September 19, 2018, 11:02:28 PM

News:

To love God is something greater than to know Him. --St. Thomas Aquinas


Recent Posts

Pages1 2 3 ... 10
1
Dogma & Doctrine / Casti Connubii's condemnation ...
Last post by Geremia - Today at 03:47:11 PM
Pope Pius XI's condemnation of onanism (contraception) in his 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii (spec. §59: "...so long as the intrinsic nature of the [marriage] act is preserved.") is a case study of Fr. Cartechini, S.J's 1951 De Valore Notarum Theologicarum p. 20 regarding ex cathedra pronouncements of morals:
QuoteDe qualificatione theologica sententiæ condemnatoriæ abusus matrimonii in encyclica "Casti Connubii": utrum sit solemnis definitio ex cathedra quod onanismus sit semper peccatum mortale. Quidam affirmabant esse dogma quia Pontifex adhibet verba satis solemnia. Certe ad solemnem definitionem requiruntur hæc elementa: quod loquatur ut supremus pastor et doctor, et quod velit adhibere supremam suam auctoritatem in pleno gradu. Quod hic loquatur ut supremus pastor et doctor patet; inquirendum restat utrum voluerit uti sua suprema auctoritate, ferendo sententiam definitivam. Sed, admisso quod non sit dogma fidei, tamen doctrina ab ea promulgata certe est infallibiliter vera ex hoc capite: quod Papa verbis solemnibus authentice significet doctrinam ex antiquis temporibus ab ordinario et universali magisterio constanter propositam ut tenendam et observandam.

Regarding the theological qualification of the condemnations against the abuses of matrimony in the encyclical Casti Connubii: whether contraception is always a mortal sin is a solemn ex cathedra definition. Some affirm it to be dogma because the Pontiff uses very solemn words. For a solemn definition, these elements are required: that he speak as supreme pastor and teacher, and that he wants to use his supreme authority in its full degree. It is clear that he speaks as supreme teacher and pastor in this encyclical; it remains to inquire whether he wanted to use his supreme authority, giving a definitive pronouncement. But, even if it is not a dogma of the faith, the doctrine he promulgated certainly is infallibly true because the Pope authoritatively and with solemn words expresses a moral doctrine that from ancient times the ordinary and universal magisterium has constantly proposed must be be held and observed.
[my translation with comparison to p. 18 of the Italian]
2
General Discussion / Boccaccio on Church's sanctity...
Last post by Geremia - September 11, 2018, 10:57:43 AM
Boccaccio (fl. 1353)--one of the greatest satirists of Italian literature, although a humanist, but whose "jibes and anecdotes at the expense of clerics did not impair his belief in the teachings of the Church" (J. Dunn)--wrote a story illustrating the sanctity of the Church despite its sinful members in his Decameron day 1, story 2:

QuoteTHE SECOND STORY

Day the First

ABRAHAM THE JEW, AT THE INSTIGATION OF JEHANNOT DE CHEVIGNÉ, GOETH TO THE COURT OF ROME AND SEEING THE DEPRAVITY OF THE CLERGY, RETURNETH TO PARIS AND THERE BECOMETH A CHRISTIAN

Pamfilo's story was in part laughed at and altogether commended by the ladies, and it being come to its end, after being diligently hearkened, the queen bade Neifile, who sat next him, ensue the ordinance of the commenced diversion by telling one[41] of her fashion. Neifile, who was distinguished no less by courteous manners than by beauty, answered blithely that she would well and began on this wise: "Pamfilo hath shown us in his story that God's benignness regardeth not our errors, when they proceed from that which is beyond our ken; and I, in mine, purpose to show you how this same benignness,--patiently suffering the defaults of those who, being especially bounden both with words and deeds to bear true witness thereof[42] yet practise the contrary,--exhibiteth unto us an infallible proof of itself, to the intent that we may, with the more constancy of mind, ensue that which we believe.

As I have heard tell, gracious ladies, there was once in Paris a great merchant and a very loyal and upright man, whose name was Jehannot de Chevigné and who was of great traffic in silks and stuffs. He had particular friendship for a very rich Jew called Abraham, who was also a merchant and a very honest and trusty man, and seeing the latter's worth and loyalty, it began to irk him sore that the soul of so worthy and discreet and good a man should go to perdition for default of faith; wherefore he fell to beseeching him on friendly wise leave the errors of the Jewish faith and turn to the Christian verity, which he might see still wax and prosper, as being holy and good, whereas his own faith, on the contrary, was manifestly on the wane and dwindling to nought. The Jew made answer that he held no faith holy or good save only the Jewish, that in this latter he was born and therein meant to live and die, nor should aught ever make him remove therefrom.

Jehannot for all that desisted not from him, but some days after returned to the attack with similar words, showing him, on rude enough wise (for that merchants for the most part can no better), for what reasons our religion is better than the Jewish; and albeit the Jew was a past master in their law, nevertheless, whether it was the great friendship he bore Jehannot that moved him or peradventure words wrought it that the Holy Ghost put into the good simple man's mouth, the latter's arguments began greatly to please him; but yet, persisting in his own belief, he would not suffer himself to be converted. Like as he abode obstinate, even so Jehannot never gave over importuning him, till at last the Jew, overcome by such continual insistence, said, 'Look you, Jehannot, thou wouldst have me become a Christian and I am disposed to do it; insomuch, indeed, that I mean, in the first place, to go to Rome and there see him who, thou sayest, is God's Vicar upon earth and consider his manners and fashions and likewise those of his chief brethren.[43] If these appear to me such that I may, by them, as well as by your words, apprehend that your faith is better than mine, even as thou hast studied to show me, I will do as I have said; and if it be not so, I will remain a Jew as I am.'

When Jehannot heard this, he was beyond measure chagrined and said in himself, 'I have lost my pains, which meseemed I had right well bestowed, thinking to have converted this man; for that, an he go to the court of Rome and see the lewd and wicked life of the clergy, not only will he never become a Christian, but, were he already a Christian, he would infallibly turn Jew again.' Then, turning to Abraham, he said to him, 'Alack, my friend, why wilt thou undertake this travail and so great a charge as it will be to thee to go from here to Rome? More by token that, both by sea and by land, the road is full of perils for a rich man such as thou art. Thinkest thou not to find here who shall give thee baptism? Or, if peradventure thou have any doubts concerning the faith which I have propounded to thee, where are there greater doctors and men more learned in the matter than are here or better able to resolve thee of that which thou wilt know or ask? Wherefore, to my thinking, this thy going is superfluous. Bethink thee that the prelates there are even such as those thou mayst have seen here, and indeed so much the better as they are nearer unto the Chief Pastor. Wherefore, an thou wilt be counselled by me, thou wilt reserve this travail unto another time against some jubilee or other, whereunto it may be I will bear thee company.' To this the Jew made answer, 'I doubt not, Jehannot, but it is as thou tellest me; but, to sum up many words in one, I am altogether determined, an thou wouldst have me do that whereof thou hast so instantly besought me, to go thither; else will I never do aught thereof.' Jehannot, seeing his determination, said, 'Go and good luck go with thee!' And inwardly assured that he would never become a Christian, when once he should have seen the court of Rome, but availing[44] nothing in the matter, he desisted.

The Jew mounted to horse and as quickliest he might betook himself to the court of Rome, he was honourably entertained of his brethren, and there abiding, without telling any the reason of his coming, he began diligently to enquire into the manners and fashions of the Pope and Cardinals and other prelates and of all the members of his court, and what with that which he himself noted, being a mighty quick-witted man, and that which he gathered from others, he found all, from the highest to the lowest, most shamefully given to the sin of lust, and that not only in the way of nature, but after the Sodomitical fashion, without any restraint of remorse or shamefastness, insomuch that the interest of courtezans and catamites was of no small avail there in obtaining any considerable thing.

Moreover, he manifestly perceived them to be universally gluttons, wine-bibbers, drunkards and slaves to their bellies, brute-beast fashion, more than to aught else after lust. And looking farther, he saw them all covetous and greedy after money, insomuch that human, nay, Christian blood, no less than things sacred, whatsoever they might be, whether pertaining to the sacrifices of the altar or to the benefices of the church, they sold and bought indifferently for a price, making a greater traffic and having more brokers thereof than folk at Paris of silks and stuffs or what not else. Manifest simony they had christened 'procuration' and gluttony 'sustentation,' as if God apprehended not,--let be the meaning of words but,--the intention of depraved minds and would suffer Himself, after the fashion of men, to be duped by the names of things. All this, together with much else which must be left unsaid, was supremely displeasing to the Jew, who was a sober and modest man, and himseeming he had seen enough, he determined to return to Paris and did so.

As soon as Jehannot knew of his return, he betook himself to him, hoping nothing less than that he should become a Christian, and they greeted each other with the utmost joy. Then, after Abraham had rested some days, Jehannot asked him how himseemed of the Holy Father and of the cardinals and others of his court. Whereto the Jew promptly answered, 'Meseemeth, God give them ill one and all! And I say this for that, if I was able to observe aright, no piety, no devoutness, no good work or example of life or otherwhat did I see there in any who was a churchman; nay, but lust, covetise, gluttony and the like and worse (if worse can be) meseemed to be there in such favour with all that I hold it for a forgingplace of things diabolical rather than divine. And as far as I can judge, meseemeth your chief pastor and consequently all the others endeavour with all diligence and all their wit and every art to bring to nought and banish from the world the Christian religion, whereas they should be its foundation and support. And for that I see that this whereafter they strive cometh not to pass, but that your religion continually increaseth and waxeth still brighter and more glorious, meseemeth I manifestly discern that the Holy Spirit is verily the foundation and support thereof, as of that which is true and holy over any other. Wherefore, whereas, aforetime I abode obdurate and insensible to thine exhortations and would not be persuaded to embrace thy faith, I now tell thee frankly that for nothing in the world would I forbear to become a Christian. Let us, then, to church and there have me baptized, according to the rite and ordinance of your holy faith.'

Jehannot, who looked for a directly contrary conclusion to this, was the joyfullest man that might be, when he heard him speak thus, and repairing with him to our Lady's Church of Paris, required the clergy there to give Abraham baptism. They, hearing that the Jew himself demanded it, straightway proceeded to baptize him, whilst Jehannot raised him from the sacred font[45] and named him Giovanni. After this, he had him thoroughly lessoned by men of great worth and learning in the tenets of our holy faith, which he speedily apprehended and thenceforward was a good man and a worthy and one of a devout life."
4
Anti-Modernism / Jews [vs. Catholics] & Abortio...
Last post by Geremia - August 27, 2018, 02:03:04 PM
Chapter Twenty-Eight [of the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit by E. Michael Jones]

Jews and Abortion

In 1967, Jewish gynecologist Bernard Nathanson was invited to a dinner party at which the ostensible topic was James Joyce. During that dinner party, Nathanson met another revolutionary Jew by the name of Lawrence Lader. Lader had been a protege and, some hinted, lover of Margaret Sanger, the recently deceased diva of the American eugenics movement. Lader talked about Joyce, but Nathanson was soon fascinated to learn Lader had just written a book on abortion, a topic even more fascinating to Nathanson than novels by Irish apostates.

Nathanson defines Lader politically rather than ethnically. Lader became involved in radical politics in New York when he went to work for Representative Vito Marcantonio, a man who was rumored to have ties with the communist party, which was largely made up of New York Jews. Lader divorced his wife and became a freelance writer (a vocation financed by the money he inherited from his father) and became an agitator for the sexual politics of Margaret Sanger shortly after his return from World War II. From the moment he met Lader, Nathanson saw him as "brewing up a revolution" and as a result he felt "a growing sense of excitement."¹

Nathanson felt that he came by his own revolutionary fervor naturally--he hints at some "Mendelian mechanism"²--because he was a Jew. Revolution, according to Nathanson, was another word for "chutzpah": "I come by my rebelliousness honestly. As a physician, I doubt that this is a quality passed on by any recognized Mendelian mechanism. But my father had it in abundance, except that in his generation and in the community in which he was brought up they called it chutzpah.''³

Because Nathanson feels "any author on abortion must submit to religious dissection,"⁴ he tells of his schooling in New York City. He went to a "fine private school with virtually 100 percent Jewish students"⁵ and he attended Hebrew School, where he developed an aversion to the Talmud.

Religious instruction in that era meant endless slogging through turgid passages of Hebrew Scripture, mindless memorization of Hebrew prayers for numerous occasions and sanctimonious lectures about the chosenness of the Jewish race.  Preoccupation with Zionism and fundraising left little energy for instruction in Hebrew or any demeaning excursions into the arcane regions of faith.⁶

Nathanson's experience in Hebrew School confirmed him in his aversion to the Talmud as a compendium of meaningless opinions which the rabbis enforced on Jews to maintain their control over them. In this he was not unlike the revolutionary Jews in Russia during its Maskilic period from 1860-1880, when the German Enlightenment destroyed the Jews' allegiance to the Talmud and created the vacuum which was filled by Jewish conversion to messianic revolutionary politics.

Once religion had been discredited in Nathanson's eyes, he had no guide in life other than his own passions. While in medical school, Nathanson had an affair, which led to a pregnancy, which he paid to have aborted. The mother of his child informed Nathanson afterward that "she had haggled down his price to $350 before the procedure." She handed him "the remaining $150"⁷ and disappeared from his life. The experience of procuring the abortion of his own child coarsened Nathanson, causing him to become cynical about what other people considered sacred--"Marriage seemed ludicrous now,"⁸--propelling him further along the road to revolutionary politics.

Nathanson arrived at the revolution via sexuality, but also via the gynecological profession, which he felt predestined to adopt because of the influence of his gynecologist father. Gynecology plus revolutionary fervor in New York in the '60s meant abortion. After having murdered his own child, Nathanson was more disposed to act on his own "natural" Jewish inclination to revolution. He was also more likely to act on the promptings of other Jewish revolutionaries. Nathanson became a crusader for abortion at the time Wilhelm Reich's face and ideas made the cover of the New York Times magazine. Before long any ob/gyn who refused to admit involement in abortion was part of a "loathsome little charade."⁹ Anger begat a desire to change the laws to conform to his behavior:

QuoteI suppose that in fury at my own impotence to aid my patients and particularly in anger at the egregious inequity in the availability of abortions, the germination of an idea began: the need to change the laws. There seemed no time for the luxury of contemplating the theoretical morality of abortion or the soundness of freedom of choice. Something simply had to be done.¹⁰

Because Nathanson considered abortion a revolutionary act and because he considered himself a revolutionary because of the fact that he was Jewish, he became, in his own words, "an enlistee in the Revolution."¹¹ In this, Nathanson was influenced by the Jew from Hibbing, Minnesota, Bob Dylan, who had procured an abortion a few years earlier. He even makes use of lyrics from a Bob Dylan song at one point--"the times they were a changin"--in describing 1967 as the revolutionary annus mirabilis in which he joined with Lader to work for the "total abolition of abortion restrictions."¹²

QuoteI was as enthusiastic and as cooperative a confederate as one could wish for in a revolutionary movement as profound as this one. Larry and I and others were to devote hundreds of hours of our free time to the cause in the coming years. I was almost yearning to be radicalized in a cause. This was 1967. The country was being racked by the Vietnam convulsion and challenges to authority seemed the order of the day, particularly in the intellectual breeding-grounds of the Northeast. Though I was forty, I believe that I secretly longed to be a part of the youth movement that was sweeping the country, demanding justice, pledging change, exalting "love." So my indignation, my rebellious nature, and an undeniable urge to "join the kids," combined to move me into the public arena.¹³

The abortion movement was part of the sexual revolution. The abortion revolution was, nonetheless, unique. It coincided with the rise to cultural prominence of American Jewry in the wake of their breaking of the Hollywood production code and the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War, when it became the opinion of the WASP state department elite that Israel was a strategic asset in America's quest to secure oil in the Mid-East. The abortion movement took on the same configuration as the revolution in Europe when Philip II contested Elizabeth over religious hegemony during the counter-reformation. Like Elizabeth's campaign to drive the Spaniards from Holland, the campaign to overturn abortion laws in New York State was largely an alliance of Protestants and Jews at war with the Catholics.

The list of groups attending a June 1970 meeting of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (later, the National Abortion Rights Actions League) bears this out. NARAL always worked toward "enlisting the Protestant and Jewish clergy"¹⁴ to provide a moral counterforce to Catholics.¹⁵

Karl Marx claimed the revolution would be run by the vanguard of the Proletariat, which he associated with the Communist Party. But former communists like David Horowitz felt Marx's real "vanguard"¹⁶ was the Jews, who had been involved in every revolutionary movement since the fall of the Temple. Although Protestants were involved, Jews were the vanguard in the abortion movement as they were the vanguard of Bolshevism in Russia and of pornography in the United States. The movement to overturn abortion laws in New York was an essentially Jewish movement that saw itself as a revolutionary force against the darkness of Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular. The movement was certainly not exclusively Jewish, but it could not have survived or succeeded without Jewish leadership. The abortion rights movement was a quintessentially Jewish revolutionary movement that mobilized the coalition of Jews and Judaizing Protestants that America inherited from the English anti-Catholic wars of the 16th century.

The ethnic configuration of the abortion movement wasn't coincidental. The ethnically ambiguous Lader was to Lenin what Nathanson was to Trotsky.  Together they carried out a crusade against Catholics. Shortly after meeting Nathanson, Lader explained his strategy of legalizing abortion by attacking Catholics. The proabortion forces had to "bring the Catholic hierarchy out where we can fight them. That's the real enemy. The biggest single obstacle to peace and decency throughout all of history."¹⁷ Nathanson, then no friend of the Church, was taken aback by the vehemence and cosmic scope of Lader's attack. Lader

Quoteheld forth on that theme through most of the drive home. It was a comprehensive and chilling indictment of the poisonous influence of Catholicism in secular affairs from its inception until the day before yesterday. I was far from an admirer of the church's role in the world chronicle, but his insistent, uncompromising recitation brought to mind the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It passed through my mind that if one had substituted "Jewish" for "Catholic," it would have been the most vicious anti-Semitic tirade imaginable.¹⁸

Lader knew "every revolution has to have its villain."¹⁹ Historically, those villains were Catholic, except in Russia, where the Czar was orthodox, the head of an officially Christian country. "It doesn't really matter whether it's a king, a dictator, or a tsar, but it has to be someone, a person, to rebel against. It's easier for the people we want to persuade to perceive it this way."²⁰ In America, Lader told Nathanson, the villain would not be Catholics, who could be divided along liberal and conservative lines, but the Catholic hierarchy, which was a "small enough group to come down on and anonymous enough so that no names ever have to be mentioned, but everybody will have a fairly good idea whom we are talking about."²¹ The strategy shocked Nathanson initially, but it soon made good sense when Nathanson remembered, "That was how Trotsky and his followers habitually referred to the Stalinists."²² When Lader brought Betty Friedan into NARAL, she brought with her the communist tactics she had learned from her youthful work with the party.  Making it seem that women, irrespective of ethnicity, supported abortion was a "brilliant tactic"²³ that corresponded to the "Popular Front" three decades earlier and showed the abortion movement's revolutionary pedigree.

The new popular front included Protestants and Jews, with women as props in televised demonstrations, attacking doctors and hospitals targeted because they were Catholic. One early victim was the Catholic ob/gyn Hugh Barber. Nathanson chose him to target because he "was a practicing Catholic who had stood adamantly against the widening psychiatric indications for action in his department."²⁴ According to Nathanson, "there has been ... no social change in American history as sweeping, as potent in American family life, or as heavily dependent upon an anti-religious bias for its success as the abortion movement."²⁵ By the late '70s, when Nathanson wrote Aborting America, he was "heartily ashamed of the use of the anti-Catholic ploy."²⁶ Nathanson implicated the Jews in this "anti-Catholic ploy" by calling it a "Shandeh jah yidden" ("scandal for the Jews").²⁷ As if admitting the ethnic nature of the struggle, Nathanson converted to Catholicism a few years after converting to the prolife position. The use of anti-Catholic bigotry to promote abortion was more than "a reincarnation of McCarthyism at its worst," it was "a keenly focused weapon, full of purpose and design."²⁸

Lader divided Catholics into liberal and conservative factions and then used the former to control and discredit the latter. The "'modern' Kennedy Catholics," who "were already using contraception," could be browbeaten into a public "prochoice" position without much effort.²⁹ Then "The stage was set ... for the use of anti-Catholicism as a political instrument and for the manipulation of Catholics themselves by splitting them and setting them against each other."³⁰ NARAL would supply the press with "fictitious polls and surveys designed to make it appear as if American Catholics were deserting the teachings of the Church and the dictates of their consciences in droves."³¹

The main public relations weapon, however, was "identifying every antiabortion figure according to his or her religious affiliation (usually Catholic)" while "studiously" refraining from any ethnic or religious identification of those who were pro-abortion.³² "Lader's own religious beliefs" were "never discussed or mentioned," but he identified Malcolm Wilson, the lieutenant governor of New York State in 1970 as "a Catholic strongly opposed to abortion."³³ "Neither I nor Assemblyman Albert Blumenthal," Nathanson continued, "was ever identified as a Jew, nor was Governor Nelson Rockefeller ever recognized as a Protestant," even though the abortion movement was disproportionately Jewish and "from the very beginning of the abortion revolution the Catholic Church and its spokesmen took a considerable role in the opposition."³⁴

Given the media's liberal bias, "it was easy to portray the church as an insensitive, authoritarian war-monger, and association with it or any of its causes as unendurably reactionary, fascistic, and ignorant."³⁵ Nathanson thinks Catholics should have pointed out the religious bigotry at the heart of this double standard; they also should have explained that the proabortion side was overwhelmingly Jewish, and, therefore, un-American because:

QuoteIn the public mind Protestant America is America. and had Protestant opposition been organized and vociferous early on, permissive abortion might have been perceived as somehow anti-American, the spawn of a cadre of wild-eyed Jewish radicals in New York City.³⁶

Instead, there was no Catholic response to the "blatantly anti-Catholic campaign."³⁷ Catholics concentrated on explaining how the fetus was a human being, as if the other side were ignorant of this fact. "There was no Catholic equivalent of the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith or the NAACP.''³⁸ The Catholic Church "confined itself decently (though as it turned out, disastrously) to the issue of abortion."³⁹ By not identifying their ethnic opponents, Catholics lost the war.

The media had no qualms in this regard and were willing to engage in a flagrant violation of the rules identifying crime by race which they had just established. The "mega-press" (Nathanson's term) collaborated because they were controlled by proabortion Jews and Protestants, who encouraged liberal Catholics like the New York Times' Anna Quindlen, eager to make it in a competitive profession. "The media," says Nathanson,

Quotediscreetly ignored the carefully crafted bigotry we were peddling. Many media people were young college-educated liberal Catholics, just the kind we had succeeded in splitting off from the faithful flock, and they were not about to disgrace their newly-won spurs as intelligentsia by embarrassing the liberals with anything as crass as an accusation of prejudice. Prejudice was something evil directed at Jews and blacks. not Catholics. But had our fulminations been anti-Semitic or anti-black there would have been the most powerful keening in the media-strong enough to have destroyed NARAL.⁴⁰

The NARAL strategy was based on chutzpah. "For sheer chutzpah it had no modern parallel."⁴¹ Nathanson calls the "Robert Byrn affair" the "most nakedly bigoted, fecklessly anti-Catholic campaign NARAL ever mounted."⁴² Byrn, a Fordham University law professor characterized by the New York Times as "a forty-year-old Roman Catholic bachelor," went before Justice Lester Holtzman to have himself declared the legal guardian of unborn children threatened with abortion.  True to the ethnic double standard, the New York Times "did not characterize Justice Holtzman as a married Jew."⁴³ When Byrn sued for an injunction against abortions in New York's municipal hospitals, Attorney General Louis Lefkowitz vowed to fight Byrn, but nothing was said about Lefkowitz's ethnic/religious status. When Nancy Stearns, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights tried to have Byrn put up $40,000 bond for each woman forced to have a child, New York Times correspondent Jane Brody, whose ethnic identity remained shrouded in mystery, "failed to describe Stearns as a single Jewess."⁴⁴ Because the Times is the national paper of record, this double standard got repeated across the country. In Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Inquirer repeatedly referred to anti-abortion crusader Martin Mullen as an "arch-conservative"⁴⁵ Roman Catholic, but never referred to Governor Milton Shapp, Mullen's opponent in Pennsylvania's abortion wars, as a pro-abortion Jew. Nathanson notes that Canada's Henry Morgenthaler used his stay in one of Hitler's concentration camps to justify his role as Canada's leading abortion provider. Morgenthaler's clinics violated Canadian law and yet "Morgenthaler ... is adored by the Canadian mega-press" even though he "is quite as devoted to malignant anti-Catholicism as our American exorcist, Lawrence Lader."⁴⁶

In 1967, at around the same time that Bernard Nathanson met Lawrence Lader and NARAL was born, abortion became legal in California. Governor Ronald Reagan signed the nation's first abortion bill into law, but the law was written by Anthony Beilenson, the Jewish representative from Beverly Hills. The ethnic dimensions of the abortion battle were, if anything, even more extreme in California than they were in New York. As in New York, the battle over abortion broke down clearly along ethnic lines. As in New York, Jews generally promoted abortion, and Catholics generally opposed it. From the moment that abortion was legalized in 1967, the abortion battle in California was largely a battle between Catholics and Jews, in much the same way that Catholics and Jews had battled each other over obscenity in the California movie industry 30 years earlier.

Notes:
  • Bernard N. Nathanson, MD with Richard N. Ostling, Aborting America (Toronto: Life Cycle Books, 1979), p. 35.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 1.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 5·
  • Ibid.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 13.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 14.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 23.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Aborting ,p. 28.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p.31.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 60.
  • Bernard Nathanson, MD, The Abortion Papers: Inisde the Abortion Mentality (New York: Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc., 1983), p. 192. Protestant minister and NARAL executive Committee Member, Jesse Lyons of the Riverside Church, assembled clerical abortion promoters, including representatives from: the National Council of Churches, YMCA, Women's Division of the United Presbyterian Church; Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Lutheran Church in America; Women's Division ofthe United Methodist Church; United Church of Christ; United Methodist church; United Presbyterian Church in the USA; Clergy Consultation Service; American Jewish Congress; American Friends Service committee; American Ethical Union, and American Baptist Convention. Interested but unable to attend: Churchwomen United; Episcopal Churchmen of the USA; Unitarian Universalist Association; Women's Federation Episcopal Church; B'nai Brith, and the American Humanist Association. Ibid.
  • David Horowitz, The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America's Future, (New York: The Free Press, 1998), p. 74.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 33.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 51.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 52.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 33.
  • Nathanson, Aborting, p. 61.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 187.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 200.
  • Ibid.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 180.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 181.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 185.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 186.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 186, 188.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 189.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 190.
  • Ibid.
  • Ibid.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 191.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 192.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 200.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 201.
  • Ibid.
  • cf. E. Michael Jones, Slaughter of Cities.
  • Nathanson, Papers, p. 213.
5
Dogma & Doctrine / Re: Table of Marriage Validity...
Last post by Geremia - June 20, 2018, 03:04:47 PM
Quote from: Kephapaulos on June 07, 2018, 11:40:17 AM2)Since virginity is more meritorious than married state ..., does that mean a married person can never reach the same highest potential level of merit in heaven itself as the highest potential level of merit in heaven for a celibate person or consecrated virgin?
No, they can. See Summa Theologica II-II q. 152 a. 4 ad 2:
QuoteThough virginity is better than conjugal continence, a married person may be better than a virgin for two reasons. First, on the part of chastity itself; if to wit, the married person is more prepared in mind to observe virginity, if it should be expedient, than the one who is actually a virgin. Hence Augustine (De Bono Conjug. xxii) charges the virgin to say: "I am no better than Abraham, although the chastity of celibacy is better than the chastity of marriage." Further on he gives the reason for this: "For what I do now, he would have done better, if it were fitting for him to do it then; and what they did I would even do now if it behooved me now to do it." Secondly, because perhaps the person who is not a virgin has some more excellent virtue. Wherefore Augustine says (De Virgin. xliv): "Whence does a virgin know the things that belong to the Lord, however solicitous she be about them, if perchance on account of some mental fault she be not yet ripe for martyrdom, whereas this woman to whom she delighted in preferring herself is already able to drink the chalice of the Lord?"
Our perfection consists chiefly in our degree of charity (cf. Theology of Christian Perfection by Royo Marín, O.P.). Marriage is a means toward this end, and continence/virginity/celibacy is a better, safer, more effective means toward this end.

Quote from: Kephapaulos on June 07, 2018, 11:40:17 AM(or the sacrament of Matrimony as such too?)
See St. Robert in De Matrimonio p. 788:
Quotealiud est comparare statum cum statu, aliud, statum cum sacramento. Status continentiæ altior est statu Matrimonii et majoris gratiæ et meriti: Qui enim nubit, bene facit: qui non nubit, melius facit, 1. Corinth. 7. Sacramentum tamen semper auget gratiam, in quocumque statu suscipiatur. Quare continens dum Matrimonium contrahit, in gratia crescit sed si idem continens propter Deum nuptias humanas contempsisset, plus gratiæ apud Deum invenisset

it is one thing to compare a state with a state, another to compare a state with a sacrament. The state of continence is higher than the state of Matrimony and of greater grace and merit: For he who marries [i.e., "giveth his virgin in marriage"] does well: he who does not marry [i.e., "giveth her not" "in marriage"] does better, 1 Corinth. 7[:38]. But a sacrament always increases grace, in whatever state it is received. Wherefore when a continent person contracts Marriage, he grows in grace, but if this same continent person had contemned human marriage for God's sake, he would have found more grace with God
6
Dogma & Doctrine / Re: Table of Marriage Validity...
Last post by Kephapaulos - June 07, 2018, 11:40:17 AM
1)Is civil marriage valid between Catholics in only exceptional circumstances? Like political ones? Where authorized by the Catholic Church? 

2)Since virginity is more meritorious than married state (or the sacrament of Matrimony as such too?), does that mean a married person can never reach the same highest potential level of merit in heaven itself as the highest potential level of merit in heaven for a celibate person or consecrated virgin?

3)When the Scriptures speak of a man leaving father and mother to cling to his wife, does the same principle apply vice versa for women marrying?

4) Although Fr. Heribert Jone, OFM says in his Moral Theology that the wife should live wherever the husband has his job, how is it to be understood where often wives prefer to live close to their own side of the family?

5) What is a good reponse to the claim that many married couples in recent decades have had possibly invalid marriages supposedly due to immaturity, having the mentalities of seven- or eight-year olds, or not knowing what they were doing? (That is the psychological claim I see now.)
7
Anti-Modernism / Bachar/Guimarães's & Shore's t...
Last post by Geremia - June 02, 2018, 05:40:18 PM
Here's Bachar/Guimarães's translation:
QuoteVirginity is good, I acknowledge this. And, furthermore, it is better than matrimony; I also acknowledge this. And if you like, I will add even more to this: Just as the heavens are to the earth, so are the angels to men. And it is necessary to add something further.

After all, the angels, since they do not take wives nor husbands, they are not made up of flesh and blood nor do they live on earth; they do not feel the stimuli of sensuality, they do not need to eat nor drink, they do not experience the attractiveness of sensual music nor the charm of beautiful bodies, nor other similar things. But just as the sky free from clouds shines magnificently at midday, so also the angelic nature, free from all concupiscence, necessarily remains lucid and radiant.

But the human lineage, although inferior to those spirits by nature, puts its own energies into play and strives with effort, as much as it can, to emulate them [the angels]. In what way? The angels do not marry. Neither does the virgin...

You see how excellent virginity is, and how it makes the dwellers of this earth similar to those citizens of heaven. And with the aid of non-material virtues, it does not permit the defeat of those who are clothed with flesh, making even those who are men emulators of the angels.

To you [heretics], the lot of the evil servants awaits you, while the virgins of the Church have reserved for themselves many and great possessions, which no eye as seen nor ear has heard, and no human understanding has grasped.

compared to Sally Ann Shore's translation (pp. 75-77):
QuoteX. The detractor of marriage does harm to virginity.

[...]

3. Is virginity a good? Yes, I fully agree. But is it better than marriage? I agree with this, too. If you wish, I will illustrate the difference like this: virginity is as much superior to marriage as heaven is to earth, as the angels are to men, and, to use far stronger language, it is more superior still.

For the angels, if they do not marry and are not given in marriage, [cf. Matt 22:30 and Luke 20:36] are not a mixture of flesh and blood. They do not pass time on earth and endure trouble from the passions. They require neither food nor drink. Sweet song cannot appease them, nor can a radiant face win them over, nor any other such thing. Their natures of necessity remain transparent and brilliant, with no passion troubling them, like the heavens at high noon clear and undisturbed by any cloud.

XI. Virginity makes angels out of men who sincerely pursue it.

1. But mankind, inferior in its nature to blessed spirits, strains beyond its capacity and, in so far as it can, vies eagerly to equal the angels. How does it do that? Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage; [Matt. 22:30] this is true of the virgin. [...]

[...]

2. Do you grasp the value of virginity? that it makes those who spend time on earth live like the angels dwelling in heaven? It does not allow those endowed with bodies to be inferior to the incorporeal powers and spurs all men to rival the angels.

But this applies in no way to you [heretics], who dishonor so great a virtue, who slander the Lord and call him wicked. The punishment of painful slavery will await you; but the virgins of the Church will meet with many magnificent blessings that will surpass the comprehension of the human eye, ear and thought.

Bachar/Guimarães's translation
QuoteOnce this universe was created and disposed as much as possible for our respite and benefit, God shaped man, for whom He had created everything. Once man was formed, he lived in Paradise and while in that place there is no mention of marriage whatsoever. He needed a companion, so woman was given to him. But even so, matrimony still did not seem necessary. It still did not exist and they lived very happily in Paradise as if it were Heaven, without knowing marriage, rejoicing in the familiar treatment with God.

Far from their souls was the ardor of concupiscence, the desire for conception, the pains of birth and any lascivious thought; rather, they lived their lives adorned with virginity as if it were a transparent stream that flowed from a crystalline spring....

However, after that first period, they disobeyed the command of God and were transformed to dust and ashes. They also lost that happy life and the charm of virginity, which left them, abandoning them as God also abandoned them. When they were free from the slavery of the Devil and adored their Lord, they rejoiced in their virginity, which served as a greater adornment than the crowns and gilded robes of kings.

But, after falling captive, stripped of their regal garments and divested of their sacrality, they received as punishment the corruption of death, divine wrath, pain, a life of misery and, together with this, marriage appeared, this vesture of slavery and death. For, as St. Paul says, 'the man who has a woman must concern himself with the things of the world' (1 Cor 7:33) .

compared to Sally Ann Shore's translation (pp. 84-86):
Quote3. When the whole world had been com­pleted and all had been readied for our repose and use, God fashioned man for whom he made the world. After being fashioned, man remained in paradise and there was no reason for marriage. Man did need a helper, and she came into being; not even then did marriage seem necessary. It did not yet appear anywhere but they remained as they were without it. They lived in paradise as in heaven and they enjoyed God's company.

Desire for sexual intercourse, conception, labor, childbirth and every form of corruption had been banished from their souls. As a clear river shooting forth from a pure source, so were they in that place adorned by virginity.

[...]

5. [...] Nevertheless, nothing either thwarted or hindered that happy life, which was far better than this. But when they did not obey God and became earth and dust, they destroyed along with that blessed way of life the beauty of virginity, which together with God abandoned them and withdrew.3 As long as they were uncorrupted by the devil and stood in awe of their master, virginity abided with them. It adorned them more than the diadem and golden raiments do kings.

However, when they shed the princely raiment of virginity and laid aside their heavenly attire, they accepted the decay of death, ruin, pain, and a toilsome life. In their wake came marriage: marriage, a garment befitting mortals and slaves.

6. "But the married man is busy with this world's demands." [1 Cor. 7:33]
cf. J. Duchassaing's French translation.

Catholics must adhere to the de fide defined dogma that, as the Council of Trent sess. 24 can. 10 puts it, it is "better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony". If you do not believe this, you adhere to Jovinian's heresy, which, like Protestantism, thinks that all the baptized, regardless of state of life, obtain an equal reward in heaven.

cf. Apoc. 14:4, which shows virgins have a special place in heaven, or Mt. 19:29, where Jesus says virginity yields a hundredfold reward ("every one that hath left...wife, or children...for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.")
8
Anti-Modernism / John Paul II a neo-Jovinian!
Last post by Geremia - May 04, 2018, 10:55:43 AM

This work was originally written and published in Spanish (ICTION, Buenos Aires, 1982). It has been translated into English by J.S. Daly with the permission of Professor Corbi.


Introduction


Would it be possible for a heresy which was current in the fourth century, had been condemned by the Fathers, by the Magisterium and by the whole of ecclesiastical tradition until the great Pope Pius XII, passing through St. Thomas, Trent and the Syllabus, to rear its head once more after more than fifteen hundred years in 1982?

A heresy which denies a DOGMA already inculcated in the Gospel (Matthew, 19:lOff.), clearly taught by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 7:25 ff.), believed by the whole of Catholic tradition and DEFINED in the Holy Council of Trent: the superiority of the "state of virginity or celibacy" to the "conjugal state" (Denzinger 980).

Chapter II

Jovinian

Jovinian was a heretical priest and monk of the fourth century. St. Ambrose, St. Augustine and, above all, St. Jerome, fought his heresies:

"From Jovinian, a certain monk, comes this heresy which has arisen in our age, while we were still young men. "1

Among others, he maintained these two heresies:

(a) Virginity and matrimony are of equal value and are equally meritorious in the sight of God:

"Virgins, widows and married people, once they have been regenerated in Christ, if they do not differ in their other works, have equal merit".

St. Augustine reports that Jovinian

"attributed to conjugal chastity the same rank as that of virgins consecrated to the Lord".2

Jovinian he says urged nuns to enter matrimony with this argument:

"Are you, virgin, greater than Sara and than Susanna and than Anna?"

And if the Christians exalted virginity above matrimony, Jovinian used to accuse them of Manichaeism:

"Jovinian, who has endeavoured for several years to establish a new heresy, affirmed that the Catholics were supporting the Manichees because, against his opinion, like them, they put holy virginity before matrimony."3

Note that to accuse Catholic morality of Manichaeism is nothing new: it is a myth invented by Jovinian in the fourth century.' Cf. in this regard footnote 32 and the corresponding text.

(b) As the logical consequence for anyone who denies the excellence of virginity, Jovinian ended by denying the perpetual virginity of Mary.

He asserted that if Mary had indeed conceived miraculously through the working of the Holy Ghost, she ceased to be a virgin at the moment of, and as a result of, giving birth.4

About the year 390 Pope St. Siricius - as we shall see in greater detail in chapter III - condemned the opinion of Jovinian, excommunicating him.

Jovinian took refuge in Milan. Pope St. Siricius sent a copy of the sentence of condemnation with three priests to the Bishop of Milan, St. Ambrose.

It is by the answering letter of St. Ambrose that we learn that Jovinian was denying, moreover, the perpetual virginity of Mary.

About the year 393, St. Ambrose condemned Jovinian in a synod at Milan.

In 398 the Emperor Honorius banished Jovinian to an island on the coast of Dalmatia.

Jovinian died before the year 406:

"Rather than expiring, he vomited out his last breath amid pheasants and swine flesh."5

Protestants have made of Jovinian one of the first victims of "Roman intolerance".

The Protestant Harnack says of him that he was "a Protestant before the name existed" that is to say "the first Protestant".

Ecclesiastical Writers Who Wrote Against Jovinian

  • Pope St. Siricius condemned his writings. (Letter 7, "Optarem", (Patrologia Latina XIII, 1168-1172).
  • St. Ambrose condemned Jovinian's opinion in his Letter
    42, "Recognovimus" (Patrologia Latina XVI, 1124-1129).
  • St. Jerome about the year 393-394 wrote his "Two Books against Jovinian" (Patrologia Latina, XXIII, 211-338), in which he calls him "the Christian Epicurus", "whose name is derived from that of an idol" (11,38).
  • St. Augustine took the occasion of the heresy of Jovinian to write, about the year 401, his beautiful moral treatises "De Bono Coniugali" and "De Sancta Virginitate".

References to Jovinian are also encountered in St. Vincent of Lerins, Pelagius, Julian of Eclanum, etc.

Chapter III

Pope St. Siricius

St. Siricius, a Roman Pope (384-399), successor of St. Damasus, was placed by Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) in the Roman Martyrology (26th November), because

"he was distinguished for his learning, piety and zeal for religion, condemning various heretics and strengthening ecclesiastical discipline by very salutary decrees".6

About the year 389 or 390 (according to others, in 392), St. Siricius summoned a council for all the Roman clergy in which he solemnly condemned the "temerarious composition" of Jovinian - which he called "a horrific writing" - and excommunicated him by name along with eight of his followers, declaring them "abettors of a new and blasphemous heresy".7

In his letter to the Church of Milan, the Pope declared:

"We certainly do not hold nuptial vows in contempt, but officially preside at the ceremony at which they are exchanged; but we honour with greater esteem virgins - born of marriages - who are consecrated to God."8

Chapter IV

Fathers of the Church

1.  St. Ambrose (c. 333-397)

In his letter 42, to Pope St. Siricius written about the year 392:

"We do not deny that matrimony was sanctified by Christ, who said with His divine voice, 'they shall be two in one flesh' (Matthew 19:5) and in one spirit, but what we are born comes before what we are made; and the ministry of the divine work is much more worthy than the remedy of human frailty. The good wife is rightly praised, but the pious virgin is better preferred".9

2.  St. John Chrysostom (344-407)

"Virginity is good and to this I agree; moreover it is better than matrimony, this too I confess. And if you wish to know how much better it is I shall add: by as much as heaven is better than earth, by as much as angels are better than men; would indeed that I might express the difference even more strongly and clearly" 10

3.  St. Augustine (354-430)

St. Augustine refers to the superiority of virginity principally in three works: De Bono Coniugali (401), De Sancta Virginitate (end of 401) and De Haeresibus (428).

(a) De Bono Coniugali (401) Chapter 8:
"...just as that which Martha did was good when she was occupied in the service of the saints, but that which her sister Mary did was better as she sat at the feet of the Lord listening to His word: so we praise the goodness of Susanna in conjugal chastity; but we still prefer to this the goodness of the widow Anna and much more so of the Virgin Mary"11

It is worth pointing out that this text is cited by St. Thomas in the Summa Theologiae, II-II, 153,2, in the response to the first objection.

Chapter 9:

"...and thus it is a good thing to marry because it is a good thing to procreate children and to be mothers (1 Timothy 5,14); but it is better not to marry since it is better for human society itself to have no need of this."

"Hence it is deduced that in the first days of the human race, especially in order to propagate the people of God of whom the Prince and Saviour of all nations was to be prophesied and born, pious folk were obliged to have recourse to the good of marriage not because it is in itself desirable but because it was necessary for extrinsic reasons. Now, however, when from every race and from every locality for the formation of a holy and perfect society the matrimonial bond is found in plentiful abundance, those who desire to be joined in matrimony, even for the sake of children alone, are to be advised that they ought rather to prefer the greater good of continence."

Chapter 11:

"Hence this was said in relation to the greater holiness of unmarried women over married women, (who deserve also a greater regard in so far as their good is better than the other good) that she [the unmarried woman] thinks of this one thing alone, how she may please the Lord."

Chapter 23:

"So if we compare the two things together, there is no room for doubt that the chastity of continence is better than nuptial chastity, although both are good; and if we compare men together, that man is better who has a greater good than another."

"Matrimony and virginity are certainly two goods of which the latter is the greater."

(b) De Sancta Virginitate (c. end of 401) Chapter 19:
"For since it is an error either to equate marriage with holy virginity, or to condemn it altogether, these two errors, by each one excessively fleeing from the other one, rush into headlong collision, since they do not wish to accept the middle way of truth; from which, both by sure reasoning and on the authority of Holy Scripture, we find that marriage is neither a sin, nor however as good as virginal continence or even the continence of widows."12

It is worth observing that St. Thomas, in the Summa Theologiae II-II, 152,4, where he asks "whether virginity is more excellent than matrimony," reproduces by way of reply the final part of this authoritative and definitive text of St. Augustine, beginning from "by sure reasoning and on the authority of Holy Scripture...

Chapter 21:

"We, however, according to the faith and sound doctrine of the Holy Scriptures do not say that marriage is sinful, but we rank its goodness not only below the goodness of virginal continence but even below the continence of widows; we say that the present necessity of married folk impedes their merit not indeed for eternal life, but for the surpassing glory and honour which is reserved to perpetual continence."

(c) De Haeresibus (428)
"Here too I found the Jovinianists whom I already knew. This heresy arose from Jovinian, a certain monk, in our age, while we were still young men. This man said, as did the Stoic philosophers, that all sins were equal and that, once he had received baptism, a man could no longer sin and that neither fasting nor abstinence from any kind of food was of any avail. He attacked the virginity of Mary, saying that she was corrupted in giving birth. He equated the virginity even of consecrated religious and the continence of the male sex in those saints who chose the celibate life with the merits of chaste and faithful spouses."13

4.  St John Damascene (end of the 7th century to before 754)

"Virginity is an angelic kind of life, being the peculiar mark of the whole of incorporeal nature. Neither do we say this in order to detract from marriage - far from it. For we know that the Lord blessed marriage with his presence and we know who it was who said, 'marriage honourable in all, and the bed undefiled' (Hebrews 13:4); but we say it because we recognise that, although marriage is in some ways good, virginity is better. "14

5.  St. Thomas.

We shall indicate the principal texts in the Summa Theologiae, in the Summa Contra Gentiles and in The Compendium of Theology.

1.  Summa Theologiae

At 11-11,152,4, St. Thomas inquires "whether virginity is more excellent than matrimony" and replies:

"As is established in Jerome's work Contra Jovinianum, it was the error of Jovinian to deny that virginity should be placed higher than matrimony. It is refuted above all by the example of Christ who both chose a Virgin Mother and Himself remained a virgin, and by the teaching of the Apostle who counsels virginity as the greater good.

"It is also refuted by reason. In the first place, because divine good is better than human good, in the second, because the values of the soul are to be chosen rather than those of the body and in the third because the values of the contemplative life are to be chosen rather than those of the active. Virginity is for the soul's good in the life of contemplation, mindful of the things of Good. Marriage is for the body's good in the life of action, namely the growth of the human race. For men and women who embrace matrimony must needs 'think of the things of this world,'15 to quote the Apostle. And so without doubt virginity is to be esteemed more highly than conjugal continence."

2.  Contra Gentiles

St. Thomas treats of this question in book III of the Contra Gentiles, chapters 136 and 137.

III Contra Gentiles, 136,4:

"...to abstain from all carnal pleasures without any reason is known as the vice of insensibility; but if this be done according to reason, it is a virtue which even exceeds the common practice of men, for it makes men to have a certain participation in the likeness of God; whence virginity is said to be related to the angels."

This theme of virginity which "makes us equal to the angels" is constant throughout Catholic tradition. It is found in all the Fathers of the Church and in the Magisterium itself. Since we cannot quote all of the texts, let one from Pope Pius XII suffice:

"But where immaculate marriages flourish, adorned with the Christian virtues, there exists and increases, side by side with them, chaste virginity, nourished by the love of Christ. Exhort your clergy, we implore you, to hold in great esteem and to cultivate religiously this highest form of life which makes men equal to the angels... "16

III Contra Gentiles, 137

It is above all in chapter 137 of book III of the Contra Gentiles that St. Thomas refutes the heresy of Jovinian which claimed that the matrimonial state is equal to continence.

In this regard, as the Leonine edition indicates, all the editions of the Contra Gentiles put as the title of this chapter,

"Against those who make matrimony equal to virginity"

"There are however others also who, although they did not reprove perpetual continence, yet equated it with the state of matrimony, which is the heresy of Jovinian. But the falsity of this error is sufficiently apparent from the foregoing, since by continence man is rendered better equipped for the elevation of his mind to spiritual and divine things, and is in a certain manner placed above the state of man in a certain likeness to the angels.

"Nor is it an objection that some men of the most perfect virtue were married, such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; since the stronger the virtue of a soul is, the less can anything drag it down from its height. Nor however, since these men were married, did they love the contemplation of truth and divine things less; but, as the condition of that time required, they used marriage for the multiplication of the faithful people.

"Nor yet is the perfection of a particular individual a sufficient argument for the perfection of his state in life; since one person may use a lesser good with a more perfect spirit than another person might use a greater good. Therefore it is not true that, because Abraham or Moses was more perfect than many who remained continent, the state of marriage is on this account more perfect than the state of continence, or equal to it."

3.  Compendium of Theology

Chapter 221: That it was fitting that Christ was born of a virgin.

"But by as much as anyone is separated from carnal things, so much the more is he filled with spiritual gifts. For by spiritual things a man is led upwards, while by carnal things he is dragged downwards" (no. 451).

"For the Son of God came into this world, having assumed flesh, for this end - that He might lead us to the state of resurrection in which they neither marry nor are married but men will be as the angels in Heaven. For which reason He introduced the doctrine both of continence and of integrity so that in the life of the faithful an image of future glory might in some manner shine forth. It was, therefore, fitting that even in his own origin he should commend integrity of life by being born of a virgin; hence it is said in the Apostles' Creed, 'born of the Virgin Mary'" (no. 452).


Chapter VI

The Council of Trent

Canon 10 of Session 24 defined forever the traditional doctrine of the superiority of virginity.

To show the importance of this Canon, there could be no better explanatory context than the introduction to Session 24 itself, in which the doctrine concerning the Sacrament of Matrimony is expounded:

"With regard to this teaching, ungodly men of this age, raving madly, have not only formed false ideas concerning this venerable Sacrament, but, introducing a carnal liberty under the pretext of the Gospel as is their wont, have by word and writing asserted, not without great harm to the faithful of Christ, many things that are foreign to the teaching of the Catholic Church and to the usage approved of since the times of the Apostles; wherefore this holy and general Council, desiring to restrain their boldness, has thought it proper, lest their pernicious contagion should attract more adherents, that the principal heresies and errors of the aforesaid schismatics be destroyed by directing against those heretics and their errors the following anathemas. (Denzinger 970)

"Canon 10. If anyone should say that the married state should be preferred to the state of virginity or celibacy and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibate than to be united in matrimony, let him be anathema. (cf. Matthew 19:11; 1 Corinthians 7:25; 38-40)" (Denzinger 980)

Chapter VII

The Syllabus


The Syllabus of Pope Pius IX (1864) was entitled: "Syllabus comprising the principal errors of our age." Section VIII, which embraces propositions 65 to 74, treats of the "Errors concerning Christian Marriage", and after proposition 74 there is a Nota Bene:

"N.B. Two other errors can be included at this point - the abolition of clerical celibacy and preference for the state of matrimony over the state of virginity. The first of these errors is condemned in the encyclical letter Qui Pluribus, 9th November 1846, and the second in the apostolic letter Multiplies Inter, 10th June 1851." (Denzinger 1774a).

The apostolic letter Multiplices Inter was entitled:

"Condemnation and Prohibition of the work in six volumes produced in the Spanish language bearing the title Defence of the Authority of Governments and Bishops against the pretences of the Roman Curia by Francisco de Paula G. Vigil, Lima, 1848."

In it, Pius IX said the following:

"For the author, although a Catholic, and allegedly exercising the divine ministry, (... ) shamelessly assails the law of celibacy and, after the manner of the innovators, prefers the conjugal state to the state of virginity...".

Chapter VIII

Leo XIII

In his letter of the 8th February 1893 - Novae Condendae Legis - addressed to the bishops of the province of Venice concerning the plan for civil marriage, Leo XIII expressed himself as follows:

"Virginity indeed is, in itself, better than matrimony, and those who are inspired by God to embrace this state of life are worthy of the highest praise; but this gift of perfect continence is not granted to all, in which case, according to the dictum of the Apostle 'it is better to marry than to be burnt.'"17

Chapter IX

Pius XII

The principal document of Pope Pius XII concerning this subject is his most beautiful encyclical Sacra Virginitas (1954) which is full of doctrinal unction. We shall also include however his other main texts from before and after the encyclical.

A.  Before "Sacra Virginitas"

1.  23rd September 1951 address to the discalced Carmelites:

"Nor should he who chose for himself the state of virginity undervalue or spurn marriage. Marriage is good, but virginity is better. The state of matrimony is honourable, but, as the Gospel itself bears witness, the state of virginity embraced for the love of Christ and fruitful in charity is more exalted... "18

2.  15th September 1952 address to the superiors of religious congregations:

"Today we wish to address Ourselves exclusively to those who, whether priests or laymen, preachers, orators or writers, no longer have a word of approval or of praise for virginity devoted to Christ; who for some years, despite the warning of the Church and against Her mind, have accorded to marriage a fundamental preference over virginity; who even go so far as to present it as the only means capable of assuring the human personality of its natural development and perfection: let those who speak and write in this manner take conscience of their responsibilities before God and before the Church. "19

3.  23rd November 1952 address to the youth of the "Oases":

"If it is certain that the family is the fundamental unit of society and that it is upon the reconstruction of the family that the renovation of the world depends, what a powerful impulse could be given by youth such as yourselves for the achievement of such an exalted and such an urgent end.' On the other hand, your consecration prepares young minds to accept, when Our Lord inspires them, their vocation to the religious life, which will always be a more perfect state than that of matrimony (which is nevertheless also holy)."20

B.  The Encyclical Letter "Sacra Virginitas" (25th March 1954).21

a) Reaffirmation of the "Catholic Truth" of the "Excellence of Virginity":

"Since however today there are those who, forsaking the right path in this matter, so far extol matrimony that they actually place it before virginity, and thereby impugn chastity dedicated to God and ecclesiastical celibacy, our awareness of our Apostolic Office demands that We declare and defend especially in this document the doctrine concerning the exalted honour of virginity, so that We may defend the Catholic Truth against these errors."

b) This doctrine was received from Christ:

"in the first place we consider that it should be noted that it was from the lips of Her Divine Spouse that the Church received the principal points of Her doctrine concerning virginity."

c) The foundation in Scripture and in reason for the excellence of virginity:

"For this reason it must first be affirmed - as the Church clearly teaches - that holy virginity surpasses matrimony in its excellence. Already our Divine Redeemer had urged this upon his disciples as a counsel of a more perfect life.22 And the Apostle Paul, after saying of a father who joined his daughter in matrimony, 'he doth well', adds this continuation, 'and he that giveth her not doth better.'23 And the same Apostle, in comparing marriage with virginity, reveals his opinion not only once, but especially with these words:
'for I would that all men were even as myself.. but I say to the unmarried and to the widows: it is good for them if they so continue, even as I.'24 So if virginity, as we have written, is more excellent than matrimony, there can be no doubt that this arises principally because it has regard to the acquisition of a more excellent end;25 and moreover because it also assists with the greatest efficacy in enslaving oneself entirely to the service of God; while by contrast the mind of one who is involved in the bonds and duties of wedlock is to a greater or lesser extent 'divided'.26

d) The traditional doctrine of the Church is defined as a dogma of divine faith:

"This doctrine, which affirms that virginity and celibacy are more excellent than, and surpass, the state of matrimony, was, as we have said, already revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles. Likewise it was solemnly defined in the most holy Council of Trent as a dogma of divine faith and always declared, with concordant judgment, by the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Moreover, like our predecessors, We Ourself whenever the occasion has arisen, have explained this matter more and more and greatly commended it. Nevertheless, since of late there have not been lacking those who would impugn this same doctrine passed on by our fathers in the Church, with grave danger and detriment to the faithful of Christ, we, in accordance with our awareness of our Office, have considered it expedient once more to summarise the matter by this Encyclical Letter and to unmask and condemn the errors of this kind which are very frequently put forward disguised as truth."

e) Virginity and Christian Perfection:

"Let us come now, Venerable Brethren, to those things which, arising from this doctrine of the Church concerning the excellence of virginity, can be put to practical effect in life.

"In the first place it must be openly declared that, although virginity is to be considered as more perfect than matrimony, it does not follow from this that it is necessary for the attainment of Christian perfection. Holiness of life, even without chastity dedicated to God, can in reality be attained; a fact which is frequently testified to by the holy men and women whom the Church honours with public devotion, and who are shining examples of faithful spouses and excellent fathers and mothers of families; indeed it is by no means a rare thing to encounter married couples who are very eagerly striving after Christian perfection."

C.  After "Sacra Virginitas"

1. 14th September 1956: Allocution to the participants in the sixth week of pastoral adaptation.

"The most recent encyclical, Sacra Virginitas of March 25th 1954, has shown you, among other things, the mind of the Church on the interminable debates of our contemporaries, especially the young, on the importance and even the absolute necessity - so some maintain - of marriage for the human person (who, without it would remain - according to them - a spiritual cripple), as also on the pretended superiority of Christian marriage and the conjugal act over virginity (which is not a sacrament producing effects ex opere operato.)"27

2. 25th April 1957: Allocution to the First National Italian Congress of Nursing Sisters.

"It is a truth of faith, recently recalled by us in the encyclical Sacra Virginitas under date of March 25th 1954, that virginity is superior to the married state because the virgin soul contracts bonds of absolute and indissoluble love directly with God, even more, with God incarnate Jesus Christ. In fact, all that she has received as a gift of God to be wife and mother, is offered to her as holocaust on the altar of a complete and perpetual renunciation. To reach the heart of God, to love Him and to be loved by Him, the virgin soul does not go through any other hearts, does not stop to treat with other creatures; nothing comes in between her and Jesus; no obstacle, no medium.

"On the contrary, marriage, while it is a real sacrament, one of the seven sources of grace instituted by Christ Himself; while it comprises the reciprocal offering of each of the parties to the other; while it brings about a real fusion of life and destiny, nonetheless includes, in God 's>eyes, something which is divided, something which is not completely given and which is not based upon complete surrender. Only virgin souls offer what for other souls who love is an inaccessible goal; for them the first rung of their ascent is also the last; it is the term of their development; it is at once both the summit and a profound abyss."28

3. 13th July 1958: Allocution to the Young Women of Catholic Action of Italy.

"On various occasions we have been obliged to condemn the error of those who assert that the Christian virgin is in some way mutilated, in some way incomplete, in some way incapable of achieving the perfection proper to her. Virginity, on the contrary, is, as it were, an angelic life. It is by its excellence a superior state to matrimony. But this superiority, on the other hand, removes nothing from the beauty and grandeur of married life."29

4. 29th July 1958: Papal Wireless Message to the Enclosed Religious of the Entire World.

"The Encyclical Sacra Virginitas treats in its first part of the excellence of virginity. It proves this excellence first of all by texts from the Gospel and by the very words of Christ; then by the declarations of the Apostle of the Gentiles concerning virginity chosen for God; it quotes St. Cyprian and St. Augustine, who demonstrate the power of its effects; it emphasises the importance of the vow which confers upon virginity the constancy of the virtue; it demonstrates its superiority over marriage; it illustrates all of the divine blessings which that state attracts and the admirable fruits which it produces."30

What a beautiful synthesis of Sacra Virginitas by its author himself, and the last reference which he made to this subject which preoccupied him so much; that was on the 29th July 1958. Two and a half months later, on the 9th October 1958, after almost twenty years of his pontificate, the "Angelic Pastor" rendered his soul to the Lord.


Chapter X

Conclusions


I.  Jovinian, "the first Protestant" (Harnack):-
i. equated matrimony with virginity: "That is the heresy of Jovinian." (St. Thomas)
ii. 'maintained that Catholics favoured the Manichees, because (...) they preferred holy virginity to matrimony." (St. Augustine)
iii. his doctrine was qualified as "a horrifying document" and condemned as "a new and blasphemous heresy" in 390 by Pope St. Siricius.

II.  Virginity - Superior to Matrimony...

i. "Matrimony and virginity are undoubtedly two good things, of which the second is greater." (St. Augustine)
ii. Without any doubt virginity must be preferred to conjugal continence." (St. Thomas)
iii. Virginity (...) is, as it were, an angelic state of life. It is a state which, by its excellence, is superior to matrimony." (Pope Pius XII)
iv. "Matrimony is good, but virginity is better; the state of matrimony is honourable, but more exalted is - as the Gospel itself bears witness - the state of virginity." (Pope Pius XII)

III.  It is a Dogma of Divine Faith.

"This doctrine, which affirms the advantages and excellencies of virginity and of celibacy over matrimony":-

i. is "a traditional doctrine of the Church".
ii. it was revealed by Our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles ("the Church has received the principal points of her doctrine concerning virginity from the very lips of her divine spouse "
iii. it was always declared, with unanimous agreement, by the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
iv. "in the holy Council of Trent it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith." (Pope Pius XII)

"If anyone should say that the married state should be preferred to the state of virginity or of celibacy and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibate than to be united in matrimony, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent; Denzinger 980.)


APPENDIX

THE EXTRAORDINARY CATECHESIS OF THE 14TH APRIL 1982.

On the Easter Wednesday, 14th April 1982, John Paul II referred twice in the same day to the relation between virginity and matrimony.

I

Allocution to Spanish Delegations in St. Peter's Square (14th April 1982) (Delivered in Spanish).

(...) "And now, as in previous weeks, we are going to continue our reflections upon the theme of continence for the Kingdom of Heaven. IN THE WORDS OF CHRIST WE DO NOT FIND A SUPERIOR EVALUATION OF VIRGINITY OR CELIBACY WITH RESPECT TO MATRIMONY. Continence and matrimony are two basic situations, two 'states' of life, which differ from one another and complement one another within the Christian community. It is precisely this which in its unity and in all of its members has an eschatological orientation and in this distinct tendency is realised for the Kingdom of Heaven.

"The perfection of the disciple of Christ would not then be gauged simply by belonging to one of these states, the gauge of the perfection of the Christian life is charity, in the acquisition of which the practice of the evangelical counsels is undoubtedly helpful. Hence it is that everyone who is faithful to the spirit of these counsels can reach perfection, be he in a religious institute or living in the world.

"With a great desire that every Christian should lead a life in conformity with the teachings of Christ, I impart the apostolic benediction. "31


II

Catechesis in the General Audience of Wednesday 14th April 1982.

"Let us now continue our reflections of recent weeks on the words about continence 'for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven' which, according to the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 19:10-12), Christ addressed to his disciples.

"Let us say once more that these words, concise though they be, are admirably rich and precise; rich with a number of implications both of a doctrinal and a pastoral nature. At the same time they establish a proper limit on the subject. Therefore, any kind of Manichaean interpretation32 decidedly goes beyond that limit, just as the lustful desire 'in the heart' referred to by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5:27-28) also goes beyond it.

"IN CHRIST'S WORDS ON CONTINENCE 'FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN' THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE 'INFERIORITY' OF MARRIAGE with regard to the 'body', or in other words, with regard to the essence of marriage, consisting in the fact that man and woman join together in marriage, thus becoming 'one flesh' (Genesis 2:24: 'The two will become one flesh'). CHRIST'S WORDS RECORDED IN MATTHEW 19: 11-12 (AS ALSO THE WORDS OF PAUL IN HIS FIRST LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS, CHAPTER 7) GIVE NO REASON33 TO ASSERT THE 'INFERIORITY' OF MARRIAGE, NOR THE 'SUPERIORITY' OF VIRGINITY OR CELIBACY inasmuch as by their nature virginity and celibacy consist in abstinence from the conjugal 'union in the body'. Christ's words on this point are quite clear. He proposes to his disciples the ideal of continence and the call to it, not by reason of inferiority nor with prejudice against conjugal 'union of the body' but only 'for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven;".34

"2. In this light a deeper clarification of the very expression 'for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven' is particularly useful, and this is what we shall try to do in the following, at least briefly. However, with regard to the correct understanding of the relationship between marriage and continence that Christ speaks about, and the understanding of that relationship as the whole of tradition has understood it, it is worthwhile to add that that 'superiority' and 'inferiority' fall within the limits of the same complementarity of marriage and continence35 for the Kingdom of God.

"Marriage and continence are neither opposed to each other nor do they divide the human (and Christian) community into two camps (let us say, those who are 'perfect' because of continence and those who are 'imperfect' or 'less perfect' because of the reality of married life). But these two basic situations, or, as it was often said, these two 'states', in a certain sense explain and complete each other as regards the (Christian) existence and life of this community, which in its entirety and in each of its members is fulfilled in the dimension of the Kingdom of God and has an eschatological orientation, which is precisely of that kingdom. So with regard to this dimension and this orientation - in which the entire community, that is, all of those who belong to it, must share in the faith - continence 'for the Kingdom of Heaven' has a particular importance and a special eloquence for those who live a married life. Besides, it is known that these latter constitute the majority."

"3. It therefore seems that a complementarity understood in this way finds its foundation in the words of Christ according to Matthew l9:ll-l236 (and also in the First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 737) On the other hand, there is no basis for a presumed counterposition according to which celibates (or unmarried women), only by reason of their continence, would make up the class of those who are 'perfect', while on the other hand, married persons would makeup a class of those who are 'imperfect' (or 'less perfect').38 If, according to a certain theological tradition,39 one speaks of a state of perfection ("status perfectionis"), it is done not by reason of continence in itself, but with regard to the entirety of a life based on the evangelical counsels (poverty, chastity and obedience40), since this life corresponds to Christ's call to perfection ('If you would be perfect...': Mt. 19-21). Perfection of the Christian life, instead, is measured with the rule of charity.41 It follows that a person who does not live in the state of perfection' (that is, in an institution that bases its life plan on vows of poverty, chastity and obedience), or, in other words, who does not live in a religious institute, but in the 'world', can, 'de_facto'42 reach a superior degree of perfection - whose measure is charity - in comparison to the person who lives in the 'state of perfection' with a lesser degree of charity. In any case, the evangelical counsels undoubtedly help us to achieve a fuller charity. Therefore, whoever achieves it, even if he does not live in an institutionalised 'state of perfection,' reaches that perfection which flows from charity through fidelity to the spirit of those counsels43. Such perfection is possible and accessible to every man, both in a 'religious institute' and in the 'world'.44

"4. It seems then that the complementarity of marriage and continence for 'the Kingdom of Heaven' in their significance and manifold importance adequately corresponds to Christ's words recorded in Matthew (Mt. 19: 11-12). In the life in an authentically Christian community the attitudes and values proper to the one and the other state45 - that is, to one or the other essential and conscious choice as a vocation for one's entire earthly life and in the perspective of the 'heavenly Church' - they complete and in a certain sense interpenetrate each other.46 Perfect conjugal love must be marked by that fidelity and that donation to the only Spouse (and also by the fidelity and donation of the Spouse to the only Bride), on which religious profession and priestly celibacy are founded. Finally, the nature of one and the other love is 'conjugal', that is expressed through the total gift of oneself. Both types of love tend to express that conjugal meaning of the body which 'from the beginning' has been inscribed in the personal make-up of man and woman.

"We shall return to this point at a later date.

"5. On the other hand, conjugal love which finds its expression in continence 'for the Kingdom of Heaven' must lead in its normal development to 'paternity' or 'maternity' in a spiritual sense (in other words, precisely to that 'fruitfulness of the Holy Spirit' that we have already spoken about) in a way analogous to conjugal love, which matures in physical paternity and maternity,47 and in this way confirms itself as conjugal love. For its part, physical procreation also fully responds to its meaning only if it is completed by paternity and maternity in the spirit,48 whose expression and fruit is all the educative work of the parents in regard to the children born of their conjugal corporeal union.

"As can be seen, there are many aspects and spheres of the complementarity49 between the vocation in an evangelical sense, of those who 'marry and are given in marriage' (Luke 20:34) and of those who knowingly and voluntarily choose continence 'for the Kingdom of Heaven' (Mt. 19:12).

"In his First Letter to the Corinthians (which we will analyse later in our consideration), Saint Paul will write on the subject: 'Each has his special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another (1 Corinthians 7:7).'"

(The translation of the whole of the "Catechesis in the General Audience of Wednesday 14th April 1982" is taken from the English edition of L'Osservatore Romano, 19th April 1982, p.10, with the exception of one or two infelicities which have been improved by the translator. The emphases, however, were not in the English edition and were superimposed on the translation from the Spanish edition cited by Professor Corbi, which concurs with the original Italian. - Translator.)


Colophon for Interpreters and
Specialists in Hermeneutics

Note that the whole of the modernistic, equivocal and nebulous allocution comprising the "catechesis" of the general audience, is SUMMARIZED WITH THE GREATEST CLARITY in the first allocution in St. Peter's Square on the SAME DAY (cf. p.25 above). 'THERE IS NO ROOM FOR BENEVOLENT INTERPRETATIONS.' There is no place for the principles which the scholastics understood by the formulae "exponere reverenter" and "benigne interpretandum est."
9
General Discussion / felix festum Seraphicæ Virgini...
Last post by Geremia - April 30, 2018, 01:19:48 PM
Bl. Raymond of Capua, Legenda maior, III.1.334.937C-D:
Summus autem Pontifex [Gregorius XI] ea visa gavisus est, voluitque coram Cardinalibus, qui tunc aderant, quod verbum faceret exhortationis, potissime propter schisma, quod tunc incipiebat.The Supreme Pontiff [Gregory XI] was clearly delighted to see her again and asked her to say a few words of encouragement to the Cardinals, especially with regard to the Schism, which had then just begun.
Quod et perfecte fecit, animando unumquemque eorum ad fortem constantiam verbis et sententiis plurimis, ac ostendendo divinam providentiam semper adesse cuilibet, sed potissime cum sancta Ecclesia patitur: et concludendo, quod propter inchoatum schisma in nullo trepidare deberent, sed agere quæ Dei sunt, et nullum timere.[She] urged them with many arguments, which she expressed most felicitously, to be strong in constancy. She showed that divine providence is always with us, above all when the Church has to suffer, and ended by telling them not to be afraid of the schism that had just begun and to do the things of God and to fear no one.
[dixit Pontifex:] hæc muliercula nos confundit. Mulierculam autem voco, non in contemptum ejus sed in expressionem sexus feminei, naturaliter fragilis, et ad nostram instructionem.[The Pope said:] A mere woman puts us to shame. I call her a 'mere woman', not out of disrespect, but with reference to her sex, which in itself is weak, and also for our own instruction.
10
Anti-Modernism / interesting parts of Cdl. Otta...
Last post by Geremia - April 21, 2018, 11:55:23 AM
I especially liked these parts:

His "Mariological maximalism":
Quote5. Immaculatam semperque Virginem Mariam, Dei Genitricem hominumque Matrem*, ab Ecclesia singulariter colendam testificor, eiusque cultu genuino cultum Dei et Iesu Christi, non minui, immo potius augeri declaro.
*Interesting he doesn't say "hominumque omnium Matrem" here, but he doesn't exclude it.

He goes further than Vatican I here by using the word demonstrated (which the Vatican I fathers considered saying, but ultimately rejected):
Quote3. Ac primum profiteor Deum personalem, rerum omnium principium et finem, naturali rationis lumine, per ea quae facta sunt, tamquam causam per effectus, certo cognosci adeoque demonstrari posse, eundemque ut Dominum supremum non tantum a singulis hominibus,* sed etiam a civili societate esse agnoscendum.**
*Against today's radical individualism!
**Yes, societies as a whole must acknowledge Him, as a nation is simply a "soul written at large"!
Pages1 2 3 ... 10