting in their official capacity as teachers, and not merely expressing their opinion as private individuals or as theologians. As regards the subject matter of their teaching – faith or morals – we say that “morals” here, in the sense intended by Vatican II, is not limited in such a way as to exclude specific moral norms, such as the norm condemning contraception.

The third condition, that the bishops agree in one judgment, “identifies universality,” writes Grisez, “as a requirement for an infallible exercise of the ordinary magisterium. What is necessary, however, is the moral unity of the body of bishops in union with the Pope, not an absolute mathematical unanimity such as would be destroyed by even one dissenting voice.

“Furthermore, if this condition has been met in the past, it would not be nullified by a future lack of consensus among bishops. The consensus of future bishops is not necessary for the ordinary magisterium to have taught something infallibly or to do so now. Otherwise, one would be in the absurd position of saying that it is impossible for there to be an infallible exercise of the magisterium until literally the end of time; since at any given moment, one cannot tell what some bishops in the future might say.” [34]

The fourth condition, that the bishops propose a judgment to be held definitively “means at least this,” explains Grisez: “That the teaching is not proposed as something optional, for either the bishops or the faithful, but as something which the bishops have an obligation to hand on and which Catholics have an obligation to accept.” [35]

Does the Catholic Church’s doctrine on contraception meet the conditions identified by Vatican II for an infallible exercise of the universal and ordinary magisterium? Yes, it does. In his 1965 historical study, Contraception, John T. Noonan, then a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame, summed up the nearly two thousand year teaching of the Church on the immorality of contraception: “The propositions constituting a condemnation of contraception are, it will be seen, recurrent. Since the first clear mention of contraception by a Christian theologian, when a harsh third century moralist accused a pope of encouraging it, the articulated argument has been the same. In the world of the late Empire known to St. Jerome and St. Augustine, in the Ostrogothic Arles of Bishop Caesarius and the Suevian Braga of Bishop Martin, in the Paris of Albert and St. Thomas, in the Renaissance Rome of Sixtus V and the Renaissance Milan of St. Charles Borromeo, in the Naples of St. Alphonsus Liguori and the Liège of Charles Billuart, in the Philadelphia of Bishop Kenrick, and in the Bombay of Cardinal Gracias, the teachers of the Church have taught without hesitation or variation that certain acts preventing procreation are gravely sinful. No Catholic theologian has ever taught, ‘Contraception is a good act.’ The teaching on contraception is clear and apparently fixed forever.” [36]

In their essay, Contraception and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, John C. Ford, S.J. and Germain Grisez came to the conclusion that the Church’s constant condemnation of contraception throughout her history merits the status of infallibility: “At least until 1962, Catholic bishops in communion with one another and with the Pope agreed in and authoritatively proposed one judgment to be held definitively on the morality of contraception: Acts of this kind, are objectively, intrinsically, and gravely evil. Since this teaching has been proposed infallibly, the controversy since 1963 takes nothing away from its objectively certain truth. It is not the received Catholic teaching on contraception which needs to be rethought. It is the assumption that this teaching could be abandoned as false which needs to be rethought.” [37]

Russell Shaw, former Secretary for Public Affairs for the United States National Conference of Catholic Bishops, explains that the Church’s teaching on contraception was not just universally taught by the magisterium, but also proposed to Catholics as something to be held definitively. He gives a number of considerations in support of this position, as well as incorporating statements on contraception by Popes Pius XI, Pius XII, and Paul VI:

“The first consideration is a negative one. No evidence has come to light that anyone proposed this teaching as a private opinion, a probable judgment, or a lofty ideal which there was no blame in failing to achieve. It was proposed instead as an obligatory moral teaching.

“Second, the teaching is that contraceptive acts are the matter of mortal sin. Third, when in modern times the teaching was challenged from outside the Church, it was repeated with insistence and emphasis. Fourth, the teaching was often proposed as a divinely revealed moral norm…The point is significant for the light it sheds on the intention of those proposing the teaching. If, in doing so, they contended that the teaching was divinely revealed, this can only mean that they proposed it as something to be held definitively; they would hardly have done the contrary – i.e., at the same time maintained that the teaching was divinely revealed yet proposed it as something which need not be held definitively.

“Having reached this point, it is useful briefly to examine the major statements on contraception by Pius XI, Pius XII, and Paul VI and to do so in light of what has been said up to now.

“In condemning contraception as a sin against nature, Pius XI appeals to Scripture, to Augustine’s exegesis of Genesis 38:9-10, and to the constancy of the Church’s tradition. He declares himself to be restating, on behalf of the Catholic Church, something willed by God and pertaining to salvation. [38] Pius XII, officially summarizing the teaching of his predecessor, says he solemnly proclaimed anew the fundamental law concerning the procreative act. He states the matter emphatically: ‘This teaching is as valid today as it was yesterday; and it will be the same tomorrow and always.’ [39] Paul VI is less emphatic but no less clear. He says among other things that it would be impossible to accept some conclusions of his Commission for the Study of Problems of Population, Family, and Birthrate because they are not compatible with ‘the moral doctrine on matrimony, proposed by the magisterium of the Church with constant firmness’ (Humanae Vitae, 6). He speaks of ‘the constant teaching of the Church’ (ibid, 10 and 11), says the Church by its teaching on contraception ‘promulgates the divine law’ (ibid, 20), and declares the teaching on contraception to be part of the ‘saving teaching of Christ’ (ibid, 29).” [40]

Shaw concludes, stating:

“…Thus, a review of the data establishes that the teaching on contraception has been proposed in a manner which meets Vatican II’s criteria for an infallible exercise of the ordinary magisterium.” [41]

One main reason dissenters use to justify their negation of the infallibility of specific moral norms is the claim that they have never been manifestly demonstrated to be infallibly defined, and utilize canon 749, par. 3 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law to justify their claim. Canon 749, paragraph 3 reads: “No doctrine is to be understood as infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.” Dissenters Charles E. Curran [42] and Francis A. Sullivan, S.J. [43] appeal to this paragraph, asserting that it is not manifestly demonstrated that any specific moral norms have ever been infallibly defined. But following Germain Grisez [44], Canon 749, paragraph 3 in fact refers to infallible definitions of the solemn extraordinary magisterium, not to teachings infallibly proposed by the universal ordinary magisterium. Curran and Sullivan conveniently overlook the preceding paragraph of Canon 749, which states: “The College of Bishops also possess infallibility in its teaching when…the bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authoritatively teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.” [45] Dissenters like Curran and Sullivan simply fail to consider whether any specific moral norms have been infallibly proposed by the ordinary day-to-day exercise of the magisterium, according to the criteria articulated in Lumen Gentium, no. 25. In their equating infallibly proposed teachings with teachings that are solemnly defined they do not take into account the possibility that certain specific moral norms have been proposed infallibly by the exercise of the universal ordinary magisterium.

The ordinary Papal Magisterium can teach, and has taught, specific moral norms infallibly. For example, the Church’s doctrine on the intrinsic evil of contraception, reaffirmed by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii [46] and by Paul VI in Humanae Vitae [47], as well as the confirmations of the condemnations of the intrinsic evils of murder (the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being) [48], direct abortion [49], and euthanasia [50] by Pope John Paul II in his 1995 Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, are all infallible pronouncements of the ordinary Papal Magisterium. Though they are not solemn ex cathedra definitions, nevertheless, these definitive papal pronouncements on specific moral norms also enjoy the gift of infallibility.

As Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B., then Secretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (now Cardinal Secretary of State of the Vatican), explains in his article which appeared in L’Osservatore Romano on December 20, 1996 (the English translation appearing in the English edition of L’Osservatore Romano on January 29, 1997): “The ordinary papal Magisterium can teach a doctrine as definitive because it has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary universal Magisterium. This latter exercise of the charism of infallibility does not take the form of a papal definition, but pertains to the ordinary, universal Magisterium which the Pope again sets forth with his formal pronouncement of confirmation and reaffirmation (generally in an encyclical or apostolic letter). If we were to hold that the Pope must necessarily make an ex cathedra definition whenever he intends to declare a doctrine as definitive because it belongs to the deposit of faith, it would imply an underestimation of the ordinary, universal Magisterium, and infallibility would be limited to the solemn definitions of the Pope or a Council, in a way that differs from the teaching of Vatican I and Vatican II, which attribute an infallible character to the teachings of the ordinary, universal Magisterium. …Although it is not per se a dogmatic definition (like the Trinitarian dogma of Nicea, the Christological dogma of Chalcedon or the Marian dogmas), a papal pronouncement of confirmation enjoys the same infallibility as the teaching of the ordinary, universal Magisterium, which includes the Pope not as a mere Bishop but as the Head of the Episcopal College.” [51]

In conclusion, let me quote from the Pontifical Council of the Family’s Vademecum for Confessors, issued in 1997, which affirms that the Church’s constant doctrine on the intrinsic evil of contraception is definitive and irreformable: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.” [52]
_____________________

NOTES:

[1] E. GENILO, email to Federico Pascual’s column “Postscript,” in the Philippine Star, December 23, 2008, paragraphs 2-5.

[2] “We define infallibility,” writes Fr. James T. O’Connor following Gasser and Vatican I, “as that special gift of God which enables the Catholic Church to hold and propose without error those truths which God intends to be known and held for the sake of our salvation”(J. T. O’CONNOR, The Gift of Infallibility, St. Paul’s, Boston, 1986, pp. 98-99).

[3] For a critique of this proportionalism, see: W. E. MAY, An Introduction to Moral Theology, Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington, IN, 2003, pp. 156-157.

[4] For a critique of this position, see: W. E. MAY, op. cit., pp. 157-158.

[5] For a critique, see: W. E. MAY, op. cit., p. 158. For a thorough and convincing critique of Karl Rahner’s dualistic anthropology underlying his dissent on contraception and other moral norms, see Cornelio Fabro’s La svolta antropologica di Karl Rahner, published by Rusconi, Milan in 1974, especially pages 87-121.

[6] E. GENILO, THEO 262A Sexual Ethics and Bioethics course handout notes to Ateneo students, 2006, Bioethics Session 13 (Special Interventions to Impede the Transmission of Life), last paragraph.

[7] Cf. R. TANSECO, God’s Word Today colum

n, Philippine Star, August 8, 2004.

[8] John Wilks, M.P.S. writes concerning the abortificient mechanism of oral contraceptives: “Both the progesterone-only and the estrogen-progesterone formulations act to cause alterations in the lining of the womb, converting the proliferative nature of the endometrium, which is naturally designed to accept and sustain a fertilised ovum, to a secretory endometrium, which is a thin, devasculating lining, physiologically unreceptive to receiving and sustaining a zygote”(J. WILKS, A Consumer’s Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs, 3rd Ed., National Book Store, Mandaluyong City, 2000, p. 4).

[9] T. C. BACANI, The Church and Birth Control, Manila, 1992, p. 29.

[10] T. C. BACANI, Catholics and HB 5043, Gift of God Publications, Manila, 2008, p. 40.

[11] G. BAUM, The Christian Adventure – Risk and Renewal, “Critic,” 23 (1965), pp. 41-53.

[12] K. RAHNER, Theological Investigations, vol. 14: Ecclesiology: Questions in the Church, The Church in the World, Seabury Press, New York, 1976, p. 14.

[13] Cf. K. RAHNER, op. cit., pp. 14-15.

Cf. P. CHIRICO, Infallibility: Crossroads of Doctrine, Sheed, Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, MO, 1977.

[14] F. H. DRINKWATER, Birth Control and Natural Law, Helicon, Baltimore, 1965, pp. 39-66.

[15] F. SULLIVAN, Magisterium: Teac

hing Authority in the Catholic Church, Paulist Press, New York, 1983, p. 152. Grisez refutes Sullivan’s position in G. GRISEZ, Infallibility and Specific Moral Norms: A Review Discussion, “The Thomist,” 49 (1985), pp. 248-287. Sullivan responds to Grisez in: F. SULLIVAN, The Secondary Object of Infallibility, “Theological Studies,” 54 (1993), pp. 536-550. Grisez and Sullivan go another round in The Ordinary Magisterium’s Infallibility: A Reply to Some New Arguments, “Theological Studies,” 55 (1994), pp. 720-738. Sullivan dissents again on the infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium in: F. SULLIVAN, Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, Paulist Press, New York, 1996.

[16] G. HALLETT, Contraception and Prescriptive Infallibility, “Theological Studies,” 43 (1982), pp. 629-650. Grisez answers the arguments of Hallett in: G. GRISEZ, Infallibility and Contraception: A Reply to Garth Hallet, “Theological Studies,” 47 (1986), pp. 134-145. In pages 911-912 of his work, Christian Moral Principles, the first volume of his moral theology series The Way of the Lord Jesus (published by Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago, 1983), Grisez gives a summary response to Hallett’s 1982 article.

[18] R. A. McCORMICK, Authority and Morality, “America,” 142 (1980), p. 169.

[19] D. MAGUIRE, Morality and the Magisterium, “Cross Currents,” 18 (Winter, 1968), pp. 41-65.

[20] R. GULA, Reason Informed by Faith: Foundations of Catholic Morality, Paulist Press, New York, 1989, pp. 209-210.

[21] P. CHIRICO, Infallibility: Crossroads of Doctrine, Sheed, Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, MO, 1977, pp. 68-83, 185.

[22] C. E. CURRAN, Humanae Vitae: Ten Years Later, “Commonweal,” 105 (July 7, 1978), p. 429.

[23] C. E. CURRAN, Contemporary Problems in Moral Theology, Fides, Notre Dame, 1970, p. 257.

[24] “Magisterium” is the teaching authority of the college of bishops under the headship of the Pope. Grisez defines Magisterium as “the authority and role of the Pope and other bishops, as successors of the apostles, to distinguish what belongs to revelation from what does not, and to guide the receiving, guarding, and explaining of revealed truth. The exercises of this responsibility are divided into extraordinary and ordinary. The extraordinary magisterium embraces all acts of solemnly defining truths of faith and morals, and all teaching of ecumenical councils. The ordinary magisterium is the role as day-to-day teachers of the Pope and other bishops. Under certain conditions the exercise of the ordinary magisterium is infallible”(G. GRISEZ, The Way of the Lord Jesus, vol. 1: Christian Moral Principles, Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago, 1983, p. 922).

[25] J. C. FORD and G. GRISEZ, Contraception and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, “Theological Studies,” 39 (1978), pp. 258-312. Reprinted in The Teaching of ‘Humanae Vitae’: A Defense, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988, pp. 117-219.

[26] Ibid.

[27] L. CIAPPI, L’enciclica ‘Humanae vitae’: valutazione teologica, “Lateranum,” 54 (1978), pp. 105-124.

[28] J. FINNIS, Conscience, Infallibility and Contraception, “The Month,” 11 (1978), pp. 410-421.

[29] J. A. HARDON, Contraception: Fatal to the Faith, catholicculture.org, November, 1998.

[30] M. ZALBA, Infallibilità del magistero ordinario universale e contraccezione, “Renovatio,” 4 (1979), pp. 79-90.

[31] F. OCARIZ, La nota teologica dell’insegnamento dell’“Humanae vitae” sulla contraccezione, “Anthropotes,” 1 (1988), pp. 25-43. In this article, Msgr. Ocariz affirms that the doctrine on contraception has been taught infallibly by the universal ordinary magisterium and that one is dealing with a doctrine de fide divina et catholica (of divine and catholic faith).

The Church’s doctrine on contraception is revealed (implicitly) and therefore one is dealing with a doctrine de fide divina et catholica (of divine and catholic faith). Although it is of divine and catholic faith, nevertheless, it is not solemnly defined ex cathedra by the extraordinary magisterium. But the doctrine is infallible, nevertheless.

The Church’s doctrine on contraception pertains to the moral order revealed by God. Pope John Paul II writes that “we are not dealing with a doctrine invented by man: it has been inscribed by the creative hand of God into the very nature of the human person and has been confirmed by Him in Revelation. To question it therefore, is equivalent to denying to God Himself the obedience of our intelligence. It is equivalent to preferring the light of our own reason to that of God’s Wisdom, thereby falling into the obscurity of error and ending up by damaging other fundamental principles of Christian doctrine”(JOHN PAUL II, Address to Participants of the Second International Congress of Moral Theology, November 12, 1988, no. 3).

The doctrine on contraception belongs to the primary object of infallibility (it is a truth which belongs directly to the faith, that is, it belongs to the deposit of faith, though not explicitly, but implicitly) and, not, as is sometimes maintained, to the secondary object of infallibility (as a truth belonging indirectly to the faith, a truth, although not revealed in se, is nevertheless required in order to guard fully, explain properly and define efficaciously the very deposit of faith). In his book, The Gift of Infallibility, James T. O’Connor, explains that “some matters which, at first glance, do not appear to be a part of the deposit of faith directly may, in fact, be so, and thereby pertain to the primary or direct object of infallibility. We may cite as an example the moral norm which declares that ‘every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible (Encyclical Humanae Vitae, no. 14). This is the way Pope Paul VI phrased the Church’s constant teaching on artificial contraception. It would seem, viewed superficially, that this teaching would pertain to those things which belong to the secondary object of infallibility; it would seem, that is, that such a teaching is not directly revealed, thus not forming part of the deposit of faith. Closer study indicates, however, that such is not the case”(J. T. O’CONNOR, op. cit., pp. 119-120).

Fr. O’Connor then quotes from Pope John Paul II, where the Holy Father writes in 1984 the following concerning the moral norm on contraception contained in Pope Paul VI’s Encyclical Humanae Vitae: “The author of the encyclical stresses that this norm belongs to the ‘natural law,’ that is to say, it is in accordance with reason as such. The Church teaches this norm, although is it is not formally (that is, literally) expressed in Sacred Scripture, and it does this in the conviction that the interpretation of the precepts of natural law belongs to the competence of the Magisterium.

“However, we can say more. Even if the moral law, formulated in this way in the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, is not found literally in Sacred Scripture, nonetheless, from the fact that it is contained in Tradition and – as Pope Paul VI writes – has been ‘very often expounded by the Magisterium’(HV, n. 12) to the faithful, it follows that this norm is in accordance with the sum total of revealed doctrine contained in biblical sources (cf. HV, n. 4).

“4. It is a question here not only of the sum total of the moral doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture, of its essential premises and general character of its content, but of that fuller context to which we have previously dedicated numerous analyses when speaking about the ‘theology of the body.’

“Precisely against the background of this full context it becomes evident that the above-mentioned moral norm belongs not only to the natural moral law, but also to the moral order revealed by God”(JOHN PAUL II, General Audience of 18 July 1984, nos. 3, 4).

Commenting on this passage by the Pope, O’Connor writes: “What the Holy Father is saying is that this moral norm, although not found explicitly or ‘literally’ in Sacred Scripture, forms, nonetheless, part of the revealed moral order and is found implicitly in the sources of Revelation, Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Therefore it belongs to the deposit of faith as well as to the natural moral law, and so is included among the truths which fall under the primary object of infallibility”(J. T. O’CONNOR, op. cit., p. 121).

Revealed (implicitly), and though not solemnly defined ex cathedra, nevertheless, the Church’s doctrine on contraception, taught infallibly by the universal ordinary magisterium, is of divine and catholic faith (de fide divina et catholica).

Quoting from Vatican I’s Dei Filius, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 750 states: “Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, which is manifested by the common adherance of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium. All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines.”

Canon 751 states: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith.”

[32] W. E. MAY, An Introduction to Moral Theology, Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington, IN, 2003.

[33] K. WOYTYLA, Introduzione alla Humanae Vitae, Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, Vatican City, 1969, p. 35.

[34] G. GRISEZ, op. cit., p. 843.

[35] Ibid.

[36] J. T. NOONAN, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1965, p. 6. Incredibly, after marshalling hundreds of pages of texts in support of the Church’s constant teaching on the immorality of contraception, Noonan quite illogically dissented from the Church on this issue. He became one of the main players in the dissenting Majority Report of the Commission for the Study of Problems of Population, Family and Birthrate that approved of contraception in certain cases, utilizing the soon to be widespread revisionist method of proportionalism. Though he fought abortion in the 1970s Noonan stubbornly refused to retract his dissent on contraception.

[37] J. T. FORD and G. GRISEZ, Contraception and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, in The Teaching of Humanae Vitae: A Defense, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988, p. 171.

[38] PIUS XI, Casti Connubii, AAS, 22 (1930), pp. 559-560.

[39] PIUS XII, Address to Midwives, AAS, 43 (1951), p. 843.

[40] R. SHAW, Contraception, Infallibility and the Ordinary Magisterium, in Why Humanae Vitae Was Right: A Reader, edited by J. E. Smith, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1994, pp. 354-355.

[41] R. SHAW, op. cit., p. 355.

[42] C. E. CURRAN et al., Dissent In and For the Church: Theologians and ‘Humanae Vitae,’ Sheed and Ward, New York, 1969, p. 63.

[43] F. A. SULLIVAN, op. cit., pp. 150, 227, n. 44

[44] G. GRISEZ, Infallibility and Specific Moral Norms: A Review Discussion, “The Thomist,” 49 (1985), p. 273.

[45] CODE OF CANON LAW, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, Vatican City, 1983, Canon 749, par. 2 (emphasis mine).

[46] Moral theologian Ramon Garcia de Haro quotes Pius XI: “Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals…in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of marriage exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately deprived of its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”(no. 57). Garcia De Haro then states: “The terms used leave no doubt: we are dealing here with a definitive teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium and, therefore, one that is infallible”(R. GARCIA DE HARO, Marriage and the Family in the Documents of the Magisterium, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1993, p. 132).

[47] PAUL VI, Humanae Vitae, no. 14: “Therefore we base our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when we are obliged once more to declare…excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.” Cf. R. GARCIA DE HARO, op. cit., p. 307.

[48] JOHN PAUL II, Evangelium Vitae, no. 57: “By the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.” Cf. W. E. MAY, op. cit., p. 249.

[49] JOHN PAUL II, op. cit., no. 62: “By the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops – who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine – I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”

“No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.”

[50] JOHN PAUL II, op. cit., no. 65: “In harmony with the Magisterium of my Predecessors and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”

[51] T. BERTONE, Theological Observations, “L’Osservatore Romano,” English Edition, Jan 29, 1997, p. 6, col. 3.

[52] PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY, Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life, 1997, 2, no. 4.

www.catholicnewsagency.com

On December 14, the church  will commemorate the life of St. John of the Cross, the doctor of the Church who first wrote about the “long dark night of the soul.”

John of the Cross was born in the 16th century into a family which had fallen out of wealth. His father, a silk trader, had been disowned by his own family for marrying a woman of a lower social class. The family survived as silk weavers, but John’s father died while John was very young. The boy began to work in a hospital while attending school part time. It is said that he seemed incapable of learning any trade.

He entered the Carmelite Order, but became disillusioned and thought of leaving. Then he met St. Teresa of Avila. Together with the saint, he reformed the Carmelite order by founding the Discalced (literally“shoe-less”) Carmelites.  At the time, many Carmelites had moved  from a life of fasting, prayer and penance. They resented the reforms.

John was kidnapped by members of his own order and imprisoned in a small, cold and dark cell. He was beaten regularly. Yet in this time, he wrote some of his most profound poetry. Eventually, he escaped and was able to share some of his mystical writings with the world. He is famous for having written “The Ascent of Mt. Carmel,” “The Dark Night of the Soul,” and “The Spiritual Canticle.”

He died at the age of 49, and was canonized in 1726. In 1926, he was declared a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius XI.

Today he is considered one of the first, and greatest mystics.

Read his timeless and classic work “The Dark Night of the Soul”

Read “The Life of St. John of the Cross”

QUAS PRIMAS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON THE FEAST OF CHRIST THE KING
TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN THE PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, AND OTHER ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.

Venerable Brethren, Greeting and the Apostolic Benediction.

In the first Encyclical Letter which We addressed at the beginning of Our Pontificate to the Bishops of the universal Church, We referred to the chief causes of the difficulties under which mankind was laboring. And We remember saying that these manifold evils in the world were due to the fact that the majority of men had thrust Jesus Christ and his holy law out of their lives; that these had no place either in private affairs or in politics: and we said further, that as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations. Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ; and that We promised to do as far as lay in Our power. In the Kingdom of Christ, that is, it seemed to Us that peace could not be more effectually restored nor fixed upon a firmer basis than through the restoration of the Empire of Our Lord. We were led in the meantime to indulge the hope of a brighter future at the sight of a more widespread and keener interest evinced in Christ and his Church, the one Source of Salvation, a sign that men who had formerly spurned the rule of our Redeemer and had exiled themselves from his kingdom were preparing, and even hastening, to return to the duty of obedience.

2. The many notable and memorable events which have occurred during this Holy Year have given great honor and glory to Our Lord and King, the Founder of the Church.

3. At the Missionary Exhibition men have been deeply impressed in seeing the increasing zeal of the Church for the spread of the kingdom of her Spouse to the most far distant regions of the earth. They have seen how many countries have been won to the Catholic name through the unremitting labor and self-sacrifice of missionaries, and the vastness of the regions which have yet to be subjected to the sweet and saving yoke of our King. All those who in the course of the Holy Year have thronged to this city under the leadership of their Bishops or priests had but one aim – namely, to expiate their sins – and at the tombs of the Apostles and in Our Presence to promise loyalty to the rule of Christ.

4. A still further light of glory was shed upon his kingdom, when after due proof of their heroic virtue, We raised to the honors of the altar six confessors and virgins. It was a great joy, a great consolation, that filled Our heart when in the majestic basilica of St. Peter Our decree was acclaimed by an immense multitude with the hymn of thanksgiving, Tu Rex gloriae Christe. We saw men and nations cut off from God, stirring up strife and discord and hurrying along the road to ruin and death, while the Church of God carries on her work of providing food for the spiritual life of men, nurturing and fostering generation after generation of men and women dedicated to Christ, faithful and subject to him in his earthly kingdom, called by him to eternal bliss in the kingdom of heaven.

5. Moreover, since this jubilee Year marks the sixteenth centenary of the Council of Nicaea, We commanded that event to be celebrated, and We have done so in the Vatican basilica. There is a special reason for this in that the Nicene Synod defined and proposed for Catholic belief the dogma of the Consubstantiality of the Onlybegotten with the Father, and added to the Creed the words “of whose kingdom there shall be no end,” thereby affirming the kingly dignity of Christ.

6. Since this Holy Year therefore has provided more than one opportunity to enhance the glory of the kingdom of Christ, we deem it in keeping with our Apostolic office to accede to the desire of many of the Cardinals, Bishops, and faithful, made known to Us both individually and collectively, by closing this Holy Year with the insertion into the Sacred Liturgy of a special feast of the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This matter is so dear to Our heart, Venerable Brethren, that I would wish to address to you a few words concerning it. It will be for you later to explain in a manner suited to the understanding of the faithful what We are about to say concerning the Kingship of Christ, so that the annual feast which We shall decree may be attended with much fruit and produce beneficial results in the future.

7. It has long been a common custom to give to Christ the metaphorical title of “King,” because of the high degree of perfection whereby he excels all creatures. So he is said to reign “in the hearts of men,” both by reason of the keenness of his intellect and the extent of his knowledge, and also because he is very truth, and it is from him that truth must be obediently received by all mankind. He reigns, too, in the wills of men, for in him the human will was perfectly and entirely obedient to the Holy Will of God, and further by his grace and inspiration he so subjects our free-will as to incite us to the most noble endeavors. He is King of hearts, too, by reason of his “charity which exceedeth all knowledge.” And his mercy and kindness[1] which draw all men to him, for never has it been known, nor will it ever be, that man be loved so much and so universally as Jesus Christ. But if we ponder this matter more deeply, we cannot but see that the title and the power of King belongs to Christ as man in the strict and proper sense too. For it is only as man that he may be said to have received from the Father “power and glory and a kingdom,”[2] since the Word of God, as consubstantial with the Father, has all things in common with him, and therefore has necessarily supreme and absolute dominion over all things created.

8. Do we not read throughout the Scriptures that Christ is the King? He it is that shall come out of Jacob to rule,[3] who has been set by the Father as king over Sion, his holy mount, and shall have the Gentiles for his inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for his possession.[4] In the nuptial hymn, where the future King of Israel is hailed as a most rich and powerful monarch, we read: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the scepter of thy kingdom is a scepter of righteousness.”[5] There are many similar passages, but there is one in which Christ is even more clearly indicated. Here it is foretold that his kingdom will have no limits, and will be enriched with justice and peace: “in his days shall justice spring up, and abundance of peace…And he shall rule from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.”[6]

9. The testimony of the Prophets is even more abundant. That of Isaias is well known: “For a child is born to us and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God the mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace. His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace. He shall sit upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever.”[7] With Isaias the other Prophets are in agreement. So Jeremias foretells the “just seed” that shall rest from the house of David – the Son of David that shall reign as king, “and shall be wise, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.”[8] So, too, Daniel, who announces the kingdom that the God of heaven shall found, “that shall never be destroyed, and shall stand for ever.”[9] And again he says: “I beheld, therefore, in the vision of the night, and, lo! one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven. And he came even to the Ancient of days: and they presented him before him. And he gave him power and glory and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve him. His power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed.”[10] The prophecy of Zachary concerning the merciful King “riding upon an ass and upon a colt the foal of an ass” entering Jerusalem as “the just and savior,” amid the acclamations of the multitude,[11] was recognized as fulfilled by the holy evangelists themselves.

10. This same doctrine of the Kingship of Christ which we have found in the Old Testament is even more clearly taught and confirmed in the New. The Archangel, announcing to the Virgin that she should bear a Son, says that “the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”[12]

11. Moreover, Christ himself speaks of his own kingly authority: in his last discourse, speaking of the rewards and punishments that will be the eternal lot of the just and the damned; in his reply to the Roman magistrate, who asked him publicly whether he were a king or not; after his resurrection, when giving to his Apostles the mission of teaching and baptizing all nations, he took the opportunity to call himself king,[13] confirming the title publicly,[14] and solemnly proclaimed that all power was given him in heaven and on earth.[15] These words can only be taken to indicate the greatness of his power, the infinite extent of his kingdom. What wonder, then, that he whom St. John calls the “prince of the kings of the earth”[16] appears in the Apostle’s vision of the future as he who “hath on his garment and on his thigh written ‘King of kings and Lord of lords!’.”[17] It is Christ whom the Father “hath appointed heir of all things”;[18] “for he must reign until at the end of the world he hath put all his enemies under the feet of God and the Father.”[19]

12. It was surely right, then, in view of the common teaching of the sacred books, that the Catholic Church, which is the kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all nations, should with every token of veneration salute her Author and Founder in her annual liturgy as King and Lord, and as King of Kings. And, in fact, she used these titles, giving expression with wonderful variety of language to one and the same concept, both in ancient psalmody and in the Sacramentaries. She uses them daily now in the prayers publicly offered to God, and in offering the Immaculate Victim. The perfect harmony of the Eastern liturgies with our own in this continual praise of Christ the King shows once more the truth of the axiom: Legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi. The rule of faith is indicated by the law of our worship.

13. The foundation of this power and dignity of Our Lord is rightly indicated by Cyril of Alexandria. “Christ,” he says, “has dominion over all creatures, a dominion not seized by violence nor usurped, but his by essence and by nature.”[20] His kingship is founded upon the ineffable hypostatic union. From this it follows not only that Christ is to be adored by angels and men, but that to him as man angels and men are subject, and must recognize his empire; by reason of the hypostatic union Christ has power over all creatures. But a thought that must give us even greater joy and consolation is this that Christ is our King by acquired, as well as by natural right, for he is our Redeemer. Would that they who forget what they have cost their Savior might recall the words: “You were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled.”[21] We are no longer our own property, for Christ has purchased us “with a great price”;[22] our very bodies are the “members of Christ.”[23]

14. Let Us explain briefly the nature and meaning of this lordship of Christ. It consists, We need scarcely say, in a threefold power which is essential to lordship. This is sufficiently clear from the scriptural testimony already adduced concerning the universal dominion of our Redeemer, and moreover it is a dogma of faith that Jesus Christ was given to man, not only as our Redeemer, but also as a law-giver, to whom obedience is due.[24] Not only do the gospels tell us that he made laws, but they present him to us in the act of making them. Those who keep them show their love for their Divine Master, and he promises that they shall remain in his love.[25] He claimed judicial power as received from his Father, when the Jews accused him of breaking the Sabbath by the miraculous cure of a sick man. “For neither doth the Father judge any man; but hath given all judgment to the Son.”[26] In this power is included the right of rewarding and punishing all men living, for this right is inseparable from that of judging. Executive power, too, belongs to Christ, for all must obey his commands; none may escape them, nor the sanctions he has imposed.

15. This kingdom is spiritual and is concerned with spiritual things. That this is so the above quotations from Scripture amply prove, and Christ by his own action confirms it. On many occasions, when the Jews and even the Apostles wrongly supposed that the Messiah would restore the liberties and the kingdom of Israel, he repelled and denied such a suggestion. When the populace thronged around him in admiration and would have acclaimed him King, he shrank from the honor and sought safety in flight. Before the Roman magistrate he declared that his kingdom was not of this world. The gospels present this kingdom as one which men prepare to enter by penance, and cannot actually enter except by faith and by baptism, which, though an external rite, signifies and produces an interior regeneration. This kingdom is opposed to none other than to that of Satan and to the power of darkness. It demands of its subjects a spirit of detachment from riches and earthly things, and a spirit of gentleness. They must hunger and thirst after justice, and more than this, they must deny themselves and carry the cross.

16. Christ as our Redeemer purchased the Church at the price of his own blood; as priest he offered himself, and continues to offer himself as a victim for our sins. Is it not evident, then, that his kingly dignity partakes in a manner of both these offices?

17. It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power. Nevertheless, during his life on earth he refrained from the exercise of such authority, and although he himself disdained to possess or to care for earthly goods, he did not, nor does he today, interfere with those who possess them. Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat caelestia.[27]

18. Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: “His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.”[28] Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society. “Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved.”[29] He is the author of happiness and true prosperity for every man and for every nation. “For a nation is happy when its citizens are happy. What else is a nation but a number of men living in concord?”[30] If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. “With God and Jesus Christ,” we said, “excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.”[31]

19. When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. Our Lord’s regal office invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious significance; it ennobles the citizen’s duty of obedience. It is for this reason that St. Paul, while bidding wives revere Christ in their husbands, and slaves respect Christ in their masters, warns them to give obedience to them not as men, but as the vicegerents of Christ; for it is not meet that men redeemed by Christ should serve their fellow-men. “You are bought with a price; be not made the bond-slaves of men.”[32] If princes and magistrates duly elected are filled with the persuasion that they rule, not by their own right, but by the mandate and in the place of the Divine King, they will exercise their authority piously and wisely, and they will make laws and administer them, having in view the common good and also the human dignity of their subjects. The result will be a stable peace and tranquillity, for there will be no longer any cause of discontent. Men will see in their king or in their rulers men like themselves, perhaps unworthy or open to criticism, but they will not on that account refuse obedience if they see reflected in them the authority of Christ God and Man. Peace and harmony, too, will result; for with the spread and the universal extent of the kingdom of Christ men will become more and more conscious of the link that binds them together, and thus many conflicts will be either prevented entirely or at least their bitterness will be diminished.

20. If the kingdom of Christ, then, receives, as it should, all nations under its way, there seems no reason why we should despair of seeing that peace which the King of Peace came to bring on earth – he who came to reconcile all things, who came not to be ministered unto but to minister, who, though Lord of all, gave himself to us as a model of humility, and with his principal law united the precept of charity; who said also: “My yoke is sweet and my burden light.” Oh, what happiness would be Ours if all men, individuals, families, and nations, would but let themselves be governed by Christ! “Then at length,” to use the words addressed by our predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, twenty-five years ago to the bishops of the Universal Church, “then at length will many evils be cured; then will the law regain its former authority; peace with all its blessings be restored. Men will sheathe their swords and lay down their arms when all freely acknowledge and obey the authority of Christ, and every tongue confesses that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.”[33]

21. That these blessings may be abundant and lasting in Christian society, it is necessary that the kingship of our Savior should be as widely as possible recognized and understood, and to the end nothing would serve better than the institution of a special feast in honor of the Kingship of Christ. For people are instructed in the truths of faith, and brought to appreciate the inner joys of religion far more effectually by the annual celebration of our sacred mysteries than by any official pronouncement of the teaching of the Church. Such pronouncements usually reach only a few and the more learned among the faithful; feasts reach them all; the former speak but once, the latter speak every year – in fact, forever. The church’s teaching affects the mind primarily; her feasts affect both mind and heart, and have a salutary effect upon the whole of man’s nature. Man is composed of body and soul, and he needs these external festivities so that the sacred rites, in all their beauty and variety, may stimulate him to drink more deeply of the fountain of God’s teaching, that he may make it a part of himself, and use it with profit for his spiritual life.

22. History, in fact, tells us that in the course of ages these festivals have been instituted one after another according as the needs or the advantage of the people of Christ seemed to demand: as when they needed strength to face a common danger, when they were attacked by insidious heresies, when they needed to be urged to the pious consideration of some mystery of faith or of some divine blessing. Thus in the earliest days of the Christian era, when the people of Christ were suffering cruel persecution, the cult of the martyrs was begun in order, says St. Augustine, “that the feasts of the martyrs might incite men to martyrdom.”[34] The liturgical honors paid to confessors, virgins and widows produced wonderful results in an increased zest for virtue, necessary even in times of peace. But more fruitful still were the feasts instituted in honor of the Blessed Virgin. As a result of these men grew not only in their devotion to the Mother of God as an ever-present advocate, but also in their love of her as a mother bequeathed to them by their Redeemer. Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. We may well admire in this the admirable wisdom of the Providence of God, who, ever bringing good out of evil, has from time to time suffered the faith and piety of men to grow weak, and allowed Catholic truth to be attacked by false doctrines, but always with the result that truth has afterwards shone out with greater splendor, and that men’s faith, aroused from its lethargy, has shown itself more vigorous than before.

23. The festivals that have been introduced into the liturgy in more recent years have had a similar origin, and have been attended with similar results. When reverence and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament had grown cold, the feast of Corpus Christi was instituted, so that by means of solemn processions and prayer of eight days’ duration, men might be brought once more to render public homage to Christ. So, too, the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus was instituted at a time when men were oppressed by the sad and gloomy severity of Jansenism, which had made their hearts grow cold, and shut them out from the love of God and the hope of salvation.

24. If We ordain that the whole Catholic world shall revere Christ as King, We shall minister to the need of the present day, and at the same time provide an excellent remedy for the plague which now infects society. We refer to the plague of anti-clericalism, its errors and impious activities. This evil spirit, as you are well aware, Venerable Brethren, has not come into being in one day; it has long lurked beneath the surface. The empire of Christ over all nations was rejected. The right which the Church has from Christ himself, to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern peoples in all that pertains to their eternal salvation, that right was denied. Then gradually the religion of Christ came to be likened to false religions and to be placed ignominiously on the same level with them. It was then put under the power of the state and tolerated more or less at the whim of princes and rulers. Some men went even further, and wished to set up in the place of God’s religion a natural religion consisting in some instinctive affection of the heart. There were even some nations who thought they could dispense with God, and that their religion should consist in impiety and the neglect of God. The rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ has produced deplorable consequences. We lamented these in the Encyclical Ubi arcano; we lament them today: the seeds of discord sown far and wide; those bitter enmities and rivalries between nations, which still hinder so much the cause of peace; that insatiable greed which is so often hidden under a pretense of public spirit and patriotism, and gives rise to so many private quarrels; a blind and immoderate selfishness, making men seek nothing but their own comfort and advantage, and measure everything by these; no peace in the home, because men have forgotten or neglect their duty; the unity and stability of the family undermined; society in a word, shaken to its foundations and on the way to ruin. We firmly hope, however, that the feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result. Many of these, however, have neither the station in society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to engage in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of the Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights.

25. Moreover, the annual and universal celebration of the feast of the Kingship of Christ will draw attention to the evils which anticlericalism has brought upon society in drawing men away from Christ, and will also do much to remedy them. While nations insult the beloved name of our Redeemer by suppressing all mention of it in their conferences and parliaments, we must all the more loudly proclaim his kingly dignity and power, all the more universally affirm his rights.

26. The way has been happily and providentially prepared for the celebration of this feast ever since the end of the last century. It is well known that this cult has been the subject of learned disquisitions in many books published in every part of the world, written in many different languages. The kingship and empire of Christ have been recognized in the pious custom, practiced by many families, of dedicating themselves to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; not only families have performed this act of dedication, but nations, too, and kingdoms. In fact, the whole of the human race was at the instance of Pope Leo XIII, in the Holy Year 1900, consecrated to the Divine Heart. It should be remarked also that much has been done for the recognition of Christ’s authority over society by the frequent Eucharistic Congresses which are held in our age. These give an opportunity to the people of each diocese, district or nation, and to the whole world of coming together to venerate and adore Christ the King hidden under the Sacramental species. Thus by sermons preached at meetings and in churches, by public adoration of the Blessed Sacrament exposed and by solemn processions, men unite in paying homage to Christ, whom God has given them for their King. It is by a divine inspiration that the people of Christ bring forth Jesus from his silent hiding-place in the church, and carry him in triumph through the streets of the city, so that he whom men refused to receive when he came unto his own, may now receive in full his kingly rights.

27. For the fulfillment of the plan of which We have spoken, the Holy Year, which is now speeding to its close, offers the best possible opportunity. For during this year the God of mercy has raised the minds and hearts of the faithful to the consideration of heavenly blessings which are above all understanding, has either restored them once more to his grace, or inciting them anew to strive for higher gifts, has set their feet more firmly in the path of righteousness. Whether, therefore, We consider the many prayers that have been addressed to Us, or look to the events of the Jubilee Year, just past, We have every reason to think that the desired moment has at length arrived for enjoining that Christ be venerated by a special feast as King of all mankind. In this year, as We said at the beginning of this Letter, the Divine King, truly wonderful in all his works, has been gloriously magnified, for another company of his soldiers has been added to the list of saints. In this year men have looked upon strange things and strange labors, from which they have understood and admired the victories won by missionaries in the work of spreading his kingdom. In this year, by solemnly celebrating the centenary of the Council of Nicaea. We have commemorated the definition of the divinity of the word Incarnate, the foundation of Christ’s empire over all men.

28. Therefore by Our Apostolic Authority We institute the Feast of the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ to be observed yearly throughout the whole world on the last Sunday of the month of October – the Sunday, that is, which immediately precedes the Feast of All Saints. We further ordain that the dedication of mankind to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which Our predecessor of saintly memory, Pope Pius X, commanded to be renewed yearly, be made annually on that day. This year, however, We desire that it be observed on the thirty-first day of the month on which day We Ourselves shall celebrate pontifically in honor of the kingship of Christ, and shall command that the same dedication be performed in Our presence. It seems to Us that We cannot in a more fitting manner close this Holy Year, nor better signify Our gratitude and that of the whole of the Catholic world to Christ the immortal King of ages, for the blessings showered upon Us, upon the Church, and upon the Catholic world during this holy period.

29. It is not necessary, Venerable Brethren, that We should explain to you at any length why We have decreed that this feast of the Kingship of Christ should be observed in addition to those other feasts in which his kingly dignity is already signified and celebrated. It will suffice to remark that although in all the feasts of our Lord the material object of worship is Christ, nevertheless their formal object is something quite distinct from his royal title and dignity. We have commanded its observance on a Sunday in order that not only the clergy may perform their duty by saying Mass and reciting the Office, but that the laity too, free from their daily tasks, may in a spirit of holy joy give ample testimony of their obedience and subjection to Christ. The last Sunday of October seemed the most convenient of all for this purpose, because it is at the end of the liturgical year, and thus the feast of the Kingship of Christ sets the crowning glory upon the mysteries of the life of Christ already commemorated during the year, and, before celebrating the triumph of all the Saints, we proclaim and extol the glory of him who triumphs in all the Saints and in all the Elect. Make it your duty and your task, Venerable Brethren, to see that sermons are preached to the people in every parish to teach them the meaning and the importance of this feast, that they may so order their lives as to be worthy of faithful and obedient subjects of the Divine King.

30. We would now, Venerable Brethren, in closing this letter, briefly enumerate the blessings which We hope and pray may accrue to the Church, to society, and to each one of the faithful, as a result of the public veneration of the Kingship of Christ.

31. When we pay honor to the princely dignity of Christ, men will doubtless be reminded that the Church, founded by Christ as a perfect society, has a natural and inalienable right to perfect freedom and immunity from the power of the state; and that in fulfilling the task committed to her by God of teaching, ruling, and guiding to eternal bliss those who belong to the kingdom of Christ, she cannot be subject to any external power. The State is bound to extend similar freedom to the orders and communities of religious of either sex, who give most valuable help to the Bishops of the Church by laboring for the extension and the establishment of the kingdom of Christ. By their sacred vows they fight against the threefold concupiscence of the world; by making profession of a more perfect life they render the holiness which her divine Founder willed should be a mark and characteristic of his Church more striking and more conspicuous in the eyes of all.

32. Nations will be reminded by the annual celebration of this feast that not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ. It will call to their minds the thought of the last judgment, wherein Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most severely avenge these insults; for his kingly dignity demands that the State should take account of the commandments of God and of Christian principles, both in making laws and in administering justice, and also in providing for the young a sound moral education.

33. The faithful, moreover, by meditating upon these truths, will gain much strength and courage, enabling them to form their lives after the true Christian ideal. If to Christ our Lord is given all power in heaven and on earth; if all men, purchased by his precious blood, are by a new right subjected to his dominion; if this power embraces all men, it must be clear that not one of our faculties is exempt from his empire. He must reign in our minds, which should assent with perfect submission and firm belief to revealed truths and to the doctrines of Christ. He must reign in our wills, which should obey the laws and precepts of God. He must reign in our hearts, which should spurn natural desires and love God above all things, and cleave to him alone. He must reign in our bodies and in our members, which should serve as instruments for the interior sanctification of our souls, or to use the words of the Apostle Paul, as instruments of justice unto God.[35] If all these truths are presented to the faithful for their consideration, they will prove a powerful incentive to perfection. It is Our fervent desire, Venerable Brethren, that those who are without the fold may seek after and accept the sweet yoke of Christ, and that we, who by the mercy of God are of the household of the faith, may bear that yoke, not as a burden but with joy, with love, with devotion; that having lived our lives in accordance with the laws of God’s kingdom, we may receive full measure of good fruit, and counted by Christ good and faithful servants, we may be rendered partakers of eternal bliss and glory with him in his heavenly kingdom.

34. Let this letter, Venerable Brethren, be a token to you of Our fatherly love as the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ draws near; and receive the Apostolic Benediction as a pledge of divine blessings, which with loving heart, We impart to you, Venerable Brethren, to your clergy, and to your people.

Given at St. Peter’s Rome, on the eleventh day of the month of December, in the Holy Year 1925, the fourth of Our Pontificate.

Quadragesimo Anno is an encyclical by Pope Pius XI, issued 15 May 1931, 40 years after Rerum Novarum (thus the name, Latin for ‘in the fortieth year’). Unlike Leo, who addressed the condition of workers, Pius XI discusses the ethical implications of the social and economic order. Pius XI calls for the reconstruction of the social order based on the principle of solidarity and subsidiarity. He notes major dangers for human freedom and dignity, arising from unrestrained capitalism and totalitarian communism.

The function of the rulers of the State is to watch over the community and its parts; but in protecting private individuals in their rights, chief consideration ought to be given to the weak and the poor. (#25)

Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately. But if this cannot always be done under existing circumstances, social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult workingman.  (#71)

Twin rocks of shipwreck must be carefully avoided. For, as one is wrecked upon, or comes close to, what is known as “individualism” by denying or minimizing the social and public character of the right of property, so by rejecting or minimizing the private and individual character of this same right, one inevitably runs into “collectivism.” (#46)

Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them. (#79)

…the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching. … it held that economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the intervention of any created intellect. But free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life…. (#88)

…the riches that economic-social developments constantly increase ought to be so distributed among individual persons and classes that … the common good of all society will be kept inviolate. (#57)

It follows from the twofold character of ownership, which we have termed individual and social, that men must take into account in this matter not only their own advantage but also the common good.  (#49)

This concentration of power and might, the characteristic mark of contemporary economic life, is the fruit that the unlimited freedom of struggle among competitors has of its own nature produced, and which lets only the strongest survive; and this is often the same as saying, those who fight the most violently, those who give least heed to their conscience.  (#107)

Unbridled ambition for power has succeeded greed for gain; all economic life has become tragically hard, inexorable, and cruel.  (#109)

How completely deceived, therefore, are those rash reformers who concern themselves with the enforcement of justice alone–and this, commutative justice–and in their pride reject the assistance of charity! Admittedly, no vicarious charity can substitute for justice which is due as an obligation and is wrongfully denied. (#137)

Everyone here at the American Catholic hoped that you all have had a happy Labor Day weekend.

The principle of Subsidiarity states that government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently.

Pope Leo XIII developed the principle in his AD 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum.  The principle was further developed by Pope Pius XI in his AD 1931 encyclial Quadragesimo Anno.

_._

To learn more about Subsidiarity click here.

To read Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum click here.

To read Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo Anno click here.

For more Dilbert funnies click here.

Saint John Vianney is being staged as a one-man production titled “VIANNEY” and will be debuting in the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston on August 4, 2009 AD.  This is in celebration of the 150th anniversary of the death of this patron saint of parish priests.  The play will continue in other dioceses across America.

Leonardo Defilippis plays the role of Saint John Vianney as he performs at various churches across the archdiocese.  Mr. Defilippis’s one-man stage production opens amidst the chaos of the French Revolution, a time which mirrors the secularization, materialism and anti-religious sentiment of today. Against this dramatic backdrop, a simple ignorant peasant priest enters the backwater town of Ars, a place where no one cares much about their faith, or sees the Church as particularly relevant. They don’t expect much out of John Vianney.

The life of Saint John Vianney was also known as the Curé d’Ars.  He became well known due to his supernatural knowledge of the past and future.  His advice was sought by bishops, priests, religious, young men and women in doubt as to their vocation, sinners, persons in all sorts of difficulties and the sick. In 1855, the number of pilgrims had reached twenty thousand a year.  His direction was characterized by common sense, remarkable insight, and supernatural knowledge. He would sometimes divine sins withheld in an imperfect confession.

On October 3, 1874 AD Jean-Baptiste-Marie Vianney was proclaimed Venerable by Pope Pius IX and on January, 8 1905 AD, he was enrolled among the Blessed. Pope Pius X proposed him as a model to the parochial clergy. In 1925, Pope Pius XI canonized him. His feast is kept on August 4.

For a schedule of where the play will be staged click here.

This drama will also be staged across other dioceses, for more information click here.

(Biretta tip: Vanessa Barnes of the Houston Roman Catholic Examiner)

[Updates at the bottom of this posting]

Ecumenism today is in a sorry state.  Most Protestant denominations have splintered off to the point that dialogue has become pointless.  Only the Orthodox offer any hope of reunion with us, but that is a distant land where we are struggling to navigate towards.

In the meantime too many well-intentioned Catholics yell “Ecumenism! Ecumenism!” yet they know not what they say nor do.  Heck, they can’t even explain it themselves.

For example I’ve stopped attending Taizé services because the only people that attend them are other Catholics.  If it was intended to bring our separated brothers in Christ together then I failed to see a single one of them attend in the three years that I have been going.

Ecumenism, whatever that means anymore, is a dead cat.  It’s going nowhere because it has no idea what it is.  Hence the forty years of fruitless labor has produced nothing to celebrate.

The only real progress I foresee is with the Orthodox.  Only they understand us and we they.  We have much in common and are capable as divinely inspired institutions to be of one.  Not our Protestant brothers who continue to devolve to the point of being unrecognizable among the worldly.

“Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics’” (Cardinal Kaspar, February 26, 2001)

Pope Pius XI state as much prior to the Second Vatican Council in Mortalium Animos:

“The union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.

. . .

In reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments [which promote the modern idea of ecumenism] lies hid a most grave error…”

Pope Pius XII, to make sure there wasn’t any doubt, said the following in his Instructio of December 20, 1949:

“True reunion can only come about by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ”

In Pope Pius XI’s encyclical, Mortalium Animos (MA), he warned of syncretism and devolution into atheism by stating, “But some are more easily  deceived by outward appearance of good  when there is a question of fostering unity among all Christians.(MA 3)”  And in case that wasn’t direct and concise enough, ”Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; (MA 5)”

But what is especially interesting is what Pope Pius XI said concerning a popularly recited passage of the Holy Bible:

“And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: they all may be one…. And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,” merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal.

. . .

But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor” (MA 7).

Merely expressed a desire and prayer, not fulfillment of unity.  Just as we will always have the poor among us will we always be striving for unity, which will not come.

In my opinion I can see some sort of unity with our Orthodox brethren.  None with most Protestants.  But what is fact is that forty years of “Ecumensim! Ecumenism!” has produced nothing at all.

Update I:  There are a few good points that some commentators have made that I want to highlight.  John Henry and Henry Karlson bring up the rise of Catholic converts in Russia from another thread and Mark DeFrancisis the growing rapprochement between Lutherans (World Lutheran Federation) and Catholics.

But the most revealing comment by Donald R. McClarey where he stated that prior to Vatican II there was no form of ecumenism whatsoever.

To illuminate the fact that there is no record in Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, nor pronouncements from the Magisterium concerning Ecumenism.  Which would explain why Ut Unum Sint was such a poorly, or more accurately, ambiguously written encyclical.  Pope John Paul II had no sources to draw from to state his desire of unity.

From Divini Redemptoris:

55. To give to this social activity [that which was recommended in Quadragesimo Anno -- J.H.] a greater efficacy, it is necessary to promote a wider study of social problems in the light of the doctrine of the Church and under the aegis of her constituted authority. If the manner of acting of some Catholics in the social-economic field has left much to be desired, this has often come about because they have not known and pondered sufficiently the teachings of the Sovereign Pontiffs on these questions. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to foster in all classes of society an intensive program of social education adapted to the varying degrees of intellectual culture. It is necessary with all care and diligence to procure the widest possible diffusion of the teachings of the Church, even among the working-classes. The minds of men must be illuminated with the sure light of Catholic teaching, and their wills must be drawn to follow and apply it as the norm of right living in the conscientious fulfillment of their manifold social duties. Thus they will oppose that incoherence and discontinuity in Christian life which We have many times lamented. For there are some who, while exteriorly faithful to the practice of their religion, yet in the field of labor and industry, in the professions, trade and business, permit a deplorable cleavage in their conscience, and live a life too little in conformity with the clear principles of justice and Christian charity. Such lives are a scandal to the weak, and to the malicious a pretext to discredit the Church. (emphasis added)

Divini Redemptoris is an excellent supplement to Quadragesimo Anno and yet another example of the brilliance of Pope Pius XI.

In it, Pius severely condemns athestic Communism – but also points out that “liberal economics” are to blame for creating not only the material but moral conditions under which Communism became so palpable to the working class. He renews his call for the construction of a truly Christian social order in which both charity and justice are upheld. One without the other, Pius argues, renders both impotent.

This is worth remembering today as the Church, when it fractures along political lines, sometimes divides into camps of “charity” and “social justice” – as if one were more important or even exclusive of the other.

The importance of getting to know and applying Catholic social teaching for Pius could not have been more clear or urgent. It is not a list of polite suggestions – it is guide for Catholic behavior in the economic sphere, whether they are workers, employers, government officials, or any other role. It cannot be acknowledged and then tucked away somewhere while Catholics return to the “real business” of work and management.

In his masterly new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict repeatedly disclaims any authority to speak on technical aspects of economics or politics. “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer and does not claim ‘to interfere in any way in the politics of States.” CV 9; see also CV 16 (“If development were concerned with merely technical aspects of human life, and not with the meaning of man’s pilgrimage through history in company with his fellow human beings, nor with identifying the goal of that journey, then the Church would not be entitled to speak on it.”)

Such statements are not unique to Benedict, and similar statements can be found from popes from Leo XIII (“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur.”) to Pius XI (“the Church holds that it is unlawful for her to mix without cause in these temporal concerns’; however, she can in no wise renounce the duty God entrusted to her to interpose her authority, not of course in matters of technique for which she is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office, but in all things that are connected with the moral law.”) to John Paul II (“The Church has no models to present.”)

Nevertheless, as one reads CV (as well as earlier encyclicals) one often comes across statements that rely explicitly or implicitly on technical conclusions, sometimes very specific or controversial ones. For example, in paragraph 22 Benedict states that “[o]n the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care.” Now this happens to be an issue on which I agree with the Pope. I think that the current regime of intellectual property rights is excessive and harmful. But I also know that there are plenty of competent economists who take a different view, and the basis for their disagreement is a technical one. Current protections, it is said, are necessary for new drugs to be produced, and if these protections were weakened poor countries would end up with less access to health care and other forms of intellectual property, not more.

One could try to deny that these sorts of judgments rely on technical assumptions, but to do so would render either meaningless or disingenuous the repeated caveats of popes on this score, which is not, I think, respectful of the integrity of Catholic Social Thought.

The answer here, so far as I can tell, is that the authority of such claims does not extent to the technical aspects of the issue involved, but only to its moral aspects. As John Paul II says in Centesimus Annus, “part of the responsibility of Pastors is to give careful consideration to current events in order to discern the new requirements of evangelism. However, such an analysis is not meant to pass definitive judgments since this does not fall per se within the Magisterium’s specific domain.”

The problem is that most economic and political problems involve both a technical and a moral dimension. To say that because they involve a technical dimension the Church cannot speak on them would render her unable to address large swaths of moral life. But because of the technical aspects of the problem, it is impossible for the Church to speak intelligibly on the subject without making certain technical assumptions, something which she explicitly denies any competence for doing. The Church therefore speaks, but with the acknowledgment that its competence extends to its judgments only insofar as they involve moral as opposed to technical considerations.

To take issue with the technical assumptions made in an encyclical, therefore, is not to deny the Church’s authority to speak on such matters, nor is it to engage in dissent from Catholic doctrine. To say this, of course, is not to say that whenever a Pope makes a statement with technical assumptions that statement may be simply ignored. All of the political and economic issues raised in CV and the other social encyclicals involve moral as well as technical premises and judgments. A Catholic who, for example, says that intellectual property rights should be maintained as a matter of justice has not read CV very carefully. What it does mean, however, is that claims made in the social encyclicals are not exempt from technical critique, even by faithful Catholics.

After a few delays, Pope Benedict’s long-awaited third encyclical on economic and social issues is set to be signed tomorrow, June 29, and released to the public on July 6 or 7, according to Catholic News Agency.

We here at American Catholic have had our share of lively debates over the meaning and application of Catholic social doctrine. I anticipate that they will continue following the release of this encyclical. This is a historical event of great importance to Catholics all over the world. Like some of his predecessors, and particularly Pius XI, Pope Benedict will be addressing the world on social and economic matters in the midst of a world wide economic crisis.

It was the crisis itself that reportedly caused the delay in the completion of the encyclical, and as it would be reasonable to assume, it is now clear that much of it will deal directly with the breakdown of the financial system in particular, and with the phenomenon of globalization in general.

According to the CNA article,

“In the midst of the new international economic, commercial and financial context,” the Pope will suggest an international agreement to lead the process of globalization: “an authority that should be regulated by law, should stick coherently to the principles of subsidiarity ad solidarity, should be aimed at achieving the common good and committed in fostering an authentic integral human development, inspired in the values of charity and truth.”

The encyclical will also have a pro-life message:

The encyclical, in fact, is likely to say that “openness to life is at the core of every true development,” and regarding the ambiguous policies aimed at “reducing the need for abortion” by means of other social policies, the Pope warns that “if personal and social sensibility toward the welcoming of a new life is lost, even other forms of welcoming (life) useful to social life become fruitless.”

Finally, it will say something I have believed for a long time:

The document will also say that “food and water are universal rights,” and will remind that the Greek word Oikonomia – from which the word “economy” comes -  means the rule or management of the oikos, the home: “the development of all nations depends above all in recognizing that we are one single family.”

In the 21st century it is absolutely unacceptable that a single person go without food or water due to some failure in the economic or political system. The technology and resources exist to feed the world; it is a failure of the human will that keeps over a billion people in hunger worldwide. Regardless of whether markets or governments are either to blame or praise in particular situations, the Pope will speak of the need for each of us to have the will and the courage to face these problems. Speaking to some parish priests back in February, the Pope said,

While there is original sin, we will never achieve a radical and total correction. Nevertheless, we must do everything possible to implement corrections that are at least provisional, sufficient to enable humanity to live and to put obstacles to the dominance of egoism, which presents itself under pretexts of science and of national and international economy...

Justice cannot be created in the world only with good economic models, even if these are necessary. Justice is only brought about if there are just men.

Amen to that, your Holiness!

The Holy Hour devotion can be traced back to Christ Himself.  In His apparition in 1674, commonly called “the third great revelation,” He asked St. Margaret Mary to prostrate herself on the ground between the hours of 11:00 and 12:00 on the night of Thursday, to share the agony He suffered in the Garden of Olives, to assuage the wrath of God and beg mercy for sinners.  He bade her also to honor and relieve the heaviness of heart He experinced, the weariness He felt when His disciples could not watch one hour with Him.

Among the devotions to the Sacred Heart, the Holy Hour has always been held in high esteem.  In his Encyclical Miserentissimus Redemptor, Pope Pius XI explicitly praised and recommended it:

12. And truly the spirit of expiation or reparation has always had the first and foremost place in the worship given to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, and nothing is more in keeping with the origin, the character, the power, and the distinctive practices of this form of devotion, as appears from the record of history and custom, as well as from the sacred liturgy and the acts of the Sovereign Pontiffs. For when Christ manifested Himself to Margaret Mary, and declared to her the infinitude of His love, at the same time, in the manner of a mourner, He complained that so many and such great injuries were done to Him by ungrateful men–and we would that these words in which He made this complaint were fixed in the minds of the faithful, and were never blotted out by oblivion: “Behold this Heart”–He said–”which has loved men so much and has loaded them with all benefits, and for this boundless love has had no return but neglect, and contumely, and this often from those who were bound by a debt and duty of a more special love.” In order that these faults might be washed away, He then recommended several things to be done, and in particular the following as most pleasing to Himself, namely that men should approach the Altar with this purpose of expiating sin, making what is called a Communion of Reparation,–and that they should likewise make expiatory supplications and prayers, prolonged for a whole hour,–which is rightly called the “Holy Hour.” These pious exercises have been approved by the Church and have also been enriched with copious indulgences.

In the year 1829, at Paray-le-monial, Father Debrosse, S.J., founded the Confraternity of the Holy Hour, which was repeatedly enriched with indulgences by the Popes, and which was raised to the rank of Archconfraternity by Leo XIII.  An agreement exists between this Confraternity and the Apostleship of Prayer, by virtue of which all members of the Apostleship of Prayer who make the Holy Hour enjoy the same privileges as the members of the Confraternity.

***

Source: Foreword to a Holy Hour booklet.  I added a quote from Miserentissimus Redemptor.

I’ve noticed a few posts dealing with the problems of taxation and government spending. With the social teaching of our Church clearly warns against the dangers of burdensome taxation, it nonetheless remains that tax rates have been cut dramatically in the last 30 years, even as government spending has increased. The losses of tax revenue were offset by a massive accumulation of debt, because a society such as ours requires a great deal of wealth to continue functioning.

I will be the one to point out, then, that far more perilous to the position of the working American family is the stagnation and overall decline of real wages – wages adjusted for inflation – during that same stretch of time. Both global pressures as well as corporate and government offensives against the social position of the American worker have contributed to a decline in real wages and have caused a build up of consumer debt that rivals the government’s debt.

We were told by endless propaganda no different in its shrillness and anxiousness that cutting taxes on the incomes of the wealthy, on dividends and capital gains, on estates and every other business venture, would create jobs and prosperity for all.

The reality has been that an illusion of prosperity has been sustained through reckless lending and borrowing at all levels of society while the real foundations of wealth for the average citizen, the average worker, have been corroded away through negligence, stupidity and the naked greed of big business and the politicians who dutifully serve it.

Meanwhile the share of the national wealth commanded by the wealthiest 1%, and within that, the wealthiest .01%, has doubled. Wealth has become more and not less concentrated, and power along with it. This is bad for no other reason that we now have enterprises that are “too big to fail”, meaning, if they go, they’re taking a lot of people down with them.

The ruling class of this country wants it all, and its apologists want them to have it all – to be able to outsource our jobs and work people in third world countries to death for lower wages, to be able to shut down factories and bust unions, to strip away social programs and education budgets, to replace jobs that once enabled a man to sustain a wife and children on his own with jobs that require both parents to work, that are less stable and offer fewer benefits. Since the onset of globalization, the message has been loud and clear to the American worker: they must be “competitive” with workers in parts of the world where circumstances dictate they live in abject squalor. How does one compete with that?

The role of big business in this mess, of the massive concentrated wealth of the financial sector and the power it wields over the global economy, are facts of economic life that every Pontiff that has ever written on social questions has both acknowledged and condemned.

All of them without exception condemned the massive concentrations of wealth and power that characterize our society today, that enable a thin layer to completely dominate the financial affairs of the country and the world. This situation is just as, if not more unacceptable, than the size of government. Don’t believe me?

Pope Leo XIII wrote in Rerum Novarum:

“[T]he hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.” (par. 3)

In Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI commented extensively on “the changes which the capitalist economic system has undergone since Leo’s time”, including the reality that

“an immense power and despotic economic dictatorship is consolidated in the hands of a few… they regulate the flow, so to speak, of the life-blood whereby the entire economic system lives, and have so firmly in their grasp the soul, as it were, of economic life that no one can breathe against their will… ” (par. 104-109)

Neither Leo nor Pius blamed governments as such for this problem but rather saw it as the logical consequence of the philosophy of economic liberalism – the idea that individualistic competition would naturally serve the common good. This is most clearly stated in paragraph 88 of Quadragesimo Anno, where he wrote – among other things:

“free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life“

Here it must be said, however, that Pius XI did not believe that the government could provide a permanent solution to the problem, that it too would fail, “since it is a headstrong power and a violent energy that, to benefit people, needs to be strongly curbed and wisely ruled. But it cannot curb and rule itself.”

In the place of both unregulated economic activity that leads to concentrated wealth and power, and the “economic dictatorship” of the state Pius called for a third alternative:

“Loftier and nobler principles – social justice and social charity – must, therefore, be sought whereby this dictatorship may be governed firmly and fully. Hence, the institutions themselves of peoples and, particularly those of all social life, ought to be penetrated with this justice, and it is most necessary that it be truly effective, that is, establish a juridical and social order which will, as it were, give form and shape to all economic life.”

There are no “laws of economics” that bind us to the current downward spiral we find ourselves in, or, even if we should have a startling recovery, yet another great bust somewhere else down the line. Neither do such “laws” prevent any of us from taking the words of Pius XI seriously and seeking to create a new and just social order in our midst. We don’t have to live this way, and there are some 60 million Catholics in America alone, only a fraction of which would be needed for serious movement in another direction. But we will never escape the cycle if we heap all the blame either government or business. We must go much deeper than that.

There have been times during history, and there are places in the world today, where men are truly the masters of their own fate because they are owners that work together in community, because there is a basic recognition of the human dignity of each member of the community. I quote Chesterton’s wonderful exposition of Distributism, The Outline of Sanity:

“I hold the old mystical dogma that what Man has done, Man can do. My critics seem to hold a still more mystical dogma: that Man cannot possibly do a thing because he has done it. That is what seems to be meant by saying that small property is “antiquated.” It really means that all property is dead. There is nothing to be reached upon the present lines except the increasing loss of property by everybody, as something swallowed up into a system equally impersonal and inhuman, whether we call it Communism or Capitalism. If we cannot go back, it hardly seems worth while to go forward.”

Private property is the bedrock of individual freedom, but its communal use is the glue that holds society together and prevents its bonds from shattering and its individual fragments from mutating into the hideous monsters that have stomped on our society like Godzilla with a toothache. This is what I understand to be the core principle of Distributism, as well as Aristotle’s ideal political community, as well as the social teaching of the Holy Fathers. It is time to listen and more importantly, to implement.

It is time to surrender our secular ideological preferences to the wisdom of the Holy Fathers; that is in fact how Distributism got its start: a few bright minds took Leo XIII’s encyclical to heart; in Spain a few more a little later on took Pius XI’s to heart and started the Mondragon. What if there were 10 Mondragons or 100, all operating on Catholic principles? What stops that from occuring but an unjustifiable fondness for alien ideologies ultimately hostile to Catholicism?

(Originally published at InsideCatholic.com)

It might surprise some to learn that the basic idea behind the “welfare state” did not originate with either Marxist revolutionaries or bleeding-heart liberals, but rather with a head of state usually identified with conservatism: Otto von Bismarck. Faced with a growing threat from the German socialist movement, in the 1880s Bismarck established four programs that were essentially the minimum of the socialist program: health insurance, accident insurance (or workmen’s compensation), disability insurance, and a retirement fund for the elderly. By implementing these programs, the German leader hoped to steal some of the thunder from the socialists and prevent a revolutionary uprising.

In the United States, a similar motivation guided the architects of the New Deal, Social Security, and other programs now grouped under the broad heading “welfare state.” One might never know, based on today’s heated political rhetoric, that the idea behind the welfare state was to prevent, not bring about, socialism. Yet since the 2008 campaign, welfare, along with regulation and redistribution, have become synonymous with “socialism” in America.

Catholics have been as divided over these issues as the nation at large, with nearly everyone interested in the political debate combing the social doctrines of the Church to support one theory at the expense of another. So where precisely does the Church stand on the issue of welfare?

Beginning with Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, the Church, to use the phrase of Pope John Paul II, declared her “citizenship status” and began to take a more active interest in social and economic questions. While that encyclical was primarily concerned with the socialist revolutionary threat against the right of private property, Leo also had something to say about the role of the state with respect to the poor and laboring masses. He wrote:

“[W]hen there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government. “

This concern for the poor in general and the poor worker in particular has been a consistent theme of Catholic social doctrine since the time of Leo’s writing (1891, not long after the Bismarckian reforms). The Church has recognized a de facto bill of rights for the working class in all countries, rights that are “based on the nature of the human person and on his transcendent dignity.” These rights are drawn from the many social encyclicals that have been written in the last 120 years, and are summarized and listed in paragraph 301 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

They are:

The right to a just wage.

The right to rest.

The right to a working environment and to manufacturing processes that are not harmful to the workers’ physical health or moral integrity.

The right that one’s personality in the workplace should be safeguarded without suffering any affront to one’s conscience or personal dignity.

The right to appropriate subsidies necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families.

The right to a pension and to insurance for old age, sickness, and in case of work-related accidents.

The right to social security connected with maternity.

The right to assemble and form associations.

Naturally we’re faced with a problem, which begins with a widely divergent use and meaning of words as they are employed by the Church on the one hand and partisans of secular politics on the other. For instance, it is clear that some of the rights on this list are the responsibility of government on some level, thus perhaps relegating them to the realm of the modern conception of welfare, while others bring with them corresponding duties for those responsible for employing workers, meaning restrictions on the rights of property owners. For some, any attempt to treat these rights as legally binding — that is to say, as actual rights, instead of polite suggestions — would therefore amount to some sort of “socialism.” Those who hold this view tend to argue that either the popes didn’t know what they were talking about when they originally defined and condemned socialism, or that the people associating legitimate policies from a Catholic perspective with “socialism” are the ones without a clue.

Regardless, Catholics have no grounds to categorically reject government involvement in the economy, or the redistribution of wealth. Pope Pius XI, in the social encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, makes two points worth remembering:

1) That given the clear failures of individualism as a philosophy applied dogmatically to economic matters, “it is most necessary that economic life be again subjected to and governed by a true and effective directing principle.” This is as true in the wake of our own economic crisis as it was during the Great Depression, when Pius XI originally wrote these words.

2) This principle does not exclude the action of the state, for “when the State brings private ownership into harmony with the needs of the common good, it does not commit a hostile act against private owners but rather does them a friendly service; for it thereby effectively prevents the private possession of goods . . . from causing intolerable evils and thus rushing to its own destruction.”

On these two points there is some convergence between the basic idea of the welfare state and Catholic social doctrine; in order to preserve a system of private property and free enterprise, some wealth must be appropriated and some regulations established by a legitimate government in the service of the common good.

The Church has been skeptical of the growth of the welfare state over time. In Centesimus Annus, John Paul II criticized the welfare state on the grounds that it usurped what is properly reserved to individuals, families, and local communities. This criticism is often invoked not only as a sort of final word for Catholics on welfare, but also as an endorsement of a laissez-faire approach to social and economic issues.

But John Paul II goes on to make two things quite clear: first, that the modern welfare state that he’s criticizing does not constitute a blanket condemnation of all welfare policies, especially of the sort initially promoted by Bismarck or even the American liberals of the 1930s. Second, in keeping with Pius XI, he argues that individualism is not the antidote to excessive statism but is in fact another force as hostile to the notion of solidarity and charity as the welfare state is to the principle of subsidiarity.

As he writes:

“The individual today is often suffocated between two poles represented by the State and the marketplace. At times it seems as though he exists only as a producer and consumer of goods, or as an object of State administration. People lose sight of the fact that life in society has neither the market nor the State as its final purpose, since life itself has a unique value which the State and the market must serve.”

Given all of this, I sometimes wonder about the blanket conservative rejection of the welfare state. If charity is superior to welfare, why is it not more widely practiced to the point where welfare would be entirely superfluous? Is it because people assume that there is a welfare state to take care of problems they would love to take care of themselves through their own charitable donations, but see no need to? Or is it because the atomization of society through the operations of an amoral marketplace has created a society that, to use John Paul II’s term, has become “personalized”? If charity is not forthcoming from a society of individualistic consumers, how else are the poor and desperate to find the relief they need?

I am not an ardent supporter of the welfare state, insofar as it treads upon those areas of social life that would violate the principle of subsidiarity. At the same time, however, there are certain needs and rights that would not be met even in the minimum if all state assistance were to dry up tomorrow. It often appears to those of us who support at least some welfare provisions that those who oppose them in an angry, categorical sense are simply concerned about their own bank accounts, forgetting entirely the Christian teaching (in both Scripture and Tradition) about the nature and purpose of wealth. It was summarized by Pius XI:

“[A] person’s superfluous income, that is, income which he does not need to sustain life fittingly and with dignity, is not left wholly to his own free determination. Rather the Sacred Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church constantly declare in the most explicit language that the rich are bound by a very grave precept to practice almsgiving, beneficence, and munificence.”

One may legitimately ask whether the government should play any role in seeing that a person uses his extra income as it ought to be used. The idea of “forced charity” is a contradiction in terms. However, how can we ever ensure that charity is actually performed without admonishing the sinner? Far from admonishing, there are many who lavish endless praise on the excessively wealthy and appear more concerned with safeguarding their money than with the condition of the poor or the integrity of society. What the wealthy do with their money is often of far less concern to them than whether or not a poor person harbors an envious thought towards them. These priorities are skewed.

In addressing the problem of persistent poverty, we might take a page from the playbook of Aristotle, the original distributist. In book XI of the Politics he notes that extra state revenues should not simply be given away to the poor, because such a remedy is like “pouring water into a leaky cask”: It does not solve the problem and may end up making it worse. What he suggest, however, is what distributists suggest today:

“[M]easures therefore should be taken which will give [the poor] lasting prosperity; and as this is equally the interest of all classes, the proceeds of the public revenues should be accumulated and distributed among its poor, if possible, in such quantities as may enable them to purchase a little farm, or, at any rate, make a beginning in trade or husbandry.”

Sadly, this idea — updated for the realities of the modern economy as we see in encyclicals such as Laborem Exercens — is wholly overlooked in modern political discourse. Distributism in the Aristotelian and Catholic tradition is the answer to the twin evils of consumerist selfishness and isolation, as well as over-dependence on a powerful government. It is the key to regenerating the community and its economy, strengthening the position of the family, creating a local infrastructure to support a Culture of Life, and better managing the wild swings of the global marketplace.

When it leads to dependence, laziness, and the usurpation of the legitimate role of local institutions, welfare is indeed both harmful and sinful. But if through wise policies it can be made to strengthen those institutions and make them more competent in their tasks, then complaints about redistribution of excessive wealth — clearly understood as wealth beyond what one needs to maintain a dignified life — ring hollow. Such policies in truth ask so little and promise so much that it would be irrational not to try them.

In the end there is no difference between the conservative who wants total freedom with respect to wealth and the liberal who wants the same with respect to sexuality. Both argue that society shouldn’t use coercion to ensure a moral result in the area of life where they would like freedom to sin. Both are sure that while God would insist that one be regulated by the secular authorities, the other is left to personal conscience. While abortion is a more grave matter than clinging to personal wealth, the same flawed argument is used to defend it: It’s my body, it’s my wealth, it’s my property. But all things belong to God, be they children or wealth, and are merely entrusted to us to be used for the common good.

Pius P.P. XI

In Perpetual Remembrance

Our Predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, have all the times unceasingly sought with untiring zeal to arouse and foster the devotion of the faithful to the Most Blessed Mother of Our Redeemer Jesus Christ.  Wherefore we also with much joy of soul have seen extraordinary evidence of great love for the Virgin Mother of God among the people of the dioceses of the Philippine Islands in letters of petitioners which the Archbishop of Manila and the Philippines, and also our Apostolic Delegate have now jointly presented to us in the name of their clergy and faithful.

From these letters we have definitely learned that the people of these Islands earnestly wish that we should consider it proper to proclaim the Most Blessed Virgin Mary to be the heavely loving Mother of the human race and since she is held in great honor and veneration under same title in the region of New Spain, now Central America, from which missionary institutions went froth to the Philippine Islands bringing with them the laws and customs of Christian civilization.

Since therefore the faithful of these Islands who would especially honor Holy Mary and confidently implore the intercession under the tittle of Guadalupe, together with their Pastors, have herein mentioned, confidently promising the most efficacious help and protection of the Virgin Mother of God, and after having consulted the Prefect of Congregation of Sacred Rites, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and having fulfilled all that is customary, with diligent care, we degree as follows:

Forsooth with our certain knowledge and mature delibreration, and from a plenitude of Our Apostolic Authority, according to the puport of these letters and in perpetual manner, we define and declare the the BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, under the aforesaid title of GUADALUPE is before God THE HEAVENLY PATRONESS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.  Wherefore we command that all the Liturgical Rights and privileges which are proper to such a Patronage shall be bestowed upon Her Heavenly Patronage.

These things we define and promulgate and we decree that these LETTERS SHALL FORTHWITH STAND IRREVOCABLE, VALID AND EFFECTIVE, and shall remain their full and complete effects; and they shall benefit with all of the Islands both now and forever; and IF ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS SHOULD HAPPEN TO BE ATTEMPTED BY ANYBODY EITHER KNOWINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY NO MATTER BY WHAT AUTHROITY it must be judged and dealt with accordingly, AND IT SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID FROM THIS MOMENT.  Everything to the contrary notwithstanding.

Given at Saint Peter’s at Rome, under the Seal of the Fisherman, on the sixteenth day of July in the Year Nineteen Hundred and Thirty Five.

(Signed) E. Cardinal Pacelli

a Secretis Status

————

Notes:

1. This decree was copied from the insert page of the Novena pamphlet for the Holy Mary of Guadalupe published by the Lay Monastic Community of Caryana, S of G Foundation, Inc.,  P. O. Box 1759, MCPO, Makati, Metro Manila, 1257.
2. A full length picture of Our Lady of Gudalupe is in Wiki Pilipinas.  Beautiful portraits are also provided by cathom.blogspot.com here and by Properly Scared here.  Note that Our Lady’s mantle appears bluish when we go nearer to the image (Cathom) and greenish when we move farther away (Properly Scared).  This is an optical phenomenon since no paint is used in Our Lady’s mantle.  A possible physical explanation is diffraction grating effect, as when we see rainbow colors in a compact disc due to its closely spaced grooves.  Another possible explanation is the mantle forms holographic pattern, similar to those of modern brand seals that changes color depending on your point of view.
3. You may read my related post, “How Our Lady of Gudalupe snatched me from New Age.”

The 20th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution took effect on February 6th, 1933. The amendment clarified the order of succession to the presidency and changed the start of a presidential term from March 4th to January 20th.

Cardinal Achille Ratti became Pope Pius XI on February 6th, 1922, succeeding Pope Benedict XV. Benedict had died two weeks earlier, and it took 14 ballots for the College of Cardinals to elect Ratti.

Princess Elizabeth of England became Queen Elizabeth II on February 6th, 1952, upon the death of her father, King George VI.

And a star of the animated series “King of the Hill’ has a birthday on February 6th. Kathy Najimy (1957) does the voice of Peggy Hill.

       One of the interesting discussions following the wake of this year’s political campaign has been about Catholics and socialism. Is it OK to be a Catholic socialist? (Wonder what sparked this line of thought?)

       Despite Pope Pius XI saying, back in the 1930s, that “No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist”, some Catholics want to argue the point. They claim the “Christian socialism” described in Acts, in which “All those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need,” is the inspiration for the “scientific socialism” espoused by Marx and Engels. After all, Marx and Engels say it is.

       Well, of course Marx and Engels say their inspiration for the socialist ideal was early Christianity. It gives their theories authority and respectability. As Saul Alinsky drily exhorts young radicals, “… you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.” [Rules for Radicals] Marx and Engels are simply clothing socialism with Christianity, the wolf in a sheepskin.

       At the blog called Catholic America: A closer look at Church, Culture and Change, which is a feature of Newsweek/Washington Post, writer Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo recognizes that the salient component of “Christian socialism” is choice. He glosses over this, however, and only a paragraph later is reminding the reader that he must also bear in mind another Christian principle, namely that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” We see where this is going.

       And so here it is: “At stake in contemporary Catholic America is a growing awareness that the U.S. economic system has serious flaws.” OK, Mr. Stevens-Arroyo, hold on there just a minute. Yes, the U.S. economic system has serious flaws but that’s the human condition. There has never been and never will be an economic system without serious flaws. But the US economic system, for all its flaws, has been the envy of the world…and has brought prosperity to the majority of its citizens.

       Stevens-Arroyo continues: “In addressing the financial system, “socialism” is not a dirty word for Catholics.” Um…yes, it is. Re-read the Pius XI quote, above. Or, read John Paul II, who, without any illusions about its imperfections, writes, “it would appear that, on the level of individual nations and of international relations, the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs.”

       John Paul is not so generous with socialism. “[I]n today’s world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed. Yet it is a right that is important not only for the individual but also for the common good. Experience shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in the name of an alleged ‘equality’ of everyone in society, diminishes, or in practice absolutely destroys the spirit of initiative, that is to say the creative subjectivity of the citizen.”

       Referring to Pope Leo XIII, he says: “His words deserve to be re-read attentively: ‘To remedy these wrongs (the unjust distribution of wealth and the poverty of the workers), the Socialists encourage the poor man’s envy of the rich and strive to do away with private property, contending that individual possessions should become the common property of all…; but their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that, were they carried into effect, the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are moreover emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community’. The evils caused by the setting up of this type of socialism as a State system – what would later be called ‘Real Socialism’ – could not be better expressed.” [Centesimus annus]

       It gets worse. The pope continues, “Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility that he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order.”

       Benedict XVI has some hard words for socialism, too. “Let us recall the fact that atheism and the denial of the human person, his liberty and his rights, are at the core of the Marxist theory…Moreover, to attempt to integrate into theology an analysis whose criterion of interpretation depends on this atheistic conception is to involve oneself in terrible contradictions. What is more, this misunderstanding of the spiritual nature of the person leads to a total subordination of the person to the collectivity, and thus to the denial of the principles of a social and political life which is in keeping with human dignity.”

       Why are we even discussing this? The answer is that you have a large body of people – the Catholics living in the US – who, if they knew their Church teachings, rather than what other Catholics say they say, might rebel at incoming socialist incursion. Socialism – the unchosen, forced-onto-society, “scientific” version that has martyred hundreds of thousands – is a really dirty word to Catholics.

Ahem. Let me try that again. Socialism is a really dirty word.

We’re completing the novena today and preparing for tomorrow’s end of the year celebration!

The most important celebration on this final Sunday of our liturgical year, however, is to accept Jesus Christ as King within our own hearts and lives. Pope Pius XI put it best:

The faithful, moreover, by meditating upon these truths, will gain much strength and courage, enabling them to form their lives after the true Christian ideal…He must reign in our minds, which should assent with perfect submission and firm belief to revealed truths and to the doctrines of Christ. He must reign in our wills, which should obey the laws and precepts of God. He must reign in our hearts, which should spurn natural desires and love God above all things, and cleave to him alone. He must reign in our bodies and in our members, which should serve as instruments for the interior sanctification of our souls, or to use the words of the Apostle Paul, as instruments of justice unto God. (Quas Primas #33)

Yesterday was our day of fast. We gave up some food and some internet time. What a relaxing day!

Today we’ll reflect on the words of Pope Pius XI in the encyclical Quas Primas when he established the solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ the King in 1925 to encourage prayer to combat growing atheism and secularism:

“We firmly hope, however, that the feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result. Many of these, however, have neither the station in society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to engage in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of the Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights.”