The Story of Another Soul

“I well know why God is permitting this trial. It is in order that we may win Heaven. He knows that our father is all that we love most on earth, but He well knows also that we must suffer in order to merit eternal life; and that is why He is trying us in that which we hold dearest.” —St. Thérèse of Lisieux to her father, November 25, 1888

Louis Martin, the father of St. Thérèse of Lisieux, developed a serious mental illness shortly after Thérèse entered the convent. He suffered from a nervous disorder that began with partial paralysis in the body and eventually affected his brain, causing mental lapses and, later, hallucination.

At first he lived quietly at home, but when his mental state grew worse and relatives were afraid he would cause himself some harm, they moved him to a mental institution to be cared for.

As Louis gradually lost his mental and physical capacities, his nobility in suffering earned him great respect.

This illness was painfully humiliating for him, causing his daughters to suffer, as well. St. Thérèse wrote that “even as the agony of Jesus pierced the heart of His holy Mother, so our hearts were deeply wounded by the humiliations and sufferings of him whom we loved best on earth.”

Louis’ daughters had an extra heartache: many people in their town unjustly blamed them, and especially Thérèse (her father’s “little queen”) for causing his mental breakdown; they said it was brought about by his sorrow at the departure of his beloved daughters to Carmel.

Louis Martin remained at the hospital three years, with Céline and Léonie taking rooms nearby and visiting as often as possible. His Carmelite daughters wrote him frequent letters, a great consolation to him. After leaving the hospital, he lived under Céline’s care for two more years. He died peacefully on Sunday, July 29, 1894.

Many of us have born mental illness in our families and can relate to the Martins. We can look to them for an example of strength, but even more we can turn to them for comfort, knowing that our prayers will be heard by understanding hearts.

CUF: Celebrating 45 Years!


Today, September 26, marks the 45th anniversary of the founding of Catholics United for the Faith. We give thanks to God for all that He has accomplished through our humble efforts, and we once again renew ourselves. As we pray daily:

O God our Father, who sent Your only-begotten Son to suffer and to give His life for the life of His Church, rule, protect, and nourish her continually, we beseech You.

Teach us of Catholics United for the Faith to direct our zeal first of all to the renewal of our own hearts.

Then, if it be Your holy will to allow us to be in any way your instruments in the wider renewal of Your Church, give us the grace to know what services, small or great, You ask of us, and let the Holy Spirit teach us to perform them in obedience, patience, and charity, leaving entirely to You what fruits they may bear.

We ask this through the same Jesus Christ Your Son, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You in the unity of that Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever. Amen.

—H. Lyman Stebbins
Founder, Catholics United for the Faith

Interested in joining our apostolate? Check out our website to learn more about how to become a member.

Blessed be the Name of Mary!

Today is the feast of the Most Holy Name of Mary.

What is the significance of this unique celebration? Joseph Almeida, in an article from the Lay Witness archive, gives us many reasons to understand why in the Divine Praises we exclaim, “Blessed be the name of Mary, Virgin and Mother.”

In this 12th and final installment of excerpts from the Marian sermons of St. Lawrence of Brindisi, we have proverbially saved the best for last. In a meditation, serendipitously encountered recently on the feast of the Birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the author made the following exclamation of praise: “O Mary! Blessed name that I love and venerate from the depths of my being!” (Magnificat vol. 5, no. 7, 104). This was striking because particular attention of any kind to the proper name of Mary is unusual in spiritual and theological writings. Not so, however, in St. Lawrence. In his third sermon on the angelic greeting, the name, Mary, is precisely the topic which engages the saint’s able reflections.

It is a remarkable fact, really, which escapes the notice of most, but which St. Lawrence perceived directly, that the angel Gabriel declined to use the Blessed Mother’s own proper name in his words of greeting. St. Lawrence takes the omission as a sign of the inherent and awesome holiness of the name of Mary, a reality that was immediate and self-evident to the angelic intellect.

“It seems amazing, brothers, that Gabriel, the messenger of God, sent to the Virgin as God’s groomsman and best man, did not use her express and proper name when he greeted her. The angel did not say: ‘Hail, Mary,’ but rather ‘Hail, full of grace.’ We do not learn the name of the Virgin from the angel but from the evangelist, who says: ‘[T]he virgin’s name was Mary’ (Lk. 1:27).

“The Jewish people do not dare to name God. They believe that it is not permitted to them. Moreover, they believe that it is permitted to no one, except to the high priest, but once a year, when he customarily enters the Holy of Holies and blesses the people on the Day of Atonement. Thus Isaiah said that his lips were impure, and he thought himself unworthy to take the divine name in his unclean mouth.

“Indeed, God Himself holds His own name to be of such great worth that He did not reveal it to the holiest of Patriarchs as He said to Moses: ‘I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the Lord I did not make myself known to them’ (Ex. 6:3). He did reveal his name to Moses, but first He desired that Moses take off his shoes, so he might hear the name while approaching God with the highest reverence. For priests, in a posture of reverence, do not enter the sanctuary except with their feet bare and washed. Thus God wished for Moses to hear the most sacred and most secret name with the greatest reverence.

“Perhaps for this reason, namely for the sake of showing great reverence, the angel dared not speak the most sacred name of Mary. I think that, after the name of Christ, which is above every other name, is the name of Mary, reverenced and adored even by the angels themselves. One must not think that the most glorious name of Mary does not abound in mysteries, nor that it was not given to her by divine inspiration, as were the names given to Christ and to John the Baptist. For if no mystery were hidden in names, then God would not have changed the names of Abraham, Sarah, and Jacob, and Christ would not have called the prince of the Apostles by the new name of Peter.”

For St. Lawrence, the mystery begins to unfold at one level in the prefigures of the Old Testament where Mary’s name is linked to the family of Moses and to a watershed event in salvation history.

“Mary’s glorious name is not wholly unknown or unspoken in the hidden mysteries of Sacred Scripture. For the sister of Moses, the most sacred prophetess and most noble princess of the Israelite women, was called by this name so that, by this very name itself, she might be an illustrious type and a brilliant figure of the Virgin Mother of God. For indeed we read that this one was a virgin, and we nowhere discover her to have been intimate with man or that she was the mother of children.

“Therefore in a certain way she prefigures and stands as a kind of image of the Holy Virgin. Who does not know that ‘all these things happened to them in figure’ (1 Cor. 10:11)? She was presented as a certain image of this divine Mary, a foreshadowing figure. She was the moon shining in the darkness. Mary was the woman clothed with the sun (cf. Rev. 12:1), bespattered with no stains as was that Mariam who was made leprous through the divine power because she sinned against God Himself by murmuring against Moses, the most holy father of his people (cf. Num. 12:1-15). Mary was ‘fair as the moon, bright as the sun’ (Song 6:10), pure, holy, and noble, both in body and in spirit, beyond all the creatures of God.”

Thus, Mariam of the Old Testament was a typological namesake for the Mother of God. It is, therefore, to the Hebraic etymology of Mary’s name that St. Lawrence turns to unlock its significance, “for the interpretation of the name reveals not a few divine mysteries.” This portion of St. Lawrence’s sermon is a tour de force of the application of linguistic learning to biblical interpretation, an area in which St. Lawrence excelled ahead of his time. The allusions he uncovers, while not always uncritically accepted by modern scholars, are remarkable and manifold. One of the most magnificent and most familiar is the allusion in the name, Mary, to the “star of the sea,” a title for the Mother of God well known in Catholic hymnology.

“We take up now that allusion in Mary’s name to the ‘star of the sea.’ The Hebrew for luminary is moar, which comes from the Hebrew word for light, i.e., natural light, a light which is luminous according to its very substance. [The connection between MaRy and MoaR is through the Hebrew, consonantal root MR.] Thus Mary is called a luminary of the sea, or what amounts to the same thing, a star of the sea ( stella maris). She is a most splendid star rising from Jacob, a star for sailors on the waves of the great sea of this world, which churns more than any sea and is more dangerous by far. She directs the course of our navigation into the harbor of eternal salvation, just as the star led the Magi to Christ, and just as the pillar of fire in the night directed the Hebrews into the Promised Land and provided them a secure journey.

“About this star of the sea the most devoted St. Bernard, as was his custom, said many brilliant things: ‘Take away the body of the sun, where is the day? Take away Mary, the star of the sea, to be sure a great and expansive sea, what remains except fog, the shadow of death, and the thickest darkness.’ Thus Mary is the star of the sea, a most splendid star, to be sure, a most elevated star to whom St. Anselm shouted: ‘O blessed among women, who excels the angels in purity and surpasses the saints in sanctity.’ All the saints and elect of God will in heaven be ‘like the stars for ever and ever’ (Dan. 12:7). ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven’ (Gen. 22:17). But what kind of stars? ‘Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father’ (Mt. 13:43). Mary, however, is an exceptional and singular star, the highest of all, the brightest, most splendid, the greatest of all in virtue and influence.”

In this final excerpt one sees all the most important attributes of St. Lawrence as a Franciscan preacher, the title which, in his own opinion, named his true vocation. First, his sermons, according to the Capuchin reform of his day, were always and essentially tied to the interpretation of Scripture. Second, he outstripped his peers in knowledge of the biblical languages (especially Hebrew), which he applied creatively and skillfully to his interpretations of both Testaments. Third, and perhaps most importantly, he had a profound respect for the tradition of the Church in the interpretation of Scripture, as shown by his above appeals to Sts. Bernard and Anselm. Despite his own intellectual power and skill, St. Lawrence submitted himself to the guidance of this tradition. It is for these reasons, and not least for the Marian sermons which have occurred here in excerpt, that he himself was elevated to the status of Doctor.

 

To read this article and others from Lay Witness, click here.

Just War Theory Revisited

While the U.S. government deliberates over possibly military action against Syria, we as Catholics have the opportunity to re-familiarize ourselves with the Church’s teaching on what makes a war just. Below is a helpful summary  by Fr. William Saunders from the Jan/Feb 2002 issue of Lay Witness magazine. 

Just cause

-The war must confront an unquestioned danger. St. Augustine, quoted by St. Thomas, said, “A just war is apt to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.” The Catechism says that “the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain” (no. 2309).

Proper authority
-The legitimate authority must decide if war is necessary and must be acting on behalf of the people.

Right intention
-The reasons for declaring the war must be based on just objectives and not a masking of ulterior motives. St. Thomas taught that the right intention is essential “so that they intend the advancement of good or the avoidance of evil.” St. Augustine also noted, “True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace or punishing evildoers, and of uplifting the good.” An evil intention (such as to destroy a race or to absorb another nation) can turn a legitimately declared war waged for just cause into a wrongful act.

Last resort
-All reasonable peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted or deemed impractical or ineffective. The contentious parties must strive to resolve their differences peacefully before engaging in war, which can be done through negotiation, mediation, or even embargoes. Here, too, we see the value of an international mediating body, such as the United Nations.

Proportionality

-The good that is achieved by waging war must not be outweighed by the harm. What good is it to wage war if it leaves the country in total devastation with no real victor? Modern means of warfare give great weight to this criterion insofar as weapons of mass destruction make for a real possibility of a devastating, disproportionate response.

Probability of success
-The achievement of the war’s purpose must have a reasonable chance of success. If a country can meet the above criteria, then it may justly enter war. Further, a country could come to the assistance of another country that is not able to defend itself provided these criteria are met.

The Faith Understood: An Introduction to Catholic Theology

Are you still striving to make the most of the  Year of Faith? The Faith Understood, by Mark Zia, may be the book for you.

By reading The Faith Understood, you can:

  • Discover the basic principles of authentic biblical interpretation.
  • Learn why the Magisterium is the only way to correctly interpret the Bible and the writings of the Church fathers, doctors, and saints.
  •  Find out why Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are the only three legs of the theological tripod that preserve the whole truth about God.
  • See why faith and reason, science and theology, the natural and the supernatural are always agreeable.
  • Explore the Incarnation and its primary Christological heresies that threatened the early Church.
  • Unlock one of the most misunderstood areas of Catholic theology in the person of Mary.
  • Unravel the mystery of eschatology—the “last things”—judgment, purgatory, hell, and heaven.

The Faith Understood is great for college students, adult faith formation programs, and motivated Catholics aspiring to learn more about their faith.

The author, Mark Zia, S.T.D., received a doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome, Italy. He is associate professor of Theology and director of Academic Enrichment Programs at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas. He and his wife Julia are the parents of six children.

For more information on how to order this book, click here.

Introducing the Latest Lay Witness

The September/October issue of Lay Witness magazine discusses Catholic Social Teaching–in particular, the balance between the things of this world and the things of eternity. The print edition features articles by some of your favorite authors.

David Fagerberg gives an entertaining and enlightening summary of Catholic Social Teaching from the perspective of beloved Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton. No matter the merit of our apostolic works, Fr. Dwight Longenecker reminds us, our efforts must be directed toward attaining holiness–not simply being “good.” Longtime friend of CUF Dr. John Crosby, in commemoration of the closing of the fiftieth anniversary of the Second Vatican Council, looks to Gaudium et spes as a blueprint for our attitude toward temporal affairs. Rounding out the issue, James Gaston comments on a topic relevant to all Christians: work. Noting the great dignity man has in relation to work, Gaston gives the readers of Lay Witness encouragement that the greatest benefit of our labor is the spiritual benefit it imparts.

Check out our September/October web exclusives here, and if you’d like more information on subscribing to Lay Witness, visit our website.

 

 

Did Gregory the Great Deny Papal Primacy?

In A.D. 587 Emperor Maurice granted the title “ecumenical patriarch” or “universal bishop” to John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople. Pope St. Gregory the Great condemned the title. Later, when others tried to apply them to him as bishop of Rome, he refused the titles. In refusing the titles, was the Pope denying the primacy of the papacy as some Eastern Orthodox Christians maintain?

In a word, no. Pope St. Gregory the Great was simply affirming the constant Catholic doctrine that individual bishops are truly successors of the apostles and not just agents of the Pope or any other patriarch. However, in doing so, he never denied his primacy, which on other occasions he clearly affirmed, noting, among things, that “the See of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See.”

Perhaps the best way both to see the Orthodox argument and to answer it is to let St. Gregory speak for himself in his letters. Here we see that, while he does repudiate the title of universal bishop, he does so only insofar as such a title is understood to deny the legitimate authority of the other bishops in their dioceses. The Church has always taught that all bishops are successors of the apostles; their authority is not derived from the Pope (though it is his role to confirm the brethren). He writes to John, Patriarch of Constantinople:

Consider I pray thee, that in this rash presumption the peace of the whole Church is disturbed, and that the title of Ecumenical Patriarch is in contradiction to the grace poured out on all in common. . . . And thou wilt become by so much the greater as thou restrainest thyself from the usurpation of a proud and foolish title: and thou wilt make advance in proportion as thou are not bent on arrogation by derogation of thy brethren. . . . Certainly Peter, the first of the Apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John — what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. . . (Epistle XVIII).

However, just because Gregory affirms Christ as Head does not mean he is denying his own primacy as the successor of St. Peter, whom Christ established to oversee Church affairs on earth. In fact, later in the same letter, the Pope says that he is prepared to assert his universal authority, if necessary. He points out to John the Faster that he wants to persuade him to change out of a “sense of shame.” But, adds Gregory, “if the detestable and profane assumption could not be corrected through shame, rigorous canonical measures should then be resorted to” (Epistle XVIII).

This is clearly not a mere letter of advice written to an equal. Notice that he doesn’t spend any time arguing that he has the authority to forbid the use of the title. Gregory is aware and he knows that John is aware that he has recourse to “canonical measures” if his direction is not carried out.

Elsewhere, Gregory notes that the Apostolic See, which is a reference to the bishopric of Rome and Pope, is “the head of all the churches.” It is this “See of Peter,” he says, “to whom was committed the care and primacy of the whole Church” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, 767).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the constant teaching of the Church on the primacy of the Pope, teaching that the Successor of Peter has “full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” (Catechism, no. 882). “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head” (ibid., no. 883, emphasis original; cf. nos. 884-85).