Bad Medicine For Body And Soul: The Errors Of Homeopathy

 

Homeopathic medicine has seen a resurgence in popularity in the past few decades. Many homeopathic remedies are on the shelves at numerous drug stores, as they are typically over-the-counter treatments that customers can purchase without a prescription. Over six million people in the United States, and 200 to 300 million people worldwide, use homeopathy. According to statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), homeopathy is practiced and is available in 40 out of 42 European nations. In France, 95% of all GPs, pediatricians and dermatologists use homeopathic remedies in their practices. The Swiss government recently concluded that homeopathy is “effective, cost-effective and safe.” The Swiss government now recognizes homeopathy as having a status equal to that of ordinary medicine.

  

(See timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/despite-all-odds-homeopathy-continues-to-gain-popularity; See also World Health Report, WHO Global Atlas of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine).

So what difference does the use of an alternative medical treatment have to do with the Faith? In the case of homeopathy, quite a lot. Not only is homeopathy capable of harming your body, it is based on occult ideas from its founder, who was a Freemason. It can lead to the acceptance of spiritual ideas antithetical to the One True Church. This post will outline the origin and purpose of homeopathy, as well as expose its physical and spiritual dangers. (In addition to the sources listed below, I have drawn heavily upon many other papers and books on homeopathy, most notably Samuel Hahnemann, Organon of Medicine, 6th edition, reprint [1978]; and Martin Gumpert, Hahnemann: The Adventurous Career of a Medical Rebel [1945]. My post is my compilation and condensation of the pertinent sources. All credit I give to the appropriate authors, and I take credit only for putting their works into a concise and thorough post.---Introibo). 

Origin and Purpose of Homeopathy

The word “homeopathy” comes from two Greek words which reflect this basic idea; Homoios, meaning like or similar and pathos meaning pain or suffering. Homeopathic medicine, then, is that substance which produces similar pain or suffering in a healthy person to that experienced by a sick person. According to the British National Health Service (NHS):

Homeopathy is a complementary or alternative medicine. This means that homeopathy is different from treatments that are part of conventional Western medicine in important ways.

It's based on a series of ideas developed in the 1790s by a German doctor called Samuel Hahnemann.

A central principle of the "treatment" is that "like cures like" – that a substance that causes certain symptoms can also help to remove those symptoms.

A second central principle is based around a process of dilution and shaking called succession.

Practitioners believe that the more a substance is diluted in this way, the greater its power to treat symptoms.

Many homeopathic remedies consist of substances that have been diluted many times in water until there's none, or almost none, of the original substance left.

Homeopathy is used to "treat" an extremely wide range of conditions, including physical conditions such as asthma and psychological conditions such as depression.(See nhs.uk/conditions/homeopathy/#:~:text=Homeopathy%20is%20a%20%22treatment%22%20based,than%20placebos%20(dummy%20treatments; Emphasis mine).

Discovering how homeopathy began is crucial to understanding why it is a false method of diagnosis and treatment. Homeopathy was developed by Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843). In 1810 Hahnemann published his Organon of the Rational Art of Healing, the “Bible” of classical homeopathy. Editions today are frequently titled Organon of Medicine.

Dr. Hahnemann was translating a book which had described the effects of quinine or Peruvian bark on malaria. Out of curiosity, Hahnemann took the drug himself and discovered that it ap­peared to cause symptoms similar to malaria: general malaise, chills, fever, etc. Hahnemann was struck with a revolutionary thought: The possibility that a substance which causes symp­toms in a healthy person might cure those symptoms in a sick person. He therefore continued testing this idea on other substances using himself, his friends, and his family as subjects. Believing the results confirmed his theory, he developed the basic theory of homeopathy: “like cures like.” In other words, any substance producing symptoms in a healthy person similar to those symptoms in a sick person will cure the sick person. The idea was born from this experience and Hahnemann's occult ideas he received from Freemasonry. 

In 1774, Samuel Hahnemann, a 19-year-old with very little money, left his home, in Meissen, Germany, for Leipzig University to study medicine. Although he tried to earn money as a translator, making ends meet was very difficult for him. On the brink of starvation, he was introduced to an opulent Transylvanian baron, Samuel Brukenthal, the head of the Madgeburg Freemasons' Lodge. Hahnemann was initiated into the Lodge in Hermannstadt, Transylvania, in October 1777 (one of the first Lodges). He quickly came to esteem the many itinerant "teachers of mysteries" who were indoctrinating the Lodges in such matters as alchemy and spiritism. The next section deals with the dangers to your Faith inherent in homeopathy.

Occult "Energy"

 Hahnemann never even attempted to explain scientifically how "medicine," diluted to a point in some cases where there's almost nothing left of the substance, makes it "stronger." This is one of the two key points of homeopathy:

• “Like cures like”—the notion that a disease can be cured by a substance that produces similar symptoms in healthy people.

• “Law of minimum dose”—the notion that the lower the dose of the medication, the greater its effectiveness. Many homeopathic products are so diluted that no molecules of the original substance remain.

(See nccih.nih.gov/health/homeopathy; Emphasis mine). 

How can a substance that, in some cases, is literally no longer present be stronger than when it's present? How can a dilute substance be stronger than the same substance less diluted? Hahnemann has formulated a whole doctrine explaining this logical impossibility. First, he considers man as a tripartite being composed of:

• will and thought (the inward man)

• vital energy, spirit substance or immaterial essence (the ethereal body of the occult anthroposophists, the god Prana of the Hindus)

• the body which is material

Here is Hahnemann in his own words taken from Organon of Medicine:

• In the state of health, the dynamistic, immaterial, vital energy, animating the material part of the human body, reigns absolutely

• A person becomes ill when a diseased agent infiltrates the body and disturbs the vital energy by dynamistic influence

• It’s only when the vital principle is troubled by a diseased element (that is to say by the intrinsic nature of a virus in the form of incorporeal substance) that it emits reactions and symptoms of disease (Emphasis in all these quotes mine).

Here's the really disturbing part. To find the cure for a malady, that’s to say, the herb for the original tincture of the preparation, the researchers often have recourse to occult practices such as the pendulum. Dr. A. Voegeli, a famous homeopathic doctor, has confirmed that a very high percentage of homeopaths work with the pendulum. There are groups whose research is carried out during seances, through mediums who seek information from spirits. (See alopsis.gr/afieroma/af-homeopathy-examined-h-j-bopp-m-d-neuchatel-switzerland). Moreover, Hahnemann, like many homeopaths today utilize Masonic and occult mixing-and-shaking rituals with pendulums and invocations of spirits. 

Hahnemann held to many and varied occult teachings in addition to those in the Masonic Temples. He rejected Christianity, identified with Eastern religions, and took Confucius as his model. One biographer says, “The reverence for Eastern thought was not just Hahnemann’s personal hobby, but rather the fundamental philosophy behind the preparation of homeopathic remedies” (See Samuel Pfeifer, Healing at Any Price, [1988], p. 68). He was a follower of Emanuel Swedenborg, who taught his followers to enter an alternative state of consciousness in order to commune with spirits. Hahnemann called the occultic practices of Franz Mesmer “a marvelous, priceless gift of God” by which “the vital energy of the healthy mesmerizer endowed with this power [can be brought] into another person dynamically” (See Organon of Medicine, 6th edition, pp. 309, 311). Hahnemann held to the panentheist view that God is in all things, like the soul is in the body.

Maleficium

While the homeopathic "medicine" may contain none of the substance because it was diluted into nothing, it may contain maleficium, a Latin term for any magickal act intended to cause harm. According to theologian Szymanski, "Maleficium (occult potions, powders, and other substances) placed in food or drink can cause possession. The devil has his agents who prepare these diabolical substances by which he [Satan or a demon] is able to enter human and animal bodies." (See The Truth About The Devil, [1944], pg. 20). The same would no doubt hold true of "medicine" containing maleficium made during "Masonic and occult mixing-and-shaking rituals with pendulums and invocations of spirits." 

Harmful to the Body

Here is a perfect evaluation of how homeopathy is either ineffective (at best) and harmful (at worst) to your bodily health:

Homeopathy claims to use only “natural” substances. This is an attempt to contrast itself with conventional medicine. For example, homeopathic remedies include raw bovine testicles, crushed honey bees (Apis mellifica), Belladonna (deadly nightshade), cadmium, sulfur, poison nut (Nux vomica), hemlock (Conium), silica (Silicea), monkshood (Aconite), salt (Natrium mur), mountain daisy (Arnica), venom of the Bushmaster snake (Lachesis), arsenic (Arsenicum album), Spanish fly (Cantharis), rattlesnake venom (Crotalus horridus), Ipecac (Ipecacuahna), dog milk (Lac canidum), poison ivy (Rhus toxicodendron), and more. Some of these substances are quite harmless, but others can be toxic (especially at D4 and lower dilutions).

How did Hahnemann know that a remedy was appropriate for a particular disease (actually for a particular symptom)? Hahnemann and his students tested remedies on themselves. They would eat various plant, animal, and mineral substances and carefully observe what symptoms occurred. This is called “proving.” These reactions (or symptoms) were collected together into a book Materia Medica. For example, one of the symptoms of Pulsatilla (windflower) is “An unpleasant message makes him deeply sad and depressed after 20 hours.” During provings, the people knew which substance they were taking. This is a problem because one might anticipate a certain reaction or exaggerate some symptom.

Today, in modern science, we try to prevent this bias by not letting the person know what he or she is taking — a “test-blind” procedure. When evaluating symptoms, it is also important that the researcher does not know which remedy is being tested (a double-blind procedure) because the researcher can also be biased.

One recent German study did compare a remedy (Belladonna C30) to a placebo. Those who received the placebo reported even more symptoms than those who received the remedy. The symptoms reported included minor aches and pains in various parts of the body. Did the patient mistakenly assume that a normal ache or pain must be related to the remedy? It is possible that the ache or pain was the result of a confounding factor such as not enough sleep.

As we can see, homeopathy is not concerned with the disease. It concentrates on the symptoms reported by the patient. Homeopathy then matches these symptoms to those symptoms that a remedy causes in a healthy person. By contrast, scientific bio-medicine uses symptoms to identify the disease and then treats the disease itself.

Research

There are two points of view about homeopathy that are in conflict. One viewpoint says that homeopathy should not attempt to meet the rigorous requirements of scientific medicine. It is sufficient that there have been millions of satisfied patients during the last 200 years. Science is not relevant anyway because it rejects the concept of the energy of the “vital force” which is essential to homeopathy. This vital force is identical to the concept of vitalism — a primitive concept used to explain health and disease. And, besides, scientific medicine is unfairly prejudiced and biased against homeopathy. Dana Ullman, a leading spokesman for American homeopathy, says that personal experience is much more convincing than any experiments. The emphasis on experience shows that most people simply do not understand that good science, based upon experiments, is essential to the development of knowledge.

The second viewpoint is that scientific research is necessary if homeopathy is to be accepted by medicine and society. In the past 15 years many experimental studies have been done to examine homeopathic remedies. Two reviews of homeopathy are perhaps the best known.

J. Kleinjen, P. Knipschild, and G. ter Riet examined 107 controlled clinical trials of homeopathy. They concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to support the claims of homeopathy. C. Hill and F. Doyon examined 40 other clinical studies. They also concluded that there was no acceptable evidence that homeopathy is effective. Since the above reviews were written, four more research studies have appeared.

In 1992 the homeopathic treatment of plantar warts (on the feet) was examined. The homeopathic treatment was no more effective than a placebo.

A report in May 1994 examined the homeopathic treatment of diarrhea in children who lived in Nicaragua. On Day 3 of treatment the homeopathic group had one less unformed stool than the control group (3.1 Vs 2.1; p <.05). However, critics pointed out that not only were the sickest children excluded, but there were no significant differences on Days 1, 2, 4, or 5. This suggests that the conclusion was not valid. Further, there was no assurance that the homeopathic remedy was not adulterated (contaminated). Finally, standard remedies which halt diarrhea were not used for comparison purposes...

Sometimes we can learn much about a topic by examining who or what it associates with. In the first 100 years, homeopathy was closely associated with many pseudosciences including Mesmerism and phrenology. In the United States, many early homeopaths were members of the mystical cult of Swedenborgianism. Unfortunately, this has not changed today... Many homeopaths use iridology, reflexology, dowsing, and electrodiagnosis. None of these methods has scientific validity. In America, if you want to learn more about homeopathy, the best place to go is to any New Age bookstore or meeting place. 

(See quackwatch.org/homeopathy/articles/wagner).

Conclusion

Homeopathy is bad "medicine" that can harm both your body and (more importantly) your soul. Do not seek the services of some homeopath and warn anyone who does go of the inherent peril. None of the claimed evidences offered in support of homeopathy, theoretical or practical, proves that homeopathy is an effective medical procedure. Not only does homeopathy fail to operate under the principles of scientific medicine, it may cause bodily harm and involve one, unwittingly, in the occult that can lead to demonic possession. 

Addendum: Did True Popes Give Approval To Homeopathy?

A reader/commenter wrote an often used story of homeopaths, namely, that several true popes used homeopathy and gave honor to homeopathic doctors. I said it was false and calumnious--not on the part of the commenter, but of the homeopaths that spread these stories. There are several major problems. It is alleged that different popes used homeopathy. All of the sources I've seen are from homeopaths.

Moreover, the popes who allegedly used or approved homeopathy vary. The list of popes includes Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, and false pope Wojtyla. For obvious reasons, I will not count Wojtyla. 

Problems:

1. During this era of history (from Gregory XVI to St. Pius X), doctors employed methods such as bleeding and blistering to cure patients, or they relied upon herbal mixtures of one kind or another because they had not yet developed methods for creating effective medicines. Many put any herbal remedy under the umbrella term "homeopathy," although it wasn't actually such. There is still confusion about the two today. (See fullcirclewomenshealth.com/blog/mind-body-spirit/2013/12/29/hello-world-2/). 

2. Homeopaths cite...each other! In this particular homeopathic website sueyounghistories.com, gives the follow "proof" of approval from Pope Pius IX:

(a) Ferdinand de Lesseps was a negotiator for Pope Pius IX. It links to a Wikipedia page on de Lesseps, and it does not state that he was a homeopathic practitioner, or that he used homeopathy. Note that he was a negotiator for Pope Pius IX, not an ersatz doctor or medical consultant. Even if, ad arguendo, he used/practiced homeopathy on the side, how would we know the Pontiff was even aware of such? He was doing negotiations in the diplomatic realm.  

(b) Pope Pius IX also granted Alexandre Charge the Order of St. Gregory the Great for travelling to the South of Frace (sic) to treat a major cholera epidemic with homeopathy, and for the exceptional care he provided at this time. The information is taken from a book, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy, written in 2007 by Dana Ullman, who is one of the biggest promoters and apologists for homeopathy. In turn, The Homeopathic Revolution cites to an 1863 writing by W.F. Hunt, The Condition of Homeopathy in Europe, Transactions of the New York State Homeopathic Medical Society, [1863], pgs. 118–123---another homeopath. In no case is there proof of such an honor bestowed for practicing homeopathy except the ipse dixit of the homeopaths themselves. Even if I stipulate that the event occurred, was the honor for actual homeopathy, or herbal remedies? This is not the kind of "proof" that gives reassurance as to the truth of the statement asserted. 

(c) In 1847, Francois Perrussel received a special apostolic letter from Pope Pius IX in remembrance of his work The Truth in Medicine Found and Demonstrated by the Laws of Universal Attraction. The proof? This link: homeoint.org/seror/biograph/perrussel.htm, which begins, "A Mexican magazine for February 25, 1873, contains the following :" Really? "A certain Mexican magazine"? The page ends with this whopper: "The above has been condensed from very interesting accounts by Drs. Chauvet and Leboucher in the Bibliothèque Homoeopathique, vol. 5." Again, a homeopathic source! If such a letter existed, the contents--verbatim--should be published, and now it could be photographed and published. Maybe we should believe Perrussel got rid of such an honor and/or did not allow its publication?

3. The case of Pope Pius XII.

 The pro-homeopathy website:

 homeopath.lt/homeopathy_news_information, states The personal doctor of Pius XII was homeopath Galeazzi-Lisi, succeeded by another homeopath professor Negro, who was also the doctor of Paul VI. I found no mention of Dr. Galeazzi-Lisi to have been a homeopath. According to the New York Times, he used a different method of the embalming process using herbs and spices without draining the body of its fluids, "like Christ." He botched the job of embalming Pope Pius XII so badly, the body literally decomposed before the eyes of the mourners.  The stench was so acrid that the Swiss Guards could not take it, and Pope Pius' body had to be rotated every 15 minutes. 

(See theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/04/catholicism.religion). 

Could he have been a homeopath and occultist unknown to the pope, and used his herbs to desecrate the body? Who knows, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I won't go there. However, one thing is certain--there is no solid evidence that any true pope endorsed occult homeopathy.---Introibo

Contending For The Faith---Part 11

 

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 Traditionalism 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.

SPECIAL NOTE TO MY READERS: Happy New Year 2023! It's hard to believe but this is the 600th (yes, six hundredth) post to be published since I began on June 2, 2010. Please pray for my guest posters Lee, Joanna From Poland, and me. Please ask that we may continue to write as a means of serving Christ, and to the edification of the faithful. 

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

Miraculous Cures

The Church has always been extremely careful when declaring a cure as miraculous. Such cures are most often the subject of beatifications and canonizations. This post will set forth Church teaching on miraculous cures in regard to beatifications/canonizations and what the Vatican II sect has done to make a mockery of sainthood and the truly miraculous. 

Brief Summary of Church Teaching on Miracles

The definition of a miracle. According to theologian Parente, the word miracle comes from the Latin word miror---I wonder. In the broad sense, it is an extraordinary event which calls attention and excites wonder. Theologians explain it is: (a) done by God as principle cause; (b) done in the world; (c) in a way superior to all forces of nature; and outside or above, but not in violation of the laws of nature, but by an exceptional happening brought about by a divine power that intervenes in created things, producing an effect superior to their natural power. The possibility of the miracle rests chiefly on the absolute dominion of God as the First and Free Cause of the Universe, Whose laws are subordinate to Him and cannot limit either His freedom of action or His power. Only the logically impossible and that which violates His Nature (sin) are impossible to Him. (See Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, [1951], pg. 188).  

Miracles are an effect wrought in nature by the direct intervention of God. They are proofs of the truth of the Catholic religion.

Proof: From the Oath Against Modernism promulgated by Pope St. Pius X for all clerics on September 1, 1910:

Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. (Emphasis mine)

From the Vatican Council (1870):

If anyone shall say that miracles are impossible, and therefore that all the accounts regarding them, even those contained in Holy Scripture, are to be dismissed as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, and that the divine origin of Christianity cannot be proved by them; let him be anathema.

Miracles cannot be used to help give credibility to that which is false. Any "miracle" that does so is either (a) naturally explained, and therefore not a miracle, or (b) of demonic origin.

Proof: A miracle is a deed that is sensible, extraordinary, and of divine origin. Hence, since transubstantiation is not sensible, it cannot be considered a miracle in the strict sense. Miracles can only be used to support that which is true and good. It is impossible for God to deceive. Moreover, God would equivalently be producing falsehood if He were performing some miracles in order to demonstrate that some false doctrines or a doctrine that is altogether human has been revealed by Himself. We should recognize that God allows extraordinary things to be performed by the devil. (See theologian Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, [1959], 1:40-45; Emphasis mine). 

God can (and does) permit miracles for the benefit of unbelievers. This is why some falsely claim that "miracles happen in all religions." 

According to theologian Lepicier:

We readily admit that miracles can be worked outside the Catholic body in exceptional and individual cases, since the Holy Ghost is free to seek His instruments where He will. This creates no difficulty especially when the miracle-worker is a man of holy life and has no other aim in his works but the honor of God...as their [miracles] purpose [is] to furnish extra proofs of the existence of the supernatural order. (See Le Miracle, [1936], pg. 518; Emphasis mine). 

It is certain that in no religion except the One True Church of Christ do miracles occur commonly under the full glare of scientific investigation and prove Her Divine Origin. However, the sheep that have gone astray are still under the watchful eye of the Good Shepard. The confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Pharaoh's dreams, and the plagues of Egypt are some examples of of miracles performed primarily for the benefit of unbelievers.  

Summary of the Requirements for a Miracle

Cardinal-theologian Lepicier gives the requirements for a miracle as follows:

• the event must take place comparatively rarely. God did not create the world to interfere constantly with its laws

• since it is Divine in origin, the event must be of a reasonable and moral nature, with no trace of deception or sleight of hand

• it must always have a recognizable spiritual purpose

• it must bring about a general or individual good

• it is often instantaneous, but it can be progressive when God uses secondary causes

Miraculous effects should be lasting, but that is not absolutely indispensable. A cure may be granted to demonstrate the existence of God or the efficacy of prayer, or to permit some useful action to be performed; its purpose once achieved, the disease, arrested as though by an antibiotic, may resume its natural course. Miracles, in general, correspond to prayer. (See Ibid; my summary of the information given). 

While we must believe in miracles (especially those contained in the Holy Bible), we are not bound to believe in every specific event claimed to be miraculous. We should only give credence to those events considered miracles by the authority of the Church. 

Proof: Many events thought to be miraculous were denied as such by the Magisterium of the Church prior to the defection of the hierarchy at Vatican II. 

• Many people claimed that they saw the statue of Our Lady of Assisi move and smile. (1948) The Church later declared there was no apparition of Our Lady in Assisi, and no miraculous events.

• There are people hundreds of years into the canonization process as of 1958 (death of Pope Pius XII) whose alleged miracles were never confirmed despite large numbers of witnesses.

• Theresa Neumann (d. 1962) was alleged to have survived only on the Eucharist for 30 years, and claimed the stigmata. The Church has never confirmed nor denied these miraculous claims which were investigated beginning in 1928.

Miraculous Cures in the Canonization Process

[This information comes from the writings of the holy medical doctor, Dr. Francois Leuret, M.D. He was frequently called by the Sacred Congregation of Rites. Under Canon 253, the Congregation, in addition to its duties regarding discipline of worship and the sacraments, also has its competence extending "...to all that in any way concerns the beatification and canonization of the servants of God, as well as sacred relics." The Congregation would call in physicians of the highest learning and most eminent experience to help determine legitimate miraculous cures. Dr. Leuret was one such medical expert, and he was at the Medical Bureau in Lourdes to determine miraculous cures there as well. He has written extensively on the proceedings of the Congregation of Rites and the medical process in determining miraculous cures. Although not a theologian, all his writings were given both the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur pre-1958, thereby ensuring beyond doubt that they are free of doctrinal and moral errors. All credit to Dr. Leuret---Introibo]

As a general rule, two miracles are required for beatification. The less conclusive is the evidence for virtues, the more miracles are demanded by the Church. This is the idea behind the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites dated April 23, 1741, which requires two miracles if the witnesses to the heroic virtues were eyewitnesses, and four if the evidence for heroic virtue or martyrdom was not derived from eyewitnesses. This was modified by Pope Benedict XIV on July 17, 1744; two miracles suffice if the witnesses merely received the information from eyewitnesses, information received from other meant three miracles were required. The rule does not apply to martyrs.

In the case of martyrs, if the fact of martyrdom is clearly established, marvelous signs called prodigies may suffice. A prodigy is an inexplicable happenings, the miraculous nature of which is not subjected to any rigorous proof. After the Congregation has passed the decree on martyrdom, the Congregation next must decide whether these marvelous signs are sufficient, whether they must be verified as miracles, or whether two other declared miracles are necessary. The pope, in the decree on martyrdom, may dispense from this, as was the case on March 25, 1945, for Maria Goretti, who would be canonized on June 25, 1950 by Pope Pius XII. 

When deciding a miraculous cure, two medical experts are called to make a complete report. They must have extensive knowledge of,  and specialize in, the diagnosis and treatment of the particular disease in question. The expert doctors' reports, concisely worded and supported by clear arguments, must reply to the following two queries:

1. If a cure is alleged, can the person in whose favor it is claimed be held as truly cured?

2. Can the fact put forward as miraculous be explained by the laws of nature or not? 

Pope Benedict XIV lists the seven characteristics which stamp a cure as miraculous:

1. The disease must be serious and impossible, or at least very difficult, to cure.

2. The disease must not have reached a stage at which it was liable to disappear shortly of its own accord.

3. No medical treatment must have been applied, or if it were, it must have certainly been ineffectual.

4. The cure must be sudden, instantaneous. [it can be progressive when God uses secondary causes]

5. The cure must be complete.

6. It must not be preceded by any crisis due to natural causes at the expected time; otherwise the cure, far from being miraculous, must be considered wholly or partially as natural.

7. Finally, there must be no relapse into the same disease after the cure. [Within due time limits. Hence, a  21 year old man cured miraculously of cancer, could get cancer at age 81, and it in no way implies the cure 60 years prior wasn't miraculous]. 

(See Pope Benedict XIV, On the Beatification and Canonization of Servants of God; Explanations in red font mine). 

A preparatory session of the Congregation looks over the reports. They look over the reports and decide if  they proceed to the entire Congregation in a general meeting with the pope himself presiding. If the medical reports disagree in any way, more experts are called in until enough information is supplied. If the preparatory session votes in the negative, the cause goes no further. If the vote is in the affirmative, the cause goes forward.

If the cause moves forward, the Congregation meets in the presence of the pope, and an outline of the whole case for the servant of God is presented to His Holiness. The arguments for and against beatification are made. After several days, the pope himself decides if the miracles are genuine. If the pope decides they are, the decree of approbation of miracles is signed and published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and the Church recognizes them as authentic miraculous cures from God. 

The Congregation will then meet with the pope to discuss the following question: Whether it is now safe to proceed to the beatification of the Servant of God? The pope will listen to the opinions of all the cardinals and theologian-consultors of the Congregation. If the pope answers the query in the affirmative, the date of the beatification will be fixed on the papal calendar.   

Before canonization two more miracles, which took place after the beatification, must be approved in the same way as in the beatification process. If successful, the infallible decree of canonization is signed and solemnly read by the pope; the verbiage has been fixed since 1313 by Pope Clement V:

In honor of the holy and undivided Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian religion, by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own, after mature deliberation and having frequently implored the Divine aid, in accordance with the desires of our venerable brethren the cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops assembled in this city, We declare and define that (Name) is a saint, and We inscribe him (her) in the catalogue of saints, and order that his (her) memory shall be kept with piety and devotion on (Feast Date), in the ranks of  the martyrs (or confessors, virgins...). In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. 

A Vatican II "Saint" with a Dubious "Miracle"

As an example of what passes for a "saint" in the Vatican II sect, I will take the example of Mother Teresa of Calcutta (d. 1997 and "canonized" in 2016 by Bergoglio). The Modernist Vatican only requires one miracle for beatification and one for canonization. Before the beatification process can begin, the candidate must be declared "Venerable" by heroic virtue and impeccable orthodoxy of Faith (same as pre-Vatican II).  There was an eye-opening book written in 2007 entitled, Mother Teresa: The Case for the Cause by Mark Michael Zima (not a Traditionalist). This well-researched book raises serious problems with the nun. Mother Teresa apostatized to the Vatican II sect. She went full force with heretical ecumenism. 

Mother Teresa: Spreading False Ecumenism.

Mother Teresa is quoted as saying, Some call him Allah, some simply God. But we all have to acknowledge that it is he (sic) who made us for the greater things: to love and be loved.  God is not the false moon "god' named "Allah." God created us to know, love, and serve Him in this life, and to be eternally happy with Him in the next.

In another disturbing quote, she claimed her purpose was not to convert others but to make the Christian the better Christian, the Muslim a better Muslim, and a Hindu a better Hindu. Addressing the Masonic United Nations in 1985, she said, No color, no religion, no nationality should come between us. We are all children of God. (Emphasis mine) The purpose of a Catholic religious is to convert others to the One True Church of Christ, not to entrench others in their errors. A better Mohammedan makes for a worse person. And while it is true that God created all humans, we are not all His children. God Wills all to be saved, but He does not force Himself on us. Those who reject Him, are not His "children," anymore than non-Jews before the coming of Christ could be called His "chosen people."

She is reported as telling those in her care that, we will meet all our friends and family members who died before us in Heaven regardless of their beliefs. She also told non-Catholics, You could replace Jesus by God if you are not a Christian. She forgets "Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised from the dead, even by him this man standeth here before you whole. This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." (See Acts 4: 9-13; Emphasis mine). 

Does this sound like "orthodoxy in doctrine" that one would expect from a saint? I'll let the reader decide. 

A Questionable "Miracle"

Lastly, there's doubts as to an alleged "miracle" being used for her "canonization." It involved the cure of a young Indian woman, Monica Besra, who claimed that a tumor on her ovary was cured when a medal of Mother Teresa was touched to her body where she felt pain.  Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, the chief gynecologist treating her, claims that it was the four drugs to which she was responding. The Vatican never contacted Dr. Mustafi to investigate, and nevertheless claimed "there was no medical explanation" for her cure.

Can this even begin to compare to the investigations of the One True Church?

Objection: Couldn't Mother Teresa have converted by the grace of God on her deathbed, sincerely repented, and be in Heaven as a saint? 

Reply: Yes, she could be in Heaven as described because we don't know what happened in the last moments of her life between her soul and God. She did many acts of charity, and God may have granted her the grace to convert and repent as a result. "...for charity covereth a multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8).

However, that would make her a saint with a small "s" and all of whom we celebrate on November 1st, All Saints Day. To be a canonized saint, with "St." before the name and a feast day, it requires much more, i.e., that the saint be worthy of emulation by all the faithful. Clearly, the One True Church of Christ does not want others to emulate a "female Bergoglio:" Proselytism is solemn nonsense. 

[N.B. Now that Ratzinger has gone to Judgement, how long can it be to his "canonization"?]

Conclusion

Miraculous cures are few, and a rigorous investigation should be conducted to determine what is truly from God. If in need of a cure, or anything else, have recourse to the true saints recognized from 33 to 1958. The Vatican II sect makes dubious "saints" at best. You don't want to risk praying (God forbid) to a damned soul.

The Gratitude Of The Woman

 

To My Readers: The last post of the year 2022 will be from my guest poster, Joanna From Poland. Thanks to Joanna and Lee helping me, this blog is able to continue with one well-written post each Monday. I hope all of you had a Holy Christmas, and may you all have the blessings of God upon you in 2023. Please feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific question or comment for me, I will respond as always, but it may take a bit longer than usual for my reply this week.

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

The Gratitude Of The Woman

By Joanna From Poland

As I am writing these words, we are on the eve of the last full week of Advent. Our minds and bodies have started to grow weary with penance while the post-Christian or rather anti-Christian world around us has been indulging in a full-blown celebration of the “holiday season” for weeks now. Stacks of Christmas decorations lay disorderly in our stores, having been thoroughly searched through by countless customers already, though the most frantic shopping days are probably yet to come. Ember Friday has been substituted by the so-called Black Friday where you go on an online hunt in pursuit of the best bargain. It certainly takes a lot of perseverance for Catholics today not to get swayed by the worldly idea that the “magic” of Christmastime lies in going on shopping sprees and humming “Christmas” tunes along the way.

As the bulk of Christmas preparations rest with the wife and mother, or the woman in general, it seems to me that it is also the ladies who must decide whether Christmas is celebrated in our homes according to the wishes of Our Lord and of His One True Church – and act accordingly. We simply owe it to Our Lord and with this post I would like to share with you some of the reasons that could inspire that gratitude towards God in us this coming Christmas.

There has been much talk of the so-called female liberation in the past decades. The Vatican II sect has been in the process of feminizing their false religion for years now and Bergoglio has certainly pushed things ahead when he officially allowed women to act as lectors and acolytes with his Motu (Ina)Proprio Spiritus Domini issued January 11, 2021. Obviously, the practice of having “altar girls” goofing around the table and female “Eucharistic ministers” has already been well-established in the Novus Ordo. All of this is naturally abominable to anyone who still retains even the remnants of Catholic sense, and does not mistake equality for equity.

One of the most prominent figures of the Novus Ordo who failed to grasp that distinction in terms was John Paul II. In his Letter to Women, issued in relation to the Fourth World Conference on Women, sponsored by the United Nations, and held in Beijing in 1995, having first expressed his deep appreciation to the UN for the organization of this “very significant event,” he states that “as far as personal rights [of women] are concerned, there is an urgent need to achieve real equality [emphasis in the original text] in every area," adding that this is “a matter of justice." 

(See: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1995/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women.html)

Just to give you a short overview of what that very significant event heartily endorsed by the then chief apostate in the Vatican aimed to accomplish, here’s an excerpt taken from one of the UN-run websites:

The 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing marked a significant turning point for the global agenda for gender equality. The Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action, adopted unanimously by 189 countries, is an agenda for women’s empowerment and considered the key global policy document on gender equality.

A section of that declaration says the following with regards to the “Human Rights of Women”:

223. (…) the Fourth World Conference on Women reaffirms that reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. It also includes their right to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion, and violence, as expressed in human rights documents.

Try squaring that with the true Magisterium of the Church expressed in the encyclical on marriage, divorce, and birth control “Casti Connubii” by Pope Pius XI (which, at the time of its release in 1931, was re-printed in full by… the New York Times! Times certainly have changed…).

As we are (hopefully) preparing ourselves spiritually for the joyous and thankful celebration of the Nativity of Our Lord, let us first consider the state of the world before the first coming of Christ, and – in particular – the position of the woman in the pre-Christian society.

Arguing that the restoration of the world through Christianity proves its divine origin, Fr. Stanislaw Bartynowski S.J. in his textbook on Catholic apologetics (1939 Imprimatur) gives an apt description of the world and society before Christ:

Errors with regards to the most basic philosophical and moral issues were dominant everywhere, except for the people of Israel. Only the Israelites worshipped the true God – all of the other nations venerated nature and prostrated before stones and trees, made by their own hands. The entire earth was a vast temple of idols, in which, according to Bossuet’s words: all was God, except for God Himself. Even the most civilized and mentally-developed nations were no less backward in terms of religion than the savage ones. People lost their sense of morality to such an extent that they would adore iniquity in public: each passion and every kind of cruelty had its guardian deity that was venerated by the practice of the corresponding iniquity; thus, pagan temples became places of utmost scandal. Whereas, real virtue, such as charity was regarded as a vice by Seneca or Plautus; honest labor was the object of scorn – according to Aristotle and Plato, an occupation unbecoming of a man since “everyone who has respect for himself” should lead an idle life, as Terence wrote.

As a result of such a revolution in concepts and degeneration of morals, the holiest of man’s affections disappeared – justice and honesty were unheard of and the dignity of man trampled upon. Thus, contempt for human nature was formed. For instance, the father as the master of life and death in his family, could either acknowledge a child as his own or reject it, nay, even kill it with impunity. Seneca regarded this as a just thing to do and, according to Quintilian, the killing of one’s own child was supposed to be a beautiful deed!... [Quintilian was a Roman educator or pedagogue, living in 35-100 A.D. – so much for the rights of children in pagan Rome] Woman was deprived of her honor and regarded as something lower than man. Thus, the wife was the first among her husband’s female slaves, whom he could dispose of at any moment. The family was abused amidst such relations, and the hearth and home shattered by polygamy.

The society became such as were its members: criminal and unhappy. The lust for living it up and the egoism of the mighty caused abject poverty of the poorer classes, which was conducive to all kinds of crime. Major part of the population found themselves in the most pitiful conditions of all, being deprived of their civil rights, nay, even, their human rights… Those were the unfortunate slaves, used for the hardest labor, treated like animals by their masters to be sold or killed on a whim. They could at any time be thrust into the amphitheater to be devoured by lions and tigers…  such spectacles would take a heavy toll of about thirty thousand victims each year!

Liberty in the state was known only by its name, the citizen had no freedom – he was regarded as nothing in the face of the god-state, that could at any moment demand the sacrifice of the citizen’s property, liberty, and life. State orders, though inhumane, were thought to be good and just. The tyranny of the mighty was a substitute for all law – as a consequence, all respect for authority vanished, and those in power could never be sure whether they would live or not… In a word, the law of the fist was the only norm of conduct.

Generally speaking: overabundance and the violation of all that is law at the top, with debasement and slavery of the lowest classes – such is the image of the pagan society before the coming of Christ.

In particular, people were so much accustomed to the corruption and bloody lawlessness which would outrage any honest man today, that neither the lawgivers, nor the philosophers and poets cared at all to raise the world from this moral abyss.

How different is this description of the world immersed in sin and blinded by paganism from the alleged glorious image of ancient civilizations peddled by the media today.

Such was the miserable state of humanity more than 2,000 years ago. Without becoming overly apocalyptic, we can safely assume that the modern world bears a striking resemblance to the one in which the Incarnate Word was to be made flesh and born of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the cold stable of Bethlehem. The general falling away from the Catholic Faith in the aftermath of Vatican II has led many to adopt the pagan ideas of old – if not in theory, then certainly in deed. Nature abhors a vacuum, and human nature is no exception to that rule. Most people who consider themselves educated and intelligent sincerely believe that it is imperative that we stop burning fossil fuels so as to “save the planet” but shrug their shoulders at the thought of innocent babies being murdered in their mothers’ wombs at an unprecedented rate.

If human dignity as such was utterly destroyed in the pre-Christian era, the position of the woman was particularly pitiful. Fr. Jozef Stanislaw Adamski thus outlines the lot of the weaker sex in the pagan world in his book The Dignity and Mission of the Christian Woman (1922):

The originally beautiful and noble creature of God – the woman – was basically devastated. God has, since the dawn of time, clearly defined the position and the mission of women. He provided the first couple in Paradise with mutual unity and love. The woman was no stranger to the man, much less was she lower than him or insignificant. (…) Therefore, the very means of creating her should inspire in her husband the love for her, should make him sacrifice himself for her, and respect her. God set His goal for the woman clearly: she was to be the man’s helper, being similar to him, having the same nature and value as he has – the alike helper (adjutorium simile). God demanded of him limitless sacrifice for her: “wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife” (Gen. 2: 24). Such was the original work of God: kind, gentle, harmonious, fertile, and powerful.

However, man destroyed this wondrous work, and put his own monstrosity in its place. In the place of union and love, he introduced tyranny – the woman was supposed to cater to his base lust like a slave. Having humiliated the woman, man started to despise her; deprived her of the due honor, denied the position assigned to her by God, devised laws against her – wicked and cruel ones – which deprived the woman of the dignity of a human being which left her to fall prey to all kinds of injustice. The man, instead of putting his own strength and the energy of his sacrifice at the service of her weakness, took advantage of her feebleness in order to subjugate her completely and destroy her. God called her the mother of the living, gave her the right to bear and educate her children, but the man took away even this most crucial right from her! In the most enlightened Rome in the full bloom of civilization under the emperor Augustus only the free women were defended from violence by the law – [a man] was free to do with his female slaves whatever he pleased. The woman was denied her civic laws; she was held in custody her entire life. As a daughter, she was her father’s possession who could kill her or sell her and offer her hand in marriage without her consent. The woman was underage her entire life – from her father’s slavery she was passed under the hand (sub manum) of her husband as his daughter (filiae loco), for her husband to regard her as an object. According to the Lex Voconia [the Roman law of inheritance passed in 169 B.C.], she was denied her father’s inheritance even if she was a single child. In relation to her husband, the woman was a servant, a slave, allocated to the lowest works. The role of the slave was so eagerly accepted by the disgraced woman that, after having served her entire life, she would commit suicide on her husband’s grave as it was the case in India or among the Gaul tribes, not because she wanted to be happy in the life to come (paganism did not regard women as being worthy of happiness), not because she wished to accompany her husband – but in order to serve him still in the afterlife!

Not very different was the fate of the woman among the Slavonic peoples, in Poland. In order to understand the sad lot of the woman, suffice to say that polygamy was a common practice. Once introduced into the house and handed over under the authority of her husband, the woman awaited a most painful fate. Only yesterday [that is, before she was married] was she so respected that if any man should come into contact with her, it was regarded as her being defiled. She was believed to be a creature so pure and exalted that she would be called a diva, a kind of a goddess who could at any moment take the honorific place of a priestess and a seer in the pagan temple of ancient Slavs – now she is called names such as the one who does not know, cast into the cabin of the savage master of her life and death. The husband, dissatisfied with a daughter being born, would (many times before the mother’s eyes) grab an ax and kill the baby – woe to the mother if she dared weep or complain! (…) Such is the fate [of the woman] today in places where the rays of the Gospel have not reached yet or the warmth of which cannot be felt any longer.

Indeed, the paragraphs quoted above express to some degree the present condition of the woman in today’s world which had known Christ and His One True Church yet rejected Him, and fell once again into the pits of sin. Isn’t the so-called “liberated” woman a slave to her own wicked passions when she is willing to walk the streets with lewd banners in support of her “right” to kill her own unborn baby? Isn’t she complacent with her own enslavement when, working all week as a clerk in the supermarket, grumbles at the prospect of having a free Sunday due to the state legislation on restricting public commerce on that day?

Let us now consider, Fr. Adamski continues, how Our Savior raises the woman up from her debasement and ennobles her. (…) Christ Our Lord elevates the woman in Holy maternity. Oh, how wondrous, how lovely is the scene that begins the work of our redemption! The angel – sent to the woman - descends from heaven; he comes to arrange with her the greatest work of God destined to regenerate and save the human race. He solemnly declares that she is full of grace; at her feet homage is paid; heaven and earth awaits her consent for the work in which she is to play the most crucial part. What an amazing and most marvelous turn of events this is! What glory; what a wonderful restoration of the woman! At once, the woman who groaned under the weight of most shameful slavery, stands at the unparalleled heights, at the highest throne of heaven right next to God-Man. “The queen stood on thy right hand, in gilded clothing; surrounded with variety” (Ps. 44:10).

Our Savior raises the woman up illuminating her with innocence and grace. The Virgin Mother, the Mother of God inaugurated the liberation and elevation of the woman with unsurpassed charm and light. Still, in order to lift the woman up something more was needed since the long ages of pain and ruin had deprived her of the freshness of her original innocence and the strength of her native virtue. Lo! At Christ’s feet there kneels a woman, representing the degradation of the female, shedding profuse tears of contrition at the feet of God-Man, Who, before the spectators’ eyes, restores her good name, and, to some degree, illuminates her with the original innocence. Jesus not only says to her: “thy sins are forgiven thee” but also praises her fervent faith, extols her magnanimous charity, and the service of her boundless sacrifice. The purified and sanctified woman is led by the Holy Savior to the heights of heroism. During the horrifying passion of Christ, when His flock was scattered, when men – the Apostles, except for St. John – desert Jesus, the woman takes their place at Calvary, fearlessly facing the rage of the murderers of God and gathers in a way the last drops of His Blood!

(…)

Our Savior dignifies the woman with the honors of the hearth and home. Those rays of God in which Christ clothed the woman who became His spouse in the religious life, are shining also beyond the cloister, and are spread throughout the entire world. From that time on the mother of the family has occupied a prominent and wide place in the home, guaranteed her by the Christian right of sacramental marriage. The woman is a spouse inseparably joined with her husband. Here does she reign – and if the Apostle reminds her of her duty to be obedient to her husband (Col 3:18), then it is the obedience full of glory which does not violate any of her rights. Now, she is the one who educates her children who acknowledge in her the most tender and sacred authority and prestige.

Our Savior consecrates and dedicates the woman to great works in the society. (…) From the early centuries of Christianity, where events of great importance have been taking place, there have been found a Christian woman. Constantine is aided by [his mother] Helena; Theodosius  had [his daughter] Eudoxia and [sister] Pulcheria; Clotilde [a Catholic princess who remained Catholic despite the Arianism of her court] converts Clovis [the first king of the Franks whose baptism in 496 unified the Frankish tribes; he is regarded by the French as the founder of France]; Blanche transforms her son into St. Louis; Doubravka [a Bohemian princess] brings the light of the Faith into Poland [with her husband, Mieszko I, being baptized in 966 thus consolidating the once-pagan tribes and giving rise to the first independent and Christian Polish state, the Duchy of Poland], and Hedwig [or Jadwiga of Poland, the first woman to be crowned as monarch of the Kingdom of Poland in 1384] brings the Faith into Lithuania. On the throne as well as on the lowest steps of the social ladder, the woman, lifted up by Christ, becomes a heroic creature, eager for the highest sacrifice, a fearless aide, whether she is called “the good duchess” Elizabeth of Hungary or Genevieve, the humble Parisian shepherdess, or the Maid of Orleans, Joan, sent by God to free France (…). Fr. Ventura rightly states that “popes, apostolic men, founders of religious congregations, saintly priests and lay people, even kings who were not saints, would have accomplished nothing sacred, great, beautiful, useful in the interest of the faith or morals, nay, even the material prosperity of peoples without the cooperation in this or that way of a Catholic woman: if that woman – for her part - was thoroughly Catholic and – apart from her lofty virtues - she would have a profound and extensive knowledge of religion; if she would shine with impeccability”. (…)

May the women craving for unhealthy emancipation remember just what they owe to Christianity, without which the slavery and shame of old awaits them!...

Conclusion

Although people like Karol Wojtyla may have envisaged that the great process of women’s liberation (…) is still unfinished, true Catholics surely know better than that. Ladies, we’ve already been liberated! Let us give thanks this Christmas to the One who truly liberated us, male and female alike, having broken the chains of our pagan captivity, snatching us with His own Precious Blood from the shadow of death, and having illumined the entire world with the light of the True Catholic Faith which we must preserve and spread according to our abilities in these trying times of near universal apostasy. May our gratitude to Jesus Christ, our greatest Heavenly Benefactor be ever renewed in our hearts, especially as we kneel in our churches, our chapels, and our homes before the crib of Our Redeemer in the midst of the world which “knew him not.”  Merry Christmas!

Montessori Education And Indifferentism

 

In 2018, I published a post regarding the occult dangers inherent in Waldorf Schools; I also discussed same with Mr. Kevin Davis of the always excellent Catholic Family Podcast. 

(See catholicfamilypodcast.podbean.com/e/waldorf-schools-and-occultism).

(See also introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/06/an-education-in-evil.html).

I was a middle school science teacher here in New York City prior to becoming a lawyer. However, my research into Waldorf Schools was recent and not from my studies in education. Both as an undergraduate and graduate student, my classes centered on traditional public school education. Only a brief and shallow overview was given regarding Waldorf and Montessori methods of learning, and we were never tested on it. I therefore took at face value what my professors claimed as true of these alternate methods of imparting knowledge. 

One of my readers suggested that if I looked deeper into Montessori Schools, I would find disturbing truths there as well. Dr. Maria Tecla Artemisia Montessori (1870-1952) was born in Italy, and became the first Italian woman to earn a medical degree from the University of Rome. As a doctor, Montessori became involved in the treatment of children with disabilities and devised a special method of treating and educating them. Her method soon proved suitable for more general application and became known as the Montessori Method. I was a bit skeptical that I would find something wrong, as Dr. Montessori had always been presented as a devout Catholic and she wrote a book explaining the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to children. 

Nevertheless, I've come to expect the unexpected, and when I dug beneath the surface, Maria Montessori proved to be deceptive, and her pedagogy is rife with problems. This post will deal with Montessori and the educational system that bears her name.  

What is Montessori Education?

According to one Montessori website, the conventional method is explained thus:

Montessori is a scientifically based education approach that emphasizes independence, freedom within limits, and respect for a child’s natural psychological, physical, and social development. It was developed by Italian physician and educator Maria Montessori.

Montessori education is based on the belief that all children are unique individuals, that they all have immense potential, that they want to learn and be busy. Therefore the teacher needs to guide each child through the learning process by using materials that fit their specific needs and pace.

A Montessori education is based on the seven principles:

FREE CHOICE

Learning and well-being are improved when children have a sense of control over their lives. Although Montessori programs impose definite limits on this freedom, children are free to make many more decisions than are children in traditional classrooms: what to work on, how long to work on it, with whom to work on it, and so on.

ORDER

Recent research in psychology has proven that order in the environment is indeed very helpful to learning and development. Montessori classrooms are very organized, both physically (in terms of lay-out) and conceptually (in terms of how the use of materials progresses).

INTEREST

Your gut feeling is right: Research has shown that when people learn with the goal of doing well on a test, their learning is superficial and quickly forgotten. Children (and yes, adults, too) learn better when they are interested in what they are learning.

LEARNING FROM PEERS

Children in Montessori classrooms learn by imitation models, through peer tutoring, and in collaboration. In mixed age classes, younger children learn from older ones by asking them questions while watching them work. Older children who are teaching younger children repeat and consolidate their knowledge and skills and obtain social skills.

MOVEMENT

Our brains evolved in a world in which we move and do, not a world in which we sit at desks. Movement and cognition are closely entwined. Education, therefore, would involve movement to enhance learning.

CONTEXT

Rather than learning largely from what teachers and texts say to them, children in Montessori programs learn largely by doing. Because they are doing things, rather than merely hearing and writing, their learning is situated in the context of actions and objects. For example, children go out of the classroom and into the world to research their interests.

TEACHER GUIDANCE

Montessori teachers provide clear limits but set children free within these boundaries. They sensitively respond to children’s needs while maintaining high expectations. This kind of ‘authoritative parenting’ seeks a middle ground between a traditional, authoritarian attitude (“Do it because we say so”) and an overly permissive, child-centered approach of other progressive schools.

(See montessorimallorca.org/montessori-seven-principles). 

This is what is commonly sold to parents. However, there is no proof that Montessori education is in any way superior to traditional methods. In Nature, a peer-reviewed article entitled Montessori education: a review of the evidence base [2017] by Chloe Marshall, had this to say:

There are few peer-reviewed evaluations of Montessori education, and the majority have been carried out in the USA. Some have evaluated children’s outcomes while those children were in Montessori settings, and others have evaluated Montessori-educated children after a period of subsequent conventional schooling. As a whole this body of research suffers from several methodological limitations. (See nature.com/articles/s41539-017-0012-7; Emphasis mine). 

So there is no definitive evidence that Montessori Schools will better educate children. Some religious parents send their children to such a school because if Dr. Montessori developed the methods, they must be based on Catholic principles. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Maria Montessori: Modernist and Occultist

Maria Montessori was raised in a devout Catholic home. She received a papal blessing from Pope Benedict XV (r. 1914-1922) and published The Mass Explained to Children in 1933. In accordance with Italian law, her first schools taught the One True Faith (Catholicism was the State religion). These are the parts of her life that get touted, and the appearance of a "good Catholic" served her well. What she really believed and did tell another story.

Montessori joined Theosophy, the occult sect of Madame Helena Blavatsky, founded in 1875. Theosophy, among other tenets,  teaches that knowledge of God may be achieved through spiritual ecstasy, or direct intuition, known as vital immanence, a teaching of Modernism. Theosophy also teaches reincarnation and incorporates many pagan Hindu ideas. According to Joy Dixon, Divine Feminine: Theosophy and Feminism in England, [2001], pgs. 3-4, Theosophy has as its goal "to form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or color." (Emphasis mine). 

According to The Theosophical Society in America:

MARIA MONTESSORI had her first acquaintance with Theosophy, early in the twentieth century, when she went to hear Annie Besant speak in London in 1907 after Montessori had established her first Casa dei Bambini (i.e., Children's House). Annie Besant spoke in praise of Montessori's work in education which pleased Montessori, and thus sealed their friendship...

My own acquaintance with Montessori began through the Theosophical Society and reading her writings. In 1940, when I was seven years old, my family moved to a farm northeast of Ann Arbor, Michigan. My father's dream was to make it a Theosophical community and, for a while, it was. In 1956 my former sister-in-law, Barbara Bailey, and I started the first Montessori school in Michigan. In 1970, I took the Montessori Elementary training course for teachers in Bergamo, Italy and while there learned that some of the Montessori Elementary educational materials had been designed while Montessori was in India. (Hindu/Theosophy influence; See theosophical.org/publications/quest-magazine/42-publications/quest-magazine/1409-montessori-and-the-theosophical-society; Emphasis mine). 

Following her death in 1952, the [Theosophical] Society President, C. Jinarajadasa, reported that Maria Montessori did in fact join the Theosophical Society on May 23, 1899. Her original application had been found by the Recording Secretary's Office at Adyar. There being no Italian Section the time, Montessori joined the European Section and was admitted by the General Secretary, Mr Otway Cuffe. Her membership was later dropped... 

It is now clear, however, that Montessori's connection with Theosophy was older than the Method. The Dottoressa [i.e., female medical doctor] thus may have been influenced by early Theosophical literature on education. Indeed, in 1889 one of the Society's founders, the Russian mystic Madame Blavatsky, seemed almost to prophesy the future Montessori Children's Houses in the slums of Rome: I quite agree that there is a great advantage to a small child bred in the slums, having the gutter for playground, and living amid continued coarseness of gesture and word, in being placed daily in a bright, clean school-room hung with pictures, and often gay with flowers. There it is taught to be clean, gentle, orderly; there it learns to sing and play; has toys that awaken its intelligence; learns to use its fingers deftly; is spoken to with a smile instead of a frown; is gently rebuked or coaxed instead of cursed. All this humanizes the children, arouses their brains, and renders them susceptible, to intellectual and moral influences.

It is unlikely that the fiercely independent Dottoressa would have enabled Theosophists to claim her as their own by admitting that she had once been a member of their Society, or that she had been inspired by the writings of Madame Blavatsky. Montessori had also returned to Catholicism and Theosophy, with its belief in Karma and reincarnation, 'has been categorized "as being at heart Hindu" and hence antithetical to Catholic orthodoxy'.  Indeed Jinarajadasa presumed that Montessori failed to acknowledge the efforts of the Theosophical Society in furthering her work, particularly in India, 'because she was a Roman Catholic, and to have mentioned the work of 'The Theosophical Society', would have drawn upon her the wrath of the Catholic hierarchy'. 

(See kelpin.nl/fred/download/montessori/english/theosophist.pdf; History of Education Society Bulletin (1985) Vol. 36 pp 52 -54 "Montessori was a Theosophist;" Emphasis mine). 

During the reign of Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914), many theologians suspect of Modernism held Montessori in high esteem. She was a leading proponent of feminism, and denigrated marriage and motherhood. In an article entitled Dr. Maria Montessori, Feminist, the doctor is quoted as saying:

...the woman of the future will have equal rights as well as equal duties…Family life as we know it may change, but it is absurd to think the feminism will destroy maternal feelings. The new woman will marry and have children out of choice, not because matrimony and maternity are imposed on her.(See thenewinquiry.com/blog/dr-maria-montessori-feminist). 

The idea that marriage and family are "imposed" by society, and is not a vocation from God, can only be described as repugnant. The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1013, section 1 states: "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children. Its secondary end is mutual help and the allaying of concupiscence." It's easier to understand her position when you know she conceived a son with a fellow doctor via fornication. They agreed not to marry, and Montessori put her son Mario into foster care to continue her career. Later, he would work with her when he was an adult. 

Montessori spent time in India, and let her occultism show full force. In an age without computers and easy communication, Montessori felt safe in the pagan country. (I have seen pictures of her sporting the Hindu "bindi"—-a red dot in the middle of the forehead that symbolizes the pagan/occult "third eye"). She wrote for the Theosophy Journal in India, and became convinced of Indifferentism (i.e., one religion is as good as another as they all contain some truth--Vatican II anyone?). 

Montessori stated: Just as language has many expressions: English, Swedish, Swahili, and so forth, so does elevation express itself by way of different creeds: Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and many different belief systems in order to communicate with and about God. 

(See lifesongmontessori.com/montessori-philosophy.html). 

Also, she believed in the Modernist doctrine of vital immanence: We must remember that religion is a universal sentiment which is inside everybody and has been inside every person since the beginning of the world. It is not something which we must give to the child. (See The Child, Society and the World: Unpublished Speeches and Writings by Montessori; Emphasis mine). 

Vital immanence is a doctrine of the Modernists forcefully condemned by Pope St. Pius X:

However, this Agnosticism is only the negative part of the system of the Modernist: the positive side of it consists in what they call vital immanence. This is how they advance from one to the other. Religion, whether natural or supernatural, must, like every other fact, admit of some explanation. But when Natural theology has been destroyed, the road to revelation closed through the rejection of the arguments of credibility, and all external revelation absolutely denied, it is clear that this explanation will be sought in vain outside man himself. It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. Hence the principle of religious immanence is formulated. Moreover, the first actuation, so to say, of every vital phenomenon, and religion, as has been said, belongs to this category, is due to a certain necessity or impulsion; but it has its origin, speaking more particularly of life, in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sentiment. Therefore, since God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and the foundation of all religion, consists in a sentiment which originates from a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favorable circumstances, cannot, of itself, appertain to the domain of consciousness; it is at first latent within the consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where also its roots lies hidden and undetected. (See Pascendi Dominici Gregis, para. #7; Emphasis mine).

Montessori's Indifferentism is Inherent in the Curriculum

Once Catholic countries were destroyed by Vatican II, Montessori Schools wasted no time implementing their founder's poison:

As you would expect of an Italian woman at the turn of the twentieth century, Dr. Montessori grew up in the Catholic faith and its influence can be clearly observed throughout her life: threaded throughout all of her work are the unshakeable beliefs in the sanctity of the human spirit, the fraternity of all humankind, and the pursuit of peace as the noblest effort we must undertake.

Already during her studies and especially after the success of her early work, Dr. Montessori began to travel extensively. During her lifetime she met with leaders in all areas of human accomplishments: scientists, artists, political and religious leaders, and those encounters and relationships deeply influenced her work and thinking. It is unclear how exactly Dr. Montessori’s religious beliefs continued to develop as she kept this part of her life private, but there is evidence she came to a principal dissent with the Catholic church, and also that she had meaningful ties to non-European religions and even esoteric philosophies, particularly through the Theosophic Society.

Ultimately though, as they say, the proof is in the pudding, and the legacy Dr. Montessori left us is one of profound humanism. Now, as a century ago, her work encourages and empowers children and adults alike to celebrate, develop and uphold our shared humanity.

In Montessori theory, spirituality is listed as of the the five fundamental human tendencies: alongside and interconnected with the other four (work, exploration, group behavior and the mathematical mind) it is understood as one of the universal drives shaping our shared human experience. The four chief aspects of Spirituality, usually given as Art, Music, Dance and Religion (including its secular, atheist or humanistic manifestations), are considered as present and innate to every human culture throughout the history of our existence.  Dr. Montessori thus explicitly named religious and spiritual life as something that connects us rather than divides us.

Most Montessori schools choose to present religion as a part of our cultural curriculum, both in the set materials and resources present in the classroom, and through actively involving the student body. As we encourage children from different language, ethnic or national backgrounds to study, share and celebrate each others heritage, so do we invite them to share their faiths, if they wish to: students are invited to bring photographs, artifacts, special clothing or stories and songs to the classrooms and learn to share their unique identity with pride.

Some schools (especially international schools with a diverse student body) organize cultural fairs when students act as ambassadors of their nations and cultures and teach attendees about them, including their faith backgrounds. Festivals and events are held as a way to honor and explore each other’s heritage. The same school might thus have special activities to celebrate Diwali, Mawlid, Hanukkah, Christmas and Chinese New Year in quick succession, allowing its students to experience wonder and beauty in each. (See montessoriparenting.org/montessori-and-religion: Emphasis mine).

Conclusion

Dr. Maria Montessori was a Modernist and occultist posing as a Catholic. Her teaching methodology is based on the false ideas that one religion is as good as another, and all children have a universal sentiment inside that lets them experience God. There is no body of research to prove Montessori education is in any way superior to traditional education. Save your money and your child's soul by keeping them out of these learning institutions. Warn other parents who send their children to a Montessori School. After learning about Dr. Maria Montessori, I'll be putting my copy of The Mass Explained to Children next to my Fulton Sheen Missal, in my library section "Know Thy Enemy."