The Hell There Is

 

To My Readers: This week's post, by John Gregory, reminds us of  the reality of Hell, and how we must avoid it at all costs. It is a necessary reminder to us all, in this time of Great Apostasy, of a reality so many deny at the risk of their souls.

Feel free to comment as usual. If you have  a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

The Hell There Is

By John Gregory

Some prefer to think that the unbaptized children will depart Limbo (which they believe will no longer exist) and go to Heaven (rather than Limbo which is the hem of Hell and will exist for as long as Hell exists i.e. forever) at the end of time, though Saint Thomas Aquinas clearly avoids suggesting such a novel thought because it is an article of faith that Original Sin prevents one from obtaining the Beatific Vision. Having had a miscarriage myself (through my wife) I understand why they would think this way. But enjoying an eternity of perfect natural happiness is far better than never having existed. These children do have a good eternity which is far better than the life we endure on our pilgrimage. The Church strongly urges the Baptism of children as shortly after birth as possible with good reason, as an eternity of perfect natural happiness, though satisfying and enjoyable, falls far short of the Beatific Vision. Their earthly parents, when in Heaven, will not be saddened by this as they will be keenly in tune with the Justice and Mercy of God, and perhaps they will foresee that had their children lived some time past the age of reason they may have merited eternal punishments: 

Saint Matthew Chapter Twenty-Five Verse 9: The wise answered, saying: Lest perhaps there be not enough for us and for you, go ye rather to them that sell and buy for yourselves.  This is an ornamental detail, as I said lending elegance to the parable, signifying that on the day of judgment the elect will not be moved by the misery of the reprobates, nor will they help them in anyway, indeed they will not be able to help them, but rather will silently condemn them, because they had neglected to use the time of this present life, given by God for good works.  Saint Augustine says of these words of the prudent virgins, “This is not the answer of persons giving advice, but of those who deride.  For they were not wise of themselves but the wisdom in them was that of which it is written (Proverbs 1: 24) Because I called, and ye refused . . . I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh, when that whereof ye were afraid cometh upon you.”  And as Saint Jerome says upon this passage, “In the day of judgment no one’s virtues will be able to give any assistance to other men’s faults.”  And the Interlinear Gloss adds, “The wise say this not out of avarice, but out of fear.  For in that day the testimony of each shall scarcely suffice for himself, much less for himself and his neighbor also.”  And again, “Now let us see what help they will be to you, who used to sell to you their human praise.”  The Interlinear Gloss quotes this from Saint Gregory; he adds: “The sellers of oil are flatterers.  For they who, when any favor has been received, offer with their vain praises the brightness of glory, sell as it were oil.  This is the oil of which the Psalmist says, Let not the oil of the sinner fatten (anoint) my head.” [Psalm 140: 5]. (Lapide)

Thomistic theology on this issue will make you feel better about the fate of unbaptized infants should you believe such an end is an injustice. For proof that the Limbo of Children is eternal let us see what the Angelic Doctor says:

On the contrary, Even as temporal punishment in purgatory and eternal punishment in hell are due to actual sin, so temporal punishment in the limbo of the Fathers and eternal punishment in the limbo of the children were due to original sin. If, therefore, hell and purgatory be not the same it would seem that neither are the limbo of children and the limbo of the Fathers the same.

I answer that, The limbo of the Fathers and the limbo of children, without any doubt, differ as to the quality of punishment or reward. For children have no hope of the blessed life, (emphasis mine) as the Fathers in limbo had, in whom, moreover, shone forth the light of faith and grace. But as regards their situation, there is reason to believe that the place of both is the same; except that the limbo of the Fathers is placed higher than the limbo of children, just as we have stated in reference to limbo and hell. See Article 6. Is the Limbo of Children the Same as the Limbo of the Fathers.

When putting this together I could not help thinking of Mother Teresa and her plight. She did a ton of natural good in her life.  The sermon of this link by Father Ephrem Cordova, CMRI, entitled "Mother Teresa Canonized" (which speaks to all the reasons she should not be canonized were a true Pope to consider it) helps us understand that all the good works in the world merit nothing eternal if not done in a state of sanctifying grace.  While her life-long devotion to works of mercy may have increased the chance that she was given the grace to repent of any heresy she was guilty of and have a good death with a valid Priest administering Last Rites to her, we should never count on that. Besides, how many of us will do as much good for the poor as she did?

Let us look to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no, not the one the Polish anti-Pope foisted on us in 1992, but The Catechism of Trent (COT) for a better understanding of the dogmatic subject of Hell and the moral subject of Faith:

Dogmatic Subject: Hell—The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into exterior darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8: 12)

The children of the kingdom, i.e., those destined and called to the kingdom as being Israelites, since they were the progeny of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to whom and to whose seed God had promised both the earthly kingdom of Judea, and the spiritual kingdom of eternal glory in heaven.  By a similar Hebrew idiom, they are called children of death, of hell, of the resurrection, to whom death or hell is threatened, or who are destined and assigned to the resurrection promised by God.

Morally, if you are a child of the kingdom, do the works of the kingdom; perform deeds worthy of heaven, live like an angel.  For thus Christ said to the Jews, If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham (John 8: 39)

Into the exterior darkness, of hell.  Christ still keeps up the metaphor of a feast in the kingdom of heaven, a feast, therefore, in which was abundance of light.

And a while later:

Hence Luke 13: 28 says, You shall see. . . yourselves thrust out.  The meaning of the passage is the children of the kingdom of the Jews, destined, for the sake of their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to the kingdom of heaven, on account of their unbelief, in refusing to believe in Christ, shall be excluded from the kingdom and banquet feast of heaven, and shall be driven into the outer darkness of hell. 

Moral Subject: The virtue of Faith—And Jesus hearing this, marveled; and said to them that followed him: Amen I say to you, I have not found so great faith in Israel (Matthew 8: 10).

And Jesus hearing this, marveled, at so much faith, humility, reverence and devotion in the centurion, who was not a Jew, but a gentile.  Hence Origen says, “Consider how great a thing, and what sort of thing, principalities in His sight are as shadows, or as fading flowers.  None of these things, therefore, in His sight are wonderful, as though they were great or precious.  Faith alone is such: this He honors and admires: this He counts acceptable to Himself.”

You will ask, could wonder really exist in Christ?  I presuppose, according to the common opinion of theologians, that in Christ, besides that divine knowledge which He had as God, there was three-fold knowledge, as He was man.  1. Beatific, by which He beheld the essence of God, and in the enjoyment of which He was blessed.  2. Infused, by which, through the species sent into His soul by God, at the very moment of His conception.  He knew all things.  3. Experimental, by which those things which He understood through infused knowledge, He daily saw, heard, and understood through experience.

I answer, therefore, that in Christ wonder did not exist properly and absolutely, as something which flows from the depths of the heart.  For wonder arises in us when we see or hear something new, unusual or unknown.  But Christ, by means of infused knowledge, knew all things before they were done.  Since, therefore, He was omniscient, nothing was to Him new, unknown, unexpected, or wonderful.  Christ, however, stirred up in Himself, as it were, by experimental knowledge, when He met with anything new or wonderful, a certain superficial, as it were, interior act of wonder, and the outward expression of that wonder, that so He might teach others to marvel at the same.  Thus Saint Augustine: “But who was He that had created this faith in him, but only He who now marveled at it?  But even had it come from any other, how should He marvel who knew all things future?  When the Lord marvels, it is only to teach us what we ought to wonder at; for all these emotions in Him are not signs of passion, but examples of a teacher.”  So also Saint Thomas.  Hence a wise man wonders at nothing.  Cyrus, too, the king of Persia, taught his subjects not to wonder that the king is more exalted and higher than any earthly thing.  Someone who, with Saint Paul, has his conversation in heaven, wonders at nothing on earth.  Very well saith Saint Cyprian, “Never will he wonder at human works who has known himself to be a child of God.  He has been cast down from the height of his nobility, who is able to admire anything after God.”

And said to them that followed him: Amen I say to you, I have not found so great faith in Israel.  Arabic: “in anyone from Israel”.  The Greek is more forceful: “Nor in Israel have I found so much faith”, as in the gentile centurion.  When Christ says, I have not found so great faith in Israel, you must understand Him to speak of the ordinary run of people at the time of His preaching, for there was without doubt greater faith in the Blessed Virgin, in Abraham and Moses, and John the Baptist, and others.  Or as Saint Chrysostom interprets it, I have not found so great faith, that is, in proportion, for this centurion was a gentile; those were believing Israelites; hence the same faith in the former was more wonderful and admirable than in the latter.  The same Saint Chrysostom reckons the faith of the centurion greater than the faith of Martha and Mary Magdalen.  Hear Saint Chrysostom: “Andrew believed, but it was when John said, Behold the Lamb of God.  Peter believed, but it was when Andrew had told him the good news.  Philip believed, but by reading the scriptures.  And Nathanael first received a sign of Christ’s divinity, and then offered the profession of his faith.”  Hear likewise Origen: “Jairus, a prince of Israel, asking in behalf of his daughter, said not, “Say in a word”, but “Come quickly”.  Nicodemus, when he heard of the sacrament of faith, answered, “How can these things be?”  Martha and Mary said, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died, as though doubting that the power of God is everywhere present.”

Some protestants are loath to admit that you can believe in Jesus and still end up in Hell forever.  The Gospel of Saint Mathew chapters five through seven, and much else from scripture, prove this wish false.  The beloved Catechism of Trent (COT) has this snippet on Hell:

DIFFERENT ABODES CALLED “HELL”

These abodes are not all of the same nature, for among them is that most loathsome and dark prison in which the souls of the damned are tormented with the unclean spirits in eternal and inextinguishable fire.  This place is called gehenna, the bottomless pit, and is hell strictly so-called. (Underlines mine)

Many who refer to themselves as Catholics also seem to have a protestant mentality of Hell as well, at least regarding their actions.  They live in habitual mortal sin and seem to have the least care in the world when it comes to their eternal fate.  After all, they wear the brown scapular.  Right?  They form habitual mortal sins, perhaps before realizing it is a mortal sin and then can’t give it up, so they convince themselves that it is nothing to worry about.  “Our Lady will certainly take care of me on my death bed.”, they reassure themselves. But as the following link shows, the brown scapular is not a good luck charm, it must be worn devoutly.  It is not a “get out of jail free” card.  The Just and Merciful God does not allow us to “get away” with sin.  We are punished for all our sins in this and or the next life.  Temporarily and or eternally.  We can have a deeper faith than Saint Paul had during his last years and burn eternally.  I talked to an older person who was raised in the Church before Vatican “2” (V2) and she told me she believed the good she did would outweigh her mortal sins and she would be saved.  She somehow believed one could die with mortal sin on her soul and still be saved so long as she did more good than evil.  This was not a person that lacked intelligence.  She slowly got brainwashed after V2 until she lost the faith it seems to me.  We more readily believe what we prefer to believe than the truth quite often, but where does that get us in the end?  Let us look to the all-encompassing Summa for the answer:

On the contrary, It is written (1 Corinthians 6:9-10): "Neither fornicators . . . nor adulterers," etc. "shall possess the kingdom of God." Yet many are such who practice works of mercy. Therefore the merciful will not all come to the eternal kingdom: and consequently some of them will be punished eternally.

Further, it is written (James 2:10): "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all." Therefore whoever keeps the law as regards the works of mercy and omits other works, is guilty of transgressing the law, and consequently will be punished eternally.

I answer that, As Augustine says in the book quoted above (De Civ. Dei xxi, 22), some have maintained that not all who have professed the Catholic faith will be freed from eternal punishment, but only those who persevere in works of mercy, although they be guilty of other crimes. But this cannot stand, because without charity nothing can be acceptable to God, nor does anything profit unto eternal life in the absence of charity. Now it happens that certain persons persevere in works of mercy without having charity. Wherefore nothing profits them to the meriting of eternal life, or to exemption from eternal punishment, as may be gathered from 1 Corinthians 13:3. Most evident is this in the case of those who lay hands on other people's property, for after seizing on many things, they nevertheless spend something in works of mercy. We must therefore conclude that all whosoever die in mortal sin, neither faith nor works of mercy will free them from eternal punishment, not even after any length of time whatever. [Supplement, Question 99, Article 5]

As we can see towards the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Hell is a distinct possibility for many who claim to believe in, love, and even work miracles in the name of Jesus:

And then will I profess unto them: I never knew you: depart from Me, you that work iniquity. (Saint Matthew, chapter 7, verse 23)

See the Haydock commentary below:

So as to approve and reward your works. Here he shews that even prophecy and miracles will not save us without good works. (Menochius) --- How much less will faith, unassisted by good works, preserve us from condemnation. (Haydock) --- The gift of miracles is bestowed on men not for their own good, but for the advantage of others. We must not then be surprised if men, who had indeed faith in Christ, but whose lives did not correspond with their faith, should be honoured with these extraordinary gifts, since the Almighty sometimes employs as his instruments in working similar wonders, men destitute both of faith and virtue. Balaam, void of faith and probity [virtue – J.G.], still by the will of God, prophesied for the advantage of others. To Pharao and Nabuchodonosor were revealed future events of the greatest moment; and the wicked Judas himself cast out devils. Therefore St. Paul said, "if I had all faith so as to remove mountains, and if I knew all mysteries, and was possessed of all wisdom, but had not charity, I am nothing." (St. John Chrysostom)

Below is a commentary of the Church Fathers which Saint Thomas put together in his Catena Aurea which should help solidify or reinforce our orthodoxy on this topic:

Jerome: As He had said above that those who have the robe of a good life are yet not to be received because of the impiety of their doctrines; so now on the other hand, He forbids us to participate in faith with those who while they are strong in sound doctrine, destroy it with evil works. For it behooves the servants of God that both their work should be approved by their teaching and their teaching by their works.

And therefore He says, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, enters into the kingdom of Heaven."

St. John Chrysostom: Wherein He seems to touch the Jews chiefly who placed every thing in dogmas; as Paul accuses them, "If thou art called a Jew, and restest [rest] in the Law."

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Otherwise; Having taught that the false prophets and the true are to be discerned by their fruits, He now goes on to teach more plainly what are the fruits by which we are to discern the godly from the ungodly teachers.

St. Augustine: For even in the very name of Christ we must be on our guard against heretics, and all that understand amiss and love this world, that we may not be deceived, and therefore He says, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord."

But it may fairly create a difficulty how this is to be reconciled with that of the Apostle, "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." [1 Cor 12: 3] For we cannot say that those who are not to enter into the kingdom of heaven have the Holy Spirit. But the Apostle uses the word 'say,' to express the will and understanding of him that says it. He only properly says a thing, who by the sound of his voice expresses his will and purpose. But the Lord uses the word in its ordinary sense, for he seems to say who neither wishes nor understands what he says.

St. Jerome: For Scripture uses to take words for deeds; according to which the Apostle declares, "They make confession that they know God, but in works deny him." [Titus 1: 16]

(Ambrosiaster Comm.) (From a commentary formerly thought to be from Saint Ambrose - JG) in 1 Cor 12: 3: For all truth by whomsoever uttered is from the Holy Spirit.

St. Augustine: Let us not therefore think that this belongs to those fruits of which He had spoken above, when one says to our Lord, "Lord, Lord;" and thence seems to us to be a good tree; the true fruit spoken of is to do the will of God; whence it follows, "But who doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven."

St. Hilary: For obeying God's will and not calling on His name, shall find the way to the heavenly kingdom.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: And what the will of God is the Lord Himself teaches, "This is," He says, "the will of him that sent Me, that every man that seeth the Son and believeth on him should have eternal life." [John 6: 40] The word believe has reference both to confession and conduct. He then who does not confess Christ, or does not walk according to His word, shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

St. John Chrysostom: He said not "he that doth" My "will," but "the will of My Father," for it was fit so to adapt it in the mean while to their weakness. But the one secretly implied the other, seeing the will of the Son is no other than the will of the Father.

St. Augustine: Here it also pertains that we be not deceived by the name of Christ not only in such as bear the name and do not the deeds, but yet more by certain works and miracles, such as the Lord wrought because of the unbelieving, but yet warned us that we should not be deceived by such to suppose that there was invisible wisdom where was a visible miracle; wherefore He adds, saying, "Many shall say to Me in that day."

St. John Chrysostom: See how He thus secretly brings in Himself. Here in the end of His Sermon He shews Himself as the Judge. The punishment that awaits sinners He had shewn before, but now only reveals who He is that shall punish, saying, "Many shall say to Me in that day."

Pseudo-Chrysostom: When, namely, He shall come in the majesty of His Father; when none shall any more dare with strife of many words either to defend a lie, or to speak against the truth, when each man's work shall speak, and his mouth be silent, when none shall come forward for another, but each shall fear for himself. For in that judgment the witnesses shall not be flattering men, but Angles speaking the truth, and the Judge is the righteous Lord; whence He closely images the cry of men fearful, and in straits, saying, "Lord, Lord." For to call once is not enough for him who is under the necessity of terror.

St. Hilary: They even assure themselves of glory for their prophesying in teaching, for their casting our demons, for their mighty works; and hence promise themselves the kingdom of Heaven, saying, "Have we not prophesied in Thy name?"

St. John Chrysostom: But there are that say that they spoke this falsely, and therefore were not saved. But they would not have dared to say this to the Judge in His presence. But the very answer and question prove that it was in His presence that they spoke thus. For having been here wondered at by all for the miracles which they wrought, and there seeing themselves punished, they say in wonderment, "Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?" Others again say, that they did sinful deeds not while they thus were working miracles, but at a time later. But if this be so, that very thing which the Lord desired to prove would not be established, namely, that neither faith nor miracles avail ought where there is not a good life; as Paul also declares, "If I have faith that I may remove mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing." [1 Cor 13: 2]

Pseudo-Chrysostom: But note that He says, "in My name," not in My Spirit; for they prophesy in the name of Christ, but with the spirit of the Devil; such are the diviners. But they may be known by this, that the Devil sometimes speaks falsely, the Holy Spirit never. Howbeit it is permitted to the Devil sometimes to speak the truth, that he may commend his lying by this his rare truth. Yet they cast out demons in the name of Christ, though they have the spirit of his enemy; or rather, they do not cast them out, but seem only to cast them out, the daemons [demons] acting in concert with them. Also they do mighty works, that is, miracles, not such as are useful and necessary, but useless and fruitless.

Augustine: Read also what things the Magi did in Egypt in withstanding Moses.

St. Jerome: Otherwise; To prophesy, to work wonders, to cast out daemons  by divine power, is often not of his deserts who performs the works, but either the invocation of Christ's name has this force; or it is suffered for the condemnation of those that invoke, or for the benefit of those that see and hear, that however they despise the men who work the wonders, they may give honour to God. So Saul and Balaam and Caiaphas prophesied; the sons of Scaeva in the Acts of the Apostles were seen to cast out daemons; and Judas with the soul of a traitor is related to have wrought many signs among the other Apostles.

St. John Chrysostom: For all are not alike fit for all things; these are of pure life, but have not so great faith; those again have the reverse. Therefore God converted these by the means of those to the shewing forth much faith; and those that had faith He called by this unspeakable gift of miracles to a better life; and to that end gave them this grace in great richness. And they say, "We have done many mighty works." But because they were ungrateful towards those who thus honoured them, it follows rightly, "Then will I confess unto you, I never knew you."

Pseudo-Chrysostom: For great wrath ought to be preceded by great forbearance, that the sentence of God may be made more just, and the death of the sinners more merited. God does not know sinners because they are not worthy that they should be known of God; not that He altogether is ignorant concerning them, but because He knows them not for His own. For God knows all men according to nature, but He seems not to know them for that He loves them not, as they seem not to know God who do not serve Him worthily.

St. John Chrysostom: He says to them, "I never knew you," as it were, not at the day of judgment only, but not even then when ye were working miracles. For there are many whom He has now in abhorrence, and yet turns away His wrath before their punishment.

St. Gregory: By this sentence it is given to us to learn, that among men charity and humility, and not mighty works, are to be esteemed. Whence also now the Holy Church, if there be any miracles of heretics, despises them, because she knows that they have not the mark of holiness. And the proof of holiness is not to work miracles, but to love our neighbour as ourselves, to think truly of God, and of our neighbor better than of ourselves.

St. Augustine: But never let it be said as the Manichees say, that the Lord spoke these things concerning the holy Prophets; He spoke of those who after the preaching of His Gospel seem to themselves to speak in His name not knowing what they speak.

St. Hilary: But thus the hypocrites boasted, as though they spoke somewhat of themselves, and as though the power of God did not work all these things, being invoked; but reading has brought them the knowledge of His doctrine, and the name of Christ casts out the daemons. Out of our own selves then is that blessed eternity to be earned, and out of ourselves must be put forth something that we may will that which is good, that we may avoid all evil, and may rather do what He would have us do, than boast of that to which He enables us. These then He disowns and banishes for their evil works, saying, "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

St. Jerome: He says not, Who have worked, but "who work iniquity," that He should not seem to take away repentance. "Ye," that is, who up to the present hour when the judgment is come, though ye have not the opportunity, yet retain the desire of sinning.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: For death separates the soul from the body, but changes not the purpose of the heart.

Conclusion

Yes, some Protestants pit faith against good works as if the one is necessary for salvation and the other is not.  But this is not an “either or” topic but a “both and."  When it comes to faith and good works, you can’t have one without the other for salvation to be possible. 

ADDENDUM 12/18/24

To My Readers: I have never added an addendum to a guest posters' work before, but I feel the need to do so. I am so grateful to have John Gregory and Dominic Caggeso  as guest posters. They are good Traditionalists and great writers who keep this blog going. I thank God for sending them and I pray for them. 

Recently, there has been some rabid Feeneyites commenting on Dominic's last post, and now on John's post. They are also Hitler Fanboys. I never run from controversy and debate. However, there comes a time you must say, "Enough of your blather!" I have answered all their arguments repeatedly and have posted against Feeneyism numerous times. They just repeat the same tired script from Fred and Bobby Dimwit (aka the "Dimond brothers") and show an incapacity for original and critical thinking.

Now, I have received numerous comments calling myself and my guest posters vile names, accusing us of being "secret Jews" (of course), and promoting MHFM. It is not fair to my guest posters or to the 99% of my sane readers with genuine questions, comments or disagreements they would like answered by the poster. I have not and will not publish vile comments and promotions of MHFM.I am cutting off Feeneyite and Hitler Fanboy comments unless the post deals specifically with Feeneyism in the future. 

Anyone who wants to read me destroying Bobby Dimond (who actually commented here), please read these two posts:

https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-dimonds-ensoulment-and-baptism-of.html

https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/03/contending-for-faith-part-25.html

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Fr. DePauw And Malachi Martin Discuss The 1983 Code Of Canon Law

 

Last week, I promised all my readers a unique post, one that would be historic. Indeed, it is a snippet of Traditionalist history, one that has never been made public until today.  Two giants in the nascent Traditionalist movement would meet in person for the first (and only) time. Let me set forth the background first:

It was February 2, 1983, and I did something I had never done before in my life; I skipped school. I was a model student, and unlike most teens, however, I was not out causing trouble that day, nor committing sin in the name of "fun." I had become a Traditionalist on November 1st of 1981, and the priest who converted me, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, was going to be live on the radio, WOR-AM, New York! That past Sunday, Father announced from the pulpit that he had been invited to appear on the Sherry Henry Show at 10AM on February 2nd. Ms. Henry would interview interesting people from all walks of life concerning topics of current interest.  She invited Fr. DePauw to be her guest to discuss the so-called "New Code of Canon Law" that would take effect in November of that year under Wojtyla (John Paul II).

Fr. DePauw was the perfect man for the interview since he was a canon lawyer, a peritus (i.e., theological expert) at Vatican II, and in 1964 was the founder of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement. He was the first Catholic priest to publicly warn of the disaster of Vatican II while the Robber Council was still going on. He fought against the Modernists at Vatican II, and told all Catholics to stay out of the new sect and fight for "Truth and Tradition." God had used Fr. DePauw to keep His One True Church alive and going during a Great Apostasy.

Ms. Henry was no Traditionalist, but a flaming Modernist and Socialist. She claimed to want a balanced view on the topic, so she invited Fr. DePauw and told him that she had also invited someone who would strongly support the New Code and debate with him; Malachi Martin. Father DePauw replied that he knew of the former Jesuit and current best-selling author from Vatican II, but they had never met during the Council, and he would have no problem defending the truth against him. 

In days before computers and the Internet, I begged my parents to let me stay home and use my little rusted tape recorder to tape the show off the hand-held radio I had. To my great surprise and joy, they agreed to let me be "sick" that day!  I waited with baited breath in my room at 9:55, all set to record the show. At 10 AM, Ms. Henry introduced Fr. DePauw. She asked Father why he thought the New Code would be bad, and he wasted no time launching into the evil canons and the devastating effects they would carry--all while Sherry Henry kept interrupting Father. Ms. Henry blindsided Fr. DePauw by having as a phone-in guest an apostate nun who was lauded as some ersatz "expert" and was Modernist to the core. Modernists, never ones to fight fairly and honestly, wanted to make this a "two against one" attack on the True Faith and Father DePauw.  

Then, she introduced Malachi Martin, and asked him about why he thought the New Code was good. To the shock of Ms. Henry, Fr. DePauw, and the listening audience (who heard Martin billed as a proponent of the New Code), Martin stated he was in agreement with Fr. DePauw!

The rest of the show (which included taking calls from listeners) had Fr. DePauw and Malachi Martin bashing the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Ms. Henry was beside herself., and said she was not properly informed about the views of Martin. Henry wished she had on "Bishop" Mugavero. ("Bishop" Mugavero was the invalidly consecrated Vatican II sect "bishop" of the Diocese of Brooklyn, and a notorious Modernist. He was one of the very first priests to be invalidly consecrated in 1968, after the death of Abp. Bryan McEntegart.). Henry's producers, and everyone involved, were under the impression that Martin was "progressive" and would defend the new Code. Malachi Martin made no attempt to explain why he would allow himself to be billed as a "theological liberal" leading up to the show, only to agree with Fr. DePauw during the show. 

During the broadcast, Fr. DePauw said he was told he would meet an intelligent priest in Malachi Martin who would disagree with him, and instead he turned out to be an intelligent priest who "reached the same intelligent conclusions" that he did.

The show ended abruptly, with Henry giving a Modernist final word. Father would not tell me what happened the following Sunday, but he was not happy. He and Malachi Martin would discuss things after the show, and it really changed how he initially viewed him that day when he thought he had seen the light.  Fr. went into the show remembering the bad things he had heard about him while they both were at Vatican II.  Although he never told me exactly what transpired, he was not fooled as to Malachi Martin. Martin was a  theological chameleon, changing views to accommodate whatever cleric he was with at the time. He was not a friend of the Church. 

Fast forward forty-one (41) years. I saw the old tape I kept in my personal library and contacted a friend of mine to see if he could take the old audio and upload it to YouTube. He did so, editing out the commercials as best he could, and he removed Sheri Henry's closing monologue at my request. Below is the link to that show recorded live, by me, on February 2, 1983. At the time, Father was R&R, trying his best to navigate through the early years of the Great Apostasy; Vatican II having ended only slightly over 15 years earlier. I hope you enjoy the step-back in time, and please let me know what you think in the comments below in this post.  The show begins at the one minute mark. 

Link: https://youtu.be/UxoMRIv1JJ0

Contending For The Faith---Part 34

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Don't Be Fooled: The Duplicitous Malachi Martin

As there are many Traditionalists (even clergy) who respect the famous author and Jesuit Malachi Martin (d. 1999), this post will serve to expose this man as no friend of the truth. He tried to ingratiate himself with those who were around him at any given time, being (at various times) a sedevacantist, a recognize and resister, and a "conservative" Vatican II sect member. Next month will be a very special post and Martin will be prominent in it. This week, leading up to that post, I will simply let the facts speak for themselves. 

Martin's Background

Malachi Brendan Martin was born July 23, 1921 in County Kerry, Ireland. He was one of ten children, five boys and five girls. Four of the five Martin boys became priests. In 1939 he became a novice of the Jesuit Order and was ordained to the priesthood on the Feast of Our Lady's Assumption in 1954. Fr. Martin was an academic, having gone to the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium, where he took a doctorate in archaeology, oriental history and semitic languages.

Martin worked as personal secretary to the closet Modernist Cardinal Bea, and was close personal friends with arch-Modernist (and fellow Jesuit) Fr. John Courtney Murray, who was the guiding force behind the heretical Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae, on so-called "religious liberty," which had been many times condemned by the True Church. Some theologians at the Council claim that Martin helped to fashion the heretical document Nostra Aetate which discusses the "relationship" of the Church to non-Christian religions. It also "absolves" the Jews of being the Deicide race, and it has been alleged that Martin had Jewish relatives, although there is no substantial proof of the claim. 

In February of 1965, for reasons not altogether clear, Martin asked for what is known in canon law as qualified exclaustration, which authorizes a priest to live for a limited time as a layman without exercising priestly faculties and free from all clerical obligations other than celibacy. This favor is granted only when there is reasonable hope that the cleric will recover his priestly vocation, which makes it more of an enigma since Martin claims he never stopped being a priest. This dispensation was granted by Montini (Paul VI).

 He came to the United States, working odd jobs until finally making it big as an author. His first best-seller was the novel Hostage to the Devil, published in 1975 and tells the story of five alleged demonic possessions. He was able to build on the sensation generated by William Peter Blatty's book and blockbuster movie The Exorcist (1973).  According to Martin's book (which purports to relate facts), the former Jesuit participated in several exorcisms, yet in a 1996 radio interview he claimed to have assisted in several hundred exorcisms. He wrote four other best-sellers, and died in his NYC apartment four days after his 78th birthday in 1999, having suffered from a cerebral hemorrhage in the wake of falling in his apartment. 

Was Martin Really Celibate?

 The book Clerical Error? by Robert Blair Kaiser raises some serious questions about Martin. The author, Mr. Kaiser, was a former Jesuit who left the order to marry and claims that when he was a reporter at Vatican II, Malachi Martin had an affair with his wife Susan. Defenders of Martin will be quick to point out that Kaiser was a Modernist himself, and had a psychiatric disorder which made him paranoid. There are, however, two really damaging pieces of information that are not easily dismissed. Mr.John Grasmeier put together documentation of Martin's affair.

One piece of evidence is a letter to Robert B. Kaiser from heretic Fr. John Courtney Murray (a friend to both Martin and Kaiser) written July 10, 1964. According to Grasmeier, "The letter touches on a few items relevant to the Malachi Martin saga. One being that although Father John Murray stands fast in his (non-qualified) assessment of Kaiser’s pyscological state, he apologizes to Kaiser and admits that it has been made clear to him that Martin and Mrs. Kaiser were indeed having an affair. He talks about the now infamous love letters from Martin to Kaiser’s wife, 'Martin’s apostasy from the Society' and the fact that he doesn’t know where Martin and Kaiser’s wife are."

The second piece of evidence is a six-page letter from Fr. William Van Etten Casey dated November 1, 1965 to Archbishop H. E. Cardinale, the Vatican Apostolic Delegate to the United Kingdom. Its purpose was to advocate for an annulment of the Kaisers' marriage. 

Was Martin Really a Bishop?

Martin became friends with Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy (hereinafter "Dr. C") sometime in the late 1980s-early 1990s. Dr. C was a thoracic surgeon and psychiatrist who rejected the Vatican II sect from the beginning. He was a professor of Church History at the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) seminary located (at that time) in Connecticut which was where Dr. C and his wife lived. Sedevacantism was an idea advocated by Dr. C, and he influenced many of the seminarians. When the sedevacantist Society of St Pius V (SSPV), broke away from the SSPX in 1984, Dr. C joined them. In 1989, he left the SSPV over the issue of the validity of the Thuc consecrations (Dr. C believed --correctly--they were valid).

 Dr. C wrote several excellent Traditionalist books and articles. [N.B. Despite his admirable writing, Coomaraswamy was himself involved in the occult. I will publish a post about him at a later date---Introibo]. In the late 1990s he wanted to become a priest himself. There was one problem; he was married. The SSPV and SSPX would not even consider him a candidate on that basis alone. However, he found a Thuc bishop, Bp. Jose Gaston-Lopez, willing to ordain him if he and his wife took public vows of celibacy. Dr. C's ordination was attacked by Fr. Anthony Cekada. Dr (Fr) C responded with an online article entitled, "In Defense of My Ordination." Apparently there was a dispute over whether or not Bp. Lopez imposed his hands on Dr C's head at the essential part of the rite. There are two pictures posted in the article by Dr/Fr C that clearly show Bp. Gaston-Lopez being assisted by Malachi Martin. The article makes the following disturbing statement, "One problem arose. One of the people present thought Bishop Lopez-Gaston didn’t actually touch my head during the critical part of the rite. I of course cannot bear witness to this as I was too much too involved in the process of ordination to check on such a detail. I however recently looked at the photographs which were taken and offer two as evidence to the contrary.However, my close friend and mentor, Bishop Malachi Martin, stated that he wished there to be absolutely no doubt about my ordination. He therefore proceeded to conditionally re-ordain me. Hence it is that I received the graces of Ordination from a double source." (Emphasis mine). 

 It seems that Martin claimed (with no known proof) that Pope Pius XII had consecrated him a bishop in pectore (i.e., secretly) to do work behind the Iron Curtain. As Martin was ordained a priest in 1954 (the year when the pope's health took a serious turn for the worse) it is even more dubious that he would be chosen, let alone consecrated by the ailing Pontiff. Not impossible, but dubious, given the circumstances and lack of any substantial evidence apart from Martin's ipse dixit. (See http://www.the-pope.com/validity.html)

This brings us to the next important question:

Was Martin a Sedevacantist?

 As noted above, Martin was friends with one of the most famous Traditionalists, Dr/Fr C, and even participated in at least one sedevacantist conferral of a sacrament. There is no way Martin can claim ignorance as to the theological positions of either Dr/Fr C or Bp.Gaston-Lopez. However, there are other facts that show Martin clearly recognizing the so-called post-V2 "popes."

• Martin was a huge supporter of "Fr" Nicholas Gruner, the invalidly ordained publisher of the "Fatima Crusader." Martin also claimed to know the Third Secret of Fatima. In an article published in the US News and World Report, Martin claimed he agreed with "Fr" Gruner that the Consecration of Russia had not been performed correctly by the "pope" (JPII)

• Just two years before his death (1997) said that the Thuc consecrations were valid but illicit. This would only hold true if he accepted  JPII as "pope" or was a "Home Aloner."

• On more than one occasion, claimed Cardinal Siri had been elected pope in 1958 and resigned under pressure, yet did not denounce Roncalli and Montini (John XXIII and Paul VI) as false popes--the logical corollary.

Malachi Martin: Liar or Lunatic?

 Martin appeared more than once on the Art Bell radio show. Mr. Bell's show, Coast to Coast,is the on-air version of the National Enquirer. It focuses on the occult and the bizarre. In April of 1997, he appeared on the Art Bell Show and made a number of truly alarming statements--claims so strange you can (literally) doubt if he ever had the faith--or possibly even his sanity. No person with an ounce of integrity would want to go on Art Bell's show. It immediately destroys one's credibility. Fr. DePauw, or Abp. Lefebvre would never even have considered it. Here's just some of what Martin had to say from the transcript of the show:

On Separation of Church and State and Abortion (Bell is a libertarian):

"I also share this view[libertarianism]. I do not believe that human governments have anything to say to the inner decisions of a man or woman. Those decisions must be made in the light of their religious education and their religious tradition. But the last thing in the world that I want to interfere with, that is government. They should have nothing to do with it. For instance, one of the difficulties of the abortion discussion today in America is that its become politized (sic). Its become a political football."(Emphasis mine)

On Shamans (Pagan witch doctors): "I'll tell you Art what I think, now that you've asked a personal opinion of a very difficult subject, but my experience is the following and I'm not merely taking about Native Americans...I have seen such miracles of cure and restitution and de-possession worked by these people, including Native Americans--really shamans--you know, the old type. Because of my beliefs I must conclude that my Lord Jesus Christ in whom I believe and who is the source of all power, has used them in their innocence and their faith, to cure people outside the reach of a Catholic priest like me. I cannot deny that...There are people who have nothing to do with Catholicism or with some of them, Christianity. But it has worked and I've had that experience and I can't deny it." (Emphasis mine)

On his ability to see Satan and demons: "I was standing on a stool in my apartment, reaching for a book and I saw him. He was crouched on the floor looking at me. His body was like a muscular pit bull terrier, but the face was recognizably human. It was the Devil's face. I recognised the eyes. They were eyes of the coldest, deadliest hatred. When the Devil sprang at me, I fell from my stool and broke my shoulder, but I felt fortunate. I had seen Satan and I had lived." (This quote came from a another source--the next quote is directly from Art Bell's show) "Yes, I do that. I, I do that. I've got second vision. When the demon is there, when the demon is in possession, yes I do"

From the July 11, 1997 Art Bell show, he claims to believe in lycanthropy, i.e. werewolves (!):

Lance Foxx: "This is Lance, a fifth time caller from Park Hills, Missouri." 

Art Bell: "All right." Father Malachi Martin: "Um-hum." 

Lance Foxx: "I'd like to ask your quest- your guest a question." 

Father Malachi Martin: "Sure." 

Lance Foxx: "Is it possible for a person to be a lycanthrope and not be evil?" (long pause) 

Father Malachi Martin: "Um..." (an even longer pause) 

Father Malachi Martin: "Yes. It is possible. Within the framework of your question, I must say, yes. It is possible. It is possible." 

Lance Foxx: "In other words, can lycanthropy be kind of a gift?" 

Father Malachi Martin: "Yes. It can be. Like everything else, it can have a good purpose or an evil purpose." 

Good and bad werewolves? Sounds like a weird, occult Netflix series.

Conclusion

 Malachi Martin was the ultimate chameleon; a man who changes his beliefs to fit his audience and tell them what they want to hear. Does he even have any beliefs of his own? I can't believe the number of people who follow him and quote his novels like Scripture. Yes, he had many insights as to what went on in the Vatican, and I personally believe that a "Black Mass" took place before the start of Vatican II, led by some Cardinals. However, without other corroborating evidence, can you really believe anything he said? 

 At the time of his death, Martin was buried with Mrs  Kakia Livanos, a Greek Orthodox widow of a millionaire. Some claim she was merely his housekeeper and landlady, but one can't help but wonder why he would be buried with her, and why wouldn't she be buried with her late husband? Even if he were buried in Greece, she had the money for burial there. Martin claimed that his fall, which precipitated his death was caused by "an invisible hand" that pushed him. (See http://www.unitypublishing.com/Newsletter/Malachi%20Martin.htm)

 He called on Fr. Paul Wickens (whom I knew personally) to give him the Last Rites. Fr. Wickens was ordained in 1955 for the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. He left the Vatican II sect, and set up his own chapel. For awhile, Fr. Wickens was a Feeneyite, but thankfully, saw the error and abjured it. He worked closely with the SSPX and was not sedevacantist. Martin was buried out of Fr. Wickens' St Anthony of Padua Chapel in New Jersey. If he believed Wojtyla was pope why not ask a FSSP priest for the Last Rites? If he doubted the validity of the new "sacraments" why did he accept "priests" in the new rite as valid, such as "Fr" Gruner?  If he were sedevacantist, why not call a priest of the SSPV nearby? 

 There are more questions than answers to this man's life. I hope he made a sincere and humble confession to Fr. Wickens, and was saved. Nevertheless, I will never be quoting Martin as a reliable, stand-alone source on anything. Stay tuned for a historic post next week!

A Tale Of Two Parishes

 

To My Readers: This week my guest poster, Dominic Caggeso, explores how we should conduct ourselves at sedevacantist churches/chapels for the good of all.  Feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week. 

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

A Tale of Two Parishes

By Dominic Caggeso

Once upon a time, there were two Sedevacantist parishes, each a part of a different Sede group. Both were faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Both parishes were founded in the wake of the Second Vatican Council by devout Catholics who rejected the modernist heresies, the Novus Ordo rites, and the anti-popes. The founding families of each became the pillars of their parish communities, contributing sons and daughters to the priesthood and religious life. These families served as parish secretaries and ushers, cleaned the church, established choirs, donated the bulk of the funds needed for the parish to function, and filled the ranks of altar boys. Despite these many similarities, these parishes had one fundamental and important difference. One parish was narrow-minded, only aspiring to maintain the status quo. It was generally inward-looking and petty. The other parish exuded magnanimity, with a desire to grow; possessing a strong sense of hospitality. The contrasting orientations of these two parishes are highlighted all the more in light of the current state of the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council.

In the current landscape of the Catholic Church, traditional parishes have become a rare and precious resource. There are relatively few places to attend Mass. Fewer still are the dedicated buildings that serve as permanent parishes or mission chapels. Among those, even fewer parishes exist today that match the size and activity level of pre-Conciliar parishes. This rarity can be likened to oases in the desert, each one of immeasurable importance. This scarcity automatically spotlights the importance of this handful of truly Catholic parishes, raising them up as icons and examples by which the concept of Sedevacantism will be formed in the minds of outsiders.

Beyond just being standard bearers, Sede parishes/chapels also serve as first points of real-life contact for those searching for true Catholicism. For these souls, the shock of seeing the true state of the Catholic Church can be intense. Often, in embracing the true Faith, they are faced with changes to their employment, dress, beliefs, speech, and/or family relationships. The stakes are high for them, and they appreciate and need support and encouragement.

Given the challenges they face, it is crucial for Sede parishes to help make their transitions as easy and smooth as possible. We should be prepared to think and act beyond our comfort zones, keeping the bigger picture in mind and expanding our horizons past our personal concerns. We must remember that the parish environments we help create will often be the first encounter with a Catholic community for those coming out of the Novus Ordo. It is already very challenging to be a true Catholic today; we should not compound this difficulty by unforced errors and difficulties. The rarity of true Catholic parishes places a responsibility on our shoulders that is qualitatively different from pre-Conciliar parishes. Having received much from God, much is expected of us in return.

Thus, the difference between our two hypothetical parishes can mean the difference between newcomers sticking their landing or bouncing off, back to the Indult, Novus Ordo, or indifference. Charity towards our neighbor should compel us to stretch ourselves into new orbits of virtue and self-sacrifice in order to form a loving Catholic family ready to accept new members.

A Catholic Parish is like a Catholic Family

In many ways, a Catholic parish resembles a family: with traditions, communication styles, shared outlooks, and cultures contributing to their distinctive character. Just as each family has unique traits, so too do Catholic parishes. In a family, the tone is generally set by the parents. If the father is engaging, selfless, sacrificial, pious, joyful, firm, confident, loving, and easy-going, the children will thrive in an environment that fosters outward growth. The mother, complementing the tone set by her husband, creates a nurturing environment with her feminine touch. Conversely, a family struggles when led by a father who views family life as a duty rather than a joy and religion as mere rules instead of a loving relationship with God. A materialistic, grumpy, disinterested, and stingy father hinders his children's growth. With such a father, a virtuous mother can only do so much to influence the family’s tone. Without heroic virtue, she may even become embittered, further worsening the situation. 

From my experience as a Sedevacantist who has come out of the Novus Ordo and has made my way through a half dozen Traditional Catholic parishes, I’ve noticed differences between them that resemble the spectrum of familial characteristics noted above. Just as a father of a natural family is a tone-setter, so to is the bishop and/or the priest likewise. And just as the wife can complement the husband or work against him, so too can the religious (if the parish has any) or the lay helpers aid the mission of the priest or frustrate his plans.

No matter where our personal families or our Catholic parishes fall on this spectrum, it is never too late to improve. With this sincere desire, a great place to begin in this worthwhile endeavor is with the heart.

The Core of the Issue

The Latin word for “heart” is “cor”. This Latin word is at the root of the English word “courage”. The core difference between magnanimity and pusillanimity is the amount of fire in the heart. If we truly want our hearts inflamed with charity, we must have them lit on fire by Our Lord’s Sacred Heart. We must give ourselves totally to God in prayer and frequent the Sacraments as much as possible. In loving God, we will learn to love our neighbors, as St. John the Evangelist tells us.

“Let us therefore love God, because God first hath loved us. If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother; he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother, whom he seeth, how can he love God, whom he seeth not?” - 1 John 4: 19-20

We must enlarge our hearts, and let them serve as the engines that propel us to action and interaction inside our parishes. 

The Power of Our Ears

Having swelled our hearts with a love of God and a desire to do His will, one is faced with deciding how to practically live out this love. Inevitably, it will manifest in our interactions with others. In the realm of interpersonal relationships, there is one tactic, one “trick” or perhaps, one method that I have learned and practiced with great success. This is the art of listening.

I cannot express how much happiness and harmony can be generated in a parish by having a couple good listeners on hand. Listening doesn’t always mean just passively sitting still while someone is talking. Instead, to truly listen to someone, one must create a space in your mind for the other person to dwell. To listen to someone means to actively think in between the lines of their words, putting yourself in their shoes, asking pertinent questions and remembering the answers. To master this art, one has to be almost more interested in what the speaker is saying than he is himself. 

The amount of fulfillment and satisfaction that the speaker experiences when someone truly listens, at length, will win for you a new friend. Refrain from too much direct negativity, instead offering any necessary rebukes or corrections softly and gently, as you might imagine St. Francis De Sales doing. 

Visit Each Other

One of the most basic activities that binds a parish together in Christian charity is simply visiting others in their homes and inviting them into yours. This practice fosters a sense of belonging and mutual support, crucial for a vibrant parish. A picture says a thousand words, and likewise, you will be known by others and will get to know others so much better by seeing each others dwellings. Sharing personal stories at home strengthens bonds that extend beyond the parish setting. Meaningful and personal conversations take place in living and dining rooms. These interactions create a foundation for a more unified parish. 

Back to Our Two Parishes

Lets now return to our hypothetical tale of two parishes. Though they appear similar on paper, they create two different and distinct experiences for those who are part of them. Lets take a closer look at these two parishes and hopefully we can extract some insights. We can compare the two by placing them each in two real-life situations and observe how they respond differently.

Scenario 1 – A new family walks through the parish’s doors for the first time.

A new family, by God’s grace, has just rejected the errors of the Second Vatican Council and has seen the logic and Catholicity of the Sede position. They are still a bit rough around the edges, not yet dressing as modest as they should. Their children are somewhat unruly and worldly. However, the father and mother are humble and sincere. They have just left a booming Indult parish and are somewhat shocked at the meager means of the Sede world. Yet, they are driven by a genuine search for Catholic Truth.

The Petty Parish – The bickering cliques of the petty parish have created a cold and unwelcoming environment. As a consequence, only one or two parishioners approach the new family, and the few that do offer a canned greeting. They try to point out, with a matter of fact smile and with no apparent personal discomfort, that the dress code for women is to cover their upper arms and the children should wear dress shoes and a nice shirt, at the bare minimum. They inquire as to what church they are coming from, and then let them know about the parish picnic that is two months away before saying good-bye. The other, less friendly parishioners walk past them without making eye contact, instead heading straight to their comfort zone of friends whom they talk to each and every Sunday after Mass.

The Magnanimous Parish – Each of the various cliques of the parish has a good relationship with the others. Friendly comments, questions about others’ family members, or the offering of prayers for each other's crosses are frequent occurrences. As a consequence, the environment of the parish is lively and joyful, as the parishioners are actively trying to lift each other up, despite their differences. The new family is approached by at least three or four parishioners, often getting interrupted by others who are too shy to make first contact but still want to meet them. The new family’s children are given special attention by parish adults, who ask their names and ages and try to get them to smile, even introducing them to some of the parish children. The problem of immodest dress is not immediately addressed by the parishioners as it is too much of an abrasive subject to bring up right away. Instead, the parishioners tactfully conspire with each other about the best way to raise the subject before next Sunday. In such a parish, the new family is invited back to at least two parishioners' homes for dinner or a brief get-together, time permitting. In the social hall, the new family is brought into the heart of any number of groups of friends, and the entire group pays special attention to them, working together to make them feel welcome and comfortable. 

Scenario 2 – The parish pastor has just received an inspiration while praying. He announces a new parish festival, occurring each year, on the parish patron saint’s feast day. However good intentioned the pastor’s idea, he has some unrealistic notions for the festival, nonetheless.

The Petty Parish – Upon reading the pastor’s announcement for the new parish festival and learning of the unrealistic expectations he has, the parishioners vent their disapproval on their drives home from church. “That will never work,” “Who is he going to get to do that,” “That’s only one week away from the parish picnic,” are common complaints. By that Monday or Tuesday, the pastor begins to receive emails or text messages, some one or two paragraphs long, expressing the problems with his idea. Suggestions are given about what to do instead. By next Sunday, the two or three families that do the bulk of the work around the parish have dug in their heels against the notion of taking on any additional responsibilities, citing the lack of involvement of so many other parish families. The other parishioners have prepared excuses, ready to apologetically demur from any request to help out. Almost everyone who responds to the pastor does so with negativity, followed by a suggestion. 

The Magnanimous Parish – Just like the petty parish, the magnanimous parish also has a core group of people who do the lion’s share of the work. When the news of the new parish festival is announced, these committed families immediately begin to make mental notes about how to make the pastor’s idea work. They know he has some unrealistic expectations, but their immediate answer is “yes, great” instead of “no, I’m sorry, it won’t work.” Others are brought into the planning, making sure to keep the pastor’s vision in the forefront, and involving him as much as he wishes to be. By creating a sense of synergy and positivity, the group of parish volunteers brings joy to the pastor’s heart, just as a mother or father feels joy seeing their children playing lovingly with each other. In this mood, the pastor is much more inclined to receive suggestions about the festival plans and perhaps come to realize that some of his initial expectations were unrealistic. The environment is not combative, but collaborative and enjoyable.

Conclusion

There are many more examples that would draw out these differences. However, it is late and this article is already long enough. Therefore, to close, I would like to share this quote from St. Augustine that a friend recently shared with me. It highlights the need to maintain unity in matters of Faith and morals but compels us to be easygoing and amicable in matters of lesser importance. Permeating all thoughts and actions, however, is the great virtue of charity.

"In essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity." -St. Augustine