The Closing of the Muslim Womb

“Today there are more Iranians in their mid-twenties than in any other age bracket. But they are not reproducing. An educated twenty-five year old Iranian today probably grew up in a family of six or seven children, but will bear only one child.”

David Goldman, How Civilizations Die 2011



How Civilizations Die:

David Goldman, in his book, How Civilizations Die (And Why Islam is Dying Too), addresses probably the most under-reported crisis that is rapidly unfolding in Western Civilization: The crisis of depopulation. What surprised me is that there are westernized Muslim nations, such as Iran and Turkey, heading for a demographic collapse as well. What you might find interesting is what contributes to low fertility rates in both Western and Muslim countries.

To begin with, Goldman does point to one historical fact often overlooked by historians. Overpopulation was rarely, if at all, a real problem for civilizations throughout history. Rather, as Polybius lamented in 150 B.C., “[T]he evil of depopulation grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting our attention…” For some reason, pagan Roman in the first centuries of the Christian era did not learn this most valuable lesson from ancient Greece. After all, it died of just a few hundred years before Rome was beginning to decline. The Roman Empire, before it fell to foreign invaders in 410 A.D., experienced a steep drop in its fertility rates. The whole empire went from a population of 80 million to about 40 million in a few short centuries.

Examples of dying civilizations are before us. But even today most politicians, professors, and sad to say, even priests who have the ears of thousands every weekend, rarely breathe a word about the widespread practice of married couples not having children; at least enough children for a society to thrive.

The difference between Western and Muslim leaders in this regard is that the latter is quite alarmed by it and the former is not. As Goldman said, “Muslim leaders are more in a panic than Westerners.” There may be a good deal of credibility that Iran’s Ahmadinejad is a madman. Nonetheless, he got it right when he said the following on September 10, 2010: “Two children’ is a formula for the extinction of a nation, not the survival of a nation…That is what is wrong with the West. Negative population growth will cause the extinction of our identity and culture…To want to consume more rather than having children is an act of genocide.”


Western and Eastern Europe and Russia:

The first chapter of David Goldman’s book, How Civilizations Die (And Why Islam is Dying Too), is entitled The Closing of the Muslim Womb. He not only addresses what frequently leads to the closing of wombs both in the West and the Middle East, but he also projects, and quite candidly, what a childless civilization portends. For instance, he says, “The least fertile European countries will see their total population drop by 40 to 60 percent in the course of the present century.” He further adds that Eastern Europe and especially Russia are already facing a demographic death spiral. Without a solid base of young workers and tax payers to the support the upper tiers of society, the following is likely to happen:

• Tax revenues will implode
• Pension and healthcare costs will sky rocket
• Demographic winter means fiscal and social upheaval
• Reduced labor force
• Elderly population
• Reduction of a country’s international strength
• Gradual deterioration of culture and community identity
• Migration of personnel due to lack of opportunity
• Psychological problems for only children

Greece has begun to feel the pinch of being childless. Its birthrate is a whopping 1.38 percent. This, mind you, is far below the replacement level. I don’t dispute that Greece’s current problem, as well as the rest of Europe, has a lot to do with its government expenditures. But the very reason why European States can no longer get away with fiscally unsound policies is because of this demographic disaster: too few young people having to subsidize government programs for the elderly. It is of great irony that Greece is about to learn the same lesson twice: No children, no prosperity!


Iran Leading the Way:

As we come to consider the similar plight in Muslim countries, we find similar causes of that plight. Goldman reports that, “Today there are more Iranians in their mid-twenties than in any other age bracket. But they are not reproducing. An educated twenty-five year old Iranian today probably grew up in a family of six or seven children, but will bear only one child.” Currently, fertility rate of Iranian women averages at 1.7, a little higher than Greece’s.

What may not surprise you is that as nations become more secularized, such as Iran and Turkey, the less children they have. To be sure, faith has always served as a powerful incentive to have children in Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

But here is what I find surprising. There is supposedly a correlation between the literacy rate of women in Muslim countries and their fertility rate. “As more Iranian women went through the school system, the researchers conclude, fewer had children.” And how do they compare with the rest of the Muslim world? Answer: “Iranian women are the best educated in the Muslim world.”

Java Online, a Persian language website, had proposed that the following factors contribute to the reduction of fertility:

• Increased education for women
• Increasing employment of women
• Improved health care and family planning
• Higher marriage age
• More frequent divorce
• Urbanization

“The moment Muslims learn to read,” Goldman says, “family size falls below replacement [levels]. Literacy explains about 60 percent of the fertility differential across the Muslim world.”


Separating Wheat & Chaff:

Now, there are some things we can take away from this and learn a thing or two; and there are other things we can leave behind. One of the conclusions that we can leave behind is that education in general, or education for women in particular, is somehow a negative because there may be a correlation between literacy and low fertility. What it does speak to, however, is that the correlation between literacy (or education) and the choice to have children applies to both men and women; not just in Muslim countries, but in Western countries as well.

This is a case when something good like education and the opportunities it affords, can have a corresponding weakness. Indeed, it may surprise us that the more educated and successful we are as a people, the less value we put on children. Invariably what happens is that children go from being perceived as an asset to being regarded as a liability. And what follows from this is the perception that material things are the "real" asset. Hence, we have fewer kids in order to save more money; and with more money we can buy more things. On a micro level, this pattern may seem harmless. But when these priorities gain currency and become the norm in society, it is a major contributor to the decline of nations.

One more lesson we can pull from the correlation between literacy and low fertility rates is how important the full-time commitment to one’s own children is. There are exceptions to every rule and extenuating circumstances for every family, however, throughout history mothers have been considered to be experts when it comes to their own children; and dare I say they still are. I know this offends many people. But setting political correctness aside, we do need reminding that women are inherently more relational than men. They are more intuitive than men. They are usually the first to notice problem spots in relationships; the first to get help when a relationship needs fixing; and the first to talk about it. Even with the cry of a new born baby, a mother is much more likely than a father to have a physical or emotional reaction. Without a doubt, the connection she has with each of her children finds no parallel in the universe; it is almost spiritual in nature.

Now, the glories of motherhood are perfectly consistent with professional opportunities and career ambitions. It is not one or the other; but one should come before the other! That is to say, before society can be made better through one's profession, it must first be made better first through one's parenting. Children and careers are blessings from God. But the care of our own children is the more important of the two.

Compared to Islamic and Protestant civilizations in the past, woman in Catholic countries enjoyed considerably more privileges and had an elevated station in the work force; especially during the Middle Ages and the Baroque period. Catholic women were not condemned to the “servility of kitchen duty” like many in academia would have us believe. No. Like St. Catherine of Sienna and St. Joan of Arc, women were found in high places in the Church and in the public square. But even the most ambitious and career-oriented women of this time period understood that the sublime calling of motherhood was of paramount importance. Raising children was widely considered to be a lofty and respectable vocation. As such, it was believed to be the very cornerstone of society.

In the absence of faith, however, the only two factors that lend themselves to higher fertility rates is poverty and illiteracy. In his book, How Civilizations Die, Goldman makes this very point.


Poor Muslim Nations:

“The only Muslim countries where women still give birth to seven or eight children are the poorest and least literate: Mali, Niger, Somalia, and Afghanistan.” Conversely, as for those Muslim nations that have been secularized, he says, “As soon as Muslims women break the constraints of traditional society, they have one child and sometimes two, but rarely three or four- and almost never six or seven children that their mothers bore.” These demographic and religious developments in Iran find a striking parallel in Turkey as well: “A third of the 88 percent-literate Turks never attend the mosque, according to the SVS polls, along with a quarter of 82 percent-literate Iranians…”

Yes, Muslims have made considerable gains by increasing their numbers, especially in Europe; but there are pockets in the Muslim world where this is not the case. The unique contribution of Goldman’s book is that he insists that Western Civilization, due to its wealth and resources, can better absorb a demographic winter (i.e. a childless future) than its Islamic counterparts. Don't get me wrong, the book How Civilizations Die sounds the alarm for the West too! To be sure, Japan, Russia and Europe are headed for some very difficult times ahead (As for America, there is still hope). But the difference is this: Whereas Westerners are unwilling to fight for their survival when they lose hope, Muslims, out of despair and desperation, are more willing to take others down with them. To use Goldman’s own words: “The real risk to world security is not the gradual triumph of Islam by demographic accretion, but an era of instability, social breakdown, and aggression impelled by despair.”

As stated, there are challenges ahead for Western Civilization and parts of the Middle East. The difference is that the Catholic Church still has some influence in the West. With her prophetic voice, anointed with the charism of infallibility, she can once again unashamedly proclaim the fullness of truth about sexuality, marriage and children. She can exhort husbands and wife to be generous with God in having many children. She can, from the highest levels of the Church, call attention to the closing of the Christian womb. No political authority, no social agency can open it again. Only faith and the grace that comes from God can open it.

Mary's Immaculate Conception, Eve's Sin and Sanger's Feminism

Mary's Conception, Eve's Sin and Sanger's Feminism: How they impact women was originally posted as Out of Eve's Shadow. This post is renamed in honor of the great feast day of the Immaculate Conception. It is a lengthy post, one my longer ones. But I hope you can read a little at time so that with a better grasp of biblical history behind women's plight in the world, a deeper appreciation for just how important Mary is to, not only humankind in general, but to women in particular.

“Against the State, against the Church, against the silence of the medical profession, against the whole machinery of dead institutions of the past, the woman of today arises.”

-Margaret Sanger

“But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.”

-Wisdom 2:24


Preface: Eve, Mary and Margaret

Against the Church, against men, against motherhood and against the whole machinery of dead institutions of the past, today’s voice of progressive feminism rails! Such was the message, such was the attitude and such was the spirit of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. And let there be no doubt, to varying degrees she was remarkably successful at transmitting envy and defiance against the institution of marriage, the family and the Church. The idea that women were and continue to be suppressed by the Catholic Church can be credited in no small part to Sanger’s propaganda.

Since history and sound theology enjoy little esteem in Western Civilization, pitting the Gospel against women has been advanced in our universities and public schools with relative ease. Nevertheless, there is a different story to tell. The plight of women begins with the real “First Lady,” that is, Eve, wife of Adam and mother of the human race. Because she yielded to the Serpent’s temptation in the Garden of Eden, she merited a divine punishment that would not only burden her but it would cast a long shadow over her female descendants.

But when the Blessed Virgin was conceived in the womb of St. Anne a brighter day dawned. From that moment on the ancient pagan bonds, so oppressive to women, began to loosen. To be sure, Christ redeemed humanity at large but he used his own Mother in a particular way to elevate the status of women and in doing so, led them out of Eve’s shadow.


Part I: What Eve’s sin portended for women


1. Unending Tutelage:

In his book, Our Christian Heritage, published in 1889- just twenty five years before Margaret Sanger career got underway - James Cardinal Gibbons reminded Catholics of the Church’s role in elevating the status of women. He said, “In Ancient Greece, women were in an unending tutelage, slavery, instrument of man’s passion.” Mind you, ancient Greece was indeed representative of women’s suppression in the pagan world. Gibbons continues: “Every impartial student of history is forced to admit that women are indebted to the Catholic religion for the elevated station she enjoys today in family and social life.”

Now, it is not the point of this post to elaborate on what is an overlooked historical fact: Women were second class citizens and were counted as having less dignity than men before the coming of Christ. Furthermore, during the Christian era, under the auspices of the Catholic Church, the social status of women significantly increased. This is why, during the first centuries of the Christianity, new converts were comprised mostly of women as opposed to men. Oh yes! Women came running to the Mother Church.


2. Her New Name:

After Eve, the social status of women rested in large part on her husband and her ability to produce children. Her dignity as an individual was overshadowed by Eve’s sin and the punishment due to that sin. As indicated, man in his fallen human nature exploited this to the max. Especially before the coming of Christ, Margaret Sanger’s antipathy toward men would have been understandable. No doubt, the female sex did not fare well. But no amount of protesting could have stopped the centuries of this exploitation. The remedy had to come from God himself. “For he wounds, but he binds up; he smites, but his hands give healing.” (Job 5:18)

Eve was immaculately created. The name given to her before she offered the forbidden fruit to Adam was “Woman.” Adam said: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called 'woman,' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken." (Genesis 2:23) That’s right. Eve was originally given the name of “Woman.” At this point equality with Adam was hers. Indeed, she stood on equal footing with Adam. And as his companion, she was called to make up for his limitations by leading him closer to God. But this was not to be. Instead, she became an occasion of sin for him; thus leading him away from God and closer to the Serpent.

God often punishes us with the very things by which we sin. To make a long story short, the Serpent offered the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This, of course, was forbidden by God. The Woman consumed the fruit and then offered to Adam. As such, she became a mediator (or mediatrix) between the Evil One and mankind. Instead of building up and perfecting her husband she became a source of sin and untold evil. As for Adam, he had plenty to account for. But as a consequence of her role in introducing sin into the world the Woman was renamed. New names given by God, Adam or Jesus himself always carry with it a new status. The Woman was then renamed “Eve” by Adam. “The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the living.” (Genesis 3:20) With this, it was a man Eve enticed to sin and it was a man that was God’s instrument in punishing her.


3. He Shall Be Your Master:

After the Sin, God lined up Adam, Eve and the Serpent in order to mete out their respective punishments. Adam received his punishment as well as the Serpent. “To the woman he said: ‘I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.’” (Genesis 3:16) Eve was the first causality of her own sin; this, among a very long lineage of females. What began as a spiritual and moral tragedy in the Garden of Eden developed into a social and political burden for women all over the world. The Old Testament world (here, I mean world history before Christ) was a man’s world. As Cardinal Gibbons suggested, women were in an unending tutelage, slavery, and instrument under man’s dominion. In virtually every and nation in every era women were second class citizens. To a large degree, her worth was dependent upon his choosing and whim.


4. The Curse of Motherhood:

The curse of motherhood? I thought being a mother is a blessing in the eyes of God! It certain is! However, being defined exclusively by what we do or by the role we play can be a curse. Eve was first given the name of “Woman,” the stress being on her individuality and one who was on equal footing with Adam. The name of “Eve,” on the other hand, stresses her maternal vocation. Now, being identified as a mother is a blessing if it is one of many characteristics she possesses i.e. daughter of God, individual, spouse, worker etc. However, to emphasize one characteristic or role at the expense of all the rest is a curse. In the Old Testament, due to the absence of the Holy Spirit, there was an imbalance and a disproportionate emphasis on a woman's duty to produce children.

Do you remember what Jesus said? He taught that in heaven we are not going to be spouses and parents so much as we are brothers and sisters. In eternity, many of our roles will cease to exist. And as for our earthly existence, the maternal of role of mother is indeed active while her children are young. But this function eventually takes a back seat to other roles for her as they get old and move out of the house. When she becomes an empty-nester, her individuality comes to the fore and other roles can be more easily expressed.

With that said, the name “Eve” suggests that her main identity was that of a mother. Indeed, the relationship that defined her was that with her children and not with her husband. To emphasize once again, no longer was her name “Woman,” the wife of Adam but rather “Eve” the mother of Cain, Abel, Seth as well as the rest of her children. Imagine if a man always introduced his wife as the mother of his children and not his wife or “other half.” No doubt, she would feel chagrined. Although her love for her children may not be questioned there would still be a rebellion aroused in her soul at the suggestion that she is a mother first and a wife second. Or imagine if women were primarily valued as mothers and their importance was determined by the number of children she had. Such a value system does not fare well for barren women, widows or even little girls (girls would only have the potential of worth).

Widows in the ancient world were quite often abandoned, barren women disgraced and female infants aborted or killed through infanticide. A letter written by Hilarion to his pregnant to his wife Alis in the year 1 B.C. included this admonition: “If you are delivered of a child [before I come home], if it is a boy keep it, if a girl discard it!”

“He shall be your master” are words that marked that left deep wounds upon the female gender. This was the world before Christ.

In brief, we cannot forget childbearing pains. “The man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, ‘I have produced a man with the help of the LORD.’" (Genesis 4:1) But for every new life that comes into this world the mother will have to suffer. The words, “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing” have echoed throughout time. Sex would come at a higher price for women than for men. Perhaps, this is why for women sex is more personal and more integrated with life than for a man. Men can afford to compartmentalize sex. But women cannot.

However, men got theirs (i.e. pay back) when God required Abraham and every male of the Old Covenant to be circumcised. Mind you, for grown men this was a painful procedure which resulted in a flu-like sickness for two or three days. The Lord has his way of evening the score.


5. Plight of Women Symbolized

The Law of Moses required parents to present their new born child with an animal sacrifice to God forty days after his or her birth. But the prescribed ritual was different for female infants than for male infants. He said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites: When a woman has conceived and gives birth to a boy, she shall be unclean for seven days, with the same uncleanness as at her menstrual period. On the eighth day, the flesh of the boy's foreskin shall be circumcised, and then she shall spend thirty-three days more in becoming purified of her blood; she shall not touch anything sacred nor enter the sanctuary till the days of her purification are fulfilled. If she gives birth to a girl, for fourteen days she shall be as unclean as at her menstruation, after which she shall spend sixty-six days in becoming purified of her blood." (Leviticus 12:1-5) The mother was to be unclean and was to purify herself twice as long for a female infant than for a male infant. Now, does this suggest that God loves female infants any less than male infants? Certainly not! It was to symbolize the plight of females before the New Covenant.

Sarah, wife of Abraham, Rachael, wife of Jacob, Hannah, mother of Samuel and so many women lamented to the Lord about the disgrace of being barren. Indeed, they cried out to heaven. Even St. Elizabeth, after she conceived St. John the Baptist, expressed her relief. She said, "So has the Lord done for me at a time when he has seen fit to take away my disgrace before others." (Luke 1:25) Where did this disgrace come from? We can trace it back to Eve.

The answer to the four thousand year suppression of women would not come from political or social measures. The protest of angry women, much like Margaret Sanger’s feminist movement, would prove quite insufficient. Before the Light of Christ would shine the Morning Star, as St. Louis de Montfort called her, would shimmer in the darkness. Centuries before Christmas night, the following passage from the book of Wisdom pointed to a new beginning: “Yes, blessed is she who, childless and undefiled, knew not transgression of the marriage bed; she shall bear fruit at the visitation of souls.” (Wisdom 3:13)

“If you are delivered of a child [before I come home], if it is a boy keep it, if a girl discard it!”

-Letter from Hilarion to his to his wife Alis. 1 B.C.

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

-Margaret Sanger


Part II: What Mary Meant for Women


1. Mary: The New Beginning

At the beginning of Matthew’s Gospel, there is a long lineage of our Lord’s ancestors. Among all of the fathers and sons listed, the names of five women appear: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, the wife of Uriah (Bathsheba) and Mary. The four women that precede Mary all have been marked by some imperfection. Tamar and Rahab were prostitutes, Ruth was a Gentile and Bathsheba was an adulteress. Out of the five women, only the Blessed Virgin Mary was found to be “full of grace,” that is, without any mark of imperfection. Implied in Matthew’s Gospel genealogy is that with Mary there would be a new beginning; not just for humanity at large but for women in particular.

As God, Jesus Christ would have the opportunity to create his own mother. Taken on her flesh and dwelling within her womb, it is Catholic teaching that he created immaculately as he did Eve in the Garden of Eden. In Scripture, there are allusions to this effect. When God pronounced his sentence upon the Serpent, he included this promise: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.” (Genesis 3:15) The woman refers to Mary and God had put enmity between her and Satan. Enmity, of course, means having nothing to do with; a total separation. Hence, a chasm would exist between the Blessed Virgin and all contagion of evil.. Indeed, she would be the first person, the first woman conceived outside of Eve’s shadow. In her Immaculate Conception it was if God had taken the womb of St. Anne, Mary’s mother, outside of Eve’s shadow so as to create Mary, the Mother of God, in the brightest of lights. Perhaps, this is why the angel Gabriel declared her to be “full of grace.” Perhaps, this is why St. John, author of the book of Revelation, saw her as being “clothed with the sun.”

The Son of God would use this special creation of his to not only save souls but to restore dignity and status of women. Immediately after having conceived Jesus, Mary went in haste to assist her relative St. Elizabeth in her last three months of pregnancy. Through her greeting, the first graces of the New Covenant given and inspired by the Holy Spirit “Elizabeth cried out in a loud voice and said, ‘Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.’” (Luke 1:42) Isn’t it interesting that St. Elizabeth did not say, “Blessed are you among all people?” This would have been a true statement. But she said “blessed are you among women.” This is as if to say, “Blessed are you among Eve and all of her descendants. Yes, among all women who toiled under Eve’s shadow.”

Isn’t it also interesting that St. Elizabeth added, “…and blessed is the fruit of your womb. She could have said, “…and blessed is baby Jesus” or “…and blessed be the child in your womb.” But no, she referred to the unborn Messiah as the “fruit” of her womb. Kind of an odd thing to say! As far as I know, it is not a common expression of among the ancient Jews. The term “fruit,” however, hearkens back to the fruit Eve gave Adam. With the Incarnation, it is Mary who offers the fruit to the Son of God in that she gave him her flesh. She also offers it to the world. The flesh and blood of Christ would be like grapes crushed in the wine-press of suffering. The fruit of the vine, namely wine, would then be consecrated into the blood of Christ at every altar throughout the world.

Jesus referred to his Mother as Woman. This was not out of any disrespect at all. After all, he fulfilled the fourth commandment perfectly. But his mother Mary was to fulfill what Eve lost and that is the dignity and status of being a daughter of God the Father as well as his exclusive possession. Mary was not only the daughter of God but she was a Mother and Virgin at the same time. In Genesis 3: 15, when God said, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers,” there are some translations which render “offspring” as seed. This was a common translation up until recently. As you know, women do not have seeds. Men do. The seed of Mary seems to prefigure the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. She would be fruitful without the intervention of a man. A kind of independence from man is communicated here. Whereas before men bestowed dignity and social worth to women in the Old Testament. With the Blessed Virgin, it is God taking that initiative. Indeed, what seems so theological and dogmatic, at times unrelated to the real world, had social and political implications for women.

In his public ministry, Jesus had women disciples. His healing and defense of women, both the infirmed and sinners alike, was but an expression and continuation of Mary’s conception outside of Eve’s shadow. It was becoming more evident that the chains had been broken.



2. Women’s New Status:

In the Christian era, women were no longer deemed worthy only through their maternity and dependence on men. Keep in mind that even within Judaism women could be divorced on whim, widows were often left to fend for themselves and women not allowed to those inner precincts of the Jewish Temple. Even up to the time of Christ’s birth, as we have seen, social disgrace was associated with being barren; but not so for a man.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church in those early years inspired vocations for consecrated virgins; now better known as Sisters and Nuns. In fact, St. Paul encouraged women to belong fully to God outside of marriage. He said, “Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do… An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit…She is more blessed, though, in my opinion, if she remains as she is…”

St. Paul mentions Christian women, spouses of Christ, who made “their first pledge.” (I Timothy 5:3) This was a pledge of total dedication to the Lord. And as for widows, they were to be given special honor. Both St. James and St. Paul exhort the early Christians to take care of widows. This was the mark of “true religion.” “Honor widows who are truly widows,” said St. Paul, “…Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years old, married only once…”

And as for married women, husbands were to look upon them as Christ did for his Church. Married men were to love their wives as his own flesh. The two, in Christ’s covenant, would become one. Such a union could not be dispensed with on whim. To be sure, the indissolubility of marriage would serve as a benefactor for women for centuries to come. Leaving his wife out in the cold, as was common place in the pagan world, the husband would to have to answer for it: first to the Church and then to God. As a Christian man it was his sacred obligation to protect, cherish and even die for his wife if need be.

As for motherhood, St. Paul taught that what once was a curse, namely, labor pangs and being valued exclusively as a mother would be an instrument of her sanctification, perfection and salvation. As the Apostle wrote to St. Timothy: “She will be saved through motherhood…” (I Timothy 2:15) All of this was made possible by Christ through the instrumentation of Mary.


3. The Real Benefactor of Women:

So there you have it! Eve, the mother of the living, had cast a long shadow over women for centuries to come. The creation of Mary, the Mother of God, was God’s way of binding up and healing the wounds of womanhood.

As for today, modern day feminism claims to be for women. But it is not. It is for liberal or secular women if only they are politically useful. As for the woman or female as such, the feminist ideology has little to offer and its followers have proven to be quite selective as to who they help. More often than not, feminism champions the liberal politician or celebrity. But females in the womb and women who do not subscribe to the feminist ideology have to fend for themselves. No doubt, the campaign for women’s equality had yield good results in the last century. For instance, a woman getting the same pay as a man for the same work has been a worthy goal. The playing field is still not as equitable as it can be.

Nevertheless, what Margaret Sanger’s feminism did was to promise women political and social liberation at the expense of her marriage, her family and her faith. “Against the State,” she exclaimed, “against the Church, against the silence of the medical profession, against the whole machinery of dead institutions of the past, the woman of today arises.” She declared war on those “dead” institutions that elevated her station in society and protected her against the lustful and political whims of men. The women of today, like those under Eve’s shadow, bear a heavy burden. Being a stay-at-home mother is frowned upon. Fidelity to husbands and persevering through difficult marriages is both undermined in our entertainment, in our education and in our courtrooms. But relationships make up for a good part of a woman’s life. If this is not saved, nothing is saved for her.

Who is the real benefactor of women in our world? The fact is that the Catholic Church celebrates saintly women throughout the liturgical calendar. Catholics celebrate and remember female heroine in their worship, readings and imitation. What other religion, ideology or institution does this? Devotion to the Blessed Virgin is among the greatest devotions of the Church. Second to God, second to Christ, she is given honor. And it is through her maternal love that women are conformed into the image of Christ.

Margaret Sanger’s feminism has given women the illusion of power but has left her female followers destitute. This ideology has led them right back into Eve’s shadow, which still exists. With that said, Mary, also known as our Lady of Fatima, said that her Immaculate Heart will triumph. Eve’s shadow will be forever dispelled and with Christ, Mary will win.

Crying Out in the Desert: Why the John the Baptist wasn't John the Priest

Second Sunday of Advent Gospel Reading:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of you; he will prepare your way. A voice of one crying out in the desert: "Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths." John the Baptist appeared in the desert proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. People of the whole Judean countryside and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins. John was clothed in camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist. He fed on locusts and wild honey. And this is what he proclaimed: "One mightier than I is coming after me. I am not worthy to stoop and loosen the thongs of his sandals. I have baptized you with water;he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Also, in the Gospel of Matthew (3:13-17) it reads:

"Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. John tried to prevent him, saying, 'I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?' Jesus said to him in reply, 'Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.' Then he allowed him. After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened (for him), and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove (and) coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, saying, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.'"



Why not St. John the Priest?

One gets the impression from reading the Gospels that St. John the Baptist was highly respected by the Jews. For that reason, among many, he made a superb forerunner of the Messiah. When St. John the Baptist spoke, people listened! Even sixty years after his death, close to the turn of the first century, Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote the following about this renowned prophet: “Now many people came in crowds to him, for they were greatly moved by his words. For Herod had killed this good man, who had commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, righteousness towards one another and piety towards God.” We sometimes forget that this "good man" came from a priestly family. His mission was not only to point out the person of the Messiah; but he was also to point to the new priesthood. Ironically, St. John the Baptist would not accomplished his mission in the Temple as one would expect. Instead, the river Jordan near the frontiers of the wilderness would serve as his pulpit.

First, it is important to note that the Levitical priesthood in the Old Testament was not so much a matter of personal choice or calling, like it is in the Catholic priesthood, but rather it was transmitted from the father to the son. What is more, a Jewish priest had to belong to the tribe of Levi (Moses and his brother Aaron belonged to this tribe).

It begs the question: Why is St. John the Baptist baptizing in the river Jordan and not officiating as a priest in the Temple like his father St. Zachariah did? After all, the announcement of his birth took place in the Temple. Perhaps, for this reason, St. John the Baptist was an enigma to the Sanhedrin of his day precisely because he was not “John the Priest” (The Sanhedrin was the “Magisterium” or hierarchy of Judaism composed of Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in the first century). But when, at his circumcision, St. Elizabeth had given this prophet the name of John instead of Zechariah or some other family name, it was an indication that the ministry of St. John would somehow break with tradition.

We take it for granted that St. John the Baptist was a baptizer. It is worth noting, however, that baptism was not a central or commonly practiced ritual in Judaism at the time. However, it was one out of three rites of initiation. If a Gentile wanted to become a member of the Jewish Church he had to get circumcised, undergo baptism and then make a sacrificial offering. Baptism, therefore, was seen as having application to outsiders only. Reading between the lines, one could infer from St. John the Baptist's calling of the Pharisees and Sadducee's to repent and be baptized, that they would soon be outsiders to the New Covenant; that is, if they did not repent and undergo a new kind of baptism.


The New Priesthood: Of the Spirit

Up to the time of St. John the Baptist's first appearance, the sons and daughters of Abraham were the chosen people of God by virtue of their ethnic heritage and religious affiliation. But all that would change with the New Covenant Church. As Jesus himself would later say, “The hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth; and indeed the Father seeks such people to worship him. God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth.” Worshiping in Spirit and truth would necessitate repentance from sin and the practice of virtues. The message was clear: Being a descendant of Abraham but not an imitator of Abraham would make one an outsider as far as God's family is concerned.

Although the New Covenant religion would receive its life from the Spirit, it did not dispense from rituals and sacrifice as such. Indeed, a new priesthood and a clean sacrifice would be inaugurated with the coming of the Messiah. As the prophet Malachi foretold in the Old Testament, “For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.” And St. John, the son of Zechariah, and a descendant of Levi, would point out for the New High Priest and the Lamb of God for all to see. In fact, in the Gospel of John the Baptist said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” And upon this Lamb, “I saw the Spirit come down like a dove from heaven and remain upon him.”


God Speaks Again: The Spirit Returns

The preaching of St. John the Baptist helped ushered in a new Priest, a new sacrifice, and a new priesthood.

"After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened for him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, saying, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.'"

“The heavens were opened for him.” The importance of these words cannot be overstated. Just before God “baptized” the world with a global flood, he assessed the sinfulness of mankind and “regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was grieved.” The Lord then promised to do something which would prove more fatal than the flood itself. He said, "My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he is but flesh." As if to say, “Okay. You don’t want me. Fine! I will leave you at the mercy of your own devices.” So, God went up to heaven, thus taking his Spirit, and the doors of heaven were closed to man. From the days of Noah to the Incarnation of Christ, humanity did not benefit from the moral aid of divine grace. Each person was at the mercy of his weak human nature. As one peruses the pages of the Old Testament and the books of ancient history, one cannot help but notice the barbarity and cruelty of man; even among God’s chosen people. Such was the world without the Holy Spirit.

From about 500 B.C. to the time St. John the Baptist raised his voice in the desert, the voices of prophets were silenced. In other words, for about four to five hundred years leading up to the time of Christ, God had not sent any prophets to the Jews. Which prophet broke that silence? St. John the Baptist! What is more, when he baptized the Son of God in the river Jordan, God the Father himself finally spoke again: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” The doors of heaven were opened and God the Father sent out his Dove in order to find a resting place (much like Noah sending a dove from the ark in order to find dry land). His Spirit, which had been withdrawn from the world in Genesis chapter 6, once again descended to earth and rested on his Son. Perhaps, this is why St. John said, “I saw the Spirit come down like a dove from heaven and remain upon him.” In other words, the Spirit of God who had appeared in the form of a dove did not go back up to heaven; he was here to stay!

The public declaration of the Father’s love for the Son was accompanied by the anointing of the Spirit. Jesus would later say of himself in the synagogue: “The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me.” These words from the prophet Isaiah signify a kind of consecration or priestly ordination. The words of paternal affection with which the Father spoke to his Son in the Gospel of Matthew finds its parallel from Psalm 110 in which he also says, “In holy splendor before the daystar, like the dew I begot you. The LORD has sworn and will not waver: Like Melchizedek you are a priest forever."


Priestly Ordination of a Messiah:

In the river Jordan, St. John, the son of Zechariah the priest, baptized the Son of God. But this was not just a baptism of water. No. This was a kind of ordination from the eternal Father to his eternal Son. Perhaps, this is why St. John could proclaim: “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” Christ, as we have seen, is not only the Lamb to be sacrificed but a priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

“It is even more obvious if another priest is raised up after the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become so, not by a law expressed in a commandment concerning physical descent but by the power of a life that cannot be destroyed.” (Hebrews 7) At the river Jordan a new priesthood was inaugurated through which “the power of life” would be communicated to the world. This priesthood is to be found in the Catholic Church. Indeed, the Catholic priesthood is the hope of nations precisely because it communicates the Spirit which embodies the love and the eternal anointing from the Father to the Son.

Christ was “raised up after the likeness of Melchizedek” from the waters of the river Jordan. Tradition has it that the Lord was baptized where Joshua crossed the Jordan. After forty long years in the desert, Joshua and the Levitical priests led the Israelites across the river into the Promised Land. This crossing was immediately memorialized by having one man from each tribe erect a stone. In the book of Joshua chapter 4 it reads:

“…the LORD said to Joshua, ‘Choose twelve men from the people, one from each tribe, and instruct them to take up twelve stones from this spot in the bed of the Jordan where the priests have been standing motionless. Carry them over with you, and place them where you are to stay tonight…these stones are to serve as a perpetual memorial to the Israelites.’”

St. John the Baptist may have referred to these stones when he said to the crowd, “God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones.” The baptism of Christ, it would seem, signified a crossing from the land of darkness to the Promised Land of Heaven; a crossing that was to be led by Jesus and his faithful priests. It was appropriate, therefore, that the heavens opened up above the Son of God who had received the anointing of the Holy Spirit in the river Jordan.


From Shem, to Abraham, to Christ:

Melchizedek (Genesis 14) was a King-Priest of Salem (later to be Jerusalem) who blessed Abraham with bread and wine. According to the ancient Rabbis, Melchizedek was none other than Shem, the eldest son of Noah who inherited his blessing. It was through Shem that God’s blessing would continue. From the Ark of Noah, which landed in the mountains of Ararat (modern day Turkey), Shem migrated to a land that would later be known as Israel. He then founded the city of Salem and consequently built a castle or a palace there.

Abraham, Melchizedek's (or Shem's) great, great, great etc., grandson, inherited the blessing from Shem (who inherited the blessing from Noah, and Noah from God). And part of that blessing was the inheritance of the land that belonged to Shem. Unfortunately, Salem, as well as the surrounding land that belonged to him, was seized by the Canaanites centuries later (a ruthless pagan people who sacrificed their children to the god of Baal). Approximately four hundred years after Joshua and the Israelites migrated to the Promised Land from the desert, another king, King David, reclaimed Salem (renamed Jerusalem) and built his palace on the ruins of Melchizedek’s palace.

Some three years after his baptism, Jesus Christ- who was a priest according to order of Melchizedek -celebrated the Last Supper by consecrating bread and wine into his body and blood in the Upper Room. It just so happened that the Upper Room was built over what was once David’s palace and tomb. It was on this historic spot that the priesthood of Jesus Christ was not only fashioned after the likeness of Melchizedek but was put into effect on the ancient ruins of Melchizedek's palace. And it is from this room, on Holy Thursday, that the renewal of the world would begin.

As St. Padre Pio once said, "It would be easier for the world to survive without the sun than to do so without the Holy Mass." The consecration of the bread and wine into the glorified substance of the Risen Christ is but the beginning of that total transfiguration of the universe. Indeed, the Fathers of the Church taught, and without apology, that God created the world for the Church; that is, for the elect who would be saved by the blood of Christ. And Jesus himself said that the meek would inherit the earth.

Today the earth seems to be under the dominion of the ungodly. But in Psalm 2, God the Father made a promise to God the Son, and that is to reclaim what has been lost. "I will proclaim the decree of the LORD, who said to me, 'You are my son; today I am your father. Only ask it of me, and I will make your inheritance the nations, your possession the ends of the earth.'" (Psalm 2:7-8)

Archbishop of Westminster: More at stake than just his approval

“We acknowledge that our role in the Church inevitably puts us in a position in which we may be criticized for some actions. Catholic media have the right to engage in such criticism carried on in the spirit of civility already described.”

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Civility in the Media 2000


“The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs…they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful…”

Code of Canon Law, Canon 212:2-3 1983


Archbishop of Westminster:

The Catholic News Agency reported that Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster, England, in a November 26 press conference, said he supports same-sex civil partnerships. He is reported to have said that “civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship and a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision.” In the same news article, the Archbishop Nichols is quoted as saying, “Clearly, respect must be shown to those who in the situation in England use a civil partnership to bring stability to a relationship.” William Oddie, a commentator for the Catholic Herald in the U.K., wrote that “the chairman of the bishops’ conference said that the English Church supports civil unions between homosexual persons, unions which have been given the legal right to adopt children.”

So there you have it! The Archbishop of Westminster, along with other bishops in England, gives tacit approval to at least some form of same-sex union. Scandalous? Indeed, it is! Besides lending credence to that which is gravely sinful, there is something else to consider.

The reason why I address this story from the Catholic News Agency is not so much because a prominent Catholic bishop publicly supports civil partnerships of same-sex couples. Rather, what I wish to draw your attention to is something even worse and even more dangerous: And that is the silence of his brother bishops.


Old and New Shepherds:

The Catholic Church holds up, as models to imitate, the Fathers of the Church and the Saints. But what happens when the Fathers of the Church, most of whom were bishops, did one thing and the bishops of today are doing another? How do reconcile these opposites?

One prominent Father of Church and Saint is Pope St. Gregory the Great. He gave the following admonition: “Wherefore, it is necessary that they [Bishops and Pastors] should guard themselves more cautiously against a fault, as by their misdeeds they not only perish themselves, but are responsible for the souls of those whom they ruin by their example.” He further adds, “…the pastor who does not eradicate the evil which he observes, comes to that state which his negligence deserves, namely, not even to recognize the sins of his subjects.” This is to say that pastoral negligence in reproving others, whether it is souls committed to his care or his peers, will eventually lead to blindness of sin.

I can cite countless admonitions from both Church Fathers and Saints to this effect. Error and sin are bad enough. But silence by those in authority who can help redress the harmful effects is equally reprehensible. To be sure, any bishop or priest leading souls astray about something as important as sexuality, marriage or family causes a great deal of harm in the Body of Christ. Yet, God has not only given us human rights in the natural order but he has also given us rights in the supernatural order, that is, as members of his Mystical Body, the Church.

The Sacrament of Holy Orders and the Catholic priesthood in general exists for the human soul; not the other way around. When the former encroaches upon the latter, a way to remedy the situation should be available to the faithful. An example to this effect is in the case of child abuse. When a child is abused by his parents, other adults or authorities are duty bound to intervene. The same applies to the children of God in the Church.


Code of Conduct: Silence

Former U.S. President, Ronald Reagan, once said that one of the commandments of the Republican Party should be that a fellow Republican shouldn’t criticize another Republican. This code of conduct serves a good purpose. It solidifies and brings unity to a political party. Catholic bishops too have something known as Episcopal collegiality. It is a fraternal brotherhood among Catholic bishops. Like no other fraternity or institution, Catholic bishops have observed this code of conduct with great attention; much better than the Republicans have, to be sure. But like any good thing, it can be used to a fault. When the good of the Church and the salvation of souls are at stake, then it this collegiality ought to be suspended. Silence should be broken. The “other adults” (i.e. brother bishops) should intervene on behalf of God’s children who have been scandalized and potentially lost. The Apostles and the Church Fathers, pastors who the Church has held up as models, did just that!!


Suspending the Code:

St. Paul, for instance, was a bishop of the Church in the first century. St. Peter was a bishop too. But not only a bishop- the Bishop of bishops –he was our first pope. As such, St. Paul was his inferior. Yet, when St. Paul noticed that St. Peter was giving scandal to gentile Christians in his pastoral practices (not his infallible teachings on faith and morals), he, St. Paul, publicly reprimanded the pope. He gives the following account in Galatians:

“And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong…But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, ‘If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’” (Galatians 2:11,14)

About three hundred years later, St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, took to task a man named Nestorius, the Archbishop of Constantinople. St. Cyril publicly accused Nestorius of heresy. In fact, Nestorius taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not the Mother of God and that Jesus had two personalities or persons in his one being. It wasn’t until the General (or Ecumenical) Council of Ephesus convened in 431 A.D. that Nestorius was formally condemned.

And just recently, at the November 2011 General Assembly of the U.S. Bishops, Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, CT called upon his brother bishops to be "watchmen." According to the prophet Ezekiel and the early Church Fathers, a watchman is he who sounds the alarm for his flock when good sheep get lost or when a wolf approaches. In either case, a watchman raises his voice so that the fog of confusion is dispelled; just as St. Paul and St. Cyril did with respect to their brother bishops. But when watchmen are intimidated into silence, or when they deem it "unChristian" to correct a brother who errs or sins, it can spell disaster for the sheep.


Salvation over Collegiality:

Today, in the Catholic Church, we do not have a lot of cases of bishops who go public with doctrinal heresy. However, we did, over the last fifty years, and still do, have plenty of cases that involve pastoral scandals like the one cited above i.e. Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster. In the first millennium of Christianity, and even up to the twentieth century, bishops in the Church were well aware that the salvation of souls took precedence over their collegiality with other bishops. And us lay people have the same obligation. Loyalty and trust are dispositions that characterize friendships. But if I should ever discover mistreatment or abuse of children under my brother, friend or neighbors roof, I am morally obligated to intervene their behalf. Wouldn’t it seem that when souls and their eternal destiny is at stake it is even more incumbent that our Spiritual Fathers intervene by publicly expressing disapproval?


Son, Not Critic:

I express my concerns as a son of the Church not as a critic of the clergy. Although the USCCB and the Code of Canon Law has made known that Catholics do have rights and can exercise them by making known their concerns as to pertains to the good of the Church to other Christians, I am nevertheless mindful of the caution the Saints have given over the years in such matters. Indeed, St. Gregory the Great and St. Catherine of Sienna go even further in their admonition to Catholics who observe the faults of their superiors.


Great Caution with Corrections:

Pope St. Gregory the Great cautions Christians that when they observe the faults of their superiors, they are to do it with a reverence of a spiritual son or daughter; not as disgruntled critic who has nothing to loose by hurling accusations at them. He said, “Subjects are to be warned not to judge rashly the way of life of their superiors if, by chance, observe anything reprehensible; otherwise, their just criticism of what is wrong may plunge them by pride into lower depths themselves.” St. Gregory goes on to say, “They must be warned that in observing faults in their superiors, they do not become too disrespectful to them. On the contrary, should the faults be of very serious nature, their private judgement should such that constrained by the fear of God they still do not refuse to bear the yoke of reverence in subjection to them.” (Pastoral Rule: part III, chapter 3)

About seven hundred years later in St. Catherine’s book, The Dialogue, God reminds Christians that when they slander or deride their Pastors, they really assault Him. St. Catherine records His warning as such: “The reverence you pay to them is not actually paid to them but to me, in virtue of the blood I have entrusted to their ministry…Therefore, you must not sin against them, because if you do, you are really sinning not against them but against me…For this reason no one has excuse to say, ‘I am doing no harm, nor am I rebelling against the Church. I am simply acting against the sins of evil pastors.’ To me redounds every assault they make on my ministers: derision, slander, disgrace, abuse. Whatever is done to them I count as done to me.”

Notice that Pope St. Gregory the Great, or any Church Father for that matter, never declared that the laity, in observing the faults of their the clergy, is forbidden nor is it a sin. The thing to keep in mind is that we are sons and daughters of our spiritual fathers, namely, the bishops. As such, making known our grievances and even addressing problems which need immediate attention should be done- not only for the good of the Church at large -but out of love for the bishop themselves. The faults and sins of our bishops should grieve us. And if we feel duty bound to vocalize our concerns it should be accompanied with prayer and spiritual sacrifices.

You see, as troubling as Archbishop Vincent Nichols' tacit approval of same-sex civil unions is, there is more at stake. Our response to this, that is, the Church's response to scandals of this nature will determine if a Christian civilization is still a viable option in this world!

What you may not know about the Magi

What you may not know about the Magi:
-Part one of two posts

“St. John Chrysostom [bishop of Constantinople] asserts that after the resurrection of Christ, St. Thomas the Apostle came to the country of these Magi, and baptized them, and associated them with him in preaching the Gospel.”

-Cornelius Lapide

“The holy Helena mother of the emperor Constantine…accumulated the bodies of the Three Magi together, who were buried in different places, and Helena brought the bodies towards Constantinople.”

-Vita Beati Eustorgii Confessoris

*Historical note: Constantinople, a prominent city in the ancient Roman Empire, is now known as Instanbul, Turkey.


Preface:

We, as twenty-first century Americans, are contemporary in our reading and knowledge. We place the highest value on that which is new instead of that which is old (both have their drawbacks to be sure). But the downside is that our memory is short. Yet, there is so much tradition and so many sources which illuminate the Gospel stories, particularly the birth of Christ, with the technology we have today, we would be remiss if we didn’t tap into them. In fact, if you are interested in learning about the richness and depth of the Catholic Faith then consider old Catholic books; published, let’s say, in the nineteenth century or earlier.

From the 1500’s to the 1900’s Catholic authors normally had, at their fingertips, ancient documents and the writings of the Church Fathers. Moreover, they saw the need to integrate them, as much as possible, into their writings. This practice had a way of keeping us in touch with the past. After all, Christianity is not so much a philosophy as it is an historical religion. With a greater consciousness of tradition, Catholics were in a better position to benefit from God’s wisdom from each century.

One such Scripture commentator who lived during the 1500’s was a man by the name of Cornelius Lapide, a Catholic priest and scholar. He provided an extensive commentary on the New Testament, using fifteen hundred years of the Church’s teachings. It is from his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew regarding the story of the Magi which afforded me many of the sources below. Keep in mind that with the lack of information in Scripture regarding the "Three Wise Men,” we have to rely on traditions and a certain amount of speculation.


Mystique of the Magi:

One feature of the Christmas narrative is the Magi; those mysterious men from the East who suddenly appear in Jerusalem looking for the Christ-child. There has been a great deal of mystery surrounding these three Magi or Kings. What is particularly intriguing about them is how they knew about the imminent birth of Christ and how a bright star, giving so little in terms of information, could have directed their journey to the land of Judea at just the right time.

Their journey is reminiscent of Abraham’s journey from the land of Ur (i.e. modern day Iraq. In Abraham’s time this is where the pagans worshipped the stars. In fact, God used the stars to illustrate to Abraham just how many descendants he would have) to the Promised Land some two thousand years prior. He was called by God to go to a land he would “show him.” Leaving everything behind accept is tribe or extended family, he ventured west trusting that the Lord would see him through.

The Magi, taking what the early Christians believed to be about a 13 day journey (the length of time between Christmas day and the Epiphany), not only relied on the Star of Bethlehem, but on divine inspiration. As Pope St. Leo the Great said, “God, who manifested the sign of the star, gave understanding to those who beheld it: for He made it to be understood and inquired after, and, being sought after, He presented Himself to be found.” Indeed, their journey was based on a faith and trust similar to that of the patriarch Abraham.

The consensus of early Christian tradition has it that these Magi were three in number (although the Gospel of Matthew does not record the number). St. Bede, an early Church Father from England (673 A.D. -735 A.D.), assigned them the names of Gaspar, Melchoir and Balthasar. Each of these men were from different regions and deemed to be kings, astronomers and philosophers. One was from Persia (i.e. modern day Iran, Pakistan, India), the other from Arabia (i.e. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq) and the third was from Ethiopia (i.e. Yemen, Ethiopia). People from these regions, especially Arabia and Persia, had a fascination with the stars and luminaries of the night sky. Rabanus, a Church Father and Benedictine Abbot from the 9th century, said that the Magi were often confused with magicians, astrologers or wizards. He said the Magi, who ventured in search for the Messiah, “were men who inquired into the nature of things philosophically, but common speech used ‘Magi’ for wizards. In their own country, however, they were held in other repute, being the philosophers of the Chaldeans [historic Babylon/modern day Iraq] whose lore kings and princes of that nation were taught, by which themselves knew the birth of the Lord.”

But how did these foreigners know about the significance of the star and the circumstances signaling the birth of a Jewish Messiah? Certainly a bright star wasn’t all they had to go on, was it?


Prophecy and the Gentile World:

It just so happened that the people of Persia, Arabia and even Ethiopia had crossed paths with the Hebrew people long before the birth of Christ. There are many reasons to believe that Scripture and Jewish traditions were well known in these places. It was likely a combination of an exceptional star, interpretation of Hebrew Scriptures, interior inspiration and traditions from the time of Moses which all served to guide them to Bethlehem, where Mary and new born Christ were to be found.

Regarding tradition that may have come down to one or more of the Magi, Cornelius Lapide wrote, “The Magi knew that this star was the harbinger of Christ from Balaam.” During the time of Moses, in the book of Numbers (24:17), a gentile prophet by the name of Balaam was ordered by Balak, king of Moab (modern day Jordan, a neighboring country of Israel), to pronounce a curse on the Israelites. However, he could not; the Lord would not permit it. Instead, Balaam uttered a prophecy about the Messiah, who was to rise from the House of Jacob. He said, “I see him, though not now; I behold him, though not near: A star shall advance from Jacob, and a staff shall rise from Israel.” Admittedly, this was around the year 1400 B.C. (1400 years before Christ), a long time before the star would rise above Bethlehem.

Nevertheless, this prophetic utterance from the Arabian prophet, Balaam, could very well have been enshrined in the Arabian traditions. As St. Jerome said, “They [the Magi] knew that such a star would rise by the prophecy of Balaam, whose successors they were.” And another Church Father said, “These Chaldean [Arabian] Magi inspected the stars, not with malevolence [like King Herod] but with the true desire of knowledge; following, it may be supposed, the traditions of Balaam…”

Without the efficiency of the printed press and easy access to Scribes, the ancients relied very heavily on oral tradition; as did the Hebrew people before Moses penned the first five books of the Old Testament known as the Torah (or Pentateuch).

There are other reasons why the prophecies of the coming Messiah in the Old Testament were probably known in Persia, Arabia and Ethiopia. So as to not burden the reader with too many details, I decided bullet point the possible historical and biblical reasons how the word got out about the expected Jewish Messiah.


Ethiopia:

• Moses had contracted a marriage with a Cushite woman from Ethiopia. Perhaps, this was after his first wife, Zipporah died (This was during their 40 year journey in the Arabian Desert). Hence, there were descendants of Moses who were both Hebrew and Ethiopian. (Numbers12:1)

• About 400 years after the time of Moses, around the year 950 B.C., the Queen of Sheba (Yemen/Ethiopian region) visits King Solomon: She said to the King of Israel, “The report I heard in my country about your deeds and your wisdom is true.".” (I Kings 10:1-13)

• A thousand years after the time of King Solomon, Ethiopian royalty still had retained a respect for Jewish Scriptures and traditions. In fact, just after our Lord’s ascension into heaven an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, was traveling back home from the Jewish Temple. The Ethiopian was reading the book of Isaiah out loud when St. Philip had introduced himself to him in order to explain the passage he was reading. Later, the eunuch was baptized. (Acts 8:26-28) Now, the book of Isaiah is known for its many prophecies regarding the birth, mission and death of the Messiah. Therefore, it is conceivable that just 33 years prior to providential meeting between the royal official from Ethiopia and St. Philip, a King or Magi from Ethiopia was aware that the birth of the Messiah was imminent. The Lord could very well have beckoned such a “wise man” through the luminous star shining in the night sky.


Arabia:

• About 200 years after King Solomon (800-700 B.C.), the Temple he built was destroyed and Jerusalem captured, and the Jews were deported to Babylon by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar and his army. At the time the Babylonian Empire was the world superpower at the time. The prophet Jeremiah and Ezekiel had witnessed these sad events. (Side note: Babylonia was traditionally said to be the location of the infamous Tower of Babel and in the general region of Arabia Today it is known as Baghdad, Iraq). The Jews settled there and developed their own traditions apart from the Temple rituals in their native land.

• The prophet Daniel was a servant in the royal household of King Nebuchadnezzar. He had predicted the following: “Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and for your holy city: Then transgression will stop and sin will end, guilt will be expiated, Everlasting justice will be introduced, vision and prophecy ratified, and a most holy will be anointed.” Another expression of seventy weeks is “seventy weeks of years,” a formula of 70 x 7, equaling 490 years. Whether these numbers were supposed to be taken as symbolic or literal, the Jews of the first century were expecting the arrival of the Messiah in their day; about 500 years after the time of Daniel. Along with the Jews in Babylon, no doubt, their Arab friends had to be acquainted with the Messianic prophecies and the general period which they were expected to occur.


Persia:

• Reminder: Ancient Persia is where modern day Iran is today.

• Persian religion of Zoroastrianism: Founded in the 6th century BC by Zoroaster. This was about the time period the prophet Daniel was in the neighboring region of Babylonia. Here are some beliefs that were remarkably similar to those of Judaism.
- One universal and transcendent God
- Good thoughts, words and deeds- conquer evil
- Free will
- Savior figure at the end times
- A kind of resurrection of the dead

• After the Babylonian Empire fell, the Persian Empire emerged as the world superpower. But its king, King Cyrus, saw himself as the one who fulfilled a prophecy from the book of Isaiah. “I say of Cyrus: My shepherd, who fulfills my every wish; He shall say of Jerusalem, ‘Let her be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘Let its foundations be laid.’" (Isaiah: 44: 28 ) As such, he did exactly that. He not only permitted the Jews to return to their native land in order to rebuild a second Jewish Temple, but he helped subsidized it. Like Ethiopia, Persia was familiar with the book of Isaiah and most likely, many other Old Testament prophecies about the coming of the Messiah.

• When the Persian Muslims captured the Holy Land in 614 A.D., they “spared the Church of the Nativity, supposedly out of respect for a mosaic of the Magi shown wearing Persian attire.” (Smithsonian magazine, March 2009)

*Scroll down for part II*

What you may not know about the Magi (part ii)

What you may not know about the Magi:
-The second of two posts


~“Caravans of camels shall fill you, dromedaries from Midian and Ephah; All from Sheba shall come bearing gold and frankincense, and proclaiming the praises of the LORD.” (Isaiah 60:3)

~“May the kings of Tarshish and the islands bring tribute, the kings of Sheba and Seba offer gifts.” (Psalm 72:10)

~“When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem.” (Matthew 2:1)



Setting Out To Judea:

“This was manifestly not one of the common stars of Heaven. First, because none of the stars moves in this way, from east to south, and such is the situation of Palestine [Land of Israel] with respect to Persia. Secondly, from the time of its appearance, not in the night only, but it appeared during the day.” These were the words of St. John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.), bishop of Constantinople (i.e. modern day Turkey), in the fourth century. The Christmas song, We Three Kings of the Orient, captures the luminous character of this star.

“O Star of wonder, star of night
Star with royal beauty bright
Westward leading, still proceeding
Guide us to thy Perfect Light!”

We have another source very close to the time of the rising star. St. Ignatius of Antioch (107 A.D.), an acquaintance of St. John the Apostle and the Blessed Virgin Mary, also a successor of St. Peter as bishop of Antioch (when St. Peter established a diocese in Rome, St. Ignatius took over in Antioch), wrote many letters to different churches. In his letter to the church in Ephesus, he made reference to the star that led the Magi to Judea. According to St. Ignatius, a personal acquaintance of the Mother of God and the Apostles, this was no ordinary star! He wrote, “The star shone so as to surpass in brightness all that were before it. For its light was indescribable; and struck with amazement all who beheld it. For all the rest of the stars, together with the sun and moon, were a kind of chorus of audience for that star, for it surpassed them all in splendor.”

Signs in the sky can be a harbinger of God’s blessing or an omen of his impending punishment. Josephus, a Jewish historian in the first century, wrote a book called the War of the Jews. In book V, chapter 5, he wrote that a sign appeared in the night sky over Jerusalem in the year 66 A.D. A peculiar star had illuminated the night sky, that is, “a star that resembled a sword over the city.” This was to portend the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple by Titus and his Roman army just four years before it happened. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed in the year 70 A.D. Also, towards the end of World War I in 1917, Our Lady of Fatima, appearing to the three Portugal children, warned that if people do not return to God a second world war would follow. She further warned that a sign in the sky would precede God’s punishment: “[I]f people do not stop offending God, another, even worse one will begin in the reign of Pius XI. When you shall see a night illuminated by an unknown light know that this is the great sign that God gives you that He is going to punish the world for its many crimes by means of war, hunger, and persecution of the Church and the Holy Father.”

As stated, God also signals his blessings in advance. The star that attracted the Magi was a harbinger of God’s greatest blessing: The coming of his only begotten Son. During Jesus’ public ministry, he would tell his disciples, “Be ready! For you do not know on which day your Lord will come.” But the Magi were first disciples from other nations. They were ready. They were wise. And what is more, they were willing to make the necessary sacrifices in order to visit the new born Messiah, Immanuel. Some commentators went so far as to say that the coming of the three kings from the Orient was a preview of Pentecost. Foreigners from different nations gathered in Jerusalem for the unexpected coming of the Third Person of the Trinity, namely, the Holy Spirit.

Upon seeing the universal star, a luminous star at that, the Magi from Persia, Arabia and Ethiopia individually, without knowing what awaited them, embarked on a long journey thirteen day journey to Judea. To repeat, this journey would retrace, in part, the steps of the patriarch Abraham when God called him to the Promised Land.

What a magnanimous spirit these Magi had and what faith! Perhaps the words of our Lord, some thirty years in advance, would echo in their hearts: “Go on your way; behold, I am sending you like lambs among wolves.” God’s missions are sometimes guaranteed with a promise; but they are always tested by trials.


Moment of Crisis: His Star Disappears

In the Gospel of Matthew, the Magi are recorded to have said that they saw, not just any star, but his star! Our Lords star! The star he created in order to give witness to his historic birth. Yet, if this star persisted to shine and to guide the Magi, why, then, did they have to consult King Herod’s royal court in Jerusalem? Why did they not go directly to Bethlehem? It is evident that the star disappeared for a time. There might have been a number of reasons for this. One such reason is given by St. John Chrysostom. He said, “The star had been hidden from them so that, on finding themselves without their guide, they would have no alternative but to consult the Jews. In this way, the birth of Jews would be known to all.” Certainly this is one way to publicize the news that the birth of the Messiah is imminent. As such, the Jews would be full of expectation.

Cornelius Lapide brings up an important another important point. He said, “And God ordered this, both to try the constancy of the Magi, and to teach them and others that Christ’s kingdom consists in poverty, humility, and contempt of the world, not in earthly wealth, and pride, and pomps, and palaces.” Political greatness was to be found in Jerusalem at the time. Both Herod and later, Pilate, would hold their respective offices there. Yet, according to the first century Josephus, at no other time was vice so prevalent in Jerusalem. Perhaps this is why the star disappeared as the Magi neared Jerusalem. Again, St. John Chrysostom said that the star was “invisible and then again visible, when they entered Jerusalem it hid itself, and then appeared again when they left Herod.”

As for the Magi, and all missionaries of the Gospel, God withdraws his aids from time to time in order to strengthen faith. How many servants of God, both in the Old and New Testaments, were guaranteed success only to encounter circumstances and adversity that were manifestly at odds with the Lord’s guarantee?


The Simplicity of a King:

“But you, Bethlehem-Ephrathah too small to be among the clans of Judah, From you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel; Whose origin is from of old, from ancient times.” (Micah 5:1) These are the words the Magi heard, maybe for the first time, in Jerusalem. They had not yet arrived. It was natural enough for them to go to Jerusalem, the City of David and the city where King Herod ruled. Although the Messiah was to die there some 33 years later, he was not to be born there. As such, they were instructed to go to the small town and seemingly insignificant town.

Pope St. Leo the Great said, “The Magi, judging as men, sought in the royal city for Him, whom they had been told was born a King. But he who took the form of a servant, and came not to judge but to be judged, chose Bethlehem for His birth, Jerusalem for his death.” Oh yes! The Lord’s ways are not our ways. We look for greatness in the entertainment and political arena. We think greatness is where all the action is; in Washington D.C., in L.A., in the Big Apple and at the office. Indeed, today’s heroes are celebrities, the wealthy and powerful men and women. But true heroism is not to be found there. In fact, true greatness and heroism is fostered in quiet and unknown places: In the daily thankless duties of parenting in the home or caring for the elderly in nursing homes or praying for the conversion of sinners in the convent. Moreover, success, at least in God’s eyes, is quite often to be found in setbacks and under the veneer of failure. When all seems lost or when we throw up our hands and ask, “What good can come from Nazareth?” is when Divine Providence works its marvels. Out of nothing comes something special; from human folly comes divine wisdom; and from a small town would come a great King!

If we were to use human and worldly as our standard gauge success , St. Joseph would have to be considered a failure on Christmas night. That’s right! He could not even find room and board for his pregnant wife in his home town. Nevertheless, the Holy Couple accepted their homeless plight with peace of mind and trust in God. What seemed like such an undesirable situation at the time turned out to be a great blessing to the lowly of the world. The royalty of the newborn Messiah did not scare imperfect souls away. Rather, our Lord’s simplicity and poverty was an invitation to all; even the Jewish shepherds of the lower classes and foreign Kings from privileged backgrounds. In any case, the trust that Joseph and Mary put in God paid off.

Cornelius Lapide, the 15th century priest and scholar, said, “There was no room for Mary and Joseph, who were poor people, in the hostelry, until the thirteenth day after Christ’s birth.” This is when the Magi came with their gifts. It was the ancient custom of the Arabians and other Orientals, not to approach their kings and rulers except with a gift, as it were a tribute due to them. “Gold for a king, frankincense for God, myrrh for the dead.” (S. Ambrose) That is, gold for the King of Kings, frankincense for him as the divine High Priest, and myrrh for the sacrificial Victim, better known as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. This gold not only had symbolic value, but it served a very practical purpose: The Holy Family could now afford a place to stay in. In addition, when they had to flee Herod’s wrath by traveling to Egypt, the gold would further serve a means of revenue.

The Magi saw the “child with Mary, his mother.” Curiously, St. Joseph was not mentioned during their visit. And the reason for this might be to accentuate the kingly character of Christ and the Queenly character of Mary. These two characteristics, no doubt, will be prominent themes at our Lord’s Second Coming.

In any case, the book of Wisdom, a book in the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint and also well known in Egypt as early as 200 B.C., said “Yes, blessed is she who, childless and undefiled, knew not transgression of the marriage bed; she shall bear fruit at the visitation of souls.” (3:13) And we cannot forget the prophet Isaiah. His prophecies on the Messiah were known as far away as Ethiopia (the book dates back 700 years before the birth of Christ). He said, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.” In Genesis it was a husband (Adam) and his wife (Eve) who were the founders of the old, fallen race. On the flipside, the founders of the new and redeemed race are a Mother and Son team. In the Old Testament, it was King Solomon of Israel with his mother, Queen Bathsheba, who ruled over God’s people for a time. But in the New Testament, it is Christ the King and Mary, Queen of Heaven, who rule over God’s people eternally.


Between Two Kings:

And yet, our Lord’s kingdom will not be uncontested. The Magi, the three foreign kings from the Orient, found this out through a dream. They were not to return to Jerusalem in order to accommodate King Herod. As Pope Leo the Great taught, “Herod represents the Devil…For he is grieved by the calling of the Gentiles [i.e. Magi] and by the daily ruin of his power.” Many rulers, including Satan himself, would come, in the years to come, against his reign.

Hence, like all souls, these Magi stood in the middle, between a good king, namely, Jesus Christ and an evil king, Herod. Indeed, Herod represents not only the Prince of Darkness but every ruler who oppressed their subjects. As a historical note, dictators in the 20th century killed more people than did all of the wars during the same century.

Christ or Herod? The former represents goodness and the latter, evil. This is salvation history in a nutshell. And it would seem that this choice has been forced upon Americans in recent decades.


The Post-Ascension Era:

Whatever happens to the Magi after their visit to Bethlehem? The New Testament doesn’t say. But there are plenty of thought-provoking traditions. For instance, “St. John Chrysostom [bishop of Constantinople 400 A.D.] asserts that after the resurrection of Christ, St. Thomas the Apostle came to the country of these Magi, and baptized them, and associated them with him in preaching the Gospel.” Independent of St. John’s report, there is a credible tradition that St. Thomas the Apostle traveled as far as India to preach the Gospel. Eventually he was martyred in that region.

Evidently these three historical men were well-known enough to have their bodily remains, that is, their relics, found 300 years after their death by the Emperor Constantine’s mother, St. Helena. Around the year 1200, it was said, “The holy Helena mother of the emperor Constantine…accumulated the bodies of the Three Magi together, who were buried in different places, and Helena brought the bodies towards Constantinople.” (Vita Beati Eustorgii Confessoris) The relics of the Magi, as stated, were deposited in Constantinople, where St. John Chrysostom was bishop. Then, they made their way to Milan, Italy. Some years later they were then taken to Germany. And today they rest under the Shrine of the Three Kings in Cologne, Germany.

During his 2005 World Youth Day visit to Cologne, Germany, Pope Benedict XVI confirmed both the historical and spiritual importance of the Magi: “While the Magi acknowledged and worshipped the baby that Mary cradled in her arms as the One awaited by the nations and foretold by prophets, today we can also worship Him in the Eucharist, and acknowledge Him as our Creator, our only Lord and Savior…'We have come to worship him' It is a theme that enables young people from every continent to follow in spirit the path taken by the Magi whose relics, according to a pious tradition, are venerated in this very city, and to meet, as they did, the Messiah of all nations.”

Suspicion of Masculine Virtues in the West

Peter Augustine Lawler wrote the introduction to the ISI edition of The American Republic, originally written by Orestes A. Brownson.

In the introduction, he refers to Rousseau, an eighteenth-century philosopher, who complained of a shortage of manly virtues in Europe. What was just beginning to appear on the surface in the Colonial era is now a genuine crisis within Christianity and Western Civilization. Love and virtue has come to be solely identified with kindness, acquiescence and being nice. But no such support of this notion is to be found in the pages of the New Testament, the lives of the Saints or in the earlier periods of Western Civilization.

Lawler writes: "[W]hat we have come to call virtue is really just politeness, or aversion to argument, battle, and candor. Because we are too fearful to fight or even quarrel over the truth, we are short on real men;'characters have been enfeebled and debased, and we find no longer the marked individuality, the personal energy, the manliness, the force, the nobility of thought and purpose, and the high sense of honor, so common in the medieval world, and the better periods of antiquity.'"

There is no shortage of masculine virtues in the New Testament. Below are just a few examples of what was commonplace:

• Jesus said, "From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent are taking it by force." (Matthew 11:12)

• St.Paul said, "Put on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil." (Ephesians 6:11)

• Jesus said, "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna." (Matthew 5:29-30)


Sacrificing everything for Christ, being aggressive and firm in response to evil and possessing a magnanimous spirit, are just a few of the traits of the early Christians. These men and women possessed a martyrdom-like conviction and a firm resolve amid tribulation. As such, when it served their purposes, they instructed and preached the Faith using stout-hearted language. Not only in the early Church was this imagery and vocabulary used, but this manner of speaking continued well into the twentieth-century. Indeed, these expressions were used by Popes, Bishops, Priests and laity just a few decades ago.

Unfortunately, the biblically inspired, masculinized language used throughout the centuries has fallen into disuse by Catholics and Americans alike. Indeed, there is a prevalent suspicion of masculine virtues in Western Civilization. It is interesting to note that what accompanied the fall of the Roman Empire was a deficit of real men. Few know that there was a wide scale feminization of pagan men in those later years.

Saintly heroism is only inspired by heroic ideals and a language friendly to masculine imagery. Christ, the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the Saints and the Martyrs all infused a vigorous but balanced dose of testosterone into humanity. Christian masculinity was neither like the untamed tribal warfare of the Barbarians and Arabs, nor was it the effeminate version of men in the Greco-Roman Empire. Perhaps, once again, we should learn the language of our spiritual forefathers who were both gentlemen and fighters. With this, manliness, heroism and even saintliness will once again be a legacy of the West.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

*St. Louis de Monfort is the Saint featured in the picture on the right hand side of the post. As an advocate of devotion to Mary and consecration to her, it seems fitting that he would take after Our Lady of Victory by crushing the Serpent with his own feet.