Jesus said: “There is no problem or difficulty that cannot be solved or resolved by faithful persevering recourse to My Mother’s most holy Rosary. The Rosary is My Mother’s gift to the poor and to the simple, to the little ones who alone are capable of hearing the Gospel in all its purity and of responding to it with a generous heart.
“It is to such as these—the childlike and the weak, the poor and the trusting—that the Rosary is given. It is to such as these that the Rosary belongs.
“There are no sufferings that cannot be borne peacefully, so long as a soul is praying the Rosary. Through the Rosary, all the grace and power of My mysteries passes through My Mother’s Immaculate Heart into the hearts of the little ones who invoke her, repeating the angel’s “Ave” over and over again. There are illnesses that can be cured through the Rosary.
“There are clouds of darkness and confusion that only the Rosary can disperse, and this because it is My Mother’s favourite prayer, a prayer that originated in the heights of heaven and was carried to earth by My Archangel, a prayer echoed and amplified in the Church through the ages, a prayer loved by all My saints, a prayer of disarming power and of immense depth.
“There are those who find the Rosary difficult. The difficulty lies not in the Rosary but in the complexity of those who struggle to enter into its simplicity. Invite souls to the prayer of the Rosary; through it I will heal the sick of mind and body, through it I will give peace where there is conflict, through it I will make great saints out of great sinners, through it I will sanctify My priests, give joy to My consecrated ones, and raise up new vocations in abundance.
“Listen, then, to My Mother’s plea in so many places. Listen to her, take her plea to heart, pray her Rosary and, for you, as for her, My Father will do wondrous things.”
Words of Jesus to a Benedictine Monk in prayer.
From: “In Sinu Jesu: When Heart Speaks to Heart — the Journal of a Priest at Prayer.” 2nd December 2014
Theology is the study of God’s relations with humankind, God’s intervention in human affairs, God’s Self-revelation, especially in the Incarnation, when the Son of God became man and entered human history as Jesus, the Christ.
God’s Self-revelation was complete when the Father sent His only begotten Son into the world, because the Son of God is “the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance.” (Hebrews 1:3)
Theology seeks an understanding of God’s revelation, or as St Anselm put it, theology is “faith seeking understanding”.
The revelation of Jesus Christ is summarised in the Apostles’ Creed, elaborated in the dogmas of the Church, and further expounded in the teachings of the Church Councils, the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints of the Church.
The word “dogma” does not mean “an obstinate insistence upon a certain point of view” (the modern day, pejorative sense of the word), but actually means a teaching that is both (1) revealed by God; and (2) defined by the Church as an integral part of God’s self-revelation.
Therefore, a “dogmatic teaching” is a teaching that is always and everywhere true, because it rests on the authority of the God who reveals Himself, and the authority of the Church which testifies to God’s self-revelation.
Some of the greatest theologians in the history of the Church include Saint Paul the Apostle, Saint John the Beloved, Saint Augustine, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint John Damascene, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and others.
The appetite for pleasure, money, and power: these are the fundamental appetites of human nature. Any and every temptation can only appeal to one or more of these three appetites.
These appetites can be man’s downfall, or else the path by which he overcomes and merits victory in Christ.
For to master these appetites is to be the master of oneself, to be self-possessed, and to be in a much greater capacity to surrender oneself to the will of God. But to be mastered by one’s appetites, by one or more of the appetites, is to become a slave to them, a slave to sin, and to be estranged from the grace and glory of God.
Saint John the Beloved warned against these appetites: “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh, the desires of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not from the Father but from the world. The world is passing away, along with its desires; but whoever does the will of God remains forever.” (1 John 2: 15-17)
If one is mastered by one’s appetites (desires), this becomes like a spiritual wound which festers and grows, perhaps becomes a sort of spiritual abscess, against which the soul will struggle as it seeks sound health, until it is set free by the grace of God.
“The love of money is the root of all evil.” (1 Timothy 6:10) The same can be said of an immoderate love of pleasure or power.
How many souls have fallen because they could not liberate themselves from an attachment to the love of money, power or pleasure?
Whether one is a Christian or not, religious or not, priest or nun, brother or sister, mother or father, son or daughter, one can only advance toward union with God by mastering one’s appetites, by doing the will of God, through the gift of God’s grace with which He empowers us to overcome sin, temptation, and to master ourselves, for the glory of God.
He who does not master himself cannot submit his will to God, and he who does not submit to the will of God cannot master himself. These two go hand in hand.
For “The world is passing away, along with its desires; but whoever does the will of God remains forever.”
Notice too that the devil’s three temptations of Christ in the wilderness correspond to the three appetites (Matthew 4:1-11): for pleasure, power, and riches.
Isn’t it interesting that history seems to have given us clear examples of all three appetites leading to the downfall or temporary downfall of someone or other?
One mystic wrote that Judas betrayed our Lord because Judas was, from the very beginning, only interested in success and attached to the love of money—he controlled the common “purse” (collective money) for the apostles and he ultimately betrayed the Lord for 30 pieces of silver.
Saint Paul (before his conversion) was attached to power: he wanted to round up all Christians and put them away or put them to death.
Pope Alexander VI fell from grace because of his attachment to pleasure, power, and money: he had several mistresses and fathered several children, while securing his power through alliances with various political powers.
No one is immune from such trials, and we ought to be sober, watchful and vigilant, as the Lord encouraged us to be. (Luke 21:36)
The Bishops of the Church today face the most difficult crisis in the entire history of the Church–a crisis greatly magnified by a series of crises layered one upon another, a crisis that manifests on every level of the Church’s existence: spiritual, ecclesiological, theological, liturgical, and pastoral. But the Bishops, successors of the twelve Apostles of Christ, also have great potential to transform the Church and the world.
In this letter I propose to give a brief outline of the origin of the Bishop’s Office, the range of challenges which confront the Bishops, the heart of the present crisis, the spiritual danger that souls are facing, and, last but not least, the power and efficacy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Origin of the Bishop’s Office
In the year 33 AD our Lord Jesus Christ, having risen from the dead, ascended into heaven in the sight of His holy Mother Mary and His Apostles and was seated at the right hand of the Father. Ten days later the Holy Spirit came upon them amid the sound of a rushing wind and tongues of fire which sat upon their heads.
The twelve Apostles were empowered to teach the Gospel, govern the Church, sanctify souls for heaven, and to pass on their mission in an unbroken succession of shepherds until the end of the world.
The Apostles launched their evangelical mission with little more than the rigorous training, the spiritual gifts, and the Divine authority which Christ had bestowed upon them. The Church which they helped to establish (Ephesians 2:20) had, within three centuries, transformed virtually the entire world.
The Present Crisis
Fast forward 2,000 years and it appears that today there are powerful forces both in the world and in the Church hierarchy which would seek to reverse everything that the Apostles worked so hard to establish.
From the Second Vatican Council to the effects of the sexual revolution to the threat of totalitarian regimes to the ever widening influence of relativistic ideologies to the advent of Pope Francis to the widespread contestation of the definition of marriage to the present day Covid Crisis, the Church has suffered so many assaults within the space of just a few, short decades.
The Church is being tossed to and fro in a severe storm that threatens her very life, the teaching of the faith, the objectivity of moral values, authentic pastoral practice and, it seems, the very foundation of her Divine authority.
Will she survive? Will she emerge unscathed? “When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8)
A Real Pandemic?
Today we are witnessing a world thoroughly shaken by an alleged health crisis.
Given the near global response to the virus, as the life and activities of the Church have undergone significant reconfiguration, the nature of the Church and her relationship to her children are implicitly called into question.
But who is pulling the strings of history? Is it the global elites who seek to build an earthly utopia on their own terms and conditions? Or is the Covid Response Team simply reacting to a worldwide health crisis? Or is it fair to say that, in the greater scheme of things, any and all such manoeuvres and machinations, regardless of their origin and purpose, are subordinate to the omniscience and omnipotence of a benevolent God, who determines the real course of history in mysterious ways?
Whatever you think about these matters, what is undeniable today is that we are witnessing the most universal and pervasive forms of intervention in the state of human affairs that the world has ever seen.
So what is really happening? Is the pandemic really real?
The Two Narratives
There are basically two competing narratives playing out on the world stage.
On the one hand, there is a narrative that says the new coronavirus is highly dangerous, that we ought to practice widespread lockdown measures in order to save lives and to completely eradicate the virus from society, and that we ought to suffer whatever the cost to our social, economic, and political freedoms in the meantime.
This idea was based upon theoretical contagion models—not on real data—which predicted millions and then tens of millions of deaths, was widely promoted by the mainstream media, and was acted upon by (most) governments.
On the other hand, there is another narrative, supported by many scientists and medical experts, which claims that the coronavirus is only about as dangerous as the common flu, that you cannot possibly eradicate it completely from society (no matter how many lockdowns you enforce), and that widespread lockdown measures have caused far more damage than the virus could ever have done.
A large number of governments together with the mainstream media are opposed to this narrative—so much so that many of us have long stared with wide-eyed fascination at how insular the Covid Response Team has been to the well researched and highly reputable opinions of renowned scientists and top medical experts from around the world.
The list is enormously long but it is worth mentioning a few of them:
Also in May the CDC (Center for Disease Control) released a statement saying that coronavirus is “nowhere near as lethal as earlier [theoretical] models claimed.”
In August the head immunologist at Tel Aviv University revealed that 99.99 percent of the world’s population has survived covid-19.
And from a medical report in September 2020: “According to the latest immunological studies, the overall lethality of Covid-19 (IFR) in the general population ranges between 0.1% and 0.5% in most countries, which is comparable to the medium influenza pandemics of 1957 and 1968.”
Early in October, 9,000 (nine thousand) medical professionals signed a joint document strongly criticising the lockdowns. One could multiply such corroborating reports almost endlessly.
Which of these two narratives will prevail, in the final analysis? That remains to be seen.
Assume For A Moment
But let’s assume for a moment—just for argument’s sake—that there is a real pandemic. What would that mean for the Church?
Even if there were a real pandemic, could the Bishops actually relinquish their responsibility for the care of souls—a responsibility they have assumed in the eyes of God? Could the Bishops’ God-given mandate to save souls be justifiably subordinated to the strictures and demands of a health crisis? Would souls have less need of God in the event of a health crisis?
Let us acknowledge, the choice to close or to restrict Church services in the event of a health crisis is to subordinate the care of the soul to the care of the body, and effectively to reverse the order of priorities mandated by our Lord Jesus Himself:
“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28)
Such a reversal of priorities has consequences for the understanding of the nature of the Church. It reaches deep into the life and consciousness of the Church, undermining traditional doctrines regarding the Divine foundation of the Church, her God-given authority, and her God-given mission.
If the subordination of the soul to the body continues it will lead, sooner or later, to the complete subordination of the Church to the State, forsaking obedience to her Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.
The Message of Complicity
When the doors of the Church are closed in the face of believers this fosters an insinuation that the holy Mass and other Church services are no longer “essential”.
When masks are mandated in Church this is counterproductive because, according to Scripture, we come together as the Body of Christ so that “with unveiled faces we may behold the glory of the living God.” (2 Corinthians 3:18)
When believers are denied Holy Communion on the tongue it robs them of a precious opportunity to express due reverence, devotion, and love for the Lord Jesus in the Eucharist.
When Church services are cancelled this deprives the faithful of coming into the sacramental Presence of God and worshipping God.
When the Bishops are all too ready to capitulate to widespread Church restrictions and closures—never before witnessed on such a scale in 2,000 years of Church history—this cannot but give a subtle impression that the Church has been transformed into a social institution, an instrument of the State, and has implicitly denied her Divine constitution.
Such a reconfiguration of the life and activity of the Church cannot help but insinuate that the Church is, in essence, subject to change; that she is no longer the custodian of the Revelation of Jesus Christ; that her role in the economy of salvation is non-essential.
Assault On The Faith
How many souls will be able to withstand the Covid Persecution? How many will emerge with a living faith? In the face of such wholesale surrender to the State, will the Church ever recover her rightful place in society?
This assault on the Faith is rendered all the more dangerous because it follows upon the heels of decades of spiritual devastation: for at least two or three generations vast numbers of Catholics have been deprived of authentic catechesis, secular ideologies have been quietly invading the life of the Church, moral values are ridiculed or altogether abandoned, and the Gospel often suffers dilution and compromise.
The Church and the World
The Church cannot serve both God and the world. She must choose one or the other.
The Lord Jesus said that we are “in the world” but not “of the world.” (John 17: 11-19) And the Apostle John wrote: “If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” (1 John 2:15)
But we might ask: Ought not the Church to love the world, as “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life”? (John 3:16)
Here we come face to face with a profound paradox—a paradox that we ought to embrace rather than surrender to an unholy compromise with the world.
As G.K. Chesterton famously wrote, can a man “hate [the world] enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing?” (Orthodoxy)
Ever since Vatican II, when Pope John XXIII’s fundamental impulse was to bring the Church up to date with the times (aggiornamento), the Church adopted what can rightly be called an ambivalent attitude towards the world—an attitude which has rarely been clarified or set right.
Can the Church both love and not love the world at the same time? Yes, but each in a different sense. The Church ought to conform herself, not to the world, but to Christ for the sanctification of the world.
Any suggestion or hint that the Church could possibly learn from the world in matters pertaining to the salvation of souls is not only unwise but thoroughly and grievously mistaken.
It was the Council’s compromise on this point, explicit or implicit, that introduced a basic disorientation into the heart of the Church, a festering wound that has spawned a multitude of errors and heterodox tendencies.
Saint Paul reminds us: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Romans 12:2)
The basic orientation of the Church to the world will feed into everything: the Church’s faith, doctrines, moral teaching, pastoral practice—everything!
Vatican II’s ambivalent embrace of the world is complicated even further by the advent of Pope Francis, who demonstrates, intentionally or unintentionally, a strong and consistent tendency to engage with heterodoxy.
The Bishops have a grave responsibility to remind Pope Francis what the First Vatican Council taught clearly and unequivocally:
“For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the Apostles.” (Session 4, Chapter 4, paragraph 6)
A Silent Spiritual Holocaust
For all the above reasons, what we are now witnessing is a silent, spiritual holocaust: the holocaust of multitudes of vulnerable and unsuspecting souls on the altar of the Bishops’ silent complicity with the world.
How many will survive?
The Lord declared: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you as My priests. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I will also forget your children.” (Hosea 4:6)
Jesus said, “the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)
Christ came “neither to condemn us in our sins nor to condone our sins, but to save us from them”, as a faithful priest once said. Hell is real. Salvation is real. The Lord takes no pleasure in “the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.” (Ezekiel 33:11)
These truths do not change with the passage of time.
A Call to the Bishops
Today in the midst of this crisis, as one crisis has been added to another and again to another, the Church has need of Bishops and priests who will be like the Apostles, their predecessors, who transformed the world by the witness of their word, and most often by the witness of their blood, the Holy Spirit working through them with great signs and wonders.
There is no challenge, obstacle, or difficulty that could prevent our shepherds from achieving what the twelve Apostles achieved.
Saint Paul testified, “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” (Romans 1:16)
The Gospel is “ever ancient and ever new”, the fruit of God’s Self-revelation in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the fount of eternal salvation.
“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8) His message does not change with the changing times.
When proclaimed in its purity and entirety, the Gospel exerts a powerful attraction on the soul—because the soul hungers, consciously or unconsciously, for the word of the Lord, for the truth that will set it free, for the fruits of the Redemption which Christ paid for with His own Blood.
This is not to say that the Bishops are entirely missing in action. A few Cardinals and Bishops have been strongly vocal about the rights, duties, and needs of the Church. But the majority are still silent—so much so that recently Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò noted that such silence is ”deafening”.
When Peter and John were hauled before the council of priests and high priests they were commanded “not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.” (Acts 4:18)
But Peter and John responded: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.” (Acts 4:19)
What will the Bishops now say?
We need you, the successors of the Apostles, to rise to the occasion. The Lord is waiting for you. The Church is waiting for you. The world needs your unfailing witness to our Lord Jesus Christ.
Lastest revision: 2:00 pm, 7th November 2020. Sydney, Australia.
The discussion on how to define marriage in Australia has stirred our hearts, forced many of us to take sides, refined our debating skills, raised awareness about the stakes, and spurred us on to unprecedented levels of activism and advocacy.
Most importantly, the marriage debate has brought to light the fact that, underlying the discussion and the debates, there is a serious degree of misinformation—misinformation about the notion of “equality”, about how to ask the right questions, about human rights and where they come from, about how to define marriage, about how to understand human nature. And, finally, who is to decide?
Is it a matter of faith? Or is it a matter of reason? Can we afford to throw out both one and the other?
Some Christians are quick to point out that homosexual acts are offensive to God, that God made man for woman, and woman for man, and that this is the essence of marriage. Other Christians are equally quick to point out that God is merciful and desires the salvation of every soul. Perhaps these two approaches are not mutually exclusive. After all, a true parent is both loving and firm, merciful and just.
But again, what if society decides to do away with the “faith” dimension? And, moreover, to ignore the obvious truth that traditional marriage is founded on the natural complementarity of male and female which, in turn, is ordered to procreation, the preservation of the human race? Then we shall have to bear the consequences, all of us without exception, knowing that past civilisations have risen and fallen with the ebb and flow of their moral integrity.
It’s not merely that we’re debating who can marry whom. It’s that we are questioning the very foundations of thought and liberty. In such an atmosphere, where the debate ranges from civil discussion to open hostility, the realisation that we are no longer certain about the basics of human nature has slowly, eerily dawned upon us.
Whether or not you agree with the traditional definition of marriage, whether or not you think we can ignore this question, whether or not we arrive at a resolution, one thing is certain: there is a sense that something has gone wrong, that the foundations of human existence have been shaken and disturbed.
Like the Hobbits in “Lord of the Rings” who were persuasively removed from their beloved Shire, we feel as though we have been robbed of our true culture. Nothing will be right for the Hobbits until they can return safely home, even if in the meantime they must confront the darkest forces in the world. Nothing will be right for us until we can return to the truth about human nature, even if in the meantime we must confront competing ideologies and various humanisms and half-truths.
If a nation throws out both “faith” and “reason” then it is already in grave danger.
Nevertheless, the Lord revealed to Saint Faustina that “Mercy is God’s greatest attribute.” (Diary 301). This means, of course, that sometimes mercy triumphs over justice, which is what happened on the Cross when Christ freely poured out His Blood for us. God’s real desire is to save our souls, no matter how much we deceive ourselves, no matter how much we resist His calls and inspirations, no matter how much we despise His words and commandments.
While some accept some religious authority on the question of marriage, others do not.
Be that as it may, the homosexual question has been so politicised that it has created problems and misconceptions on many levels. The only way forward is a dispassionate presentation of the truths which to a great extent have remained unknown, truths such as: (1) preserving traditional marriage and maintaining respect for homosexual persons are not mutually exclusive; (2) affirming the dignity and worth of a human being does not entail agreeing with their opinions; (3) homosexual persons in Australia are no longer discriminated against (see the Same Sex Relationships Act of 2008); (4) changing the Marriage Act could potentially rob all Australians of the freedoms of speech, association, conscience, and education; (5) human rights do not come out of nowhere—they have a foundation in reality, in human nature, in our capacities, in our real purpose.
But while you might proclaim such truths and meet with varying degrees of success, there is another, more subtle, more dangerous consequence to the idea of a “vote” on marriage. Think about this for a moment. If the majority voted in favour of telling lies or stealing goods or killing an innocent human being, would that suddenly make it “lawful” to commit such acts? Which, of course, begs the question: What is the “good”? Surely, the good has to be good for everyone.
But let’s put such philosophical considerations aside, shall we? The realists in our society, those who courageously confront this grave moment in Australia’s march through history, are quick to remind us that our fundamental freedoms are now up for grabs. Right now in the hallowed halls of the Australian parliament. The freedoms and rights which we have long enjoyed in Australia are no longer guaranteed for us. The Australian people are on the threshold of a profound cultural and political turning point. This will make or break our long standing traditions and rights and freedoms.
So what good is it to bring to people’s attention the religious or philosophical foundations of the marriage debate? The point is that, win or lose, ideas have consequences in real life. The point is that our senators are currently positioning themselves in a vote for or against the rights and freedoms of Australians.
What are the possible outcomes? At best, changes to the Marriage Act could be reconciled with the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Australians. At worst, we could lose the foundations of a liberal democracy as we know it.
But who cares, you might ask? That’s the real the question.
And even if the Australian government were to pass an unjust or inappropriate or inconvenient law tomorrow—that would not stop us from being genuine activists, would it? It would not stop us from fighting for human dignity, on one level or another. You can’t legislate against the creative power of the human spirit; you can’t legislate against love; you can’t stop the human spirit from rising above the limitations of the prevailing culture. There will always be room for the creative freedom of men and women of good will to recreate culture, and to recreate the world.
Is this marriage debate really about equality or about pointing the finger at homosexual persons? And if not, then what really is the nature of this present moment that we face as Australians?
Janet Albrechtsen gave a succinct answer in The Australian (15 November 2017, ‘Forget Hurt Feelings, Free Speech is a Birthright’): “The outcome of this contest is not just a matter for gay people and religious people. It’s a matter for all of us in a liberal democracy. It will settle, one way or another, whether the country can finally confront and reconcile a 30-year project aimed at the sustained corruption of classical liberal ideas of universal human rights.”
Such universal human rights are what we are now having to fight for in Australia when these rights ought to be unconditionally protected and preserved by our politicians.
What good is it to remind the world that God punishes a nation for its sins when Christians themselves fail in their Christian duty? What good is it for a minority group to cry for equality when obvious features of our human nature are wilfully denied? Can we really solve this problem by fuelling a minor social conflict into a nationwide debate without careful consideration of all the relevant questions?
I don’t think so.
There are philosophical presuppositions in the debate which need to be corrected. There are false dichotomies which need to be resolved. There are social ills and misconceptions which need to be healed with love and truth, not merely legislated. The greater responsibility lies with us who believe in Jesus Christ, not with those who do not yet know the Lord.
“If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” (2 Chronicles 7:14)
As Pope Saint Pius V said: “All the evils in the world are due to lukewarm Catholics.” And in the words of Khalil Gibran: “The true wealth of a nation lies not in its gold or silver but in its learning, wisdom and in the uprightness of its sons.”
Perhaps it’s time that Christians took the Lord’s words seriously: “You are my friends if you do whatever I command you” (John 15:14). Those who are friends of the Lord are in a position to call down blessings on an entire nation, to intercede to God for the outpouring of His mercy, and to raise up a new generation of sanctified souls in the service of the well-being of the whole nation.