Singles and the Sacrament of the Moment

Although the married life and the family has preoccupied most of my time, nevertheless, through pastoral ministry and friendships I interact with a lot of singles. Curiously, more than any other demographic that I have encountered, it is Christian single who seems to be the most anxious about their vocation. In short, they fear that they will not find that right person. On the other side of the spectrum, it is increasingly the case that non-religious or sub-religious singles deliberately choose not to get married. For them, shacking-up suffices to meet their needs. In fact, Pew Research has found that the number of people getting married since 1960 had dropped by 20 percentage points. More recently, from 2009 to 2010, in just one year, the marriage rate dropped by 5 percent. That's a lot!

But as for Christian singles who want to get married, whose main ambition it is to get married, many of them have, it seems, a very difficult time reconciling their current status with God’s will. Not a few of them lose their peace believing that somewhere along the line they messed up and made the wrong decision; thus, putting themselves outside of Divine Providence. On the flipside, their non-religious counterparts are found to go with the flow, almost with indifference. If they get married, they get married; if not, no big deal! That is their attitude, anyways. To an extent, there are some understandable reasons for this discrepancy between the two demographics of singles.

Christian singles are called by Christ to live chastely. As far as their options are concerned, “shacking-up," or just "sleeping around," just to relieve sexual tension, is off the table. Whereas for non-religious or secular singles, they are more likely to be taken away by these pleasurable diversions. Under these circumstances, to wait for the right person isn't as urgent for them.

Also, Christians, by and large, put a high premium on the institution of marriage; their counterparts, by and large, do not…at least not as much. In short, this accounts for some of the anxiety suffered by Christian singles. They want to get busy, so to speak. They want to get on with their life with a companion. But there is another factor at play which takes us to the very heart of God’s will and His providence: This factor is what may be called the “Sacrament of the Moment.” Let me explain.

Many Christian singles rack themselves with anxiety over the thought they did something to “mess up” God’s plan for their vocation. They maintain that perhaps the right person came along and he or she did not recognize “their time of visitation;” that is, they missed that one and only opportunity to get married. Their anxiety also has them wonder if they broke up with a person "they should have never broken up with." Or it could be that- given their bad luck –they think that they’ll never find that right person at all. In their reasoning, it is as if their belief in random chance- circumstances which lie outside of God’s control –is stronger than their faith in God’s all-powerful wise counsel.

Whatever the crisis, one has to believe in one of two things: 1) Either every single circumstance is within God’s control or 2) it is not. Strangely, many people choose to believe the latter. And in choosing the latter they struggle to reconcile God’s love (or God’s will) not only with missed opportunities but suffering and misfortune as well. So they chalk up bad things to chance; something that is outside of God’s domain. This belief, no doubt, is inspired by noble motives. After all, they do not wish to criticize the Lord when they find themselves in a crisis. In order to spare God of criticism they conclude that suffering and setbacks are not God’s doing.

The downside to this belief system is that if we press its premise to its logical conclusion, it means that adversity is meaningless; that is, the trials that we encounter were never meant to be. Yet, if we see that the circumstances of each day, good or bad, are but the manifestation of God’s plan for us, then we can also understand that what appears to be a senseless drought of romance and marital love is every bit as meaningful as if we were to find ourselves in a happy marriage. No doubt, we may not like it. But because God willed it positively (preferred it) or allowed it (with His passive will), we can rest assured that the situation we find ourselves in is good for us nevertheless!

In fact, it is God’s will that husbands and wives can find fulfillment in the vocation of matrimony to begin with. In other words, if God had not willed it, the married life would not be fulfilling to anyone; even to the Christian single who hungers for a companion to share his life with! Indeed, the same God who created the institution of marriage and made it appealing, is the same God who has strategically called certain Christians to be single, either for the short term or the long term. Or, to put it another way, the same God who created marriage and instilled the human desire for it, is the same God who withholds the calling of marriage for the good of the single person.

And what about those mistakes we fret over? What about the “what if’s?” Now, certainly every sinner is capable of forfeiting plan A for plan B. For instance, a man who commits adultery and then seeks to file a divorce with his present wife is, by no means, carrying God’s plan (A) for him or for the family. But even in this case (where we find immoral decisions having been made in a given situation), God, from all eternity, allowed such a moral evil to take place and in allowing it to happen, He allowed for it to contribute to His overall perfect plan for the family and even for the adulterer. In so doing, plan B- being less ideal than plan A –can be comparably effective to plan A for God's purposes. If Christ can take the sins of humanity and bring out of it many blessings, then surely He can do it for one individual. This applies even more so to mistakes.

And this leads us to the following question: Can God’s will be thwarted by mistakes? The Saints tell us, “no!” Every apparent fluke and all “senseless” suffering is either deliberately willed by God or permitted for some higher good. It is all a part of His intelligent designed. No doubt, the more painful the circumstances, the harder it is to reconcile such circumstances to God’s wise and loving counsel. For this reason, the mystery of the Cross is a stumbling block to many of us; especially when we are blindsided by a crisis.

But here is the real crux: We know that God is everything for us; we lack nothing with Him. If, then, He dwells within our souls and is firmly within our possession, why is it, then, that we suffer so much in the absence of a spouse or a loved one? The answer: It takes a lifetime of faith, hope, love and suffering to have this interior spiritual reality translated into what we can feel, perceive and even act on. It is through the mystery of the Cross (i.e. the trials of life) that hasten this translation. This is how the peace of God is attained. It has a lot to do with what St. Paul wrote to the Philippians:

“Have no anxiety at all, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, make your requests known to God. Then the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus…[F]or I have learned, in whatever situation I find myself, to be self-sufficient. I know indeed how to live in humble circumstances; I know also how to live with abundance. In every circumstance and in all things I have learned the secret of being well fed and of going hungry, of living in abundance and of being in need. I have the strength for everything through him who empowers me.” (Philippians 4:6,7,11-13)

The peace of God results, at least in part, from the knowledge that all things work together for the good. This most especially applies to Christians.

Believe or not, free will is such a small part of the overall picture. What Christians do not think about often enough is all the evil and mishaps the Lord does prevent from happening. Even mathematicians who specialize in probabilities say that it is a wonder that we can get from point A to point B without some accident occurring. In this unstable world of ours, so many things can go wrong. I guess that is why we have guardian angles. And for whatever reason, the man or woman who has just turned 30 or 40 years of age and hence sees the clock ticking away, may be prevented by Divine Providence from marrying the wrong person or marrying too soon or even entering into a marriage when there are so many unresolved problems that the single person needs to work through. Whatever the case may be, being married or single is not the most important thing. What is the most important consideration for any Christian is to embrace God’s will as it is revealed to him in the moment. Yes. We do well when we resign to God’s plan as it unfolds in the sacrament of the moment.

But to be a Saint, conformity to God’s will is not enough. No. We have to will what God will's. And to will what God will’s, even if it means being single for an extended period of time, we have to will being single "in the moment." That’s right. The secret to sanctity and peace of soul is to will what God gives us in the circumstances of each day. This is no small feat. In fact, it can be quite grueling. It can wear us down. But it is the most mysterious and yet most liberating ambition anyone could have!

Think about it: If we thank God for only those things that suit our pleasures- and for that which is agreeable to us -can we not thank Him for all the deprivations and setbacks that run counter to our will as well? And are they not just as good for us in the long run? If we have the faith of a Saint we would answer in the affirmative. At the very least, let us be thankful that the Lord does not give us what we want all the time! After all, how many times have we begged God for things that, in hindsight, proved not to be in our best interest.

Even more so, let us be thankful for the Sacrament of the Moment. After all, this is where the greatest of treasures is to be found: God’s all-wise and loving will.

Two Sides to Parenting

Reposted for parents who are tyring to strike that balance:

I’ve seen both sides of the spectrum. I see some parents trying to be their children’s friends without being a parent, that is, an authority figure who provides discipline and guidance. On other hand, I have heard good Christians say to me that they are not a friend to their children but rather, first and foremost, a mother or a father. The emphasis in the latter case is on their authority and the insistence that they ought to be obeyed without question.

There is a problem with each of these positions. As for those parents who try to be a friend to their children without being a parent, what ends up happening is that the son or daughter doesn’t listen and hardly ever obeys them. I would go so far as to say that children under such relaxed parenting styles struggle to respect their parents. As for parents who make their authority felt, and fail to be a friend to their child, the result is that the son or daughter does not come to them with their problems. These children, especially in their adolescent years, hardly ever confide in their parents. Upon discovering this, such authoritarian parents often scratch their heads and wonder why they are the last to be told about their children's affairs.

God is both Father and friend. He disciplines and punishes. Yet, he seeks us out when we are lost, consoles us when we are despondent and builds-up when we are weak. The Lord is the Almighty who is to be feared and he is a dear friend who knows the secrets of our hearts. As such, our parenting should model His parenting as much as possible. With this template, authority and intimacy are wonderfully interwoven. When mom and dad demonstrate to their children that they are special and that no one in the world can replace them, a sense of self-worth is cultivated. Yet, in order to counter or suppress the effects of Original Sin- principally that of selfishness and self-centeredness –children need to know that the world doesn’t revolve around them. In fact, life will even continue without them. This is why our Lord reminds us to take the last seat instead of the first and to defer to others out of kindness and humility.

These two seemingly opposite values- the belief that they are special and irreplaceable and knowing, at the same time, that they are not the center of the universe – strikes that balance children need. Moreover, love and authority are two effective instruments parents can use in weeding out vice and cultivating virtue in the garden of their child’s soul. When done properly, the result is a selfless, loving and responsible adult; one who God himself will be proud of.

The Republic and its Primary Educator [reposting]

Reposting for new Sky View readers. Originally posted March 12, 2012.


In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville, a Catholic Frenchman and a reputable historian, visited America in order to study its political, judicial and educational institutions. In the years to follow he wrote a book called, Democracy in America. What he found was that the early Americans took it for granted that a free society depends on an education system which was inspired and managed by local communities. They instinctively knew the dangers of a State-run school system and its effects on the nation. But as the nineteenth century came to a close, American education was beginning to become centralized, standardized and impersonalized by the State and Federal governments.

Parents, who are the principal educators of their children, began to delegate more and more of their God-given duties to the public and parochial schools. As we shall see, in 1929 Pope Pius XI sought to cast his prophetic light on this unhealthy trend. He reminded parents throughout the world that they were to oversee, as much as possible, their children’s education. His concern proved to be warranted. It is completely foreign to most people that the child should be educated either by his own parents or by the local community. Perhaps the early Americans, as with Pope Pius XI a century later, were on to something. Perhaps their belief that a locally-run education system is the most effective instrument in bringing about political prosperity.

Again, we return to Tocqueville's historic visit to America. During his eleven month journey through the States, he interviewed many high profile citizens. J.C. Spencer, of the New York legislature, was one of them. Tocqueville asked him how the public education system was organized (in 1831). Notice that Spencer’s answer highlights the need for people to be as close to the process of education as possible. He said this:

“It is generally admitted with us that the state should always help and never do the job itself. It is thought that the individual who give their money and who are on the spot, are by interest and situation in a position in a position to give to the application of the fund a watchful attention of which a great administration [i.e. the State or Federal government] would be incapable. Besides, we want as far as possible to create local interests…The people being really King, everyone feels the need of enlightening it.”

There certainly seemed to be a consensus at the time that although the State should help fund schools, it should not do the job of teaching. The early Americans believed that the key to a successful education system was that it should be, as much as possible, the responsibility of families from the township.

Joseph Tuckerman, an internationally known advocate for the poor from Massachusetts, told Tocqueville essentially the same thing: “For God’s sake, do not create in France a fund for the support of a school…We have observed that when the towns knew that the government paid all the funds for education, they became quite indifferent about their schools. Whereas, when they put their own money into it, they took great interest in seeing that it should be well employed.” That’s right! People become indifferent to their own children’s education when they do not directly pay for the service.

About a hundred years later, Pope Pius XI wrote an encyclical in 1929 entitled, On Christian Education. In it he reiterates the long standing Catholic tradition on education. Throughout his encyclical, he emphatically denies that the State has absolute authority over education. Rather, he said, it belongs first and foremost to parents:

“Untenable is the reason they adduce, namely that man is born a citizen and hence belongs primarily to the State, not bearing in mind that before being a citizen man must exist; and existence does not come from the State, but from the parents, as Leo XIII wisely declared: ‘The children are something of the father, and as it were an extension of the person of the father; and, to be perfectly accurate, they enter into and become part of civil society, not directly by themselves, but through the family in which they were born.’” Elsewhere in his encyclical, he quotes Pope Leo XIII as saying, “[T]he father's power is of such a nature that it cannot be destroyed or absorbed by the State; for it has the same origin as human life itself."

God’s design is consistent. It takes a man and a woman to make a baby. It also takes a man and a woman to raise and educate their children. The Catholic Church has always seen herself as being a partner with parents in education. However, when parents forfeit their duties to educate their own children, giving full responsibility even to the local Catholic school, then the Church becomes more like a surrogate mother which it was never intended to be. I question the prudential judgment of a Catholic school when it totally takes over the religious education of a son or daughter of churchless parents. This, no doubt, is inspired by compassionate motives on the part of the local parish. Nevertheless, the unintended consequence is that it enables the parents to remain uninvolved in the education and salvation of their own children.

Unfortunately, parents of the twenty-first century have been marginalized in their children’s education. However, parents, starting in the mid-twentieth century, were willing accomplices to their own irrelevance. The State merely took advantage of what became a widespread indifference among mothers and fathers. As Americans, we slowly bought into a system where everyone but the parents were raising their children.

Perhaps, Pope Pius XI, as early as 1929, saw this trend emerging. This may be, in fact, the reason why he stated the following: “It must be borne in mind also that the obligation of the family to bring up children, includes not only religious and moral education, but physical and civic education as well, principally in so far as it touches upon religion and morality.”

You might be suprised to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court, just four years prior to Pius XI encyclical, made a strong case against the supremacy of the State with regard to education. To bolster his argument, Pius XI makes reference to a U.S. Supreme Court Decision in the Oregon School Case, June 1, 1925. It ruled that the “fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right coupled with the high duty, to recognize, and prepare him for additional duties."

The first hundred-plus years of America’s way of thinking and carrying out her most important enterprises was dominated by the principal of subsidiarity; that is, the more local and proximate a government is, the better for the individual citizen. And what applies to citizen, equally applies to the student. If America is to be restored, her education system, which is today monopolized by the State, must be saved from the State. Most people who are deeply concerned about America’s future focus almost entirely on the ballot box. But we must keep in mind, and never forget, that a nation’s education is more important than its government. After all, it is the former which gives rise to the latter.

The Rule of Benedict: Put Christ before everything

Today's Divine Office Reading:

Reading From the Rule of Benedict, abbot
Put Christ before everything

Whenever you begin any good work you should first of all make a most pressing appeal to Christ our Lord to bring it to perfection; that he, who has honoured us by counting us among his children, may never be grieved by our evil deeds. For we must always serve him with the good things he has given us in such a way that he may never – as an angry father disinherits his sons or even like a master who inspires fear – grow impatient with our sins and consign us to everlasting punishment, like wicked servants who would not follow him to glory.

So we should at long last rouse ourselves, prompted by the words of Scripture: Now is the time for us to rise from sleep. Our eyes should be open to the God-given light, and we should listen in wonderment to the message of the divine voice as it daily cries out: Today, if you shall hear his voice, harden not your hearts; and again: If anyone has ears to hear, let him listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches. And what does the Spirit say? Come my sons, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord. Hurry, while you have the light of life, so that death’s darkness may not overtake you.

And the Lord as he seeks the one who will do his work among the throng of people to whom he makes that appeal, says again: Which of you wants to live to the full; who loves long life and the enjoyment of prosperity? And, if when you hear this you say, I do, God says to you: If you desire true and everlasting life, keep your tongue from evil and your lips from deceit; turn away from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it. And when you have done these things my eyes will be upon you and my ears will be attentive to your prayers; and before you call upon my name I shall say to you: Behold, I am here. What could be more delightful, dearest brothers, than the voice of our Lord’s invitation to us? In his loving kindness he reveals to us the way of life.

And so, girded with faith and the performance of good works, let us follow in his paths by the guidance of the Gospel; then we shall deserve to see him who has called us into his kingdom. If we wish to attain a dwelling-place in his kingdom we shall not reach it unless we hasten there by our good deeds.

Just as there exists an evil fervour, a bitter spirit, which divides us from God and leads us to hell, so there is a good fervour which sets us apart from evil inclinations and leads us toward God and eternal life. Monks should put this fervour into practice with an overflowing love: that is, they should surpass each other in mutual esteem, accept their weaknesses, either of body or of behaviour, with the utmost patience; and vie with each other in acceding to requests. No one should follow what he considers to be good for himself, but rather what seems good for another. They should display brotherly love in a chaste manner; fear God in a spirit of love; revere their abbot with a genuine and submissive affection. Let them put Christ before all else; and may he lead us all to everlasting life.

The Decline of Nations: Its Causes and Cure

The Decline of Nations: Its Causes and Cure
By: Bishop John F. Noll, Bishop of Fort Wayne, Indiana 1940

Excerpts:

“When we are bemoaning the present sad state of the world, let us look to our school rooms for at least part of the answer. While we continue to educate our children almost entirely in terms of material things, we cannot expect them to pay much attention to spiritual values when either effort or circumstances puts the fate of millions into their hands.”

-Editorial comment in Ave Maria


“There existed once a Christian order in the United States, a return to that order will be possible only by re-creating a Christian public opinion through the schools, and colleges, through the press and radio. That order will prevail in our country to which the vast majority of the citizenry subscribe not only in theory, but which they will defend and promote- but to do this they must possess knowledge, quite definite, of Christian principles. That knowledge is not being imparted to the youth of America today.

We repeat that the ‘religion in education’ question must be solved if a better social order is to prevail in the future. Will people let the nation perish rather than bury unfounded prejudices based on ‘union of Church and State’ bogey?

In the fall of 1911, three years before the last World War, Harper’s Weekly carried this forcible statement:

The greatest cure-all for all the difficulties and troubles that lie ahead in this country, and all other countries, is the improvement mentally, spiritually, morally of the people of the country. The powers that must be used to secure that improvement are education and religion. Education gets ample attention, but without the strong reinforcement of religion, it will not bring our country and our civilization safely through the perils ahead of it. It is mainly to religion we must look to make men friends of peace, respecters of justice, upholders of righteousness. If there be nothing in our life but grab and get, no joys but the joys of the senses, no happiness but what is based on material superfluities, we shall not last long nor go far.

[Some stand] in the way of the introduction of religious instruction into the schools, or even the use of the schools for religious instruction after school hours. The same opponents of the popular will have been the most ardent abettors of what is now commonly known as academic freedom for the teacher. While he (she) may not impart religious instruction, he (she) may express anti-religious views with impunity. In fact the leading antagonist of Christianity and of morality in our day are the idols of many a college and university professor, and they propagate the doctrine of these irreligious philosophers in the class room and on the campus.

When the Church lifts her voice in criticism of these enemies of society, she is accused of being wedded to an old philosophy which has become antiquated; she is charged with being out of step with modern progress. If the old philosophy was right, then the Church is still right. The soundness of the new philosophy might be well gauged by its fruits, and they are the cause of many social and political evils which have harassed the world for many years and which many fear, will bring to a certain ruin. Since these new philosophies, Godless philosophies, have no other consistent opponent in the world, if society would be saved from them, it must again look to the Catholic Church!”

From the Ballot Box to State-run Education

So far in the July of 2012 conservatives continue to marvel at President Obama’s high approval rating (47%) amid the lackluster economy. Rush Limbaugh was even complaining today that the mantra- “It’s the economy stupid!” –is simply not enough to challenge the presidency of Barak Obama in November. According to the most listened to talk radio show host, people under the age of 30 have developed an entitlement mentality. Indeed, as long as the State is generous with food stamps and unemployment benefits, people are relatively content with the high unemployment rate. Not enough people care where this country is headed. Other high profile conservatives are echoing the same concerns.

The U.S. Bishops, for their part, are staying on message by sounding sound the alarm about the injustices of the HHS mandate. The words of Bishop Daniel R. Jenky of Peoria, from a sermon given in April, still resound in Catholic media venues: “This fall, every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences, or by the following fall our Catholic schools, our Catholic hospitals, our Catholic Newman Centers, all our public ministries -- only excepting our church buildings – could easily be shut down.” Nevertheless, President Obama’s rating stands at 47%. Perhaps thirty years ago a bad economy and intrusive polices which violate religious liberty would have been political suicide, but not today!

I cannot tell you how amazed I am that those who want to see aggressive secularism go away (and leave us alone) are not spending more of their time trying to dismantle State-run education where secularism- aggressive or passive –is being taught. It have proven to be a rival of the Catholic Church's mission in the United States and even a force that undermines the Founding principles of our nation. Yes, parents are the primary educators of their own children but most parents have delegated that responsibility to schools. For this reason, a State monopoly on education has created an entitlement mentality of epidemic proportions; especially among the younger generations.

I said it before, but the younger generations are even more socially and fiscally liberal than those politicians in Washington D.C. today. They have much less sympathy for principles of religion, morality and liberty. With each passing year children are being taught that the solution to their problems resides in politics or in the State itself. Individual self-reliance, the self-governance of a family and the virtues Christianity instills are not only ignored in public schools, but they are routinely challenged.

Leo XIII warned that without proper religious and moral instruction "every form of intellectual culture will be injurious; for young people not accustomed to respect God, will be unable to bear the restraint of a virtuous life, and never having learned to deny themselves anything, they will easily be incited to disturb the public order.” Disturb the public order not just with violence, but with a demand for handouts like Occupy Wall Street and that half-civilized nation of Greece.

Again, we have been warned about this before. The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore also cautioned Americans against a secularized education system: “A one-sided education will develop a one-sided life, and such a life will surely topple over; and so will every social system built up of such lives...” Are we not seeing unfold today?

Once the American public grows accustom to receiving benefits from the State as a matter of policy, political rulers will have few limitations to their power. Writing for the Vanguard Press in 1951, Etienne Gilson, a Catholic philosopher, wrote an article equally prophetic. In the article, “The Breakdown of Morals and Christian Education,” he writes the following:

"To the full extent that it educates, the State educates in view of itself…The only conceivable end of a State-owned education is the State itself. States themselves may not know it. They may sincerely believe that nothing is more foreign to their honest intentions; yet, to put it bluntly, the only reason why a State may not want children to be educated in view of God is that it wants them to be educated in view of itself. Totalitarian education does nothing more than go the whole way along the same line. The result is what we know: political, economic, intellectual and spiritual slavery." I have used the above quotes before but circumstances require that they be repeated.

Liberty loving Americans can protest! They can also focus exclusively on the ballot box and therefore put all their hopes in the next election. But I tell you, if we do not come to publicly acknowledge that State-run education has lulled half of our citizenry to sleep- or better yet, induced an apathetic slumber -then we can continue to be disappointed with election results and court rulings.

Early Christian Attitudes, Practices and Influences

Official preacher of the Pontifical Household, Fr. Cantalamessa, once made reference to the growing concern that we live in a post-Christian world. He said that if the New Evangelization is to have the same success as the Original Evangelization of the Apostles and the Church Fathers, we have to consider their “methods and means” which brought about a Christian civilization. “Such means,” he said, “were fundamentally the announcement ‘in Spirit and power’ of the Paschal mystery of Christ dead and risen, united to the testimony of life.”

The attitudes, practices and influences of the early Christians led to the conversion of the Roman Empire, thus laying down the foundation of Christian civilization. Although the New Evangelization has its own unique character and a unique set of challenges that are shaped by the 21st century, there are, nevertheless, many insights the “Old” Evangelization- the evangelization led by the Apostles and Church Fathers –can offer us. Just as charisms and an abundance of grace were poured forth upon the founding of religious orders, the Catholic Church too, upon her founding, was graced with an abundant outpouring of the Holy Spirit. From this outpouring came forth an exemplary demonstration of attitudes and practices which had a profound influence on the world.

These attitudes, practices and influences of the early Christians served as a golden standard of Christianity since its founding. Indeed, their witness was the spiritual and moral compass for both the Church and society during times of crisis. As Pope Leo XIII said, "When a society is perishing, the wholesome advice to give to those who would restore it is to have them return to the principles from which society sprang...Hence, to fall away from its primal constitution implies disease; to go back to it, recovery." From this golden standard, there is a great deal that Catholics of the New Evangelization can learn and even emulate.

1. Attitudes: The early Christian attitudes towards their faith were exclusive as their charity was universal. Through their works of charity, all people, without distinction, were accommodated in their physical and emotional needs. But among the many gods that were worshipped and the many religions that existed in ancient pagan civilization, there was no such accommodation or deference. In fact, the Profession of Faith by the early Christians emphasized the exclusive and privileged status of Christianity (i.e. Catholicism). In a world where many gods were honored or tolerated, Christians were inspired to proclaim that only one God was to be worshiped and only one Church was to speak on His behalf. Inspired by this “attitude” of confidence and boldness, the liturgical prayer, the Gloria, made its way into the Mass during the 2nd century. In part, it reads: “For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.”

However, there was a price to be paid for the exclusivity of the Faith. Pagans persecuted the Christians as being “atheists;” that is, being intolerant of other gods. They were also accused of being disdainful of the human race. Pagans often asked: Who would dare to criticize the religious beliefs of other people as false or even evil? Nevertheless, history bears witness that to the extent Catholics viewed the Faith as being exclusively and singularly privileged as the fullness of God’s revelation- to that extent! –did their missionary zeal grow and intensify over the years. If we could put this early Christian attitude towards the world into words, it might read as follows: “I have something unique and special to offer the world; an invaluable treasure that has benefited me immensely and one that will benefit you too!” This thought, in no small measure, created a thirst for the salvation of souls. It even inspired bishops, the religious and the laity to preach the Gospel and hazard dangers in unbaptized and unknown parts of the world.

If the early Christians were courageous and bold, they were equally full of hope. Just as the Roman Empire was crumbling around them, pagans were looking backward to the glory days of Rome. They were living in the past. But the people of God were looking forward to the coming of the kingdom of heaven. Indeed, their eyes were fixed on heaven where their Fatherland awaited them. Ironically, it was this hopeful anticipation of a better world that paved the way for a new Christian civilization.

2. Practices: Religious instruction was important in the early Church. But it wasn’t the most important instrument in forming souls. The early Christians considered the communication of concepts to a passive audience as being woefully insufficient in the Catechumenate (i.e. the ancient version of the RCIA). For instance, Clement of Alexandria (215 A.D.), a Father of the Church, said, “We do not assert that knowledge consists in merely in concepts, but it is a divine science and a light that has arisen in the soul through obedience to God; it reveals everything to humanity, teaching human beings to know themselves and God.” Fr. Antonio Rosmini, a nineteenth century priest, echoes this insight when he said, “It may be truly said that knowledge sprang from holiness, since the former was sought solely out of love to the latter; knowledge was sought after so far as it was essential to holiness, and no other knowledge was desired.”

It is good to keep in mind that the early Christians did not put the emphasis on concepts alone nor did they maintain that Christian concepts were better than pagan ones. They did not want the Gospel to be chosen because its philosophy or ideas were superior to their pagan counterpart. The non-Christian who wanted to join the Church had to be proven in his or her association with Christians and that his willingness to live out the Life of Christ was sincere. Indeed, enrollment into a class wasn’t emphasized as much as the initiation into the Mysteries of Christ. Moreover, if Christians were convinced that the candidate believed all that Christ taught and that His teaching was from God, their admission eventually followed.

Interestingly, the Catechumenate lasted about three years. And during this formation process, the candidate received several mini-exorcisms-- prayers designed to rid them of evil spirits; not so much from possession but from the Devil’s oppression and obstruction during his or her conversion to Christ. By doing this, the Christian-elect was made keenly aware of the dominion of darkness…a world of sin that he or she was called to renounce and leave behind through repentance. In fact, repentance from deadly or mortal sin was an absolute condition upon which as person was admitted into the Church. This condition is expressed in canon 12 of the Council of Nicea: "Those who by fear and tears and patience and good works prove that their conversion is real and not simulated, when they have completed the prescribed time among the hearers, may fittingly participate in the prayers after which it is at the discretion of the bishop to treat them with an even greater kindness."

There is a saying that goes something like this: That which is easily accessed is valued cheaply. As such, the Sacraments in the early Church were treasured by the ancients because the pastoral standards- the conditions upon they were to be received -were not easy. Catholics who sat the at the heavenly banquet table (the altar) were required to wear, as the King bade his followers to do in the parable, the “white wedding garment” of virtue.

3. Influences: The influence of the early Christians was nothing less than amazing! From 33 A.D. to 313 A.D., the early Christians were persecuted, ostracized, tortured, ridiculed and martyred. Because of this, the celebration of the Divine Liturgy was forced underground into the catacombs. Out of the first 30 popes, 29 died a martyr’s death (FYI- Out of the first 100 popes, 70 were canonized Saints; as for the remaining 166, only 8 popes were canonized. The explanation as to the difference between 70 canonized popes in one era and 8 canonized popes in the next era, will lead us to the reason why Christianity has been less influential in modern times as opposed to the earlier years). Scarcely had the Church of Christ had been founded was she baptized into His sufferings. Nevertheless, in 313 A.D., Christianity was legalized. And almost eighty years later, in 392 A.D., Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire. From there, blood sports were banned, abortion and infanticide was declared illegal, the institution of slavery withered on the vine and the status of women was elevated and dignified above and beyond anything that pagan civilization had allowed in the past. And as far as oppressive political rulers were concerned, Lord Acton said that Jesus Christ “gave to the civil power, under the protection of conscience, a sacredness it had never enjoyed, and bounds it had never acknowledged…” The foundational and historical truth of Christian civilization is this: Liberation from sin translated into political liberty. That is to say, divine absolution from sin led to liberation from tyranny.

But there is more: Through the preaching of the Gospel and through the multiplication of monasteries over the European landscape, manual labor was ennobled, agricultural methods developed and universal education was provided. Furthermore, hospitals were created for the sick, hospices for the dying, and orphanages for the sick. It also cannot be overlooked that from this Christian environment came forth principles and a framework for democracy, universities, scientific progress and a legal system where every person was equal under the law.

Finally, and no less amazing, was that through sexual purity and the redeeming value of suffering the family was strengthened and the dignity of life for every person was renewed. With the coming of sanctifying grace, the immortal soul was made beautiful again. And that beauty shines brightest wherever the Gospel was preached and where Jesus Christ was enthroned in the hearts of the people.

In the 21st century world where doubt and uncertainty lingers in the air, the attitudes, practices and influences of the early Christians can serve as the golden standard of hope and guidance! After all, if history can repeat itself for ill, sacred history can repeat itself for God's glory.

A Star in the Darkness of Night

In 1947, seeing that Western Civilization was weighed down by a long and exhausting world war, Pope Pius XII penned a wonderful encyclical on St. Benedict. Contained within this letter to the Church are shafts of light that have the potential, if we just lay hold of it, to illuminate the moral and spiritual darkness which envelopes our public institutions. Using St. Benedict as an example, he recounts what it means to forsake all for Christ only to "receive a hundred times more now in this present age." (Mark 10:30)

What was accomplished in the fifth century can be revived and brought to bear upon the trying circumstances which challenge America's future. "St. Benedict," as Pius XII reminds us, "reclaimed the uncultured tribes from their wild life to civic and Christian culture; directing them to the practice of virtue, industry and the peaceful arts and literature, he united them in the bonds of fraternal affection and charity." And the Church herself, always needing an infusion of Christ's eternal youth, can also benefit from St. Benedict's sanctity and teachings.

Pope Pius XII con: "[W]hen the fateful barque of Peter is tossed about more violently and when everything seems to be tottering with no hope of human support, it is then that Christ is present, bondsman, comforter, source of supernatural power, and raises up fresh champions to protect Catholicism, to restore it to its former vigor, and give it even greater increase under the inspiration and help of heavenly grace.

What was, still is! What was effective for individual holiness in the fifth century, what was effective in making the Church strong, and what was effective in creating a Christian civilization, is still a viable option for Christians today in restoring all that is good in America.

From the depths of St. Benedict's solitude, meditation, and prayer, came forth as the answer to the problem of wide spread immorality among the people and the decline of the once great Roman Empire. The answer was not to be found in Rome's public institutions, nor in any policy or political program. Rather, it was to be found in the quiet of God's presence. As Pope Pius XII said, “Hidden with Christ in God, he there strove for three years with great fruit to acquire the perfection and holiness of the Gospels to which he seemed to be called by divine instinct.” The pope went on to say that during these three years St. Benedict shunned all earthy things so as to seek heavenly things; talking to the Lord day and night and learning to hear his voice.

With his eyes fixed on Christ as his model, he practiced penitential acts of self-denial. “In this way of life,” Pius added, “he found such sweetness of soul that all the former delights he had experienced from his wealth and ease now appeared distasteful to him and in a way forgotten.” Indeed, the answers to life’s greatest problems are to be found in prayer and good works. From prayer, the virtue of hope is born. From the practice of meditation, the source of strength is to be found. From manual labor and acts of charity, the spirit of sacrifice is fostered. What is more, from the Rule of St. Benedict in particular and the monastic life in general the dead-end roads of worldly pleasures and vice are seen for what they are.

Although the dark clouds had gathered in the fifth century with the Roman Empire having just fallen, the early Christians were full of hope. It was from this Christian virtue of hope that the old Roman society of the pagans gave way to the new civilization of the Christian era. Indeed, the dust that was kicked up from the collapse of the Empire had just begun to settle when St. Benedict forged this new life for the people in Italy. His followers developed new agricultural methods, a new cash economy, and a way of governing which was modeled on the father's authority in the family (later to be copied by civil authorities). The twelve monasteries that he founded also inspired principles of democracy whereby the monks were consulted before a rule or decree was enjoined. Also, we cannot forget the institutions that served the needy and unlearned such as hospitals, orphanages and schools. All of these Christian enterprises had emerged from monasteries amid the ruins of Rome.

Pius XII reminds us, “The Empire like all earthly institutions had crumbled. Weakened and corrupt from within, it lay in mighty ruins in the West, shattered by the invasions of the northern tribes.” Then, as if by a prophetic utterance, Pope Pius XII asked a question many Americans are asking today: “In such a mighty storm and universal upheaval, from where did hope shine? Where did help and protection arise in order to save humanity and what was left of its treasures from shipwreck?”

The answer: “It came from the Catholic Church.” The only institution or “nation,” as St. Peter would have it, gifted with immortality is the Catholic Church. Without sounding too triumphal, Pius XII goes on to remind the world that nations or institutions that are man-made are destined to perish. As such, we cannot put too much hope in them. But for those nations and institutions that cling to Christ “in” his Church, they can at least hope for a lengthy existence. The pope went on to say this:

“All earthly institutions begun and built solely on human wisdom and human power, in the course of time succeed one another, flourish and then quite naturally fail, weaken and crumble away; but the organization which Our Redeemer established has received from its divine Founder unfailing life and abiding strength from on high.” “Amid their ruins and failures,” he continues, the Church “is capable of molding a new and happier age and with Christian doctrine and spirit she can build and erect a new society of citizens, peoples and nations.”

St. Benedict did just that. He helped mold a new and happier age from what seemed to be the end of civilization. And he did so with the same spiritual means that are available today. “Like a star in the darkness of night, Benedict of Nursia brilliantly shines, a glory not only to Italy but of the whole Church.” No doubt, within the fullness of Christ's life, that same glory is the answer …the answer for America's challenges.

St. Maria: The heroism of forgiveness

In 1902, at the age of 11, St. Maria Goretti was repeated stabbed by her neighbor, Alessandro Serenelli, in an attempted rape. In fact, she was stabbed fourteen times; a number that would prove significant later on. As St. Maria was being stabbed, she cried out: "No! It is a sin! God does not want it!" About twenty hours later, on July 6th, this little eleven year old Saint inherited her reward. But before she passed on to life eternal St. Maria made it clear that she forgave her killer, Alessandro.

Arguably, the virtues which prepared St. Maria for her martyrdom were her ardent love for our Eucharistic Lord and her purity of heart. It was the custom of her parish priest in her day to ask each child what they wanted before receiving First Communion. Many of the children, if not, most, expressed a desire for some material or earthly blessing of sorts. But St. Maria simply requested that she wanted to receive our Lord in the Eucharist yet again. Keep in mind that frequent Communion, especially among children, was not widely practiced in many Catholic parishes. Nevertheless, this aspiration impressed her pastor so much that he gave her special permission to approach the altar on a more frequent basis.

As for Alessandro, he was sent to prison for murder. For a long time he was obstinate about what he had done and showed little remorse. However, due to his bad behavior in prison, he was sent into solitary confinement where the prisoner would see one hour of day light a day. It was then that his sanity tested. Having spent so many hours in the dark, this hardened criminal began to soften up. One night he had a dream and St. Maria Goretti appeared to him with fourteen beautify flowers as if to represent the fourteen stab wounds that killed her. This dream marked the beginning of his conversion. To make a long story short, Alessandro was released from prison on good behavior.

Upon getting out of prison, Alessandro immediately went to the house of St. Maria’s mother. When she answered the door Alessandro asked her if she could ever forgive him for killing his daughter. The virtuous mother then said: If the Lord can forgive you and if my daughter forgave you, then I forgive you.

It so happened that for the Christmas Eve Mass, just days away, the mother of St. Maria Goretti and Alessandro together would carry the gifts of offering down the aisle. And even more remarkable, in 1950, when Pope Pius XII canonized St. Maria Goretti, both were in attendance.

This story just goes to demonstrate that the sanctity of an eleven year old girl can help conquer such strong and natural passions. It would have been too easy and even understandable for the mother of St. Maria Goretti to harbor hatred for Alessandro Serenelli; but she didn’t. She allowed the grace of God, the same grace that elevated her eleven year old daughter to sainthood, to penetrate her heart in order to see the goodness in a man once given to sin and crime. In no small measure, then, did the love of a mother and daughter inspire Alessandro to live out the rest of his days in a Capuchin convent doing penance and praying for sinners.

The Justification: Noncompliance to Obamacare

The power of the State, coming from God, may be bestowed by the people, but when thus bestowed, it does not and cannot include what is not within the competency of the State to accept.

Had God ordained the rule of the State over the soul and conscience, He would have given the State the means to direct conscience and control the operations of the soul, since He gives means to the end. The sanctuary of the soul and of conscience the State cannot invade.

-U.S. Bishops 1926 Pastoral Letter on the Persecution of the Church in Mexico


Fox News reported that Florida governor, Rick Scott, will not comply with the Supreme Court opinion on the Obama health care law. Scott maintains that the burden of financial compliance with Obamacare would exceed any cost or penalty Florida would incur for its noncompliance. “He calls the law the ‘biggest job killer ever’ and says Floridians cannot afford the $1.9 billion dollar increase he believes the law will cost.” To be sure, noncompliance is an option that is being talked about with increasing frequency. In fact, other governors like Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Rick Perry of Texas and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana are considering doing the same.

Interestingly, religiously motivated noncompliance to the implantation of Obamacare just may have paved the way for its political noncompliance. When the U.S. Catholic Bishops vowed to disobey an unjust federal mandate- one that compels the Catholic Church to distribute contraception through its healthcare insurances –they were arguably setting a precedent; a precedent that may prove beneficial to, not only religious liberty, but to liberty itself. For instance, Bishop Richard Lennon of the Cleveland said, “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.”

It is important to note that such civil disobedience is rooted in a well-developed tradition of Catholic moral theology. Inspired by this tradition, St. Thomas Aquinas taught that human law, in so far as it deviates from divine law, is an unjust law. As such, it is no law at all but rather it is a "species of violence." Pope Leo XIII takes it a step further. In his encyclical, Christians as Citizens (1890), he wrote the following: “[I]f the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime…”

The religious justification for noncompliance to HHS mandate and the political resistance to the implementation of the new healthcare law by the abovementioned governors is important. It is important for public to know the justification for noncompliance for the very reason that such noncompliance, religiously or politically motivated, has everything to do with why liberty has been the hallmark of Christian civilization. Lord Acton, a Catholic historian in the early 20th century, gives, in a nutshell, the grounds upon which liberty flourished. He said, Jesus Christ “gave to the civil power, under the protection of conscience, a sacredness it had never enjoyed, and bounds it had never acknowledged…”

Indeed, the authority of the State comes from God and therefore its just decrees are binding on the conscience. Nevertheless, such authority and power is not absolute; rather, because Christ redeemed the dignity of the human person through the shedding of his blood- showing that the immortal soul is created by God, created for God and created in the likeness of God -the State ceased to be all-powerful as it once was in the unbaptized world. Its jurisdiction, over time, became limited. The duty to obey its laws was binding on the conscience only because its power was believed to come from God. As coming from God, the State was converted from an oppressive master into a servant-leader that benefited the people.

But when the will of rulers exceeded its proper limits during the Christian era, the Church was quick remind them that their unjust laws were not binding and for that reason their citizens had every right to resist them. As pope Leo XIII said in The Origin of Civil Government (1881): “[I]f the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.”

A valiant noncompliance to the new healthcare law- with all of its incursions –just may be what America needs. In educating the American public why the Catholic Church will not comply with the HHS mandate and why State governors are justified in resisting the implementation of the new healthcare law, the truth can also be communicated why liberty can only endure in a Christian society.

The Church’s Political Tradition: Endorsements and Condemnations

Reposted and revised for new Sky View readers:

"Jesus answered [Pilate], ‘My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants (would) be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here.’

-John 18:36



Prophetic Duty:

As the U.S. presidential campaigns heat up in the summer of 2012, Catholics in America are bound to weigh in and give their two cents worth. A robust engagement in the political arena by Catholics has always been encouraged by the Church. With that encouragement, however, the Catholic Church makes the distinction between endorsing politicians and political parties and denouncing them. The former is forbidden for good reason; this will be addressed below. But it should be noted that the Church reserves the right to denounce or condemn evil in the political world.

Historically the Church has condemned many civil rulers, political regimes and ideologies which proved themselves to be contrary to God’s law and the common good. During the twentieth century, for instance, the Catholic Church condemned the Communist governments of Mexico, Spain and the Russian Bolsheviks. In 1937 Pope Pius XI wrote an encyclical entitled, On the Church and the German Reich (or Mit Brennender Sorge). His condemnation of the Third Reich speaks to that ancient pagan error which held the State as supreme:

“Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.”

The prophetic duty of the Church is to fulfill what the Blessed Virgin proclaimed in her canticle: “He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly.” What kind of rulers? Rulers who have oppressed their people by taking the place of God. Indeed, throughout the centuries the Church has echoed the words from the inspired book of Wisdom; especially to those who exaggerated their political power: “Hearken, you who are in power over the multitude and lord it over throngs of peoples! Because authority was given you by the LORD and sovereignty by the Most High, who shall probe your works and scrutinize your counsels!” (6:2-3) Therefore, to condemn and criticize rulers, political parties and evil ideologies such as socialism and communism does not- I repeat, does not –lie outside the competence of the Church. In fact, when circumstances require it, it is her plain duty.

Nevertheless, the mission of saving souls has been hindered in the past whenever there was too close of an alliance between the Church and the State. This is why Catholic Church refuses to officially or formally endorse particular forms of governments, political parties or rulers.


Too Close for Comfort:

Unfortunately, some members of the clergy and of laity have departed from this wise counsel from time to time. It should be emphasized, however, that there is always a price to be paid when this happens. One example was the French Revolution (1789-1792). Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859), author of Democracy in America and a native of France, witnessed the consequences of what happens when there is too close of an alliance between the Church and State (or during the French Revolution, between Church in France and the King of France). When King Louis XVI was dethroned and executed by his political enemies, scores of Catholics suffered martyrdom and persecution as well. Although this was only a part of the reason why the Church suffered greatly, it was, nevertheless, a contributing factor.

Tocqueville, a Catholic, happened to visit America in 1831 and wrote his book, Democracy in America, from 1835-1840. He saw great potential for the Catholic Church because many of America’s founding principles were consistent with her doctrine. But he issued a warning based on the painful lessons French Catholics experienced just a few decades earlier:

“[T]he Church cannot share the temporal power of the State without being the object of a portion of that hatred which the State excites. Again, when religion clings to the interests of the world, it becomes almost as fragile a thing as the powers of earth.”

In twentieth and twenty-first century America, Catholics (and here I refer to those Catholics whose mission it is to save souls such as the clergy and lay evangelists, to name a few) have made the mistake of forging alliances with one of two political parties; namely, the Democrat Party or the Republican Party. As a result of that alliance, fair or unfair, onlookers and prospective converts often associate Catholicism with the sins and weaknesses of that party. And more often than not, such political associations put many souls out of reach. As Tocqueville alluded to, being the object of that hatred with which the State or any political party excites, the mission of the Church becomes as fragile as the party itself.


Alliance with the Left:

Archbishop Chaput said in his book, Render Unto Caesar, that many members of the Catholic clergy had a close affinity with the Democrat Party in the 1960’s and 1970’s. This was largely due to their solidarity with the civil rights movement. However, when values diametrically opposed to the Catholic Faith found its way into Democrat Party (i.e. abortion rights, the welfare state, big government programs, discriminatory measures against Christianity etc.), Catholic-Democrats were slow to denounce such values. As such, the Church in America was not as quick and effective in opposing the Culture of Death in the decades to follow. Indeed, even to this day there is ample confusion among Catholics about the intrinsic moral evil of abortion as compared to the grounds on which capital punishment and waging war can be morally justifiable.


Alliance with the Right:

On the other hand, Catholics who are politically conservative and who align themselves with the Republican Party suffer from the same handicap. When the Republican Party opened its doors to politicians who supported abortion rights and the Nanny-State, it invited into its tent the adversary it claimed to oppose; namely, secular-liberalism. Instead of fighting for the cause of righteousness in the culture war, the Republican establishment ushered the culture war into their party. Hence, the division between Tea Party Republicans and the Republican establishment was born. What is even more disturbing, the Republican Party has become increasingly silent on socially traditional values such as sanctity of marriage...just to name one.

As for my own observations, I have witnessed plenty of occasions when orthodox Catholics in the Catholic media who routinely fail to challenge Republican congressmen or strategists on critical issues mentioned above. Why are those in the Catholic media or in the Catholic clergy reluctant to hold the feet of Republicans to the fire? For the same reason why Catholic-Democrats fail to publicly challenge many of the Democratic National Committee’s immoral policies. They get too cozy with them!


Needed Checks and Balances:

Yet, to repeat, the prophetic office of the Church provides a service to the world when she is that “sign of contradiction” to its sinful ways. Of course, Catholics must affirm all that is good in culture and build upon that in our evangelization. But the Good News will never take hold if Americans do not know the “bad news.” In fact, the mission of the Holy Spirit is to not only make known Jesus Christ to the world but to bring to light the sins of the world. Our Lord said as much in the Gospel of John: “And when he comes he will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and condemnation…” (16:8)

Using Tocqueville’s words, “when religion clings to the interests of the world” or when it forges too close of an alliance with the political world, it will hardly be that needed “check and balance” when things go wrong.


Confusion of Roles:

In recent years progressive politicians have become more confused, to put it nicely, about that which belongs to Caesar and that which belongs to God. But it’s not just the politicians that show signs of confusion.

With the great respect and love for my spiritual fathers, I say that there are some members of the Catholic clergy who have gone beyond their competence in being an advocate for specific political policies. Many of these policies lie within the realm of prudential judgment; that is, Catholics in good conscience can either agree or disagree with them. For instance, many Catholics took issue with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops who, with good intentions, called for universal healthcare coverage. The problem here was that the USCCB gave tacit approval to a State-run system; a system which would eventually, if not immediately, provide funding for abortion and ration healthcare services.

If the Church in America was united in preaching about those moral principles which would ensure the integrity of the policies that was being considered in 2010, then perhaps Obamacare would not have passed; principles such as subsidarity and charity being the perogative of the Church and private institutions. The lesson is this: Men of the cloth should be cautious about too closely aligning themselves with political contingencies and specific policies. Such a duty does not lie within their competence. They are commissioned by the Lord Jesus to preach the Gospel. And the beauty of the Gospel message is that it brings to the fore those principles of faith and morals- timeless in nature -that every prosperous and civilized nation is founded on.

Pope Benedict XVI, when he was cardinal, cautioned pastors and evangelists of the Church about meddling with public policy. In his 1991 book, Turning Point for Europe? he gave the following counsel to Catholics:

“What the Church has to remember is that, though the sources of law of have been entrusted to her safekeeping, she does not have any specific answers to concrete political questions. She must not make herself out to be sole possessor of political reason. She points out paths for reason to follow, and yet reason’s own responsibilities remain.”

Polices are specific answers. Principles, both moral and spiritual, are not. They are both absolute and unchanging. Yet, they can be applied in different ways by different agencies. The clergy, therefore, is less effective in the communication of principles if they are tied down with policies. A few costly battles were lost in recent years because of this. Again, I would say the passing of Obamacare was one them.

Jesus said give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God. As for U.S. politicians, they are- with ever more intensity -coveting what which belongs to God. Whereas some among the Catholic clergy appropriate responsibilities which properly belong to the political order, there have been more and more politicians who have attempted to dictate on religious issues. This, by not only limiting the rights of conscience but by even attempting to manage the structure of dioceses. During the November USCCB assembly, Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, brought attention to these encroachments when he delivered a speech on religious liberty. Here are two (out of several) examples he cited:

• “The 2009 attempt of members of the Judiciary Committee in Connecticut to re-organize parishes in a manner utterly opposed to Catholic teaching and law.”

• “The Department of Justice has also argued before the Supreme Court for the virtual elimination of the First Amendment's ‘ministerial exception’ which protects the freedom of religious denominations to choose their own ministers without state interference to say nothing of court decisions which have severely curbed the religious freedom of students to organize and maintain religiously based groups on college campuses.”

When the State or any political cause becomes God-like and therefore ceases to acknowledge the limitations of its own power, it must be strongly censored or condemned…no matter what political party it is. Historically, the Catholic Church has been able to raise her prophetic voice against such an abuse of power when she was detached from the approvals and disapprovals of civil magistrates. This holy indifference was enormously beneficial to society; it gave the Church strength to fight on behalf of God’s rights and the rights of the needy.


Ancient Wise Counsel:

As an historian, Alexis de Tocqueville reminded his fellow Catholics in Europe and America that when the Church is disentangled from political ties, her mission flourishes all the more. From his book, Democracy in America, he identifies the reason behind the spiritual success of a politically detached Church:

“When a religion founds its empire upon the desire of immortality which lives in every human heart, it may aspire to universal dominion; but when it connects itself to a government…it forfeits the hope of reigning over all. As long as a religion rests upon those sentiments which are the consolation of all afflictions, it may attract the affections of mankind…”

God, death, and immortality are topics which appeal to the human spirit because the life of the body is short and uncertain. As Psalm 103 reminds us: “As for man, his days are like the grass; he blossoms like a flower in the field. A wind sweeps over it and it is gone; its place knows it no more.” These truths may become irrelevant to a society that has grown prosperous and comfortable (such as our own), but they nevertheless have enduring relevance to individuals. After all, death awaits us all. When loved ones precede us in death, when marriages are troubled, or when life loses its luster through suffering, quite often we look for answers. It is during these times of crisis that we become acutely aware of our exile. We are but migrants in search of a better home. Hence, when the Gospel is made to apply to our mortality and the search for God, then it enjoys a universal appeal that transcends all barriers. With this, the Catholic Church is in a much better position to represent He who said, “My kingdom does not belong to this world…my kingdom is not here."

The Priesthood: If they only knew...

It is unfortunate that the priesthood is associated- almost exclusively -with parish life; having very little to do with society. To be sure, the parish is thought to be a world set apart from real life, the public square or the culture at large. Although there is certainly some truth in this stereotype, history bears witness to a much bigger picture. If people only knew the bigger picture…

As recently as the early 20th century the Catholic Church took it for granted that the priest of the parish was also a man of the streets. Indeed, several pastoral theology books published a century ago admonished the man of the cloth to be a man of the people; this, by preaching the Gospel outside the parish, by making his voice heard in municipal affairs and by finding ways to engage non-Catholics. It was not expected, therefore, that the only contact a priest had with people was within the confines of his own parish. No. He was charged with the duty to make disciples even of those who did not come to him for his blessing. Yes. In ages past the priest was more than a pastor to his flock; he was also a Christ-bearer to the community. Impressed upon the soul of every priest is the sacramental seal of Holy Orders. Instrumental in building up the parish, the township and civilization was that seal.

In 1935 Pope Pius XI wrote an encyclical on the Catholic priesthood. He reminded the world that the Church “sends everywhere as unwearied heralds of the good tidings which alone can save and advance true civilization and culture, or help them to rise again.” Pius XI takes the reader outside of the parish in order to show that whatever is praiseworthy in society can be traced back to the Catholic priesthood. He said, “All the good that Christian civilization has brought into the world is due, at least radically, to the word and works of the Catholic priesthood.” To be sure, what gave birth to Christian civilization is the very thing needed to restore it. But it needs to be applied; it needs to come in contact with that which needs saving.

It just so happened that Pius XI made the case for the seminal role of the priesthood just as Europe was preparing for World War II; just as the concentration camps of the Third Reich and the gulags of the Soviet Union were beginning to liquidate scores of innocent human lives; and just as the seeds were being planted for the Sexual and Cultural Revolution that would abruptly emerge some thirty years later. Although the world had forgotten, Pius XI was at pains to remind Catholics just how important the Catholic priesthood was in building up the greatest civilization to ever have existed. But sadly, because Europeans had forgotten that the priesthood had civilized their ancestors from the mire of barbarism, they were at risk of returning to that barbaric existence again. As Fr. Thomas Jenkins wrote in 1886:

“Four hundred years ago Europe was one great school- house under the tutelage of a grand Teacher and Mother, who, having brought forth all nations from the darkness of barbarism, had gathered them about her knee to teach them the arts of peace and the sweets of a Christian home. Far advanced were many of her pupil nations, and she had sent them forth from her nurseries instructed with Christian wisdom, able to frame their own laws and found their own commonwealths under her more distant, but still necessary, superintendence.”

It was necessary, then, that the Catholic priesthood be seen in its former light…as it really existed in history…as the chosen instrument used by Christ to sanctify souls and build-up a civilization where the dignity of each person was recognized. If people only knew that Christian civilization is the heir of the Catholic priesthood…

Certainly, the nucleus of priestly ministry is in the parish. But if society is to be fertile soil where the Culture of Life can flourish, then the consecrated voice and hands of the priest will have to extend beyond the borders of the parish once again. The laity can assist but they cannot do it alone; nor should they. The whole Church ought to be represented on the mission field. The notion that the world is the mission turf exclusively reserved for the laity- and the notion that bishops and priests belong only in the safe haven of basilicas and churches -is a false one. In fact, it was the bishops and monks that led the way in creating a Christian Europe. And besides, the preaching of the Gospel is the “pride of place” among all the duties of a bishop. Naturally, preaching is delegated to priests as well. In any case, by its very nature, the duty to preach bids the preacher to take the Gospel to the unbaptized in addition to the already baptized! The Catholic priesthood is too good and too valuable for it to be confined within the sanctuary.

But even more important- and no less marvelous -is the blessing that the priesthood brings forth for the individual person. In his encyclical, Pius XI also takes the reader through the panorama of his ministry and how it affects every aspect of human life. Indeed, the blessing of a priest is spiritually totalitarian in nature. He writes, “[F]rom the cradle to the grave the priest is ever beside the faithful, a guide, a solace, a minister of salvation and dispenser of grace and blessing.” To be sure, he is the guide of the soul throughout the journey of life. “Thus the priest accompanies the Christian throughout the pilgrimage of this life to the gates of Heaven.”


Step by step, Christ, through the priesthood, touches the soul, raising it up towards her final destiny. Pius XI explains how the Catholic priesthood is made to benefit the whole itinerary of life:

• "Scarcely is he born before the priest baptizing him, brings him by a new birth to a more noble and precious life, a supernatural life, and makes him a son of God and of the Church of Jesus Christ.

• To strengthen him to fight bravely in spiritual combats, a priest invested with special dignity makes him a soldier of Christ by holy chrism.

• Then, as soon as he is able to recognize and value the Bread of Angels, the priest gives It to him, the living and life-giving Food come down from Heaven.

• If he fall, the priest raises him up again in the name of God, and reconciles him to God with the Sacrament of Penance.

• Again, if he is called by God to found a family and to collaborate with Him in the transmission of human life throughout the world, thus increasing the number of the faithful on earth and, thereafter, the ranks of the elect in Heaven, the priest is there to bless his espousals and unblemished love…

• [A]nd when, finally, arrived at the portals of eternity, the Christian feels the need of strength and courage before presenting himself at the tribunal of the Divine Judge, the priest with the holy oils anoints the failing members of the sick or dying Christian, and re-consecrates and comforts him."

What power is invested in the priest who can forgive and retain sins in the name of Christ? It is a power that is scandalous to the world but one that is real nevertheless. Indeed, it is the greatest power on earth; one that unleashes God’s mercy far and wide. “[T]he God-Man,” Pius XI writes, “who possessed the ‘power on earth to forgive sins’ willed to hand it on to His priests; to relieve, in His divine generosity and mercy, the need of moral purification which is rooted in the human heart.” Without exaggeration, the forgiveness of sins and to hear the words of absolution in the confessional is liberation at its best. “What a comfort to the guilty, when, stung with remorse and repenting of his sins, he hears the word of the priest who says to him in God's name: ‘I absolve thee from thy sins!’” As one Catholic observed: “When a sinner has absolved a sinner; we, who rise from our knees before him, feel we have done nothing debasing. . .We have been at the feet of a man who represented Jesus Christ, . . . we have been there to receive the dignity of free men and of sons of God."If people only knew how the Catholic priesthood ennobles the soul…

Not only does a priest forgive the sins of individual souls. Through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and through his personal sacrifices, he can help satisfy God’s justice for mankind. As Pope Pius Xi asked, “Who can tell how many chastisements priestly prayer wards off from sinful mankind, how many blessings it brings down and secures?” Even St. Pio remarked that it would be better that the sin didn’t shine than that the earth would be without the Mass.

When all is said and done, the bottom line is this: More people need to hear the words of priests. The civilization in which we now live needs a power from on high to rouse us to new and heroic virtues. The words of bishops and priests have a special anointing by virtue of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. As Pius XI said, their words have the power to “awakens heroism of every kind, in every class and place, and inspires the self forgetting deeds of the most generous hearts.”

Rightly and generously applied, the Catholic priesthood can save what it gave birth to; namely, Christian civilization. “[T]he Church rises up like a bright lighthouse warning by the clearness of its beam every deviation to right or left from the way of truth, and pointing out to one and all the right course that they should follow. Woe if ever this beacon should be -- We do not say extinguished, for that is impossible owing to the unfailing promises on which it is founded -- but if it should be hindered from shedding far and wide its beneficent light!”

If they only knew…if people only knew what the Catholic priesthood has meant for sinners, the needy and civilization throughout the centuries, it could once again save what is being lost.

Bishop McFadden, Bishop Sheen and Totalitarian Schools (reposted)

Reposted for new Sky View readers:

"Let no one who hates religion falsely think that we can do without religion or that it can be banished from the earth. That is false assumption under which modern pagans work...The choice is not between religion and no religion, but between two religions: a religion from God or a State religion."

-Bishop Fulton Sheen

“Unless our people are thoroughly instructed in the great truths of religion, they are not fitted to understand our institutions, or to provide them with adequate support.”

-U.S. President Calvin Coolidge


During an interview in early 2012 with the ABC affiliate in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Bishop Joseph McFadden gave voice to a belief about State-run education which enjoyed a consensus among U.S. bishops in the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century. He simply dusted off an old truth and reminded the public, in so many words, that a monopoly on education by the State does not, in the end, empower children or citizens but rather the State itself. He said, “In the totalitarian government, they would love our system…This is what Hitler and Mussolini and all them tried to establish -- a monolith; so all the children would be educated in one set of beliefs and one way of doing things.”

Unfortunately, the beliefs of the family and the doctrines of the Church would not get equal time under such a system; instead, political ideology would take precedence and hence give shape to how children perceive the world. Inevitably, parental and Church authority would have to yield to State authority. And isn’t this the case today? The question can be asked: Do secular politicians- the very ones who promote the glories of public education -really favor the rights of parents ? Bishop McFadden would go on to say this: “[U]nchecked monolithic governments of the past used schools to curtail the primary responsibility of the parent in the education of their children.” And then he adds, “Today many parents in our state experience the same lack of freedom in choosing an education that bests suits their child as those parents oppressed by dictators of the past.”

Universal education under the Federal and State government inevitably adopts rigidly uniform standards. Such a system does not allow for rival creeds or philosophies. Established are the set of beliefs approved by the State...and no one else's!

It is interesting to note that prior to the 1940’s the U.S. bishops were virtually unanimous in sounding the alarm about the dangers of State-run education. A towering figure in the Catholic Church during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century was Cardinal James Gibbons. For instance, in a Pastoral Letter in 1919 to the US Bishops, he wrote the following:

"The spirit of our people in general is adverse to State monopoly, and this for the obvious reason that such an absorption of control would mean the end of freedom and initiative. The same consequence is sure to follow when the State attempts to monopolize education; and the disaster will be much greater inasmuch as it will affect, not simply the worldly interests of the citizen, but also his spiritual growth and salvation."

Here, the good cardinal said that not only economic and political interests would be at stake, but the salvation of souls would be adversely affected as well. In other words, public education will, at some point, prove to be a nemesis to the mission of the Church. And to be sure, it has!

Yet, how few of us see what our spiritual ancestors saw! How few members of the clergy articulate what Bishop McFadden is now giving voice to. However, what he said is nothing new! Is it any wonder, then, that the Catholic Church has to publicly raise her voice against the federal government’s encroachment on her religious liberty?

We have forgotten that a nation’s education is more important than a nation’s government. After all, it is education that makes society, and eventually the government, into its own image. And what might be the image of our public schools? Well, students and teachers, by and large, cannot mention God; they are forbidden to promote chastity or the Ten Commandments; and as mentioned, parents do not have much say about the school of their choosing nor do they have much leverage in objecting to the implementation of a secularized sex-education. Furthermore, democratic principles and the Christian roots of our nation are not being taught to our children. And in the absence of these truths, one thing is sure to take its place: The advancement of a totalitarian ideology!

As stated, Bishop McFadden’s statement draws from a well established tradition of belief that the family and the Church have priority over the State in terms of educating its children.

A fine piece of writing which represents that tradition is by Bishop Fulton Sheen, whose book, Philosophies at War, was published in 1943. The excerpt below is from one of the chapters entitled, Democracy in Education.

If you are interested in knowing what is at the heart of the threat on religious liberty by the Obama administration, take the time to read Sheen's insights about whether we will become a people under an all-powerful God or slaves under an all-powerful State.

Keep in mind that even if the federal government should rescind its healthcare mandate, the battle to preserve religious liberty will have to continue on the municipal, state and (and eventually) on a federal level. The foes of religious liberty are legion. Their movement and determination are strong. In addition to raising our voices against these injustices, we must also consider the long term solution. Bishop Fulton Sheen prophetically identifies the long term solution below. Indeed, his writing is a wonderful compliment to Bishop McFadden's statement on education.

Democracy in Education: Bishop Fulton Sheen, 1943

The Unifying Principle:

"Education as it is presently constituted is not the bulwark of the nation. It should be; but it is not. And the reason is because the college, in taking over the function of the Church, failed to supply a body of beliefs which could sustain the nation in time of trouble. Religion has a social function; that is, to give citizens a set of principles, a hierarchy of values, fundamental convictions and beliefs, and a set of moral standards.

We need these standards and beliefs today, but who shall say what are the beliefs of an educational system? There is no agreement on principles and no uniform set of values. In time of peace the only universal agreement was a negative one, namely, that the Church is non-essential; in time of war, another negative one, a hatred of Hitler. Education now affirms that the function which was once performed by religion can be better performed by a school without religion.

The result is that in time of crisis such as this, we lack a positive belief and a unifying inspiration of sacrifice. As Calvin Coolidge said, “Unless our people are thoroughly instructed in the great truths of religion, they are not fitted to understand our institutions, or to provide them with adequate support.”

We are at a stage like that developed by Dostoevski in his Crime and Punishment, in which he describes the world as having been desolated by a microbe which affected the intellect and the will rather than the body. The effect of being poisoned by these bacteria was that one imagined there was no law or authority outside of himself; that he was the final standard and arbiter of right and wrong; and that all scientific conclusions and judgments were absolutely right, because they were his.

Whole populations became infected, and no one could understand anyone else; each considered himself as the possessor of the greatest truth; and when someone insisted on his great truth, another would throw his arms in the air and complain about the stupidity of the first. The result was that there was only chaos in the world, which ended in a great strife in which every man rose up to kill his brother.


Insufficiency of Knowledge:

And this picture is fairly accurate. No one in his right mind will admit that universal education has brought us freedom from evil…Ignorance is not the cause of evil; hence universal education of the intellect alone will not remove evil. It is not the educated who are the good. In fact, the great marvel about St. Thomas [Aquinas] is that in being so learned, he was also very saintly, and not the other way around. What is the use of piling up knowledge, unless we know what we are going to do with it? Facts are for the purpose of feeding values and moral ends of living; but when our education is devoid of these things, we leave the facts hanging in mid-air. If they are taken into the mind, they remain as so much undigested knowledge which through constipation mars [disfigures] mental and moral judgments. We are all agreed that the youth should know something, but there is no agreement as to the one thing everyone ought to know.


Four Indispensible Principles:

Upon what principles shall we proceed?

First, educate the whole man, not the part man. The whole man is not only economic, nor political, nor sexual, but is moral. Because he is moral, he is economic, political, and social, and not vice versa. The education of the whole man entails education on three levels: man must be informed about what takes place on the sub-human level, and thus become acquainted the natural sciences; he must become acquainted with what takes place on the human level, and hence know the humanities and metaphysics. Finally he must become acquainted with what takes place on the supra-human level, and hence know something about God and the moral law and his eternal destiny.

Secondly, as a basic principle of the rights of education, the family, because instituted by God, has a priority of nature and therefore a right over civil society. Existence does not come from the State, hence the parents rights of education is anterior to a right of civil power and the State. The State derives its power to educate from the family; the State does not give it to the family.

Third, restore education back again to the Churches and to religion. We are at present in an era of transition in education, and coming into an era wherein education will belong to the family which insists on religion, or to the State which will exclude it. No one wants education to be the unique and fundamental right of the State because such is the essence of Nazism…

Fourth, in a country such as this where there different religious beliefs, it is the duty of the State to leave free scope to the initiative of the Church and the family while giving them such assistance as justice demands…


Crossroad in Nation's History:

We are at the crossroads of our national history. In the field of education we will either believe or we will obey. He who will not believe in the Truth must submit to Power. Which will it be? Will we retain a set of beliefs in which we are all agreed, and on which we were all agreed when this country was founded, or, scrapping all beliefs shall be and thus extinguish all freedom?

Let no one who hates religion falsely think that we can do without religion or that it can be banished from the earth. That is false assumption under which modern pagans work...The choice is not between religion and no religion, but between two religions: a religion from God or a State religion...

We do not yet realize this truth, but it is an indisputable fact that a nation's education is far more important than a nation's government. Given one generation educated on the principle that there is no absolute Truth or Justice and our next generation will be a government of power. There is no such thing as neutral education; that is, education without morality and religion.

Religion and morality are not related to education like raisins to a cake, but as a soul to a body. There can be cake without raisins, but there cannot be man without a soul. If education does not inculcate a moral outlook, it will inculcate a materialist or a Communist or a Nazi outlook. Neutrality is absolutely impossible in education. By the mere fact that religious and moral training is neglected, a non-religious, non-morality and by consequence an anti-religious and anti-moral ideology will be developed. 'He that is not with me is against me.' (Matt. 12:30)

The old notion of “no indoctrination,” really meant “no religion,” but instead of “no indoctrination” of faith, it really meant “indoctrination of doubt and unbelief.” And doubt is the accomplice of tyranny; if we educate pagans in one generation, we will educate barbarians in the next. As William Penn said: “Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.”

The question before us as a nation is not whether religion shall be taught as one subject among many, but where the integrating principle of all subjects will be derived from the spiritual and Absolute Truth, or from the material and omnipotent State.

The modern world as confused the extension of education with intension, and by spreading it thin has sacrificed depth. This does not mean universal education is wrong. No! It is not the universality of it that is wrong, but it is the lack of philosophy of life and a proper understanding of the man to be educated. The natural or “neutral” man, as the intelligentsia call him, is anti-social and can be counted on to abuse society for his own personal ends. The only way his egotistic impulse can be combated is by a renewal of his nature from above. This rebirth alone enables him to be a member of society without losing his personal dignity. There is no disputing the necessity of controlling selfish tendencies. The choice is in whether the State will control it by its omnipotence. The whole of civilized man is today confronted with this question: “To whom do you belong?” Education will give the answer.


Liberty or Totalitarianism:

Neglect conscience, and the majority makes right; neglect the absoluteness of Divine Truths which religion teaches, and you dethrone Power as the only criterion of right and wrong. Neglect the training of freedom, as liberty within the law, as religion teaches, and you will first enthrone first a liberty without law which is anarchy, and then by reaction a law without liberty which is Totalitarianism. Neglect the principle that evil is rooted in a perverse will, which religion teaches, and you will train the intellect to neglect of the will and this end in system where reason is used to support the passions. Neglect the principle that the progress of man is conditioned upon the progressive diminution of original sin, and you will create a fatalistic belief in progress which is unable to stand either the shock of depression or the bloodshed of war. Neglect the ideal that man was made for happiness as religion teaches, and exalt the idea that man was made to make money and you build a race of profiteers, but not a race of Americans.

The hour is past when anyone can say, “I belong to nobody, because I belong to myself.” We will belong to either Caesar or we will belong to God. It was Christianity in the beginning that deprived Caesar of his unrestricted power over individuals, and it was through martyrs’ blood that it was accomplished. It is through their blood today, that modern Caesars are challenged.

That America may be preserved from such a necessity, it must close the gap between the principle of democracy and its education. Our democracy is founded on the principle that our rights come from God: “The Creator has endowed man with certain unalienable rights.” Education has a tendency to divorce these human rights from God. It cannot be done. If our rights come from God, no one can take them away- they are “unalienable” as the Declaration of Independence puts it. If they come from the State, the State can take them away.

Certainly, we have rights, but there are never any rights without duties. In fact, duties are opportunities for acquiring rights. Because God made us free; we have rights. Because God made us creatures; we have duties. For over one hundred and fifty years [from 1943 back to 1776] we have been celebrating the ten articles of the Bill of Rights. It is now about time to recall the Ten Commandments in our Bill of Duties!

Here is the dilemma facing the country. On the one hand, government admits that good citizenship is impossible without religion and morality [not in 2012!], and that such an integration has been our philosophy of democracy from the beginning.

On the other hand, what encouragement is given by the States to foster religious and moral education? The White House Conference stated that of the thirty million children between the ages of five and seventeen, sixty million receive no religious education. When you take out the sixteen million, those who are being educated by the Catholic Church at its expense the number becomes more staggering still…

Any doubts about the importance of religion to resist political slavery can be dissipated by inquiring into the forces which resisted it in our modern crisis. When Hitler came into power in 1933, the first to capitulate were the professors, and the one force which never capitulated was religion, such as the Catholic bishops and Pastor Niemoeller. It was the professors who allowed the independent administration of the universities to be abolished…

Given a crisis in any country in the world in which Totalitarianism in any form threatens the liberty of its citizens, the first to capitulate will be the non-religious educators. How could it be otherwise, for without a faith, how could they oppose a faith? It will be only those schools which give moral and religious training which will challenge the right of the State to dominate the soul of man…


Purpose, Religion and Education:

The prime purpose of education is the making of a man, and it is impossible to make a man without giving him the purpose of being man. Unless we make sense out of life, we fail in education...So long as we educate without defining the purpose of life and the standards of life and without developing a sense of right and wrong, we are losing our souls...

No signer of the Declaration of Independence was educated in a non-religious school. For a century the United States did not have a single presdient who was educated in a non-religious school. The only time the State now recognizes religion is when it builds a chapel in a penitentiary. Would it not be a good idea to give a religious training before men get into the penitentiary?

Centuries ago the Light of the World rebuked those whom He called to be teachers, because they ignored little ones: "Suffer the little children and forbid them not to come unto me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such as these." (Matt. 19:14) The Master is crying out to them now, Hitler has said: Suffer the little children to come unto me, for of such is the essence of Totalitarianism. There is the dilemma: the children of America will belong either to God or to the State."