Uncategorized

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Words to Live By – From Catholic Tradition

Fasting is a Great Treasure!

The great St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, urges us to fast generously this Lent, setting before us the many advantages and benefits:

Fasting loves not many words, deems wealth superfluous, scorns pride, commends humility, helps man to perceive what is frail and paltry.

From the sermon of St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, On Prayer and Fasting. Quoted by St. Thomas Aquinas, Greatest Doctor of the Church, in the Summa, IIa IIae, Q.147, a.1, ad 1.

Catholic Candle note: Let us be grateful that we are fasting, as Holy Mother Church wisely instructs us!

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Words to Live By – From Catholic Tradition

Let Us Enter this Lenten Season with All of Our Heart!

The great St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, urges us to fast generously this Lent, setting before us the many advantages and benefits:

Fasting cleanses the soul, raises the mind, subjects one’s flesh to the spirit, renders the heart contrite and humble, scatters the clouds of concupiscence, quenches the fire of lust, kindles the true light of chastity.

Quoted from the sermon of St. Augustine, On Prayer and Fasting, quoted by St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Church, in the Summa, IIa IIae, Q.147, a.1, respondeo.


Catholic Candle note: These words are very consoling and show both the power of fasting and also the wisdom of Holy Mother Church urging us to fast generously. Pondering these truths, we should be moved to pity Protestants and worldlings who do no real fasting for a spiritual purpose. Their so-called religion is not only false but empty.

We see the hand of the devil in the conciliar church’s elimination of virtually all fasting. What a moral peril for countless souls!

Let us frequently use the powerful tool of fasting! In this way, we can glorify God and gain strength to serve Him and to make sacrifices for all those confused people who do not fast!

Christ is King over All Men, With No Exceptions

Posted on by Catholic Candle


A Refutation of the Liberal-Masonic Heresy that the

Authority of Rulers Comes from the Consent of the Governed


A Refutation of Bishop Williamson’s Heresy that

God Becomes our King when We Choose to Accept His Grace

Bishop Williamson falsely asserts that God is only King over souls in the state of grace. Since God forces no one to live in the state of grace, Bishop Williamson thus promotes the heresy that God only governs those who consent to His rule. Here are Bishop Williamson’s words:


Wherever souls are in the state of grace, there God is King, not only in Heaven but also already here below on earth.1


Bishop Williamson asserts: where there is grace, God is King. That is, grace is a condition for God’s Kingship. If Bishop Williamson held God is King of all men, he would not need to mention that God is King where a man has grace. Bishop Williamson would have simply said God is King of all men.


Let’s examine a grammatically-analogous conditional statement: Where there is life, there’s hope. This proverb means that that if someone is not alive, there is no hope (e.g., for the cure of his cancer). If there were hope of a cure after he was already dead, then this proverb would be changed to “there is always hope”.


Similarly, when Bishop Williamson teaches where there is grace, God is King, he is teaching that grace makes God the King where He otherwise would not be King. Bishop Williamson contradicts the truth that God is King of all men whether they have grace or not.


If what Bishop Williamson taught were true, then men could correctly deny their duty to obey Christ’s (i.e., God’s) laws. Because a person owes obedience only to his own superiors, if God is not also King of atheists, an atheist could rightly refuse obedience to God’s law.


The truth is that God is King over all men, now and forever, whether they choose to accept God’s grace or not, – and whether they choose God as their King, or not. Pope Pius XI teaches the Catholic truth that Christ is “King of all mankind.”2 Bishop Williamson’s denial of God’s universal Kingship is a pernicious heresy!3


A faithful and informed Catholic might see many reasons Bishop Williamson is wrong (and why God is truly King of all men, including all non-Catholics and other men without grace4). Here are eight reasons why Bishop Williamson is wrong:


  1. Bishop Williamson agrees with the liberal-Masonic American revolutionaries concerning the source of a ruler’s authority;

  2. By analogy to earthly kings, whose kingship also extends over unwilling subjects;

  3. By the example of saintly kings who enforced God’s law over unwilling subjects who are not in the state of grace.

  4. Because otherwise the Last Judgment would be unjust and unfair.


  1. Because Our Lord Jesus Christ is King of all men as God (i.e., in His Divine Nature).


  1. Because Our Lord Jesus Christ is King of all men as Man, because of the Hypostatic Union5;


  1. Because Our Lord Jesus Christ is King of all men as Redeemer, by His glorious conquest in His Passion and Death; and


  1. Because Our Lord Jesus Christ is King of all men since the perfection of His Humanity gives Him a natural and necessary right to rule as King over all men.


Below, we examine each of these eight reasons why God is King of all men (both the willing and unwilling), and why Bishop Williamson is wrong to teach otherwise.



  1. The first sign Bishop Williamson is gravely wrong, is that he agrees with the liberal-Masonic American revolutionaries, about the source of a ruler’s authority


Any Catholic should be greatly alarmed if he agrees with the liberal-Masonic founders of the United States, concerning where authority comes from.


Bishop Williamson claims that, when a man accepts grace, God becomes his King. This is the heretical claim of the (so-called) “Enlightenment” concerning the source of a ruler’s authority.


The Catholic Faith has always taught that God is the source of all power and authority.6 He is supremely the King (Ruler) of all men and is the King of kings.


The liberal-Masonic founders of the United States oppose Catholic teaching by proclaiming that authority comes from those governed. These Masonic founders declared:


Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


Quoted from the U.S. Declaration of Independence (emphasis added).


Bishop Williamson teaches this same liberal-Masonic doctrine, in the context of God’s Kingship. Compare their position to his:


  • The Masons declare that authority comes from the consent of the governed.


  • Bishop Williamson declares that God’s Kingly authority comes from man’s consent to accept His grace (and, thereby, God’s Kingship).



Summary of reason one


Bp. Williamson wrongly agrees with the Masonic U. S. founders that authority comes from the consent of those governed. God’s Kingly authority over us does not come from our consent.



  1. By analogy to earthly kings (whose kingship extends over unwilling subjects), we see that God’s Kingship does not require our consent.


No citizen (subject) may choose, even once in a lifetime, whether to submit to or to opt out of the just laws of his country’s ruler (king).


But Bishop Williamson’s error is much more radical. His error would allow a man to enthrone and then remove God as his King simply by consenting to and later rejecting God’s grace.


According to Bishop Williamson’s position, a man could (hypothetically) make God his King (through confession) on the even days of the week, and remove Him as his King on the odd days, by relapsing into sin. A man could tell God: “tomorrow I might choose to make You my King”.


Plainly, Bishop Williamson teaches heresy! God is always King over all men, not merely if (and when) a man consents to accept grace and so consents to accept God as King!


Earthly rulers govern not only obedient subjects but also the stubborn criminals in their realm. A thief has no right to steal simply because he never agreed to obey the law. Likewise, God is King of all men, not merely Catholics who accept God’s grace.


Thus, by analogy to earthly rulers, we see that Bishop Williamson is wrong that God’s Kingship over us depends on our choice to accept His grace. Those men who do not voluntarily submit to God’s Kingship, are like criminals who are unwilling to submit to the laws of their earthly king (ruler). God is King of the unwilling, just as an earthly king is ruler over criminals.7



Summary of reason two


By analogy to earthly rulers, we see that a man is not free to “opt out” of God’s Kingship by rejecting God’s grace. Rather, God is King over all men, at all times.



  1. We see that God’s Kingship does not require our consent, by the example set by saintly kings who enforced God’s law over unwilling subjects not in the state of grace.


Saintly and Just Catholic Kings have given us many examples of enforcing God’s law over unwilling subjects. Because these kings themselves obeyed God as their King, they enforced God’s law against unwilling subjects, who must obey God’s law even as kings must. We take just two examples:


King St. Louis IX of France, gave this order to enforce God’s law:


[N]o man, unless he is a skilled theologian, should debate with Jews. Instead, when a layman hears the Christian law [i.e., God’s law] slandered, he should defend it only with his sword, which he should thrust into the offender’s guts as far as it will go.8


In about 1000 AD, King St. Olaf II of Iceland, enforced the laws of God the King, by forbidding the practice of all false religions in Iceland.9



Summary of reason three


Those saintly kings were not unjust. But it would have been unjust to enforce God’s law against those who are not subject to it. Thus, the example of these saintly kings shows us that all men – even unwilling men who do not have grace – are subject to God as King. Thus, Bishop Williamson’s position is heresy.



  1. We see that God’s Kingship does not require our consent, because otherwise the Last Judgment would be unjust and unfair.


It is unjust to judge a man based on laws to which he was not subject when he acted. For example, it would be unjust to arrest a man who is driving a car, for violating a speed limit which applies only to trucks.


Our Lord will judge all men at their death, even men without grace who rebelled against His laws during life. However, Our Lord would have no right to judge and punish men for disobeying His laws, if He were not their King now, during their lives.10 Thus, because there is a just Judgment after death, Our Lord must be King over all men, even those refusing His grace and denying His Kingship.11



Summary of reason four


Because it is just for Our Lord to judge all men after their deaths, He must be their King during their lifetimes. This shows Bishop Williamson teaches heresy when he asserts that grace makes God a man’s King.



  1. We see that God’s Kingship does not require our consent, because God’s Nature makes Him King over all men.


God made us and He owns us. We are His property. God does not need our agreement to submit to His laws and Kingship. God has full right to rule all men and to be their King, even if they refuse to submit to Him.12


This shows the heresy of the liberal-Masonic founders of the U.S. who declare that authority to govern comes from the consent of the governed. This also shows Bishop Williamson’s heresy, when he teaches that men’s choice to accept grace makes God their King.



  1. We see that God’s Kingship does not require our consent, because Christ is King over all men by His Hypostatic Union.


Because of His Hypostatic Union,13 Our Lord Jesus Christ, as Man, received from God the Kingship over all men, even unwilling men. This right to universal Kingship is in addition to Christ’s right of Kingship as God.14


Christ’s right of Kingship over all men, because of His Hypostatic Union, shows the heresy of the liberal-Masonic founders of the U.S., who assert that a ruler’s authority comes from consent of the governed. This further reason for Christ’s Kingship also shows Bishop Williamson’s heresy that Christ (God) is only King of those who consent to receive His grace and Kingship.



  1. We also see that God’s Kingship does not require our consent, because Christ is King over all men by His glorious conquest in His Passion and Death.


Besides Christ’s Kingship as God and also His Kingship as Man through the Hypostatic Union, another reason Christ is King of all men, is by conquest. He purchased all men through His glorious Passion and Death, so He owns all men (even unwilling men).15


Christ’s right of Kingship over all men, because of His conquest, shows the heresy of the liberal-Masonic founders of the U.S., who assert that a ruler’s authority comes from consent of the governed. This additional reason for Christ’s Kingship also proves Bishop Williamson promotes heresy by asserting that grace makes Christ (God) the King of a man.



  1. We see that God’s Kingship does not require our consent, because Christ is also King over all men because His Humanity’s perfection gives Him a natural and necessary right to rule as King over all men.


All men have a duty to support (and they sin when they oppose) the Catholic Faith, the salvation of souls, and whatever else promotes society’s goodness, virtue, and true happiness.16

Christ as Man rules much more wisely than anyone else. Christ promotes goodness, virtue and true happiness much better than anyone else.


Thus, all men must obey Christ as their King. Any man sins by opposing Christ as King, because he would be opposing what brings society much greater goodness, virtue and true happiness.



Summary of reason eight


Besides:


  • Christ’s right to rule all men because He is God;


  • Christ’s right as Man, to rule all men, because of His Hypostatic Union;


  • Christ’s right to rule all men because of His glorious conquest in His Passion and Death,


Christ also has an absolute right to rule all men because His rule brings much greater goodness, virtue and true happiness than the rule of any other man. Anyone opposing Christ’s rule sins gravely and opposes the good. For this reason also, Christ is King, with a right to rule all men.



Conclusion of the entire article


All authority comes from God. Authority does not come from the consent of the governed, as the liberal-Masonic founders of the U.S. heretically declare. God’s Kingship over all men does not depend on whether they accept grace or accept His Kingship, as Bishop Williamson heretically teaches.


Let us pray for poor, blind Bishop Williamson and for the world’s blind liberal-Masonic nations.


Let us also pray for Bishop Williamson’s cowardly followers who condone his heresy by their silence. Qui tacet consentire videtur (he who is silent gives consent).

1 Eleison Comments, #527 (emphasis added).

2 Quas Primas, §27 (bold added).


3 Heresy is an error about the Catholic Faith. Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explains this 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).

4 Non-Catholics do not have grace. For if they had grace, they would be Catholic since grace always causes the Catholic Faith in a man’s soul. Summa, IIa IIae, Q.4, a.4, ad 3. Further, if any non-Catholic had grace, then non-Catholics could go to heaven. Yet, no one can go to heaven without being Catholic, since it is a dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. See an explanation of this dogma here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/williamson-bishop-williamson-promotes-vatican-ii-heresy-that-people-can-be-saved-outside-the-catholic-church.html


5 The Hypostatic Union is the union of Christ’s two natures, Divine and human, in

one Person who is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

6 St. Paul teaches:


[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).


Faithfully echoing St. Paul, Pope Pius IX taught:


[A]ll authority comes from God. Whoever resists authority resists the ordering made by God Himself, consequently achieving his own condemnation. Disobeying authority is always sinful except when an order is given which is opposed to the laws of God and the Church.


Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846, §22 (emphasis added).


7 Invoking St. Paul, here is how Pope Pius XI taught this truth:


for He must reign until, at the end of the world, He hath put all his enemies under the feet of God and the Father. Cf. 1 Cor. Xv:25.


Quas Primas §11.


8 These words of King St. Louis IX are quoted in Life of St. Louis, by John of

Joinville, a courtier and fellow-crusader, Part I, Ch. 53, page 155 of the 2008 Penguin

Classics edition which is called Chronicles of the Crusades, translated by Caroline Smith.

9 Church History, by Fr. John Laux, TAN Books and Publishers, page 279.

10 Here is how St. Thomas explains this principle that we are obliged to obey (and can

be justly judged) only by those superiors who are our superiors at the time we are acting:


Judgment ought to be congruous as far as concerns the person of the one judging. … It 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.

St. Thomas elaborates on this truth:


[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 that 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 [to which he is subject], 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 [to which he is subject].


Summa, IIa IIae, Q.60, a.6, respondeo (bracketed words added for clarity).

11 Here is how Pope Pius XI teaches this same truth:


Not only do the gospels tell us that He [Our Lord] made laws, but they present Him to us in the act of making them. Those who keep them show their love for their Divine Master, and he promises that they shall remain in his love. He claimed judicial power as received from his Father, when the Jews accused him of breaking the Sabbath by the miraculous cure of a sick man. “For neither doth the Father judge any man; but hath given all judgment to the Son.” In this power is included the right of rewarding and punishing all men living, for this right is inseparable from that of judging. Executive power, too, belongs to Christ, for all must obey his commands; none may escape them, nor the sanctions he has imposed.


Quas Primas §14 (emphasis added; footnotes removed).

12 Here is how Pope Pius XI teaches this truth:


We were created by God, the Creator of the universe, in order that we might know Him and serve Him; our Author therefore has a perfect right to our service.


Mortalium Animos, §6.


Concerning God the Son, St. Paul teaches: “in Him were created all things in the heavens and on the earth …. All things have been created through and unto Him…” Colossians, 1:15-16.


While explaining the Gospel parable of a king taking an account of his servants and finding a servant who owed him 10,000 talents, here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explained that God in His Divine Nature is King of all men:


Concerning the parable’s words: “A king”, St. Thomas explains:


This king is God, and may be understood to be either the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost.


Concerning the parable’s phrase: “Who would take an account of his servants”, St. Thomas explains:


By the servants of the Lord are understood the prelates of the Church, to whom was committed the care of souls. “The faithful and wise steward, whom his lord setteth over his family” (Lk. 12, 42). Therefore, what else does it indicate to take an account of things committed, except that they are obliged to render an account? “They watch as being obliged to render an account of your souls” (Heb. 13, 17).


Also, because God commits to each man his own soul, anyone whosoever can be called a servant; hence “Hast thou considered my servant, Job” etc. (Job 1, 8). Hence every single person is appointed to render an account of all the things committed to him: for it is necessary to render an account even for the least idle word, as it was said above.

Lectures on St. Matthew’s Gospel, St. Thomas Aquinas, ch.18 (emphasis added).


Later in this same work, St. Thomas refers to “Christ, who from eternity has possessed the kingdom of the world as the God the Son”. Lectures on St. Matthew’s Gospel, St. Thomas Aquinas, ch.28, #2461.

13 As explained above, the Hypostatic Union is the union of Christ’s two natures,

Divine and human, in one Person who is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

14 Here is how Pope Pius XI explains that Christ as Man, is King, with a universal empire:


It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to Him by the Father, all things are in his power. Quas Primas, §17.

Pope Pius XI quotes the Book of Daniel:


Lo, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and He came even to the Ancient of days . . . And He gave Him power and glory, and a kingdom.” Daniel, 7:13-14, quoted in Quas Primas, §9.

Then Pope Pius XI explains why this passage shows that Christ is King as Man, because of the Hypostatic Union:


If we ponder this matter more deeply, we cannot but see that the title and the power of King belongs to Christ as man in the strict and proper sense too. For it is only as man that he may be said to have received from the Father “power and glory and a kingdom”, since the Word of God, as consubstantial with the Father, has all things in common with him, and therefore has necessarily supreme and absolute dominion over all things created. Quas Primas, §7.


Quoting Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Pius XI adds a further explanation that Christ’s Hypostatic Union results in His Kingship as Man:


The foundation of this power and dignity of Our Lord is rightly indicated by Cyril of Alexandria. “Christ”, he says, “has dominion over all creatures, a dominion not seized by violence nor usurped, but his by essence and by nature.” His kingship is founded upon the ineffable hypostatic union. From this it follows not only that Christ is to be adored by angels and men, but that to Him as man angels and men are subject, and must recognize his empire; by reason of the hypostatic union, Christ has power over all creatures. Quas Primas, §13 (emphasis added).

15 Here is how Pope Pius XI explains this truth:


But a thought that must give us even greater joy and consolation is this that Christ is our King by acquired, as well as by natural right, for he is our Redeemer. Would that they who forget what they have cost their Savior might recall the words: “You were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled”. We are no longer our own property, for Christ has purchased us “with a great price”; our very bodies are the “members of Christ”. Quas Primas, §13 (footnote citations omitted). …


Thus, the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: “His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.” Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. Quas Primas, §18 (footnote citations omitted).



16 The great philosopher Aristotle explained this truth as follows:


If, there be some one person, or more than one, although not enough to make up the full complement of a state, whose virtue is so pre-eminent that the virtues or the political capacity of all the rest admit of no comparison with his or theirs … the only alternative is that all should joyfully obey such a ruler, according to what seems to be the order of nature, and that men like him should be kings in their state for life.


The Politics of Aristotle, Bk 3, ch13


St. Thomas Aquinas affirms the teaching of Aristotle in these words:


If a man is found who exceeds all others in virtue, he should rule. … He who is best should never be repelled. Nor aught he be taken as the ruler just as others are, who rule at some times but at other times not. For this would be like wishing to sometimes be ruled by God and sometimes not – this idea is worthy of ridicule! And therefore we are left with the truth that when there is a man who is best, who is worthy and just, he is owed joyful obedience by all, as king; … not sometimes but not at other times, but rather always.


Commentary on the Politics of Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bk. 3, ch.13, lecture 12.


The Search for the Lost Schools

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note:  The article below is by one of Catholic Candle’s more senior editors who has always been Traditional Catholic.  This article provides a small glimpse into the state of the Catholic education of children in Mid-Twentieth Century America.

As a “cradle Catholic” and one who benefitted from 12 years of Catholic schools (plus 2 years at a Catholic university), I was an unwilling witness to the dissolution of Catholic schools in America.  It was something that in my wildest nightmares I could not have anticipated.

Good Catholic families from local parishes had always been expected to send their children to the parish schools.  Many did so at a significant sacrifice.  (Families who couldn’t afford it were often given “discounts”.)  The point is that we all assumed that these schools would always be there to teach the children more about their Faith, how to be better Catholics, and how to save their souls.  And, oh yes, give them a superior education besides.

It wasn’t until about the 1960s that things began to change.  You might begin to suspect that there could be some connection to a critical event that took place in that period. (Hint: think VC II).  Yes, Women’s Lib was among the trenchant influences, too, with its attendant push to convents and religious orders to shed their habits and “think for themselves.”  These were worrisome things, of course, but I don’t believe there was any panic that this was the death knell for Catholic education itself.  When the changes first began, they were a trickle, hardly causing passing concern.  Many of us were at first surprised, then uneasy, but not yet alarmed when Catholic schools began to innovate under the banner of modernism.

Looking back now, I believe the changes seemed unreal at first, and beyond anybody’s power to derail them – sort of like trying to stop a locomotive with your bare hand.  I think it is fair to say that most Catholics didn’t understand the scope of the changes in our Catholic schools that were being proposed – no, demanded.  We were used to trusting the self-sacrificing nuns and good priests to educate our children in our Catholic Faith, and now we were told that the erudite professors themselves must be allowed to decide what to teach.  

As a busy young mother of a growing family, I didn’t really understand how it came about so suddenly.  We had a strong network of solid Catholic schools one year, and the next it was beginning to disintegrate; and ten years down the line, many were fading into pale copies of public schools.  How on earth did this happen?  How did we reach this point?  The question became: did we just have to learn to live with these revolutionary changes?  Some, perhaps naively, imagined that if these changes “just happened,” might they be the natural progression of steps to improve the education of our children?  The answer is “no.”  They were the result of a specific concrete historic event.  And that event was the start of a rebellion against the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

This historic event took place at St. John’s University in Queens, New York in January, 1966.  Two hundred professors went on strike for 1½ years to challenge the teaching authority of the Church.  St. John’s had been founded by the Vincentian Fathers in 1870 to give explicitly Catholic education to Catholic students, in submission to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.  Now, suddenly there was a claim to a nebulous “right” to, in essence, teach what they wanted to.  Professors from all over the United States threw their support to the St. John’s protesters, claiming that academic freedom was violated if they were not allowed to contradict the teaching authority of the Church.  In the previous century, nobody apparently thought about that; they were too busy claiming scientific freedom.  Which had been quickly suppressed by a number of popes, including Pius IX, Leo XIII, and St. Pius X.

It turned out that this latest toxic claim, however, was not easily suppressed.  The rush to jump on the academic freedom bandwagon had begun.  Several months later, in April 1966, a conference of Catholic university presidents and other education leaders was held at Notre Dame, including some from Seton Hall, Boston College, Georgetown, and other Catholic universities.

The theme of the conference, the first of many, was “Academic Freedom in the Catholic University.”  Following this, the president of Notre Dame, Fr. Theodore Hesburgh, a Holy Cross father, asked modernist Jesuit Fr. Neil McCloskey to write a statement outlining a supposed academic freedom.  It was called the Land ‘O Lakes Statement as it had been put together in Land ‘O Lakes, Wisconsin.  It was a declaration of rebellion against the authority of the Church.  The influential manifesto, which would spread its poison from coast to coast, and beyond, proclaimed:

To perform its teaching and research functions effectively, the Catholic university must have a true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind: lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself.[1]

No effort was made to disguise the fact that The Statement was greatly inspired by the liberalization of Vatican II.  The Statement had enormous influence on Catholic higher education.  In the following decades the great majority of Catholic colleges and universities relinquished control of their own institutions to independent Boards of Directors.  (Hard to believe but sadly, they did).  The Statement had recommended replacing priests with completely independent lay people who weren’t obliged to obey ecclesiastical authority (the Church).  These institutions still called themselves Catholic and may have appeared to be Catholic, but more and more they began to operate independently, and at times in opposition to Church teaching.

A few wary Catholics wondered out loud if a university like Notre Dame was still Catholic!  It was true that there was still beautiful Catholic art exhibited, and various Catholic symbols and statues still remained around the N.D. campus, but were these just remnants from the past rather than evidence of a living Catholic Faith?

There were some efforts by Catholic leaders to reverse the damage caused by the academic freedom offensive, but nothing that seemed to take hold.  Rome, of course, expressed its opposition to this flagrant challenge to the authority of the Church, and local bishops were generically urged to be vigilant as to what was taught in their dioceses and exert more authority to insure orthodoxy.

They suggested that if you called your school “Catholic,” the word must not just be a noun, part of the title, but rather, the word “Catholic” must be a descriptive adjective and must always be a real expression of a profound reality; in other words, it must mean something. It must identify the speaker or the university as upholding the truths of the Faith and being in conformity to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

This was a nice expected response.  And of course, nothing much came of it.  Unless you count the eventual closing of hundreds of Catholic institutions or their becoming independent of the Church.

It wasn’t until 1990, a full 24 years after the first salvo by the academic freedom liberals, that Rome issued Ex Corde Ecclesiae, an apostolic constitution by Pope John Paul II, defining the role of the Catholic university.  In it, the pope repudiated The Land ‘O Lakes Statement, examined the problem, and set forth a set of regulations that were meant to ameliorate the situation, such as:

➢  Compelling Catholic teachers both in Catholic and non-Catholic universities to be in complete submission to the Magisterium of the Church; and

➢  Obliging non-Catholic teachers to respect the teachings of the Catholic Church, (not compelling them to believe them, but not to publicly oppose them).

Many Catholic teachers vehemently disagreed.  The president of Notre Dame is supposed to have said, “If the pope says Notre Dame is not Catholic, who would believe him?”

Whatever measures the Church took to stem the tide of this disaster proved ineffectual.  This might be hinted at by the following random statistics (which I have collected from various places, over time):

❖  In 1958, the number of American children attending a private elementary school was 15%.  In 1970, this number had fallen to 10%; in 2015, to 9%.

❖  In 1965, 89% of American children in private elementary schools were in Catholic schools.  By 2013, that number had fallen to 42%, less than half of what it had been.

v  From 2000 to 2010, more than 1000 Catholic schools were closed; 174 of them were closed or consolidated during 2009-2010 alone.

v  From 1970-2010, the number of Catholic schools in the U.S. dropped by 37%.

An equally sad statistic is that from 1970-2010, the number of religious vocations dropped by 70%!  Here are some specifics:

†      The Jesuits (a teaching order), decrease (approximately) from 59,000 to 38,000;

†      Christian Brothers (another teaching order) decrease from 2,212 to 589; and

†      The number of nuns decrease from 160,931 in 1970; to 48,546 in 2015; and then to 45,605 in 2018.

It is difficult to assess a cause-and-effect statistic of the shrinking of the religious orders in the U.S., and how it relates to the destruction of Catholic schools. Certainly, the worldliness of society, the general weakening of morals, the targeting of our youth by the entertainment industry, a “kept” media – all of these, and more, contributed to the breakdown of our Catholic school system.  When the parents of the ‘60s and ‘70s “gave up” on it and began to send their children elsewhere, it is little wonder that when their children married and had families, they weren’t so quick to send them to those same declining schools. “Declining” meaning where the schools were “declining” to adhere uncompromisingly to the Magisterium of the Church.

So, all in all, one might be tempted to think it hopeless to believe it’s possible to reverse the damage.

And on our own, it surely would be.  But Our Lady will not stand by indefinitely while Satan holds sway over the education of our children.  Just as she promised four hundred years ago in Quito, Ecuador, when referring to the Great Apostasy, in the end her Immaculate Heart will triumph. However, she added that her triumph will only occur when all seems hopeless.  Here are her words:

When everything will seem lost and paralyzed, that will be the happy beginning of the complete Restoration. This will mark the arrival of my hour, when I, in a marvelous way, will dethrone the proud and cursed Satan, trampling him under my feet and chaining him in the infernal abyss.[2]

Our present situation in the human struggle to restore our Catholic schools does seem very bad.  However, it does not yet seem completely lost and hopeless.  Thus, it seems we must endure some additional years before the victory promised by Our Lady of Quito.

On our part, we must make a greater effort to be more fervent in our prayers and to continue to say our daily rosary.  (Or better yet, the fifteen decades.)

While we pray for the triumph of Our Lady, we must also fight for Christ the King as best we can.  So must the Church hierarchy.  The first thing they must do is to correct their own softness and liberalism.

As to the tangible steps that might be taken after that, it is not beyond the power of the local ordinaries to regain control of our Catholic schools.  They would need to have the will and the courage to meet the challenge.  It would not be easy, but with the help of the Holy Ghost and Sts. Thomas Aquinas, and John Bosco (patrons of Catholic schools), the liberalism that was astoundingly allowed to spread its poison across the United States could eventually be neutralized, and our Catholic schools could once again do their crucial job of educating children according to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

We must pray fervently and fight for Christ tirelessly!  This is God’s Will, even though the reality is that this Catholic restoration of education will not occur except as part of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and through Her intercession.

Our Lady of Quito and of Fatima, Pray for us!

 


[2]           Steve Skojec, in One PeterFive, July 6, 1915; Our Lady of Good Success, January 15, 2024.

CC in brief — Sponsors for Conditional Confirmation

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note: Catholic Candle normally examines particular issues thoroughly, at length, using the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the other Doctors of the Church.  By contrast, our feature CC in Brief, usually gives an extremely short answer to a reader’s question.  We invite every reader to submit his own questions.

CC in Brief

Sponsors for Conditional Confirmation

Q.        Do we need a sponsor in the case of conditional Confirmation?  Is there a place in the Code of Canon law or in the Church rubrics that supports that we need a sponsor for conditional Confirmation?

A.        We checked the old Code of Canon Law which, although it is no longer binding, seems to us prudent to consult and prudent to follow.  We also checked three commentaries on this code[1] and we also checked the new code (while holding our noses),  Lastly, we consulted the book The Externals of the Catholic Church by Fr. John Sullivan.[2]

The old code contains several canons about sponsors but no special provisions about sponsors for conditional Confirmation. 

A sponsor for Confirmation is not required for validity at any time[3] but the old code notes that Confirmation sponsors were used from the oldest times and should be used.  Proxy sponsors may be used. 

A conditional Confirmation is administered because the prior one might be invalid.  For this reason, the conditional Confirmation might be the valid one.  Thus, you should have a sponsor for the conditional Confirmation since it is important that the confirmandus would have a sponsor in the event that the conditional Confirmation turns out to have been the valid one.  But again, it can be by proxy.

Lastly, we note that we are aware of no uncompromising and valid bishops available to us at the present time (Summer 2024).  If you have access to such a bishop, we would greatly want to know about it so we could contact him ourselves and also inform people far and wide about him.

 


[1]           These Canon Law commentaries are:

Ø  A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Fr. Chas. Augustine, Volume IV, B. Herder Book Co. St. Louis, 1918 (note: the reference in the title of this commentary to the “new” code of Canon Law, refers to the code being new in 1918);

Ø  Manuale Iuris Canonici, Fr. Dominic Prummer, Herder, Friburg, 1927; and

Ø  A Dictionary of Canon Law, Fr. P. Trudel, Herder, St. Louis, 1920.

[2]           The Externals of the Catholic Church, Fr. John Sullivan, Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1917.

[3]           A sponsor is required by canon law but we think that it is implied in the following moral theology manuals that a sponsor is not required for validity:

Ø  “The use of a sponsor in Confirmation seems to be a grave obligation, when possible.”  Moral Theology, McHugh & Callen, Herder, New York, ©1958, section #2695, 3.b (emphasis added).

Ø  “Sponsors [at Confirmation]. There is a grave obligation enjoining the presence of a sponsor, as at Baptism — at least if this is possible.”  Moral Theology, Dominic Prummer, Mercier Press, Cork, ©1956, section #582, (emphasis added and bracketed words added to show the context).

The Leftist Attack on Personal Resilience

Posted on by Catholic Candle

The Marxists and Leftists are intentionally undermining the moral fiber of society and the personal resilience of the people.  These enemies of Christ attempt to promote the idea that all people are fragile, and to convince the individual members of the public that they are so.

The Marxists’ motive is plain: no one can effectively resist their ongoing revolution and political power-grab if he believes himself to be:

❖  fragile,

❖  dependent on the Big Brother establishment (the “nanny state”) to take care of him,

❖  dependent on the government to give him money, (handouts/freebies, a so-called “minimum basic income”),

❖  dependent on a continual supply of “attitude adjusters” (anti-depressants) to “solve” his “mental” and emotional problems,

❖  dependent because of addictions due to the Leftists legalizing and promoting cannabis, opioids, and other hallucinogenic drugs,

❖  traumatized and “triggered”[1],

❖  frightened or disturbed by so-called “misgendering”, “transphobia”, or “microaggressions”,

❖  depressed,

❖  anxious,

❖  suffering from disruptive–impulsive disorder,

❖  continually needing “therapists” and counselors,

❖  autistic,
 

❖  suffering from ADHD,

❖  Enfeebled by an obsession with pornography (which the Leftists make widely available),

❖  weak and helpless,
 

❖  suffering from OCD (“Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder”), and/or

❖  other “disorders”.

A man cannot direct his efforts, attention, and will-power to resist the Marxist power-grab when that man is (or believes himself to be) so broken, dysfunctional, and constantly needing to keep his appointments to “treat” his attention deficit disorder (or other such “disorders”).

The Leftists promote the idea that, if something goes wrong in a person’s life, he is entitled to become emotional and upset if the government does not swoop in and take care of him, making everything better like a nanny swooping in to help a small child who falls on the floor of the nursery. 

The Leftists want each person to believe that he has a right to expect that a “government safety net” will protect him from everything, cushion his every misfortune, assuage his every hurt, and treat his every wound.

The Leftists want to avoid a man being resourceful, provident, hard-working, honest, courageous, self-sacrificing, self-controlled, self-reliant, virtuous, and taking responsibility for his own decisions, choices, and actions.

An important result of our Holy Catholic Faith is that it is the greatest source of genuine resilience which has ever existed.  We Catholics must strive to completely conform our wills to God’s Will.  We know that everything that happens to us which is out of our control, is for our good and is a source of good for us.

We know infallibly that God’s Will is always the best and wisest.  What a comfort!  We know that all things, including tribulations, “work together unto the good, for those who love God”.  Romans, 8:28.

This Catholic resilience is completely unlike the fake, modern “resilience” of the ungodly, which is mostly self-deception and “positive thinking”.  (Somewhat similar to this fake, modern “resilience” is the sham resilience of the Stoics of ancient times, which was actually mere endurance, not real resilience.)

We close with one example showing the extent to which the Leftists have succeeded in largely destroying the character and resilience of the people in our society.  This example concerns the fragility on display at the Leftist-controlled U.S. State Department.  The example shows how our current bizarre world is stranger-than-fiction and beyond parody.

The State Department (which has been entirely captured by the Leftists) was recently developing a computer program to more easily allow its employees to declare their “preferred pronouns” (e.g., “she/her/hers” or “he/him/his”).[2]

But a system-wide email glitch temporarily (and randomly) assigned pronouns and inserted them on the email “from” lines of all State Department personnel.[3]

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the State Department’s Chief Information Officer both apologized profusely.  Blinken stated that he knew how “distressing” it was for department personnel that the computer system randomly assigned “preferred pronouns” to them.[4]

Because so many people were “triggered” by this glitch, the State Department offered all staff free “professional counseling” to help them “recover” from their “distress” at being “misgendered”.[5]

Resilience is a sort of heartiness in a person’s character.  We increasingly see the opposite in people’s characters today – they instead resemble a house of cards – ready to collapse at the smallest mishap or puff of air.

Obtaining this genuine resilience is certainly not the main reason we embrace the true Catholic Faith.  But it is one additional blessing that God gives to His friends.

This is another reason to be grateful for the countless blessings He gives us.  In return, Christ the King wants us to fight for Him, which is a great privilege and is our life’s work.

Let us fight against this Leftist power-grab by promoting the virtues and strength of character which are the resilience that the Leftists attack.  Let us fight together side-by-side, in the trenches of the Church Militant, for our Noble and Divine King!


[1]           Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “trigger” as follows: to cause an intense and usually negative emotional reaction in (someone).  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trigger