Author: Catholic Candle

Bishops have Excommunicated Heretics; can’t We Judge the Pope?

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note: Sedevacantism is wrong and is (material or formal) schism.  Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist.  We recommend a small book explaining the errors of sedevacantism.  It is available:

❖  Here, for free: https://catholiccandle.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/sedevacantism-material-or-formal-schism.pdf

❖  Here, at cost ($4): https://www.amazon.com/Sedevacantism-Material-Quanta-Cura-Press/dp/B08FP5NQR6/ref=sr_1_1

Below is the third article in a series which covers specific aspects of the error of sedevacantism.

Catholic Bishops throughout History have Judged and Excommunicated Heretical Subordinates.  Doesn’t this Show that it is Permissible for Catholics to Judge the Pope’s Culpability for Heresy?

We address this question after first setting forth the context for this question by summarizing the first two articles in this series.

Synopsis of the First Article of this Series

In a previous article[1], we saw that a pope does not cease to be pope when he preaches heresy, regardless of how public, manifest, and notorious his heresy is, as long as he does not know that he is holding a position which prevents him from being Catholic.

We saw that when any person (including the pope) understands that he denies what he is required to believe in order to be Catholic (i.e., to belong to the Catholic Church), then that denial causes him to cease to be Catholic.  This is to be a formal heretic.  If a pope becomes a formal heretic, he ceases to be pope.

By contrast, if a person (including the pope) holds a heretical position but he does not know that his position is incompatible with being a Catholic, he would be a material heretic and not a formal heretic.[2] 

We saw in that previous article that Pope John XXII (who reigned from 1316 until his death in 1334) was a public and material heretic, yet he did not cease to be pope.  This pope denied a dogma of the Faith without knowing that his position was heresy.  The dogma he denied (like all dogmas) was always part of the infallible Catholic Faith in spite of the fact that this dogma was not defined ex cathedra until later. 

But again, the dogma this pope denied was already infallibly part of the Catholic Faith because (as we know) all dogmas are part of the Faith from the beginning of the Church.  No dogma “becomes true” or “becomes a dogma” later, e.g., at the time it is defined ex cathedra.  Pope John XXII’s denial of the dogma constituted his denial of an article of the Faith because heresy is a statement against the Catholic Faith.[3]  But again, Pope John XXII was a material heretic and not a formal heretic, and because of this, he remained the pope until his death.

In the case of Pope Francis, however-publicly he teaches heresy, that does not tell us whether he remains pope precisely because we cannot be certain that Pope Francis understands that he is contradicting what he is required to believe in order to be Catholic. 

But the sedevacantists would reply (often in a tone of exasperation): “Oh, come on!  He knows he is contradicting the Catholic Faith.”  That reply raises the topic of the sedevacantists’ (objective) sin of rashly judging Pope Francis (as well as rashly judging the 1.2 billion other persons who profess to be Catholic but who hold false, conciliar positions).


Synopsis of the Second Article of this Series

Because of the sedevacantists’ readiness to judge Pope Francis by concluding that he “knows” he teaches heresy, we then considered (in a second article[4]) whether it is permissible for us to judge Pope Francis’s interior subjective culpability, based on his words and actions.  If it is permissible for us to conclude that he knows that what he teaches is incompatible with being a Catholic, then he is a formal heretic and is neither the pope nor a member of the Church.

We saw in this second article that the pope says he is Catholic and he has never said that he does not qualify to be Catholic.  Thus, for the reasons given in this second article, we should give him every benefit of the doubt and conclude he is Catholic (if we judge him at all).

In light of the fact that Pope Francis says he is Catholic and is the pope, if we were to say that he is not a “real” Catholic and that he is lying to us that he thinks he qualifies to be a Catholic, then we are rashly judging his interior subjective disposition and culpability. 

As St. Thomas Aquinas shows (as quoted in this second article), it is better to be usually wrong about persons’ interior disposition and culpability rather than to ever be wrong in judging too negatively any person (including Pope Francis).  Thus, unlike what the sedevacantists do, no faithful and informed Catholics would ever conclude that Pope Francis is not the pope based on the assertion that he “knows” that he does not qualify to be Catholic but won’t admit this “fact”.

Thus, we must avoid rash judgment and we must judge Pope Francis to be a material heretic, not a formal heretic, and judge (if we judge him at all) that he is the pope).

However, at the end of this second article, the question arose:

How can rash judgment be forbidden when the hierarchy of the Church has judged and excommunicated heretics throughout the history of the Church? 

That question raises the important topic of excommunications and judgments made in the “external forum” (as it is called).  Below, in the present article, we examine that question.


A Superior who Punishes his Subordinate in the External Forum, for the Good of the Community, is Not thereby Judging Rashly.

Civil and ecclesiastical authorities cannot read the interior souls of their subordinates any more than parents can read the souls of their children.  But because these authorities have a special duty to care for the community over which they have charge (like parents do, for their children), they have a duty to punish the wrong-doing of their obdurate subordinates, for the good of the whole community.  They must use their best efforts to administer justice, although they could be wrong in their particular judgments.  God will judge them according to how diligently they fulfilled their duty. 

Thus, a civil judge has a duty to punish murderers (and other criminals), although it is possible for him to be mistaken in his judgment.  The judge is judging outwardly, i.e., in the external forum.  He must do the best he can, and he judges based on the evidence in front him.

Similarly, Church authorities have a duty to protect the community over which they have been placed, although they could be mistaken in their judgments.  These authorities must punish persons who spread heresy even though these authorities could be mistaken, just as a civil judge could be mistaken.

Among other punishments, a superior can separate the person who spreads heresy from the flock (in other words, excommunicate the person).  Of course, the easiest way for a superior to protect his flock, is often to try to convince the material heretic that he is wrong, rather than to inflict punishment.

Here is how Pope St. Pius X explains the duty of ecclesiastical superiors to judge in the external forum and punish their heretical subordinates, even though a subordinate might not be interiorly culpable for any sin and might not be a formal heretic:

Although they [the Modernists] express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their doctrines, their manner of speech, and their actions [which are the outward, objective criteria upon which a man judges in the external forum].[5]

Thus, as Pope St. Pius X explains, a superior might be mistaken about “the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge” but nonetheless, the superior has the duty to protect the community over which he has authority, by judging the outward conduct of wrong-doers under him (and punishing, where necessary).

Although many times in the history of the Church, a bishop or the pope has fulfilled his duty to judge one of his subjects to be a heretic, this is in the external forum and could be in error.  But the superior was required to make this determination nonetheless because of his position of authority and his duty to protect the community.


We Have No Right to Judge the Pope Even in the External Forum

Of course, subordinates like us do not have this right or duty to judge others except those who are subordinate to us.  As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches: “[Judgment] is not prohibited to superiors but to subjects; hence they [viz., the superiors] ought to judge only their own subjects.”  Lectures on St. Matthew’s Gospel, ch.7, §1.[6]

But we Catholics are not the pope’s superior, with the task of punishing him in even the external forum.  The pope has no such superior on earth in the external forum.  Therefore, we must not judge him in the external forum, seeking to remove him from the papacy.


No One has a Right to Judge the Pope In the Internal Forum

Nor are we (or anyone) allowed to conclude that the pope “knows” that he rejects what he must believe in order to be Catholic.  This would be to judge the pope in the internal forum.  We and everyone else are forbidden to judge his interior subjective culpability because only God may do this.  Pope St. Pius X taught this truth in the following words:

[Concerning] the internal disposition of the soul, … God alone is the Judge.

Pascendi, Pope St. Pius X, §3, (full quote is above).

That we are forbidden to judge anyone’s culpability in the interior forum, i.e., regarding subjective culpability – including for teaching heresy – St. Thomas teaches in the following words:

 

He [God] has committed to us the judgment about exterior things, but He has retained to Himself judgment about interior things.  Do not therefore judge concerning these; ….  For no one ought to judge about another that he is a bad man: for doubtful things are to be interpreted according to the better part.[7]

                                                         

Thus, we must neither conclude that Pope Francis is not Catholic nor that he is not the pope unless he tells us that he knows that he does not fulfill the qualifications for being Catholic and being the pope.  If he were to tell us this, then we are not rashly judging him but merely believing what he tells us.

From this we see that we must not judge the subjective, interior culpability of the pope (or anyone else) and declare that he is a formal heretic.  The internal forum is God’s domain, not ours.  This is true even though the bishops and pope have been required throughout history to judge and punish persons in the external forum for their heretical teachings, in order to protect the flock from contamination.


Follow-up Question:

But a person could ask:

➢  If we are forbidden to judge that Pope Francis knows that he is denying the Faith and knows he does not qualify to be a Catholic;

then

➢  Are Catholics defenseless against the pope’s heresies, since we cannot declare – “for our own protection” – that he is not the pope?

This question presents the issue of what can Catholics do when we have a bad pope (or other bad superior or bad father).  This issue will be addressed in a future article.

 


[1]           This article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/09/10/cc-in-brief-sedevacantist-questions/

[2]           The material heretic innocently believes the statement which is objectively false (i.e., heresy) and so is objectively wrong but interiorly blameless for the sin of heresy.  Here is how the Summa Theologica explains that ignorance can excuse a person from culpability for an act which is objectively sinful:

 

An act is said to be excused … on the part of the agent, so that although the act be evil, it is not imputed as sin to the agent, or [in the case of an agent who had some culpable negligence] at least not as so grave a sin.  Thus, ignorance is said to excuse [interior culpability for] a sin wholly or partly.

 

Summa Supp., Q.49, a.4, Respondeo (emphasis and bracketed words added for context).

[3]           Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explains this crucial truth:

 

We are speaking of heresy now as denoting a corruption of the Christian Faith.  Now it does not imply a corruption of the Christian faith, if a man has a false opinion in matters that are not of faith, for instance, in questions of geometry and so forth, which cannot belong to the faith by any means; but only when a person has a false opinion about things belonging to the faith.

 

Now a thing may be of the faith in two ways, as stated above; in one way, directly and principally, e.g. the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g. those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith.

 

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.11, a.2, Respondeo (emphasis added).

 


[5]           Pascendi, Pope St. Pius X, §3 (emphasis and bracketed words added).

 

[6]           Here is how St. Thomas explains this principle that this judging of a person should only be done by the one who has the lawful authority and duty, and not by others:

 

[J]ust as a law cannot be made save by public authority, so neither can a judgment be pronounced except by public authority, which extends over those who are subject to the community [i.e., subject to the particular public authority].  Wherefore, even as it would be unjust for one man to force another to observe a law that was not approved by public authority, so too it is unjust, if a man compels another to submit to a judgment that is pronounced by anyone other than the public authority. 

 

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.60, a.6, Respondeo.

[7]           St. Thomas Aquinas, Lectures on St. Matthew’s Gospel, lecture on chapter 7, §1.

 

Lesson #39: Temperaments – Choleric Temperament – Their Spiritual Combat Part IV

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Philosophy Notes

Mary’s School of Sanctity

Lesson #39 About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament – That Temperament’s Spiritual Combat – Part IV

Note: In this article, when referring to a person with a choleric temperament, we simply call him a “choleric”.

In our last lesson we addressed the choleric’s type of pride.  We saw how pride is one of the main propensities that a choleric must be aware of in himself so he can be on guard against it.  His pride tends to drive him quickly to extremes.  One of the most dangerous things that his pride sparks in him is anger.   In this lesson we will delve into how anger, which is a natural human passion, is especially a problem area for the choleric.

Anger – a Natural Dispositional Inclination for the Choleric

St. Thomas Aquinas explains in his Summa Theologica[1] how the choleric temperament is prone to anger.  First of all, St. Thomas explains the causes of anger.  Anger is an irascible passion in man.

St. Thomas discusses the causes of the passion of anger.  He tells us that passions can be caused in two ways: 1) on the part of the objects of what a man desires; and 2) on the part of the subject who does the action of desiring.  In what we are studying now in these lessons, the subject is man.

We must remember that man is a rational animal and when it comes to the objects of what a man desires, we find that man seeks certain things because he is, by nature, an animal.  Thus, he seeks the bodily pleasures which are necessary to preserve not only his own life, but also those pleasures which are meant to be used to propagate the species of man.  So St. Thomas explains that if we consider man simply as an animal, then bodily desires are stronger than anger.

On the other hand, St. Thomas tells us that when considering man as a rational being, then anger is more natural to man than his bodily desires, in so far as anger follows reason more than desire does.  St. Thomas says, “It is natural to everything to rise up against things contrary and hurtful.”  (In a future lesson, we will discuss reason’s role in anger.)

St. Thomas shows how the temperament is another cause of anger, in the following words:

[I]f we consider the nature of the individual, in respect to his particular temperament, thus anger is more natural than desire; for the reason that anger is prone to ensue from the natural tendency to anger, more than desire, or any other passion is to ensue from a natural tendency to desire, which tendencies result from a man’s individual temperament.  Because disposition to anger is due to a bilious temperament; and of all the humors, the bile moves quickest; for it is like fire.  Consequently, he that is temperamentally disposed to anger is sooner incensed with anger than he that is inflamed with desire; and for this reason, the Philosopher[2] says (Ethics Bk. 7; ch. 6 #1126b30) that a disposition to anger is more liable to be transmitted from parent to child, than a disposition to desire [i.e., bodily desires].[3]

So let us set up a plan of study about this inclination that the choleric has.  We have all heard of just anger.  Our Lord used this when He kicked the money changers out of the Temple.  Yet, unfortunately more often we see that anger is not used justly. Therefore, it is very important to understand anger and to moderate this passion.  In order to learn how to use anger properly, we need to see the following:

·         Basically, what does anger do insofar as how it moves the soul into action?

·         What role does reason play in the use of anger?

·         How does justice fit in with the use of anger?

·         If anger is unjust, it can lead to many dangers.  What are these dangers?

·         How can one rid himself of feelings of unjust anger?

Understanding Anger as a Passion

St. Thomas explains to us that anger is a special passion because anger is caused by a concurrence of several passions, “because the movement of anger does not arise except on account of some pain inflicted, and unless there be desire and hope of revenge: for, as the Philosopher says in Rhetoric Bk. 2 ch. 2 #1378a31, ‘the angry man hopes to punish; since he craves for revenge as being possible.’”[4]

St. Thomas, quoting St. Augustine, tells us, “Anger craves for revenge,” and revenge belongs to justice.  Hence, anger is something good.  Furthermore, St. Thomas says that “Anger is always accompanied by hope, wherefore it causes pleasure, as the Philosopher says (Rhetoric Bk. 2; ch. 2 #1378b1).  But the object of hope and of pleasure is a good.  Therefore, good is also the object of anger.”[5]

A little after thins explanation, St. Thomas teaches how man can desire both good and evil either simply by following and adhering to the good or recoiling from evil, or man can desire in a more complex way by desiring some good or evil being in another or done to another, and either seeking this deed or recoiling from this deed.

St. Thomas then continues:

This is evident in the case of love and hatred: for we love someone, in so far as we wish some good to be in him; and we hate someone, in so far as we wish some evil to be in him.  It is the same with anger; for when a man is angry, he wishes to be avenged on someone.  Hence, the movement of anger has a twofold tendency: viz., 1) to vengeance itself, which it desires and hopes for as being a good, wherefore it takes pleasure in it; and 2) to the person on whom it seeks vengeance, as to something contrary and hurtful, which bears the character of evil.

We must, however, observe a twofold difference in this respect, between anger on the one side, and hatred and love on the other. The first difference is that anger always regards two objects: whereas love and hatred sometimes regard but one object, as when a man is said to love wine or something of the kind, or to hate it. The second difference is that both the objects of love are good: since the lover wishes good to someone, as to something agreeable to himself: while both the objects of hatred bear the character of evil: for the man who hates, wishes evil to someone, as to something disagreeable to him.  Whereas anger regards one object under the aspect of evil, viz., the noxious person, on whom it seeks to be avenged.  Consequently, it is a passion somewhat made up of contrary passions.[6]

Because, anger is driven by the hope of revenge, we can see how great care must be taken when one is using anger because we are obliged in conscience make sure our anger is just.

 A Preview …

In our next lesson we will pick up with the bullets points given above and continue our investigation of the importance of using our reason when dealing with all aspects of anger.  In this way, we will be better acquainted with one of the major challenges the choleric has in dealing with the weaknesses of his temperament.


[1]           This section is summarized from the Summa Theologica I-II Q.46 art. 5 Respondeo.

[2]           The Philosopher referred to here is Aristotle.


[3]           Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, Q. 46, a.5, Respondeo.

[4]           Summa Theologica Ia Iiae, Q.46 a.1, Respondeo.

 

[5]           Summa, Ia Iiae, Q.46, a.2, Sed Contra.


[6]           Summa, Ia Iiae, Q.46, a.2, Respondeo (numbers added for clarity).

Our Lord Wants You to Be With Him in Heaven

Posted on by Catholic Candle

In the October Catholic Candle, there was an article on the Sacred Heart which demonstrated the great and loving help that Our Lord gives us so that we can be with Him in Heaven.

Many people have a vague idea that they’d like to go to Heaven.  That is, if they even think about it at all.  They go about their daily lives and hope that they are somehow conforming to God’s commandments, although without inconveniencing themselves too much.

Other people understand that more is expected of them, that Christ laid down a very specific plan for them to get to Heaven.  He came down to earth, established His Church, and suffered and died that we might attain salvation.

But Christ didn’t leave us floundering and rudderless, uncertain what we were to do to get to Heaven.  He loves us so much that He gave us multitudinous helps so that we might be forever happy with Him in Heaven.  For example, He gave us the Ten Commandments, the Mass, the Sacraments, thousands of examples of heroic Saints, Catholic books, great Doctors of the Church, and one sermon in particular that especially stands out: the Sermon on the Mount.

In Chapter 5 of St. Matthew’s Gospel (part of which is printed below), Our Lord gives us explicit instructions as to how we are to live our daily lives:

And seeing the multitudes, He went up unto a mountain, and when he was set down, His disciples came unto Him.

And opening His mouth, He taught them, saying:

†      Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.

†      Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.

†      Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

†      Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.

†      Blessed are the merciful:  for they shall obtain mercy.

†      Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.

†      Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God.

†      Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.

These instructions, and the additional ones that followed, were not mere suggestions.  They were definite guides for us that, if followed, would lead us to Heaven.  Which was Christ’s intention as He so loved us, His creatures, that He wanted us to have eternal peace and happiness with Him forever.

So, it is time to reflect again on all that Our Lord has done for us, and is continuing to do for us.  You will see there is no limit to what lengths He has gone to aid us in gaining our salvation.  We should love Him and thank Him by living a life according to His will.

Know His will and pray for the courage and strength to follow it.  He suffered and died for us.  He keeps us in existence.  He helps us in so many ways.  It’s easy to love Him for all He has done for us, and continues to do!

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Words to Live by – from Catholic Tradition


The Importance of Controlling Ourselves


The great Mystical Doctor teaches:


Conquering the tongue is better than fasting on bread and water.


St. John of the Cross, minor work entitled Other Counsels, #12.

Lesson #38: Temperaments – Choleric Temperament – Their Spiritual Combat

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Philosophy Notes

Mary’s School of Sanctity

Lesson #38 —

Note: When referring to a person with a choleric temperament in this article we simply will call him “a choleric”.

In our last lesson we briefly described the general weaknesses of a choleric who wasn’t guarding himself and trying to love God. Thus, he has bad will. We touched upon the fact that if a person with a choleric temperament doesn’t guard himself and strive to love God, he can easily slip into the weaknesses of his temperament. Here we list again for reference the weaknesses we listed previously:

Weaknesses of the Choleric Temperament:1

  • Hardness

  • Nurtured hatred and desire for revenge

  • Obstinacy

  • Insensibility

  • Anger

  • Pride (includes over-confidence; criticizing others; excessive competitiveness)

  • Ambition

  • Violence, cruelty, and arrogance upon meeting with resistance

  • Lack of delicacy of feeling, insensitive to the feelings of others

  • Coldness

  • Indifference

  • Impetuosity

Each temperament has its own unique struggles and challenges in trying to live a virtuous life. As Catholics it is important for us to understand ourselves and others better in order to appreciate the reality that we are indeed in the Church Militant with a formidable enemy, Satan, who has been practicing his evil on the human race ever since Adam’s Fall. We must get to know our own inclinations and those of our neighbor so we can learn to love our neighbor more perfectly. This analysis of the spiritual combat of the choleric temperament is meant to foster such knowledge which will benefit those with the choleric temperament as well as those who do not have this temperament. We want to increase in charity and be able to help our loved ones and our neighbor in general. Therefore, it is crucial to gain as much comprehension as possible of the pitfalls each temperament has.

With this in mind let us see how these weaknesses of the choleric are closely linked together and how Satan spurs the choleric on by trying to make of the choleric a bundle of uncontrollable passions and emotions.

Every Temperament has its own Form of Pride. Let’s Examine the Particular Struggle the Choleric has with Pride.

We must face the reality that Satan hates Christ and wants all humans to be trapped in pride as a preparation for damnation. “Never suffer pride to reign in thy mind, or in thy words: for from it all perdition took its beginning.” Tobias, 4:14. It is a fact that every temperament has a particular form of pride and such pride comes in varying degrees.

Since pride is the root of all evil, it is important to start our further investigation of the weaknesses of the choleric by probing deeper into his typical form of pride. As we mentioned earlier in these lessons concerning the temperaments, not all persons of a particular temperament are exactly alike.

Although no two people are exactly alike, there are some tendencies to pride that show up especially in the choleric temperament. Satan certainly takes advantage of these inclinations in order to make a choleric into a slave of pride. Satan knows that when a choleric is caught up in his pride, all the other weaknesses seem to follow along as if they were attached to this pride. The choleric’s pride shows up in his overconfidence and ambition for fame or power. He appears to be extremely set upon getting everyone’s attention and keeping it.

Because all pride is blinding, the choleric can be the type of person who is self-centered and he doesn’t even realize it.

He doesn’t see that he has any failings. [If he does see any, he makes light of them.] He gets upset if anyone should point out any defect in him. On the other hand, he is apt to find faults in everyone else. He is constantly criticizing others, whether in his thoughts or words.

He tends to bully others and thereby force them to do his bidding. Because he is successful in pressuring others and getting his way, he tends to oppress anyone who dares to go against him.

His bullying tends to be in sharp words, insults, threats and even trying to pressure others into feeling guilty for opposing him. He can be very vindictive to those he views as his enemy. He can go so far as to take revenge on others and destroy their property and their good name.

He can bully all those around him and get them to join him in putting pressure on the one who is trying to oppose him (otherwise known as ganging up on his “oppressor” and putting him in the “doghouse”), thereby ostracizing his opponent.

A choleric with unchecked pride can easily be despotic. In human history there are countless examples of tyrants, and men set on taking control of as much of the world as they could. Many famous dictators were of the choleric temperament.

Because the choleric is so focused on wanting to be esteemed by others, he tends to be excessively competitive. He is often considered to be a perfectionist and this attribute ties in with his wanting to be viewed as if he is the best in everything. Cholerics are apt to be in sports and other contests. Competition in itself is not bad. But a choleric trapped in pride is so intent on winning that he makes a very sore loser. He doesn’t take defeat well at all.

The reader may think we are painting the worst-case scenario; yet, our intention is to inform the choleric that he really needs to be on high alert for his pride so he does not become an overbearing and domineering person. In other words, if a choleric does not have self-knowledge, he will not be aware of his own tendencies and hence will not fight diligently against them.

In consequence of his lack of concern about his spiritual progress, his pride remains unchecked, and the other weaknesses of his temperament easily latch onto his pride. He gets impatient when things do not go his way and this naturally leads to anger. His pride readily harbors grudges and nurses hatred in his heart which can readily turn into forms of violence, cruelty, and revenge. When he doubles-down in his pride, he is like a stubborn bull and forms an obstinate hardness in his heart. His heart is cold, insensible, and indifferent to the needs and/or feelings of his neighbor.

He is likely, then, to not stop and consider what he is doing and the many consequences of his actions. Remember, we said that this type of choleric, who has bad will, is not on the right path. He has become habituated to being impetuous in his one-track mind which is so focused on only himself.

So, What should a Choleric do to keep the Enemy (Pride), at Bay?

In this section we wish to make suggestions for the choleric in a general way. In upcoming lessons, we will get into more details of how a choleric can curb his pride and subsequent anger as well as his other weaknesses. Likewise, we will address how choleric men can best help themselves and in turn, how choleric women can guard themselves against their dangerous inclinations, too.

Self-knowledge is a gift from God and we must pray to acquire this gift.

1) Pray for self-knowledge. Pray hard for humility and to be receptive to the insights and observations of others, especially when they point out your failings/defects.

2) Mistrust yourself. Seek advice from others often! Do not presume that you are right in your thinking or opinions. Remind yourself that you have so much to learn.

3) Try to put yourself in other people’s shoes. This is so helpful in order to draw yourself away from inordinate self-love and self-centeredness.

4) Work hard on meekness. Endeavor to study Our Lord Jesus Christ and the way He acted in the Gospels. Meditating on the life of Christ is so very crucial for a choleric. Search to see how gentle and selfless Christ was during His whole earthly life. Ask yourself constantly, “How would He handle this situation?

5) Work hard on becoming selfless. This is not impossible and you must keep Our Meek and Humble Lord and Shepherd of souls in your mind. Remember, He is the model for us Catholics to follow, including cholerics, who tend to be rather high-strung, fast-moving leaders. Cholerics must learn to be followers of Our Lord who is their Shepherd and Leader.

6) Work especially on becoming a deeper thinker. Look at life as a means to know God better, and this includes diligently thinking things through to be sure you are doing God’s Will and not your own.

What can Non-Choleric People do to help a Choleric with Bad Will to Master Himself and to Fight Pride?

Again, our attempt in this section of our current lesson is to list some general suggestions of how to help the choleric. We will get into more specifics in future lessons when we are setting out more details of how the choleric can help himself (with God’s assistance, of course!).

1) Pray for him. A choleric of bad will can be heavy-handed and difficult to bear; however, as we pray for the necessary patience in dealing with him, we must not forget to pray for the choleric himself.

2). Offer up the cross of bearing with the bad-willed choleric. In addition to prayer for the conversion of this type of choleric, it is God’s Will that we offer up the suffering caused by the choleric for the choleric’s salvation. In this way, we can not only bear the cross better, but also we can gain merit from this God-sent cross.

3) Do not give in to him. Choleric pressure can be intense but it is so important not to let him get his way when he is trying to bully people.

4) Be meek to him. Again, as difficult as this may seem to be, it is highly important for him to see Christ in you so he can learn to be more Christ-like.

5) Help him when circumstances allow. [That is when the bad-willed choleric becomes more receptive.] This is an additional way to show him Christ-like charity by helping the bad-willed choleric to become reasonable. Help him to see his false reasoning.

6) Remind yourself that you have to save your own soul. As Our Lord tells us to be careful to remove the beam in our own eyes before attempting to remove the mote in our neighbor’s eye, we must remain calm and have peace of soul while we work diligently on our salvation. We must remember that helping other souls is primarily God’s work, and we are simply His instruments when He allows us to benefit others. Watch and pray for the circumstances to be favorable to help the choleric, for example, when he becomes more receptive.

A Preview …

In our next lesson we will discuss more ways a choleric can be on the alert for his pride and how to master his pride. In addition to this, we will begin to discuss the associated weaknesses, such as, anger and how a choleric can better understand how this passion works in him. In this way he can use this passion properly and avoid further harm to his soul.

1 These weaknesses will be bolded later as they appear in the text for easy reference back to this list.

To Receive Our Lord’s Help on Earth and for Your Salvation, Read On

Posted on by Catholic Candle

1

If you want daily help in your state of life, whether you are married, a consecrated religious, or single, develop a devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. In the 17th Century, Our Lord appeared to St. Margaret Mary and revealed to her His 12 Promises to those who have a devotion to His Sacred Heart and who promote this devotion.

Devotion to the Sacred Heart is a very certain way of becoming holy; Our Lord Himself gave us this devotion as a supreme means to gain our love.

To practice this devotion, it is very helpful to read, from time to time, the 12 wonderful Promises that Our Lord made to everyone who practices devotion to His Sacred Heart. These Promises reveal in the clearest possible way the immense personal and tender love Our Lord has for us.

Therefore, we should read them, slowly and carefully, at least on the First Friday of every month. They will awaken in our hearts boundless confidence in Our Lord.

All the 12 Promises are most important, but we call attention very especially to the 11th Promise:

Those who spread this devotion will have their names written on My Sacred Heart, never to be effaced!

We must repeat frequently the ejaculation:

Sacred Heart of Jesus, I have confidence in Thee, boundless confidence for everything.

This ejaculation is so powerful and efficacious that it has been called “The miraculous ejaculation.”

We ought to have a picture of the Sacred Heart, not only in our homes but in every room and on our writing table, just as we have the photograph of our dear mother. We can say frequently, “Jesus, I love You.”

No mother, no father, no brother or friend loves us so tenderly as Jesus does.

Those who practice devotion to the Sacred Heart in this simple and easy way have a guarantee of receiving the wonderful favors promised by Our Lord.

This Devotion to the Sacred Heart should be part of all religious instruction from early childhood to the time of death.

Well, that’s it: an easy way to become holy, with Our Lord’s promised help for our state of life on earth, and much help for our salvation.

1 The following is taken from An Easy Way to Become a Saint. Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Ill., 1990, pp. 60-61.


Are We Allowed to Decide that Pope Francis Knows He Is Not Catholic?

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note: Sedevacantism is wrong and is (material or formal) schism. Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist. We recommend a small book explaining the errors of sedevacantism. It is available:

Below is the second of a series of articles which cover specific aspects of the error of sedevacantism. The first article of this series can be found here: If a pope publicly preaches heresy, does he cease to be pope?: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/09/26/cc-in-brief-sedevacantist-questions/


Are We Allowed to Decide that Pope Francis Knows He Does Not Qualify as a Catholic?

We previously saw1 that a pope does not cease to be pope simply because he plainly (manifestly2) and publicly preaches heresy unless he also knows that what he teaches is incompatible with being Catholic – that is, unless he is a formal heretic. But I have a follow-up question:

Q. Don’t Pope Francis’s words and actions show that he knows that what he is teaching is incompatible with being a Catholic?

A. No. Pope Francis’s words and actions do not conclusively show that, nor has he ever told us that he knows that his beliefs are incompatible with being a Catholic. It is the sin of rash judgment to conclude that he knows of such incompatibility without our having proof which allows no doubt whatsoever. Let us explain more fully.

If we were to judge someone to be a formal heretic, we would be judging him to have mortal sin on his soul, since formal heresy always brings interior culpability for mortal sin. If someone says he is Catholic and we were to judge him to be a formal heretic, we would be concluding that such a person “really knows” that he denies what the Church (God) teaches us that we must believe, but that he won’t admit the “fact”. Making this judgment is the sin of rash judgment. But in order to explain this, we must first see that God made our intellects to be perfected by universal truth and we must distinguish this truth from opinions about individual matters.


Unchangeable Truth, the Good of the Intellect

God wills men to know the unchanging truth. There are innumerable such truths. To take two simple examples: 1) the whole is greater than its own part; and 2) 4 + 4 = 8.

The truths of our Holy Catholic Faith are unchangeable truths and are especially perfecting for our intellects. Two quick examples of this are: 1) God has no body; and 2) The Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul.

Unchangeable truths, most of all the Holy Catholic Faith, perfect our intellects. In other words, such truths make our intellects good. In seeking the truth, we should strive to be completely objective in knowing things exactly as they are.3 For this reason, when determining whether a particular statement is against the Catholic Faith, we should judge the statement with complete objectivity.

By contrast, when we judge the motives or culpability of persons, we must judge in the best possible light, not with complete “even-handed objectivity”. This is true even if we were usually wrong about such a person’s culpability.4 Judgments about the culpability of our neighbor are singular, contingent facts (in contrast to eternal, unchangeable truth) and such singular facts do not perfect our intellect. It is better to be usually wrong making too-favorable a judgment about a person’s culpability than to be wrong even occasionally, making too negative a judgment.5 Such an unproven, negative judgment about a person’s culpability is called “rash judgment”.6

For this reason, when determining whether a person is blamable for holding an objectively heretical opinion, we should not judge his interior culpability with complete objectivity but rather, in the best possible light (if we judge at all). For, as St. Thomas explains, following St. Augustine: “Our Lord forbids rash judgment, which is about the inward intention or other uncertain things”.

If a man says he is a Catholic and says that he believes that a Catholic is permitted to hold the opinions that he does, we should judge him in the best possible light and not assume he “knows” his position is contrary to the Catholic Faith, but that he won’t admit the “fact”. Nor should we assume that, just because we are unsuccessful in changing his opinion, that this means the man “knows” his position is contrary to what he must believe in order to be Catholic.

Thus, it is good to judge objectively the errors themselves, taught by Pope Francis (or others), because the truth of statements should be judged “evenhandedly” and objectively. But it is rash to judge Pope Francis’s culpability with objective “even-handedness” and assume he certainly “knows” that he holds heresy and thus, is not “really” Catholic (and pope).

To the extent we judge Pope Francis’s interior culpability at all, we must judge in the best possible light. Thus, we would judge him to be a material heretic (not a formal heretic) and judge him to still be Catholic (as he professes to be) and to still be the pope (as he professes to be).

Similarly, whatever objective heresies are held by the 1.2 billion people who profess to be Catholic, we should judge their interior culpability in the best possible light (if we judge at all). We should not conclude they are formal heretics and are not “real” Catholics (as the sedevacantists judge them).


It is Rash Judgment to Judge a Person’s Interior Culpability

When can we conclude someone is a Formal Heretic?

We could conclude Pope Francis were a formal heretic if he announced that he did not believe what the Church (God) teaches that a Catholic must believe now. We would not be judging him rashly because we would merely believe what he tells us about himself.

Let us take the example of a man committing an objective sin of theft as he leaves a restaurant, taking an umbrella that does not belong to him. This objective theft is a “material theft” only, when he believes that this umbrella belongs to him. Further, in order to avoid rashly judging him, we should not rashly assume that he knew better and so committed the subjective, interior sin of theft. But if this man tells us that he took the umbrella knowing that it does not belong to him, then our believing him (that he is a thief) is not rash judgment any more than our believing that a man is a formal heretic when he tells us that he knows that what he believes is incompatible with being Catholic.

However, it is rash to judge the interior culpability of Pope Francis (or anyone else) and conclude he is a formal heretic simply because he is a material heretic, i.e., has heretical opinions and refuses to be corrected by traditional Catholics.


Protecting Ourselves from Evil Without Judging Interior Culpability

Of course, even giving the benefit of the doubt and judging that someone is not a formal heretic (if we judge him at all), does not mean we should accept him as our child’s catechism teacher. For our child would be harmed by his errors, however interiorly blameless the man might (hypothetically) be in professing heresy.

Without judging someone’s interior culpability, we should take into account the person’s wrong-doing (which we must judge objectively). For when a man is prone to take other people’s umbrellas, we should keep a close eye on our own umbrella (when he is present) even if every umbrella that he has ever taken in the past was taken innocently.

Likewise, we should warn people not to read a particular book which contains heresy even if the author of that book teaches these errors innocently. We should be wary and warn others, simply based on the book teaching error, whether the author is interiorly culpable or not.

Judging any person to be interiorly culpable for his sinful act only results in concluding his soul is lower with regards to our own soul, than would be true if he were not culpable. But our rashly judging his interior culpability in this way does not allow us to protect ourselves any better than if we didn’t rashly judge him.


But isn’t it “Obvious” that Pope Francis is a Formal Heretic?

But “rash judgers” would exclaim that it is “obvious” that the man (in the example above) knows he is taking someone else’s umbrella (and is therefore interiorly culpable), because his own umbrella is a different color or because he did not bring his own umbrella with him today. Notice the hidden assumptions within the “rash-judger’s” conclusion. He assumes that the “umbrella thief” remembers which umbrella he brought today. St. Thomas replies about such rash judgment:

It is better to err frequently through thinking well of a wicked man, than to err less frequently through having an evil opinion of a good man.7

Similarly, “rash judgers” say the pope is “obviously” a formal heretic. They say he “must” know he denies Church teaching because he was trained in the Catholic Faith before Vatican II or that his errors have been pointed out to him. Notice the hidden assumptions in the “rash judger’s” conclusion. He assumes that the “heretic” had a good (or at least an average) Catholic education, or that if he had a good education but later fell into heresy, that he knew it was heresy. St. Thomas replies to these “rash judgers” that we must not judge based on such probabilities and assumptions.8

We are not obliged to search for an explanation of how the pope (or anyone else) might not be blamable for whatever objective heresy he holds. The members of the post-Vatican II hierarchy are not stupid, but they received an extremely bad philosophical formation, including the principle (which is at the root of modernism) that all truth evolves. By contrast, all correct reasoning (and the Catholic Faith) relies on the philosophical principle that there is eternal, unchanging truth.

In his masterful treatment of modernism, Pope St. Pius X explained that modernists profess that all truth changes:

[T]hey have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth …. [They say] dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. … Thus far, Venerable Brethren, We have considered the Modernist as a philosopher.9

Thus, because of bad philosophy, modernists think a dogma used to be true (and used to be taught by the Church) but is no longer true or taught by the Church. This explains why the present hierarchy treats the Church’s past teaching, not as false at the previous time, but as “obsolete” or no longer binding. For example, Pope Benedict XVI treated the (truly infallible) teachings in the syllabi of Pope Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X as if they were now-outdated and no longer true. He says that:

[T]here are decisions of the Magisterium that cannot be a last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. Its nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times have influenced, may need further ramifications. In this regard, one may think of the declarations of popes in the last century about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church’s anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from immersion in the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they become obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at the proper moment.10

Again, we are not obliged to search for an explanation of how post-Vatican II Catholics (including the pope) avoid being formal heretics. It suffices that we judge them (if at all) in the most favorable light. Even if a modernist were absolutely clear in denying a dogma (such as our Lady’s Assumption), it would not necessarily mean he was a formal heretic and that he ceased to be Catholic. This is true even assuming that he knows the Church defined the Assumption as a dogma. For a modernist could think the particular dogma had previously been true and Catholics used to be required to believe it, but that this particular truth has changed.


Such changeability of truth is a philosophical error underlying modernism.

However, the unchangeability of truth is not itself a dogma of the Faith although this philosophical principle underlies Church dogma as well as every natural truth. A person who holds a (materially) heretical position does not become a formal heretic unless he knows that the Catholic Church not only used to teach a particular dogma, but still teaches it and that we must believe it now, in order to be Catholic now.

A modernist could think that Catholics of a past age would have been required to be martyred rather than deny a particular dogma even though that same modernist thinks that the “former” dogma is now no longer even true. The false philosophy underlying modernism corrodes the mind but can be one of many reasons why various modernists are material heretics but not formal heretics. For us, though, “it is better to err frequently through thinking well of a wicked man, than to err less frequently through having an evil opinion of a good man”.11


Summary of this present article

A person could profess heresy but still be Catholic, if he were a material heretic only. We must not judge a man’s interior culpability. Therefore, we must not judge a man to be a formal heretic if he professes to be Catholic and says he believes what a Catholic must believe now, in order to be Catholic now.

If we judge them at all, we must judge in the most favorable light the interior culpability of the pope and the 1.2 billion people who profess to be Catholic. We must not judge they are not “real” Catholics.

Thus, we must judge Pope Francis to be a material heretic, not a formal heretic, and that he is the pope. If the world’s 1.2 billion self-described Catholics hold heresy, we judge them to be material heretics only unless they themselves tell us that they know they don’t believe what is necessary for them to be Catholic.


Further Objection

But how can rash judgment be forbidden when the hierarchy of the Church has excommunicated heretics throughout the history of the Church? That question raises the important topic of excommunications and judgments made in the “external forum” (as it is called). But that topic must wait for another “day” and a different article.

1 See the first article of this series, which can be found here: If a pope publicly preaches heresy, does he cease to be pope?: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/09/26/cc-in-brief-sedevacantist-questions/

2 Rather than using this traditional Thomistic distinction (as they should), some writers speak of knowing the pope has lost his papal office when his heresy is “manifest”.


The word “manifest” means “readily perceived by the senses and especially by the sense of sight”. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manifest


Taking those writers’ statements to mean that we know a pope has lost his office when his formal heresy is manifest, the statement is true. So, for example, we would know that a pope is not Catholic (and so he is not the head of the Church) if he tells us that he no longer believes what a Catholic must believe presently in order to be Catholic.


But taking those writers’ statements to mean that we know a pope has lost his office when his material heresy is manifest, such statements are false, since a pope has not lost his office by ignorantly teaching a material heresy which he believes to be part of the Catholic Faith, regardless of how public the pope’s false opinion (material heresy) is and how widely it has spread.


Thus, for example, Pope John XXII ignorantly denied part of the Deposit of the Catholic Faith and caused an international uproar by his widely spread, manifest teaching of material heresy. Pope John XXII was a manifest material heretic but remained pope because he was not a formal heretic.

3 Here is how St. Thomas explains this principle:

[W]hen we judge of things … there is question of the good of the person who judges [viz., the good of his intellect], if he judges truly, and of his evil [viz., of his intellect] if he judges falsely, because “the true is the good of the intellect, and the false is its evil”, as stated in [Aristotle’s] Ethics, bk.6, ch.2. Wherefore, everyone should strive to make his judgment accord with things as they are.


Summa, IIa IIae, Q.60, a.4, ad 2 (emphasis and bracketed words added).

4 Here is how St. Thomas explains this important point:


It is one thing to judge of things and another to judge of men. … [W]hen we judge of men, the good and evil in our judgment is considered chiefly on the part of the person about whom judgment is being formed. For he is deemed worthy of honor from the very fact that he is judged to be good, and deserving of contempt if he is judged to be evil. For this reason, we ought, in this kind of judgment, to aim at judging a man good, unless the contrary is proven. … [We] may happen to be deceived more often than not. Yet it is better to err frequently through thinking well of a wicked man, than to err less frequently through having an evil opinion of a good man, because in the latter case an injury is inflicted, but not in the former. … And though we may judge falsely, our judgment in thinking well of another pertains to our goodwill toward him and not to the evil of the intellect, even as neither does it pertain to the intellect’s perfection to know the truth of contingent, singular facts in themselves.


Summa, IIa IIae, Q.60, a.4, ad 1-2 (emphasis added).

5 St. Thomas Aquinas teaches the same thing in his Lectures on St. Matthew’s Gospel. He explains that, when Our Lord says “Judge not”, this applies:


insofar as regard those things which are not committed to our judgment. Judgment is the Lord’s; He has committed to us the judgment about exterior things, but He has retained to Himself judgment about interior things. Do not therefore judge concerning these; …. For no one ought to judge about another that he is a bad man: for doubtful things are to be interpreted according to the better part.


St. Thomas Aquinas, Lectures on St. Matthew’s Gospel, lectures on chapter 7, §1.

6 Summa, IIa IIae, Q.60, a.2, Respondeo.

7

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.60, a.4, ad 1.

8 Summa, IIa IIae, Q.60, a.4, ad 1.

9 Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pope St. Pius X, September 8, 1907, §§ 13-14 (emphasis added).


10 Cardinal Ratzinger, June 27 1990 L’Osservatore Romano, p.6 (emphasis added).


11 Summa, IIa IIae, Q.60, a.4, ad 1.

Our Duty to Vote for the Least-Bad Political Candidate

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Q. Should I vote in the up-coming election even though none of the candidates are good?

A. We live in a great apostasy which includes civil society (which is former Christendom) rejecting its King, Who is Christ, and rejecting His laws.

Before considering the obligation to vote, let us first note that there are many errors and flaws related to the election systems of former Christendom.


All Power is from God; the People Can Merely Choose the Ruler to Exercise this Power

For example, elections give the appearance that authority comes from the people, whereas all authority really comes from God, regardless of the method by which a ruler is chosen to wield civil or religious power. Here is how St. Paul teaches this truth:

[T]here is no power but from God: and those [powers] that are, are ordained of God. Therefore, he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. … For [the ruler] is God’s minister. … Wherefore, be subject of necessity, not only for [the ruler’s] wrath, but also for conscience’s sake.

Romans, ch.13, vv. 1-2 & 4-5 (emphasis added).

God also declares: “By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things; by Me princes rule, and the mighty decree justice.” Proverbs, 8:15-16.


We Live in a Republic; It is our Duty to Vote

The enemies of Christ pretend that “democracy” and the right to vote are unalienable rights and are a matter of justice. This is false. In fact, kingship is the best form of government1 and kingship is the form of government that God chose for His Church. In fact, universal suffrage is a very bad idea.2

However, in the world we live in, as Pope Pius XII noted, “The people are called on to take an always larger part in the public life of the nation”.3 Thus, because we have this delegation of responsibility to select our nation’s rulers, and as Pope Pius XII also noted, “the exercise of the right to vote is an act of grave moral responsibility”4, it is our moral obligation to vote as part of doing the best we are able to cause the least-bad candidate to get into office.


Voting Requires Preparation and Deliberation, because Almost Never are There “Perfect Candidates” Available.

Some of us on the Catholic Candle Team have been voting-age for many decades. We have always voted because it is our duty. But we hold that none of the candidates in any of the elections in which we voted have ever been excellent and correct on every important issue. The candidates have usually been very far from excellent.

In fact, we think it is highly likely that even in Pope Pius XII’s time, there were no candidates for major, national offices whose positions across the board matched Catholic teachings. In other words, it has probably been the case for many decades that most Catholics worldwide have been in the position of choosing between the greater and the lesser evil.

Here in the United States, none of us at Catholic Candle have ever seen a candidate who was fully good in every important way. But on the other hand, we also have never seen a major, national election in which all of the candidates were “equally bad”. Every candidate is a different mixture of good and bad.

This is true in the 2024 elections. For example, Kamala Harris is clearly more evil in countless ways, than is Donald Trump. Whereas Trump has weakened greatly on abortion and now favors permitting abortion in various circumstances, nonetheless Harris is far more pro-abortion than Trump is.

Similarly, Trump promotes unnatural vices against the holy virtue of purity. But Harris not only does this but also promotes compelling the rest of us to cooperate with these evils (such as compelling a wedding cake decorator in Colorado to promote that type of vice).


Patriotism and the Fourth Commandment Apply

Patriotism is a moral virtue which is a “sub-virtue” falling under the virtue of piety.5 Further, patriotism is a duty falling under the Fourth Commandment.6 Obviously, patriotism and our duty to love our country does not mean that we must love the evil committed by our country’s rulers. This is like our duty to love our parents does not mean that we should love any sins they commit.


The General Principle: Do Good and Prevent Evil

The most basic principle of the Natural Law, which God has implanted in the heart of every man, is to do good and to avoid evil. We must live by this in our hearts, in our dealings with our neighbor, and especially with the Church and our nation. Therefore, we must do what we can to make our country better (or less-bad) just like we have a duty to make our parents better (or less-bad) when we have the opportunity. How can we have piety and suppose that we love our country or our parents if we don’t do what we can for their improvement?

Further, we belong to our parents and our family, in a way. Similarly, we belong to our country, in a way, as our big national family. Would it not be a sin of imprudence to not do what we can to prevent greater harm to ourselves and others through our allowing a more-evil candidate to be elected because of our own indolence and weakness in failing to do what we can to prevent this?


The Above General Principle as Applied to Voting: What do Church Authorities say?

The above general principle applies directly to voting. We have a grave duty to do all that we can via our voting power to make our country better, or at least to prevent more damage from occurring – on the federal, state, and local levels. The sin of omission becomes graver when we fail to vote in elections for higher offices, because the damage done affects more people.

Here is how Pope Pius XII taught that we have a duty to vote for the candidates who give us sufficient assurances which cause us to think that they will be better or less-bad than the alternative candidates:

In the present circumstances, it is a strict obligation for all those who have the right to vote, men and women, to take part in the elections. Whoever abstains from doing so, in particular by indolence or weakness, commits a sin grave in itself, a mortal fault. Each one must follow the dictate of his own conscience. However, it is obvious that the voice of conscience imposes on every Catholic to give his vote to the candidates who offer truly sufficient guarantees for the protection of the rights of God and of souls, for the true good of individuals, families and of society, according to the love of God and Catholic moral teaching.7

Objection: “I cannot in good conscience vote because all the candidates support at least some serious evils. I will not take any part in their evil.”

This objection is, unfortunately, very common amongst Catholics, especially those who consider themselves “Traditional Catholics” – who are striving to live with a clean conscience – that one cannot vote except for a candidate whose positions on all major issues – especially moral issues – are in line with Church teachings. This is a sufficiently common opinion that the remainder of this article will deal with this scruple.

Cardinal Griffin of Westminster England stated that some people excuse themselves from voting on the grounds that all of the politicians are corrupt. He calls this excuse a “boast” because these persons are boasting that their standards are so high that their standards do not allow them to vote for one of the available candidates. Cardinal Griffin condemned this position as follows:

There are some who boast that because of the corruption of politicians they refuse to vote. It is my duty to tell you that the Catholic citizen has an obligation to vote. The Holy Father himself recently declared that when grave issues are at stake to neglect to vote may be a serious sin of omission.8

Notice Cardinal Griffin does deny that the politicians are corrupt, but rather, he tells us that we have a duty to vote regardless. So, obviously, this vote must be for the best alternative among the available candidates, even if they are all corrupt in one way or another.

Archbishop John McNicholas of Cincinnati, wrote at least three pastoral letters on the obligation of using the franchise [i.e., the right to vote]. In 1929, 1935, and 1939 he sent out messages to be read in all the churches on the importance of voting and the obligation binding upon us all. He asked that both men and women “vote in all elections” and “to make a sacrifice to discharge this important civic duty.”9

Cardinal Ruffini, Archbishop of Palermo, and the hierarchy of Sicily declared that: “No one should abstain from voting for any reason whatsoever”.10

In his 1952 book on the duty to vote, Fr. Titus Cranny explicitly sets forth our obligation to vote even in the situation where it is necessary to choose between candidates who are both bad. Fr. Cranny explains,


It might even be necessary to vote for such an unworthy candidate (if the voting were limited to such personalities) and even for one who would render harm to the Church, provided the election were only a choice from among unworthy men and the voting for the less unworthy would prevent the election of another more unworthy.11

Two Further Objections

Certain Catholics might make one of the following objections to the clear teaching of Pope Pius XII. These two objections focus on the pope’s use of the phrase “In the present circumstances” (where we quote him above).


Objection #1:

If there arises an election in which every candidate available is wrong on at least one very grave moral issue such as murder (abortion, euthanasia, etc.) or an issue involving the 6th / 9th Commandments (unnatural vice, etc.) then one is no longer obligated to vote. In fact – according to this objection – this is why Pope Pius XII, in the above quote, qualified his assertion that Catholics are obligated to vote, with the words, “In the present circumstances …” By those words – according to this objection – the pope was referencing the state of things in his time, which were nowhere near as bad, morally speaking, as our times. But if – according to this objection – Pope Pius XII lived in 2024, seeing that every candidate in the U.S. presidential election takes at least one great evil position on morals, he would advise Catholics that they are no longer obligated to vote.

Response to Objection #1:

The first problem with this objection is its overly-rosy view of history. Again, historically speaking, it is highly unlikely that even in Pope Pius XII’s time, there existed any candidates for major offices who took the correct Catholic position “across the board” on all serious moral issues.12 Pope Pius XII’s phrase, “In the present time” should not be interpreted as if he were saying:

In my time, there is still always available at least one candidate in every major election who takes all the Catholic positions on every major moral issue, although I recognize that such candidate might well have wrong positions on less-serious matters. Thus, Catholics are obliged to vote.

Rather, the pope meant this:

In my time [just as in 2024], there exists no candidates who are correct on all serious moral positions, but there are some candidates who have more such positions correct than other candidates.

His words “In the present circumstances…” allude to the fact that, in his time just as in our time, things had not yet become so bad that all candidates were virtually indistinguishable because they were all equally evil. Rather, there were still candidates who were better than others.

The second problem with this objection is that it is a “perfectionist” position, and sacrifices the good which can be done, for the sake of the hypothetical and always fleeting “best”. Such a position fails to take into account a man’s grave duty to do what he can to help his nation in whatever circumstances he finds himself.

The third problem with this objection is that, at the bottom of this position is also a misunderstanding of material vs. formal cooperation in evil. When we vote for less-evil candidates, we are not saying, “I think it is a good thing absolutely speaking that this lesser-evil candidate gets into office, and I wish for the evil that he will do alongside of the good he will do.” Rather, our intention in voting is (and should be), “I think it is a good thing relatively speaking that this candidate gets into office. His winning the election is good only relative to the greater evil which would come about if I did not vote and the worse candidate is elected. I do not will the evil things he does, but I will only the good things and also the prevention of evil that would otherwise occur.”13

Also, notice that no Church authority ever says “don’t vote for the least bad candidate.” Instead, they say “vote for the candidate who gives assurances he will do good”. In fact, less-bad candidates do this too. For example, Trump assures us that he will fight to criminalize “gender transitioning” which occurs without parental consent.14 Although this position certainly does not make him a perfect candidate, it does make him better than Harris on this important issue.


Direct vs. Indirect Control over the Issues at Stake

Here is another way to see the error in this objection to voting: During an election in which all candidates hold at least some evil positions, we cannot directly control whether those evils happen. That is, we are not voting on whether that candidate should hold those evil ideas and goals, whether those positions are good or evil, or whether we support those positions.

Rather, when voting we are merely choosing between two (or more) candidates. We are voting on candidates, not issues. We are not answering the question, “Do you approve in any way, and desire in any way, these evil positions of the candidate you are voting for?”

Instead, we are merely saying this: “I have done the best I can to judge which candidate is better (or less-bad) for my nation, and I am choosing that candidate over the others.” As with most elections, including this 2024 presidential election, we have little or no control over the candidates’ ideas and goals; we can merely do our best to limit the damage and do whatever good that we can.

This is very different from a direct-control situation. For example, sometimes in state or local elections, there are referenda issues in which we voters can directly control an outcome, via a “yes/no” type answer to a proposed question. In fact, sometimes these questions are very important such as, “Do you approve an amendment to your state’s constitution which says [such-and-such] about abortion?”

These referenda situations are very different from choosing between candidates who hold some evil positions, because whether or not we cast a vote for one of the candidates, we cannot prevent a candidate from being elected to the office anyway. The evil he will do is out of our control; we can only try to limit the damage. By contrast, in a referendum, we bear some direct responsibility for a particular evil (or good) coming about by our choice. Because of this, additional moral principles are involved in our choice there – principles such as that of material cooperation with evil, the principle of double-effect, and so on. (Perhaps a future Catholic Candle article will address such situations.)


Objection #2: A variation on the above objection is even more extreme and more evil:

If there arises an election in which every candidate available is wrong on at least one very grave moral issue such as murder (abortion, euthanasia, etc.) or a 6th / 9th issues (unnatural vice, etc.), then not only is one no longer obligated to vote, but it is actually a sin for a Catholic to vote in such elections, since to vote would mean we are formally cooperating with evil.


Response to Objection #2:

This position suffers from all the deficiencies of the immediately-preceding objection. But it is even more evil because it masquerades under the false character of virtue and righteousness. It is based on the scruple that helping a man to get into office even though he holds some evil positions, is effectively equal to formally cooperating with that candidate’s sins when in office. But again, if our intentions when voting do not include any desires for objectively evil things, and if we desire only the good which results from the candidate being a lesser evil, then we are doing the most good that we can by choosing the better (least-bad) candidate.15

Further, convincing other Catholics to take such an unreasonably extreme and dangerous position not only prevents otherwise good Catholics from doing their best to prevent evil in the current election, but also instills in them false principles which will, practically speaking, prevent them from probably ever voting again. This is because doing nothing to prevent a very-evil candidate from taking power (as is clearly the case with Kamala Harris), allows the foothold of evil to become stronger, making it more likely there will never be a good candidate in an honest (non-fraudulent) future election.

Confused Catholics who take such false and scrupulous positions would do well to remember Pope St. Felix’s maxim:

Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.16

Another way to see that such a “perfectionist” and scrupulous position is mistaken is to merely look back through history. There has never been a presidential election in the United States in which there was a major candidate who took “all the right positions” on all serious moral issues. Catholics who claim it is moral to refuse to vote when all the candidates have at least one serious moral issue, would have been forced to not vote in any U.S. presidential election in our history because all of the candidates in every one of those elections took bad positions on important moral issues.

We suspect confused Catholics take this dangerous position because Trump has lately weakened on his stance on abortion. But abortion has never been the only serious moral evil he promoted. For example, even back in 2016 when Trump campaigning for president, he was already soft on, and supportive of, unnatural vice.17 What did those Catholics do in 2016 who now hold the position that Catholics cannot vote in 2024?

A Few Scenarios

Finally, here are a few scenarios which might make it easier for a Catholic to discern the right thing to do in various political circumstances.

Scenario 1:

Suppose that, in an election, there is one candidate who has all the correct positions on major moral issues. Then all Catholics would be clearly bound to vote for that candidate, even if he were wrong on lesser issues, such as economic issues.


Scenario 2: [Our situation in 2024]

Suppose that in a major election both candidates have some serious moral issues wrong, but there is one candidate who has more-correct (less bad) positions than the other. Then all Catholics would be bound to vote for that candidate, even if he were wrong on lesser issues, such as economic issues as long as the country/state would be better (or less-bad) with such candidate in office, compared to the worse candidate.


Scenario 3: [As the world becomes darker – the future]

Suppose (for the sake of a hypothetical example) that in a major election there are 100 extremely serious moral issues at stake – issues on par with abortion and other forms of murder, unnatural vice, and so on.18 Suppose one candidate is wrong on all 100, and the other is wrong on 99, but has the correct position on one important moral issue. Then all Catholics would be bound to vote for that candidate, even if he were also wrong on the other 99 important moral issues and on lesser matters, as long as the country/state would be better (or less-bad) with such candidate in office, compared to the worse candidate. This is because we have the duty to do what we can to help our country be better (or less bad).


Scenario 4: [Near the end of time?]

Suppose (for the sake of a hypothetical example) that in a major election there are 100 extremely serious moral issues at stake – issues on par in importance with abortion and other forms of murder, unnatural vice, and so on.19 Suppose both candidates are wrong on all 100, but one candidate takes some correct positions on significant, although lesser-important issues (such as fighting corruption in government). Then all Catholics would be bound to vote for that candidate who is the lesser of two evils as long as the country/state would be better (or less-bad) with such candidate in office, compared to the worse candidate.


Conclusion

Given that:

  • Issues of morality in society have the most weight; 

  • But other issues (e.g., fighting corruption in government) have some but lesser weight than those moral issues in society; and 

  • After careful comparison of the candidate, if there is any basis, large or small, because of which one candidate would be better (less bad) for the nation,  

Then, we are bound to vote because we are bound to help our nation become better or less bad. 

The only time we would not be bound to vote is the extremely unlikely scenario in which there is no discernible greater good or lesser-evil between the candidates.  We at Catholic Candle have never seen anything even remotely close to that situation in our many years of voting, and this is why we have always held that we have a duty to vote in all federal, state, and local elections.

1 See the explanation of St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, in his treatise On Kingship. See also the teaching of Pope Pius VI:


In fact, after having abolished the monarchy, the best of all governments, [the French Revolution] had transferred all the public power to the people — the people… ever easy to deceive and to lead into every excess ….


Pope Pius VI, Pourquoi Notre Voix, June 17, 1793 (emphasis added).

2 Here are the strong words given in an address of Pope Pius IX on universal suffrage May 5, 1874:


I bless all those who cooperate in the resurrection of France. I bless them in the hope that they will take up a difficult but necessary task, that of eliminating or reducing a horrible plague afflicting contemporary society, known as universal suffrage. To leave the decision of the most serious questions to the necessarily unintelligent and passionate multitudes, is it not to surrender oneself to random chance and to run voluntarily into the abyss? Yes, universal suffrage would be more deserving of the name of “universal madness”; and when secret societies get hold of it, as happens all too often, that of “universal lie”.

Emphasis added.

3 Pope Pius XII in his April 20, 1946, discourse to Italian Catholic Action. In this quote the word “is” was changed to “are” for clarity. The pope was apparently using the noun “people” to refer to a single body.

4 Pope Pius XII in his March 16, 1946 discourse to the parish priests of Rome.

5 Summa, IIa IIae, Q.101, a.1.

6 Summa, IIa IIae, Q.122, a.5.

7 Address of Pope Pius XII To Parish Priests, given on March 10, 1948 (emphasis added). This address is available here: http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/it/speeches/1948/documents/hf_p-xii_spe_19480310_intima-gioia.html


8 Quoted in The Catholic Mind, issue #46 1028 (August 1948), 534, as quoted in Catholic Principles, Oo the Obligation of Voting, by Rev. Titus Cranny, S.A., M.A.., S.T.L., The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1952, Section 4. Conditions Under Which One May Vote For Unworthy Candidates (emphasis added).

9 Quoted in The Catholic Mind, issue #26 (August 1948), p.254, as quoted in Catholic Principles, Oo the Obligation of Voting, by Rev. Titus Cranny, S.A., M.A.., S.T.L., The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1952, Section 4. Conditions Under Which One May Vote For Unworthy Candidates (emphasis added).

10 The Tablet (London), 191: 5624 (Mar. 6, 1948), 154, as quoted in Catholic Principles, Oo the Obligation of Voting, by Rev. Titus Cranny, S.A., M.A.., S.T.L., The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1952, Section 4. Conditions Under Which One May Vote For Unworthy Candidates (emphasis added).


.

11 Quoted in Catholic Principles, Oo the Obligation of Voting, by Rev. Titus Cranny, S.A., M.A.., S.T.L., The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1952, Section 4. Conditions Under Which One May Vote For Unworthy Candidates (emphasis added).


12 Again, by “moral issues” in this article, we are not speaking of lesser-moral issues such as unjust (excessive) taxation, or the government forcibly taking land from certain landowners, etc. Rather, we are focusing on the biggest moral issues: matters of human life/abortion/euthanasia/unjust wars and genocide, 6th / 9th issues, or – if this were the case – matters directly relating to God, such as blasphemy, sacrilege, etc.

13 Just as losing something good is regarded as evil, so also the removal or avoidance of an evil is correctly regarded as good. Summa, Ia, IIae, Q.36, a.1, ad.1. In this case, avoiding the election of a more evil candidate is correctly regarded as a good.


15 Again, as explained in footnote 9, just as losing something good is regarded as evil, so also the removal or avoidance of an evil is regarded as good. Summa, Ia, IIae, Q.36, a.1, ad.1. In this case, avoiding the election of a more evil candidate is correctly regarded as a good.


16 Pope Saint Felix III (reigned 483-492).


17 For example, see:




  • In a 2016 tweet, he stated, “Thank you to the LGBT community. I will fight for you while Hilary brings in more people who will threaten your freedom and beliefs.” https://youtu.be/NAOcfy5J2qw?t=48

  • He stated in 2016, “As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology. Believe me.” https://youtu.be/NAOcfy5J2qw?t=77


18 Again, to keep this hypothetical example simple, let us exclude all lesser issues and imagine that there were somehow 100 very large moral issues at hand.

19

Again, to keep this hypothetical example simple, let us exclude all lesser issues and imagine that there were somehow 100 very large moral issues at hand.

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Words to Live by – from Catholic Tradition


Let us gladly suffer out of love for God!


St. John of the Cross, the Mystical Doctor of the Church, tells us the importance of suffering out of love for God:

Suffering for God is better than working miracles.


Quoted from his work entitled Other Counsels, #13.

The Duties and Role that God has given Men

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note: Below is part 1 of a “companion” article to these two articles:


The Duties and Role that God has given Men

God created man to lead his family and society. He created the all-male clergy to lead the Church. But in all of those contexts, God gave this role and authority to man for the good of his family, society, and the Church, not merely to enable a man to fulfill his own selfish desires. St. Paul puts this same duty as follows:

We that are stronger, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak.

Romans, 15:1.

From this principle (which is a commandment) springs the unselfish gentlemanliness of a good man towards his family and also, secondarily, towards all women, children, and all those in need.

St. Paul explains how this true manliness is practiced in marriage, when he compares the husband to Christ Himself:

The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the

Church.

Ephesians, 5:23.

We know that Christ has loved us and gave everything for our sake:

Walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness.

Ephesians, 5:2.

Thus, a man must be Christ-like and be an oblation and a sacrifice first of all, for God, then for his wife and children. But after that, he must be a gentleman and be chivalrous for all women, children, and all those in need because:

We that are stronger, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak.

Romans, 15:1.

A man’s sacrificial love must extend to a man “delivering himself up for” his wife especially, in order to sanctify his wife, as St. Paul makes clear:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered Himself up for it; that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life.

Ephesians, 5:25-6.

This shows that man must be a spiritual director of his wife.1 But this also shows that a man must have Christ’s spirit of self-sacrifice and this is eminently honorable, magnanimous, and manly.


Fatherhood and Manhood

Fatherhood and manhood are so intertwined that they are virtually inseparable. This is like the inextricable connection between womanhood and motherhood.2 A man who is not called to be the father to children in his own family, is still called to be a father in other ways, e.g., a priest, who is the spiritual father of a parish. There are also many other ways a man is called to be a father, a protector, an advisor, and a guide, such as an employer should be a father to his employees.3

So, fatherhood (patriarchy) is simply men fulfilling the role for which God created them and which role is His Will for them. Here is how anti-feminist author, Mrs. Donna Steichen, stated this truth of Nature and of the Catholic Faith:

The term patriarchy refers to the male-headed family form and social system expressed in Scripture and existing everywhere in human society. In the Church, it is a title referring to bishops who rank just below the Pope in jurisdiction, though Catholic feminists use the word to mean the male priesthood and the entire male hierarchy. In all cases, it is properly an office, not a declaration of qualitative superiority.4


St. Athanasius, a Model of Fatherhood

We see this fatherhood in the life and work of the great St. Athanasius, Doctor of the Church, in his care for his flock. Look at his fatherly solicitude for his flock in the letter below, written during the persecutions they suffered:

Letter of St. Athanasius to his flock

May God console you! … What saddens you … is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?

True, the premises are good when the apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way. … You are the ones who are happy: you who remain within the church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.

No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.


The Selfless Duty of a Man Corresponds to the Duty of Obedience of Those under His Care.

We saw above that God made man to be the leader of his family and made man to lead society and the Church. Along with this God-given role, God made man with the obligation to unselfishly fulfill his role for the good of those under his care. This is the natural and supernatural source of the gentlemanliness and fatherliness that God intends to be part of manhood and to be exercised by men everywhere.

So just as God made parents to be wiser than the children whom they are raising and to be well-suited for directing their children, so God gave parents the corresponding duty to selflessly raise those children and to govern their children for the good of those children, rather than for any selfish advantage of the parents.

Because God made the father and the mother wiser and well-suited to direct their children, He declared that children have the corresponding obligation to the parents to be subject to them. Thus, God commands children:

Honor thy father and thy mother.

Exodus, 20:12.

So, we see that God requires the parents’ efforts to selflessly raise their children and requires the corresponding obedience of the children to enable the success of those efforts.

Analogously, just as God made man to be wiser than woman and to be adept at guiding her, so God gave man the duty to guide his wife selflessly and to govern her for her own good, rather than for any selfish advantage to himself.

As God requires the man’s diligent efforts to guide his wife, so God requires the obedience of the wife in a way analogous to the way that God requires the obedience of the children to both parents. Thus, God commands:

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord.

Ephesians, 5:22.

With children obeying their parents and with wives obeying their husbands, we see the orderliness and harmony of God’s All-Wise Plan.


Further Reflections on the Connection between a Man’s Duty to Selflessly Guide and His Wife’s Duty to Diligently Obey

St. John Chrysostom shows the orderliness and concord of God’s plan (i.e., the man’s selfless governing and the wife’s careful obedience), in these words addressed to each man:

Govern your wife, and thus will the whole house be in harmony. Hear what St. Paul says. ‘And if they [wives] would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home’ [1 Cor. 14:35].5

St. Paul shows a man’s selfless governing of his wife must be Christlike just as her diligent obedience to her husband must be like the obedience of the Church to Christ:

Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the Church: being Himself the Savior of the body. But as the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.

Ephesians, 5:22-24.


The Obedience We Must Give to Those Whom God Places over Us Is Not Vexing

Some women, with a less womanly (and more tom-boyish or manly) spirit, might dislike the truth that they must obey their husbands. But women should no more be saddened by the Catholic Faith (and true philosophy – i.e., reason) telling them to obey their husbands, than children should be saddened to obey their parents raising them.

Similarly, laymen should not be saddened or minimize the obedience that God willed that they give to their priests and to the hierarchy throughout the entire history of the Church. To be saddened or to minimize the obedience we owe, shows an imperfect spirit and stinginess with God – just as (analogously) being saddened by the approach of Lent with its obligations of greater penance.

How happy and attractive is the willing obedience of children to their parents and students to their teachers! How happy and attractive is willing obedience of wives to their husbands, of laymen to the Church authorities, and of citizens to the rulers God has given to them!6


This Duty of a Man to Govern Well and the Duty of Obedience of those under his Care, Show the Orderliness of God’s Creation and His All-Wise Plan

God does everything is a way which is most orderly and perfect. Let us look at what is required for this orderliness.

Difference is the basis for the order in things. If there were no differences between things, there could be no order between them. The very idea of order includes within it the concept of priority and of posteriority, and hence, of difference and inequality. In fact, that very separateness, i.e., the distinctions among things, is the principle of all order.

Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Church, teaches this important point, quoting Aristotle:

As the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, text. 16), the terms “before” and “after” are used in reference to some principle. Now order implies that certain things are, in some way, before or after. Hence, wherever there is a principle, there must needs be also order of some kind.

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.26, a.1 respondeo.


God makes creatures unequal.

God made difference and inequality in all creatures. As Ecclesiasticus teaches:

Why does one day excel another, and one light another, and one year another year…? By the knowledge of the Lord, they were distinguished.

Ecclesiasticus, Ch. 33, vv. 7-8.

Therefore, just as God’s Wisdom is the cause of His making all creatures, so His Wisdom is the cause of Him making creatures unequal.

Here is St. Thomas Aquinas’ fuller explanation of this truth:

[I]t must be said that as the wisdom of God is the cause of the distinction of things, so the same wisdom is the cause of their inequality. This may be explained as follows. A twofold distinction is found in things; one is a formal distinction as regards things differing specifically; the other is a material distinction as regards things differing numerically only. And as the matter is on account of the form, material distinction exists for the sake of the formal distinction. Hence, we see that in incorruptible things there is only one individual of each species, forasmuch as the species is sufficiently preserved in the one; whereas in things generated and corruptible there are many individuals of one species for the preservation of the species. Whence it appears that formal distinction is of greater consequence than material. Now, formal distinction always requires inequality, because as the Philosopher says (Metaph. viii, 10), the forms of things are like numbers in which species vary by addition or subtraction of unity. Hence, in natural things species seem to be arranged in degrees; as the mixed things are more perfect than the elements, and plants than minerals, and animals than plants, and men than other animals; and in each of these, one species is more perfect than others. Therefore, as the divine wisdom is the cause of the distinction of things for the sake of the perfection of the universe, so it is the cause of inequality. For the universe would not be perfect if only one grade of goodness were found in things.

Summa, Ia, Q.47, a.2 respondeo (emphasis added).

By making some creatures inferior to other creatures, the whole of creation is more perfect than it otherwise would be.

Here is St. Thomas Aquinas’ fuller explanation of this truth:

It is part of the best agent to produce an effect which is best in its entirety; but this does not mean that He makes every part of the whole the best absolutely, but in proportion to the whole; in the case of an animal, for instance, its goodness would be taken away if every part of it had the dignity of an eye. Thus, therefore, God also made the universe to be best as a whole, according to the mode of a creature; whereas He did not make each single creature best, but one better than another. And therefore, we find it said of each creature, “God saw the light, that it was good” (Genesis 1:4); and in like manner of each one of the rest. But of all together it is said, “God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good” (Genesis 1:31).

Summa, Ia, Q.47, a.2, ad 1.

So, we see that the different roles of men and women are part of God’s wise plan and the order of the family and society. The man’s duty and the corresponding obedience of those under his care are an inequality which results in God’s creation being more orderly, since inequality is necessary for order.

That very idea of order includes within it the concept of priority and of posteriority, and hence, of difference. In fact, those very differences, i.e., the distinctions among people, is the essential principle of all familial, social, political, economic, military, and religious order. For example, in a proper military order, an army cannot have all generals or all privates. The army cannot have all equipment operators or all cooks. And so on.

St. Paul emphasizes that God made men unequal and made them to have different roles, strengths, and weaknesses. Here are St. Paul’s words:

For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. For the body also is not one member, but many. If the foot should say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear should say, because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? But now God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased Him. And if they all were one member, where would be the body? But now there are many members indeed, yet one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help; nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you. Yea, much more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body, are more necessary. And such as we think to be the less honorable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honor; and those that are our uncomely parts, have more abundant comeliness. But our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, giving to that which wanted the more abundant honor, that there might be no schism in the body; but the members might be mutually careful one for another. And if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer with it; or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.

1 Corinthians, 12:12-27 (emphasis added).

As St. Paul shows us, God did not make every man to play whatever role that man chooses. Some men are made more honorable members of society, some, less. Some men are made the “eyes” of the collective group and some are made the “feet”. Id.

St. Paul emphasizes that these differences between men give rise to the obligation that “the members might be mutually careful one for another”. Id.

Part of this inequality which is planned by the Wisdom of God, is the inequality between men and women. Although, in a way, the Eternal Wisdom made all unequal creatures to be complementary (as well as unequal), this is especially true of men and women.

Thus, God made man and woman to be especially complementary because of the very different and harmonious roles that He intends them to have in life.

To Be Continued

1 Cf. 1 Corinthians, 14:34-35:

Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home.

Emphasis added.

2 For an examination of the great role and crucial work of a woman’s life as provided by Catholic teaching and by the Natural Law, read this article:

https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

3

A business leader should be a father to his employees and should have care for their well-being. For example, he should not put them in moral danger arising out of their responsibilities at work or because of the atmosphere of the workplace.

The business leader should also give his workers a living wage which enables them to be the sole breadwinners (financial supports) for their wives and children. In other ways too, a business leader has a duty to do what he can to influence his employees for their eternal good.

Read more about this truth in Catholic Candle’s analysis of the evil Marxist program for “diversity and inclusion”. https://catholiccandle.org/2022/01/05/the-false-principle-of-diversity-and-inclusion/

4 Ungodly Rage, The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, By Mrs. Donna Steichen, Ignatius Press, San Francisco ©1991, page 226 (emphasis added).

5 Words of St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, quoted from his sermon #20 on Ephesians.

6 The civil law is an ordinance of reason for the Common Good, promulgated by him who has care of the community. Such civil laws are binding in conscience, that is, under pain of sin. Summa, Ia IIae, Q.90 & Q.96, a.4


Obviously, God does not require or permit us to follow the command of a superior who commands us to do something sinful. For we must “obey God rather than men”. Acts, 5:29.

Your Salvation Hinges on Your Love of God

Posted on by Catholic Candle

The first of the Two Great Commandments is

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength.

Pray to His mother. I am sure she will help you to love her Son as you go through your day. Here is a good way to start your day. Pray the following devoutly first thing in the morning:

Everything I do today should be for the love of God and for His greater honor and glory.

Print these words out and put them on your alarm clock and they will remind you of the way to start each day.

We can see the goodness and perfection of God all around us. If we meditate on His goodness, we shall never tire of loving Him. We love our parents and friends because they are good. Their goodness is nothing compared to the goodness of God.1

So, let us ask God every day and in every prayer we say to make us love Him more. Above all, we must look on God as our most loving Father, our dearest friend, Who loves us with a personal, intimate, extraordinary love.

Love is an excellent thing, a very great blessing, indeed. It makes every difficulty easy, and bears all wrongs with equanimity. For it bears a burden without being weighted and renders sweet all that is bitter.2

Loving God is the first and most important step toward your salvation, so start today and continue until you stand before God for your Particular Judgment and say “I love You, Jesus”.

1 My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Morrow, My Mission House, Kenosha, WI., 1949, Ch. 85, p. 172.

2 My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Morrow, My Mission House, Kenosha, WI, 1949, Ch. 85, p. 173.

The Remedy for the Sadness and the Depression in Our Times

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note: The article below is a “companion” article to these four previous articles:

  1. The Hope Given to Catholics in the State of Grace vs. the Hopelessness of Godlessness. This article is found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/02/09/the-hope-given-to-catholics-in-grace-vs-the-hopelessness-of-godlessness/


  2. The Devil’s Lies Bring the Devil’s Unhappiness: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/08/28/the-devils-lies-bring-the-devils-unhappiness/

  1. The Connection Between Virtue and Happiness – Part One:  https://catholiccandle.org/2023/11/26/the-connection-between-virtue-and-happiness-part-1/

  1. The Connection Between Virtue and Happiness – Part Two:  https://catholiccandle.org/2023/12/18/the-connection-between-virtue-and-happiness-part-2/

We live in a time of sadness and desolation. Even in most of those homes which are considered “good Catholic homes”, there is a constant exposure to all of the elements of the world which are promoted by the enemies of God, of reason, and of our salvation.

In such homes, the atmosphere is permeated by the world, the flesh, and the devil – even though not to the same degree as in the rest of society. This sway of sin in the home is wrong because the first duty of every Soldier of Christ is to deny the Enemy access to his living room (as well as to his soul). We cannot control the character of the whole of society. But we can control the character of our own home. Our home should be very different from the world and should have a completely different atmosphere (e.g., complete Catholic modesty1, a regular prayer life (especially the rosary), daily meditation, no TV, no bad music, no video games, etc.).

The influences of the world can wear a person down, as he goes out into the world every day from (what should be) the Catholic haven of his home.2 The world constantly splatters his soul with the “mud” of this contact with unwholesomeness. This weakens his soul and make the spiritual life seem empty. In unfortunate contrast, this daily contact with the world tends to make pleasures as well as other earthly matters seem to be the most important aspects of life. The question “How can I save my soul?” can thus seem to be too distant from everyday life. Our spiritual efforts can feel weak and our Catholic duties can seem to be a dry, distasteful burden.

Dear Reader, is this how your own life and daily routine seem to you? This is a classic case of spiritual desolation. Here is how the great spiritual master, St. Ignatius of Loyola, defines this desolation:

I call desolation everything contrary to the consolation explained in the third rule, such as darkness of soul, disturbance in it, movement to things low and earthly, the disquiet of different agitations and temptations, moving to lack of confidence, without hope, without love, when one finds oneself all lazy, tepid, sad, and as if separated from his Creator and Lord. Because, as consolation is contrary to desolation, in the same way the thoughts which come from consolation are contrary to the thoughts which come from desolation.3

Dear Reader, do you recognize the movements of your own soul in St. Ignatius’s description? So many people nowadays feel this desolation! It is the direction in which modernity is pushing and pulling people.

Although God can (and sometimes does) give desolation in order to test even a very holy soul, the most usual reason for desolation is because of the person’s sins and his negligence in his spiritual duties.

Here is St. Ignatius’ advice for the person in desolation:

Although in desolation we ought not to change our good resolutions, it is very helpful to intensify our good efforts against the temptations that come during desolation, by insisting more on prayer, meditation, on much examination, and more penance.4

Dear Reader, you (and all of us) can do this! God will help us all!


Advancing in the Spiritual Life

It is natural for a person to ask himself: “How do I advance in the spiritual life?” After all, we are on this earth to save our souls. So, we know that we must do our best to advance in the spiritual life. This is the main “business” of our life. God did not give more time to our lives so that we can “try” to stay in the state of grace so that we avoid hell when we die. Such “trying not to backslide” is wasting the additional time God gives us! The reason God gives a person “another year”, is so that he can use this time to be one year holier and further advanced in the spiritual life.

Moreover, the greater a person’s progress is in holiness, the greater will be his progress in happiness. But how do we do that? Well, there are a few very important parts of this journey to holiness.

The secret of holiness is generosity with God. If a person asks himself: “What do I need to do to avoid sin and hell?”, that is a stingy minimum! If we seek to only do what “we gotta”, then the spiritual life will feel like a burden. Further, most people who seek to do as little as they can in the spiritual life end up failing and going to hell. For when a person aims so low, usually what he actually achieves is even lower.

But the spiritual life is Divine Friendship5 and so we should seek to be completely generous with our Divine Friend. We don’t have to feel generous but nonetheless we should resolve with our will to be generous.

Here is an analogous situation: when a parent is exhausted, is craving sleep, and is taking care of a sick child in the middle of the night, that parent is not doing so because of “warm and fuzzy” feelings, but because of the will to do his duty and to do good for his child! That is how our love and friendship with Christ should be – generous and firmly resolved in our will, regardless of feelings.

We must avoid occasions of sin, including eschewing persons who make it more likely that we will sin. We humans easily fool ourselves and make many excuses to continue to expose ourselves to the sorts of occasions of sin which have led to our downfalls in the past. To break out of this evil pattern, we must be unshakably firm in avoiding bad companions and other occasions of sin.

We have got to pray more, every day. Much more. Especially the rosary – ideally all 15 decades. We recommend the Catholic Candle articles to help you to pray the rosary better.6

We should implement and be faithful to making a daily meditation.7

We should study our Faith, especially through reading the Doctors of the Church, and most of all, St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church. This study is “meat” which gives us strength to “bear the slings and arrows” of life. The Doctors are the ones that the Church especially holds out to us as our teachers for studying the Faith. Reading a Sunday sermon from one of the Doctors is a valuable part of accomplishing this duty every week.

We should avoid bad music. Church music and real classical music are the best.

Don’t watch TV and movies. We should avoid most things on the internet, especially “social media”. Each of these, even aside from the many sins they involve, also weaken us and make the spiritual life (and prayer) distasteful to us.

In these times of confusion, we should study true apologetics to help us to guard against the errors which are all around us. One way to discover more about how Vatican II is contrary to the perennial, infallible teaching of the Church is to study Lumen Gentium Annotated.8 Vatican II’s document, Lumen Gentium, is, in a way, Vatican II’s own overview of all of its errors in its other Council documents. Thus, by discerning the errors of Lumen Gentium, we see in general all of the errors of the rest of the Council.

In addition to studying the doctrines of our Faith, we should do some spiritual reading every day, e.g., at least a chapter of the Imitation of Christ every day without fail. We should prepare for and make/renew the consecration to Our Lady as her slaves according to the program of St. Louis de Montfort.

We should do some extra penances every day. Three really good ones are to take totally-cold showers, don’t eat between meals, and abstain from junk food and desserts, at least when not sharing them with others on a social occasion.9

This is a time of great blessings! We hold that this is a glorious time to be Catholic and to live for Christ the King! https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/it-is-a-blessing-to-live-during-this-great-apostasy.html

We must have the Virtue of Hope because God is in charge and everything that happens that is out of our control is God’s Will for us. As a means of encouragement, we should keep in our thoughts that all things “work together unto the good, for those who love God”.  Romans, 8:28. https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/hope-during-the-current-great-apostasy

Again, you (and we) can do this! God will help!

2 For an analysis of the importance of the irreplaceable work of the wife, mother, and heart of the family, in making this home a haven, read these articles:




3 Quoted from Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola, Rule #4 for the Discernment of Spirits, First Week.

4 Quoted from Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola, Rule #6 for the Discernment of Spirits, First Week.

5 Read these articles which explain this crucial truth:




8 Lumen Gentium Annotated, by Quanta Cura Press, © 2013, available at:



  • Amazon.com (sold at cost).