If you feel like the world is in shambles, grace is more important than whatever you think might improve the situation. Asking for peace will not avail much unless God’s grace helps those there to maintain peace by providing the means of building up virtue. 

If you feel like things in the Church are troubled, grace is more important than whatever you think might fix things. Asking for the Church to be freed from whatever corruption or lack of faith is good, but these things would have little staying power unless God’s grace is there, as a living faith needs God’s grace. 

Are you worried about bad behavior at work? Asking for things to improve likely will not end up leading to a good long-term outcome unless God continually gives those who are misbehaving God’s grace, as in order to follow all of the natural law, God’s grace is necessary. You may wonder if God’s grace could make those misbehaving act better, why doesn’t He? Well, why does God wait until we pray to give it to us? The reason is for the merit of the asker, as prayer is a good work, and thus it is for the benefit of the asker that he prays to ask for grace on behalf of another. Also of even greater importance is that God’s Providence is so grand that he can, and does, bring good out of evil. Behold the Passion of Our Lord.  

According to the National Safety Council, an average company with 1,000 people in Texas faces annual costs of $1,220,720 due to mental health issues of its employees. How many more millions of costs are faced by the average company due to employees not having God’s grace (given all of the necessities fulfilled by grace as stated above)? Yet where do we see the national campaigns stressing the costs of insufficient grace in our country or in the world? 

Are you worried about how hard it will be to go to heaven when you die? Well, God’s grace is necessary for final perseverance. Whatever you are worried about is not worth worrying about compared to going to heaven. [B]e not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life more than the meat: and the body more than the raiment? (Matthew 6:25)

We could make the excuse that God’s grace is his free gift, and not up to us. God’s grace, after all, is ultimately up to Him. But while it is true, as far as it goes, God’s grace is ordinarily made available to us through the sacraments. How many of the world’s and the Church’s problems could be solved if we all just went to daily mass? The mass is the greatest conduit of God’s graces. Indeed, St. Louis, despite being the King of France, went to mass twice a day. He puts all of us, myself included, to shame. Nothing is more practical for resolving the problems of the world and the Church than assisting at the Holy Mass.  When daily mass is not possible, you could go every other day, or on Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday (besides Sunday) like the early Christians did. Finally, if you can’t do that, one option is to do a daily spiritual communion, using some formula like that of St. Alphonsus Liguori. 

According to Fr. Pietro Parente and the other authors of the Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology (1951), grace is necessary for the following things…. Grace is necessary “to know truths that are objectively supernatural”. Grace is necessary “for supernatural faith”. Grace is necessary morally “to know the moral-religious truths easily, certainly, and without admixture of error”. Internal grace is necessary “to do all good according to all the precepts of the natural law”. Internal grace is necessary “to love God above all things, not only affectively but also effectively (in every action)”. Grace is necessary to avoid all mortal sin for long periods of time, and to avoid all venial sin. Finally, grace is necessary for any salutary work (anything which merits eternal life). 

Also according to the Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology: Grace is a new principle of action for us, one which purifies us, allows us to combat our fallen nature and elevates our faculties to the supernatural order. The reason for the necessity of grace for the knowledge of all those moral truths and truths of the faith are the disproportion between the intellect and the objects of that knowledge. The moral necessity of grace for all of the remaining things is because of our fallen nature due to original sin. It is true however that we can do some good with our solely natural faculties. But grace is needed to do the lion’s share of it.

God’s grace is more important than anything else you are worried about. Have you worried about how you or those you are worried about could obtain more of it? If you are like me, you haven’t worried enough about it. We should structure our companies, families, and countries to increase access to God’s grace. Let’s do our best to do this, and everything we worry about will get better. Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you (Matthew 6:33). 

Louis IX was also fond of a teaching from his pious mother.  One one occasion he asked John of Joinville, one of his close friends, fellow crusader, and chronicler whether he would prefer to commit a sin or be stricken with leprosy.  When Joinville replied that he would prefer to sin rather than be a leper, St. Louis scolded him for his answer.  Louis was fond of recalling a teaching from his mother who told him, apparently, more than once, that she would rather see him dead than commit a mortal sin.  That firmness seems to have made a significant impact on the young king that remained with him all his life.  

The idea is a striking one to modern ears and minds.  What kind of parents tell their children that they would rather see them dead than sin?  Is that not overly intolerant, rigid, and narrow-minded?

And the answer, of course, is yes.  It is all of those things, intolerant, rigid, and narrow-minded.  But then, there are some things of which we should be intolerant, there are some things that should be firm and rigid (the truth itself, is, after all), and there are some to which our minds should be closed.  And if sin is not one of those things, then nothing is.  

The issue comes up because the Church in Poland has been criticized recently because of a textbook used for first communion preparation that quoted from another young saint that holds it is better to die than to sin.  

The idea, though obviously, perfectly sound, has provoked a great deal of hand wringing in online circles about how mean it is to tell children that it is better to die than to sin.  Supposedly, it could encourage children to think that God won’t love them if they are not perfect or could encourage them to suicide.  

Of course, that is absurd for the quotation does no more than harken to the same attitude of King Louis IX who held that a radical love of and obedience to God must come first.  And death would indeed be preferable than to act against this love.  For a person who dies in a state of love and obedience to God, death is no evil.  Hence, the many martyrs throughout Church history who died rather than transgress the faith.  These included saints from the early Christians who allowed themselves to be killed by Rome rather than worship Roman idols to the Carmelite martyrs of Compiègne and many others.  

The modern distaste for this idea simply reflects the old pagan roman idea that religion isn’t really that serious.  Certainly, it was nothing to die for.  Secondly, it probably reflects the modern idea that virtue is not really possible.  How can one not sin?  Unfortunately, this view has sometimes even infected people in the Church as it may reflect a push in some quarters to normalize divorce and same-sex relations by offering blessings for those relationships or letting those in them receive Holy Communion.  This is, however, directly contrary to St. Paul’s injunction that one who eats and drinks unworthily of the body and blood of Christ brings only condemnation upon himself. 

Against this, we must hold firmly that virtue is possible, even if, in our fallen states, it is not easy and that St. Louis and St. Dominic Savio were right: “death rather than sin.”

Of course, he was right.  I don’t remember hanging lights on any of the other warm (for the month), comfortable Decembers of any other year, but I remember that particular time.  There is something to be said for challenging times making for better stories and memories.  

I had reason to think of that again recently when I took my wife and children tent camping.  It was a rather impulsive decision; the summer was drawing to an end and we had not been tent camping this season.  I felt parental guilt about denying my children such an important part of their upbringing.  So, I looked at the weather forecast–20% chance of showers that night– decided it was favorable, and made a reservation for one night only.  We’d camp one evening and spend the next day at the beach.  My wife even agreed to come.  It all sounded so simple.  

We arrived at the campground in the early afternoon.  The man and woman in the check-in booth looked at me oddly when I told them I was checking in for the night, and I couldn’t figure out why.  We pulled up to the site and I started setting up the tent.  A light off-and-on shower began falling, but that was about what was expected.  We ran into an initial challenge when I found the color coding on the tent poles worn through, making it harder to figure out which one went where as the rain gradually increased.  Still, we made progress and the rain was still manageable.  

The rain continued off and on as we cooked hot dogs and beans over a fire, went for a short walk, and began to be eaten alive by mosquitoes.  We had the obligatory campfire, read some of Treasure Island around the fire, and then brushed teeth to put the kids to bed.  

And then the clouds opened up.  A 20% chance of light showers became 1.5 hours of pouring rain.  In theory, the tent was waterproof, but we found theory one thing and practice another as water came in at the seams, creating puddles inside the tent.  My son woke up an hour later with a soaked shirt (we found him lying in one of the puddles); my back was wet; only the 9 month old and the girls stayed dry.  At last I understood why the people at check-in had looked at me funny.  Apparently, the forecast had changed since I’d last checked it. 

By morning almost everything was wet.  We packed up, still made it to the beach for a couple hours, and then went home to dry everything out before it rained for another 3 days.  

A disastrous vacation by any ordinary standard.  But was it really?

It was certainly not comfortable or easy.  The rain and mosquitoes made sure of that. It was a lot of work.  And yet, when we got home, my daughter was already planning next year's trip.  Even my wife, who’s idea of “roughing it” growing up was, in her own words, a motel without air conditioning, was planning to come (as long as I remember a tarp next time).  The trip may not have been comfortable or easy, but it was still worthwhile.  It was, as my dad might have put it, the stuff of which memories are made.  More than that, there was something, not easy to explain, about the shared struggle and challenge,  and getting through that together.  Chesterton once commented that “an inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered,” possibly in this case at least, he was right.

This issue offers two articles focused on the family, its joys and its struggles. One, from a guest writer, speaks of her visit two two friends with families and seeks to tells the stories of those families and others like them. Families like these receive little attention in our world and little support, but they have stories that deserve to be told and we are grateful to her for telling two of those stories.

Happy Reading,

The Editors

My Visit to the Domestic Church

From guest writer, Louise Merrie: It is easy for people to get discouraged about the problems in society and the problems in the Church. Just as it is helpful to visit monasteries and shrines, I think it is helpful to visit our friends and relatives whose homes are the domestic church. Spending time with joyful, faithful families enables us to see that there are still many good people of faith living virtuous lives.  Read more here.

Building Cathedrals, Raising Children

Families, perhaps especially parents with young children, can easily let themselves become overwhelmed in the immediate challenges and struggles of family life.  The struggles of toilet training, managing children in public or getting them--especially toddlers and preschoolers-- ready and through mass, the feeling one can barely keep the house presentable can all feel overwhelming at times. But we should take some encouragement from an old parable and a firm focus on the goals of our labors. Read more here.

I don’t remember where I first heard the parable, but it is an old one and one that always struck a chord with me.  It speaks of the joy of work, the importance of perspective, and the way a clear focus on the goal can give meaning to the entire process.  I thought of it again after reading a recent post by a guest writer for us (link), Louisie Merrie, who wrote of her visits to two of her friends’ families and how they helped her take the time to relax, slow down, and pray more.  Her reflection on their family life was a charming and welcome reminder of some of the joys of family life.  

The reminder is an important one, for families, perhaps especially parents with young children, can easily let themselves become overwhelmed in the immediate challenges and struggles of family life.  The struggles of toilet training, managing children in public or getting them--especially toddlers and preschoolers-- ready and through mass, the feeling one can barely keep the house presentable can all feel overwhelming at times.  We can feel perpetually short on sleep, or spent and ready to sit down and rest just as some new problem demands our attention.  

We may often feel like the first man in the parable, focused on the immediate task and the difficulties it poses.  This is entirely understandable.  Certainly, parenting today carries with it significant challenges.  This is all the more the case in the modern world where even the decision to have children, let alone a commitment to raising them, can be radically countercultural.  Indeed, G.K. Chesterton once commented that “the most extraordinary thing in the world is an ordinary man and an ordinary woman and their ordinary children.” Modern culture is more against us than perhaps at any point in history. People have fewer children and smaller families, and there is less family and community support than there have probably ever been for raising families.  Indeed, we may often feel like the first man in the story. 

At other, more calm times, we may feel like the second man.  Tired, conscious of the fact that we are working hard, but understanding that we are doing good and honest work like our parents and grandparents before us.  Indeed, hopefully we feel like the second more often than we feel like the first man in the story.  

But, better still to be like the third man. “What am I doing?  Can’t you see?  I’m building a Cathedral.”  Every parent is building a cathedral.  Every diaper changed, every nighttime story read, every tantrum dealt with, every time struggling through Sunday mass or evening prayers, stress of schooling, family vacations that seem more work than vacation, and forming one’s children are not only about the things themselves.  They are about building the Cathedral, or rather, raising children to be saints.  It is important not to lose that perspective during difficult or trying times.  We are raising saints.  Of course the task will not be easy; building Cathedrals could take well over 100 years.  An architect could begin one knowing he would die before he saw his work completed.  Most parents will too.  Of course family life isn’t always easy (though certainly it has its rewards); we are raising saints.  Of course, we may sometimes feel discouraged and tired– the devil wants us to.  

To avoid that discouragement, we should try, as much as possible, to be like the third man in the story.  We maintain our sense of perspective, looking not only at the immediate challenges, but at the purpose and goal for which we are aiming.  Then, like the third man in the story, we will be able to say, “what am I doing?  I’m raising a saint!”

Both of my friends had new babies; one baby was born two months before my visit, and the other baby was born a week before. One friend has six children and the other friend has five. Both families homeschool and my friends are homemakers. The husbands and wives interact with each other with love and respect. The children get along well with each other, play together, and help their parents and younger siblings. During my visit, I was especially moved to see how much the older children love their baby siblings; all the children wanted to hold the babies and help look after them. The Catholic Faith is lived as part of the daily lives of the families, in a natural way, not as an academic subject (although they learn the Church’s teachings). They pray before meals; they talk about Jesus, Mary, and the saints; they help each other with their schoolwork, and encourage one another. The families live a real life, not a virtual life; they do real activities, rather than virtual reality activities. For example, during my visits, the children played outside and drew pictures, my friends made their own meals, and we went on walks with the children. The families still use computers and cell phones, but on a limited basis; their lives are not dominated by technology.

I stayed for half a week with one family and half a week with the other. I found my visits helped me to slow down, and take time to pray more and relax. In some ways, my trip was similar to a retreat. This comparison is not to say that the homes were quiet all the time, as that is not possible with young children, but the homes were peaceful, faith – filled, and joyful, and my times there brought me closer to God. We live in a society where you can be exposed to sinful ideologies, even in a library or grocery store. The homes of Catholic families provide a refuge from the negative influences of the world. The families put God first. They don’t let all the tasks and errands of family life distract them from God, who gave them their families and is taking care of them. They recognize their dependence on God and their need for prayer.

The family is part of a very large family: the Catholic Church, whose members live throughout the world, in Heaven, and in purgatory. It is good that my friends teach their children to pray for people who have died, get to know the saints, and develop friendships with other Catholic families. By doing so, they are reinforcing the idea that we are all part of the Mystical Body of Christ.

I am the godmother to one of the sons in each of my friend’s families. I visited my friends in May so I could attend the Mass in which one of my godsons received his First Holy Communion. That was a very joyful experience. The night before, my godson’s grandmother and I talked to him about receiving the Eucharist for the first time and it was wonderful to see that he was very well prepared; he knew and believed that he would be receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus and was excited about it. After the Mass, I was happy when he told me that he wanted to be an altar server. He recently wrote me a letter and told me that he had become an altar server and served his first Mass. Whenever I spend time with my godchildren, I like to attend Mass with them, as a way to encourage them in their faith. I went to a weekday morning Mass with my other godson, his mother, brothers, and sister during my visit. I had also been present when this godson received his First Holy Communion two years ago, and it made me happy when I noticed how attentive he was at Mass. Later that day, I went with my friend and her children to their church’s Adoration chapel, where we all prayed the Rosary together.

One priest I am friends with often says that the story of Catholic families is an important one that needs to be told. It is impossible to know the exact number of faithful Catholic families, as they live hidden lives, not public lives. Their stories are not well known. But whether they are a small minority or a large percentage of Catholics, they have a very important role in the Church. They are truly living the vocation God gave them and they are forming their children who will someday be the priests, sisters, monks, and lay members in our Church. Their prayers are helping all of us and their example can inspire other Catholic families to make their homes domestic churches as well. We can support, encourage, and pray for all the families in the Church that they may persevere in their family life and ask God to bless them and protect them from the dangers in this world.

It is easy for people to get discouraged about the problems in society and the problems in the Church. Just as it is helpful to visit monasteries and shrines, I think it is helpful to visit our friends and relatives whose homes are the domestic church. Spending time with joyful, faithful families enables us to see that there are still many good people of faith living virtuous lives. 

Happy Reading.

What’s Wrong with the World: The Lie about Men

In recent years, it has become again, smart and sophisticated to speak of masculinity as “toxic,” and harmful.  Maleness itself became a problem, dangerous to women and to society.  In various contexts, much of modern western society has come to see men as unnecessary enemies of women and masculinity itself as toxic.  In response to this lie about men, many young men today have simply chosen to adopt another lie. But neither is the answer. Read more here.

What’s Wrong with the World: The Lie about Women

NYT columnist Ross Douthat recently shared a chart that shows the happiness by gender since 1972.  Both men’s and women’s happiness has tended to decline since that point, but in the case of women, the decline is particularly striking.  Men’s happiness leveled off and even increased through the year 2000 before undergoing a sudden decline.  Women’s happiness, on the other hand, underwent a fairly straight decline that only seems to be continuing.  Women, put simply, are not happy and report that they are only becoming less so.  What should we make of this? Read about the answer here.

Even in the Church today, masculinity sometimes (or often) seems to be seen as harmful or as not to belong.  Most Churches are run largely by women; true, the priest is a man, but every other position is typically filled by women from altar servers, to parish employees, to the often massive numbers of EMHCs that many Churches typically use.  Still more, the liturgy itself is too often hardly masculine or one that might appeal to men.  The songs are watered down, bland lyrics with sing songy tunes that speak of us being gathered in where all (not the trads) are welcome to build the city of God.  Again, what here could appeal to a man who took his masculinity (or the faith) seriously?

Against this rejection of their masculinity many young men today have finally rebelled.  They have refused to accept masculinity being labeled as “toxic,” and have resisted the urge to feminize them.  Unfortunately, they have done so by adopting a form of masculinity that is far from an authentic masculinity.  This is the masculinity of an Andrew Tate.  In an earlier post, I referred to this as an “ersatz,” or false masculinity, but, in a sense, it would be more accurate to refer to it as simply pagan masculinity.  For it is indeed the masculinity of generations of pagans.  A popular social media influencer, Tate is known for his brand of “masculinity,” brags about his lack of loyalty to women, his fame, and his similarities (in his mind) to Genghis Khan.  

As I observed earlier, young men today frustrated by having maleness labeled as “toxic” and themselves as unnecessary, may find Tate’s apparently unapologetic masculinity attractive, even if it be a kind of pagan masculinity.  It is pagan in its desire to dominate, to seek fame, status and power in a way that gratifies and serves only the self.  It is a masculinity of indulgence, especially indulgence in the vices to which men are so prone: anger and lust. 

And yet, as long as the young are being presented with what only seems two options: reject their masculinity as “toxic” or choose the “masculinity” of the pagan, it is hard to blame them very much for the latter choice.  We have failed to present them with an authentic masculinity that is true to the nature of man; not the nature of fallen men--such is the masculinity of the pagan-- but the masculinity of men as God has created them to be. 

Where the pagan masculinity of the Tates of the world boasts of conquests of women, a truer masculinity is that proposed by John Paul II, in his words, “It is the duty of every man to uphold the dignity of every woman.”  Or consider St. Paul, “husbands, love your wives even as Christ loved the Church, handing himself over for her…”  (Ephesians 5:25).  Where the pagan masculinity unapologetically indulges in anger and lust, the truer, Christian masculinity is that of St. Paul, “For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control” (2 Tim. 1:7).  Where the pagan masculinity is essentially a surrender to self-indulgence, the Christian masculinity is one of self-sacrifice, “for even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many “(Mark 10:45).  

Too many young men have been presented with a false choice by the world.  They have been told their masculinity is dangerous and oppressive and harmful.  But in rejecting this view, they have too often fallen for a masculinity that is essentially a surrender to the fallen nature of man: the masculinity of the pagan world.  Against this, we must insist, not on the pagan masculinity of indulgence and weakness, but on the Christian masculinity, a spirit of power, love, self-control, service, and self-sacrifice.  And it is certain that the world needs this sort of masculinity.

If anything, it almost seems that the reverse should be the case.  Women, we are told, are freer than they have ever been, have more opportunities, access to free contraception and abortion, and participate in the workforce at almost higher than ever rates.  According to the Center for American Progress, approximately 75% of women 18-54 are in the workforce, the vast majority of them working full-time.  In addition, women are having fewer children and having them later than they have in the past.  All these things, according to progressives of the past, promised women happiness.  Employment, money, power, contraception and abortion, and fewer children.  And yet women are not happy. 

It is at least possible that women are not happy because, like the lie about children, there has been a popular, loud, and oft-repeated similar lie about women.  The promises of the sexual revolution are that lie.  If only women entered and remained in the workforce, delayed (or declined) marriage, avoided or limited children, they would have money, power, and equality.  As those promises have so clearly not been met, we must start to ask if they are merely a modern lie about women.  

Why has the modern lie about women made them unhappy?  Perhaps, at its most basic, it is because those lies have alienated women from their own natures and their own bodies.  The birth control pill promised women freedom: freedom from the burdens of pregnancy and children, freedom from the sacrifices and struggles of motherhood, freedom for consequence-free sex of the sort that many (depraved) men seemed to enjoy, and freedom to continue in the workforce.  

Yet, this “freedom” came at a price.  For in this search for freedom, what enslaved women was their own bodies, their own ability to carry, bear, and nurture children.  In short, a woman’s own body was the enemy to her freedom and a hindrance to her liberty.  Her body had to be stopped and controlled.  Women gained freedom only by acting against their own bodies.  Marriage, ordered to the raising of children, similarly became an obstacle to this sense of freedom and so marriage rates among men and women tended to decline, fertility declined, and happiness declined: all because of the alienation of women from their own bodies.  

If women since the sexual revolution have become more and more alienated from their own bodies, it seems also reasonable to hold that they have become increasingly alienated from men.  Different forms and “waves” of feminism proposed men as the enemy against whom women had to struggle for equality.  Marxist divisions of society into oppressor and oppressed almost necessitated seeing men as enemies.  These views were hardly calculated to form harmonious relationships between the sexes, leading them to happy and harmonious marriages.  And they have not.  Marriage rates in America are now the lowest they have ever been since the government started keeping records in 1867.

And this seems to be the real rub.  For amidst all the unhappiness in our unhappy age, marriage seems to be the one real predictor of happiness.  A recent university of Chicago study found that marriage was the most successful predictor of happiness.  Marriage rates have declined along with happiness. 

Now, it might be suggested that if the real problem is just lower marriage rates, then why discuss the other issues: women’s workforce participation, contraception, abortion, and all the rest?  Because those issues are intrinsically connected to declining marriage rates.  As women have become alienated from their own bodies and from men by those developments, it is in vain to suggest that they can simply put them aside and choose marriage . Those very developments are why they have not chosen and are not choosing marriage.  And all because of the modern lie about women.  

The lie about children has held that children are burdens and obstacles to self-fulfillment; the lie about women has held much the same, that women’s own bodies are obstacles to their self-fulfillment and, until this lie be rejected, the long decline of happiness is likely to continue.

This issue’s articles address the way in which so much seems wrong in the world and even in the Church today. Yet, in neither case are we called to despair, but rather to grow in faith, holiness, and virtue.

Happy Reading!

What’s Wrong with the World: The Lie about Children

I am struck by this every so often where I teach and when faculty and staff sit around making small talk and inevitably someone makes the utterly hilarious (they think) joke about being so happy they are at school and away from their children.  “I love my children but,” with the emphasis on the “but.”  I’ve never been able to find the joke funny-- if it is meant as a joke- because it seems too serious and to reflect a certain modern view.  Read more here.

The Spirit of Solesmes and of Obedience

These are troubling times with many upsetting ambiguities in the Church’s teachings. Certainly, there have also been some imprudent acts and words even by some prelates. At the same time, we must not demand that things be done by our superiors according to our own standards, or we lose in some respects some aspect of obedience. My own belief is that while it can be a strong temptation to judge one’s superiors in the Church, oftentimes we are not in any position to judge. Read more here.

Taking the latter first in this article, I thought about the Psalmist in Psalm 126, Nisi Dominus, “Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it…lo children are a heritage of the Lord…Blessed is the man whose desire is satisfied with them” (Psalm 126).  And yet, how little our world agrees with the Psalmist.  “Children are a heritage,” and “blessed is the man whose desire is satisfied with them,” communicate a particular view of children, especially the idea that they ought to satisfy a man’s desire.  And yet, we don’t see a world that is satisfied with children.  We see something far different.  

I am struck by this every so often where I teach and when faculty and staff sit around making small talk and inevitably someone makes the utterly hilarious (they think) joke about being so happy they are at school and away from their children.  “I love my children but,” with the emphasis on the “but.”  I’ve never been able to find the joke funny-- if it is meant as a joke- because it seems too serious and to reflect a certain modern view.  

That view is the lie about children.  Chesterton referred to  the “error” of men, women, and children, but I think we must go further and call this not only an error, but a lie about children.  And the lie about children is this, that children are burdens, obstacles to our self-fulfillment, bad for the world and society, and that their numbers should be strictly limited.  And we see this lived out as people are having fewer children and the birth rate in America continues to decline.  

Not only are people having fewer children, they are spending less time with them.  Society is veritably constructed to have parents spend as little time with their children as possible.  After a child is born a few short weeks of maternity leave (and almost no paternity leave) end and then the child is placed in a daycare (sometimes labeled as a “school” to give the idea that this is a great opportunity for one’s infant or toddler), to be raised by strangers.  Strangers will both hear the child’s first words and see his first steps. Parents have been alienated from their own children.  It is the error of a society that has organized the family around one’s life, rather than one’s life around one’s family.  And it is an error based on a lie, the lie that children are a burden and obstacles to self-fulfillment.  

One can’t help but wonder who thinks it so important to separate parents from their children… and why.  

And the error and the lie have not made us happy.  America has grown wealthier and more prosperous than ever, yet happiness is near a 5 decade low, David Brooks made the same point.  Americans have a higher standard of living, the government spends more than ever on social services, and we are more comfortable than ever before.  We are also not happy. By other measure one could look at the continued push to legalize marijuana and “decriminalize” other hard drugs, build more casinos and legalize prostitution.  Then, of course, one thinks of the continued push for assisted suicide Can anyone think we are a happy society or people?

It is certainly true that having children is not always easy, but then few things worth doing in this world are.  Parents will endure sleepless nights, financial worry, and harm to their careers among other challenges.  But what of that?  If we are to recapture the something of the joy and optimism of earlier ages and younger societies, we will have to reject the modern lie about children; we will have to stop seeing children as burdens and obstacles and start to see them as Our Lord saw them 2,000 years ago: Let the children come to me and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these…

To fight under the standard of Jesus Christ we need to take up these weapons to fight against our great enemies: the world, the flesh, and the devil…. It all sounds very good to us.  Yet obedience is not easy; online one can see many Catholics complaining about Bishops, the Pope, and many other things. Would an obedient subject do this? Note that we are subjects. We live in an elective monarchy, not a democracy.

And that is the main issue which can be seen in the understanding of the Church today in some quarters. There was an error introduced in the Enlightenment era that somehow things should be reasoned about before giving assent. Assuredly nothing that the Church proposes for our belief is irrational.  At the same time, we must not believe what the Church teaches merely because we have derived it rationally. Indeed, according to St. Thomas, faith is assent to what is proposed by the First Truth through His Church. We are not assenting to something because it occurred to us as something logically true.  

Yet some indeed wrangle and demand that our reason is the measure by which belief must given. However, the basis of faith is not what is merely “reasonable.” Note that according to St. Thomas, the will is based on reason. So in a way we reason to get to assent. But the difference with Church teaching is that we use our reason to judge the Church to be a good authority and then accept what is taught on that basis. 

In fact, if we reason personally to arrive at a truth, and then stubbornly demand that these are the only conditions for religious truth, we are not assenting to a truth on the basis of faith. It is an act of self-will. Now according to St. Alphonsus Liguori we should live our life in a state of uniformity with the will of God. Uniformity with the will of God is also uniformity with the will of the Church, as the latter gives and interprets the same. Obedience is a way of renouncing one’s own will, and is a way of fighting “the devil” according to Dom Gueranger. Moreover, according to Dom Gueranger, a religious is called to 

“closer union with God, who dwells, in inaccessible light in the midst of which we must close our mortal eyes in love and trust, to avoid being blinded. It follows from this that the religious should profess unbounded loyalty to Holy Church, whom her divine Spouse has entrusted with the task of leading us to that light.” 

If this is the case with the religious, so too should it be the case for any layman who wishes to grow in the Spiritual life. Indeed, the evangelical counsels include obedience. To the extent one can be perfectly obedient to the Church, therefore, the more one would grow in Christian perfection. Though of course laymen are not required to follow the evangelical counsels, it is an imperfection not to, especially when it is possible to do so in one’s state of life. 

We must not demand that things be done by our superiors according to our own standards, or we lose in some respects some aspect of obedience. My own belief is that while it can be a strong temptation to judge one’s superiors in the Church, oftentimes we are not in any position to judge. Laymen are not trained theologians, and so often lack the competency to even amass evidence relevant to a judgment of something being contrary to God’s law.  Most of all, however, we must live our lives in such a way that obedience as a virtue, as a habit, can be preserved. 

Now according to Gregory Caridi (https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/how-to-correct-bishops-correctly/ ) it can also be said that legitimate concerns to their pastors can be raised by those laymen who are competent to do so in both knowledge and level of prestige (a father of a family, civil servant, or parish council member, for instance). Notably Church herself allows raising legitimate concerns in Canon 212, which says that for those who are qualified, it can at times even be a duty to do so. St Thomas also allows for correction of prelates, even by those subject to them, when it is done as an act of charity. But these things must themselves be done in ways that are not penalized by Canons 1368 and 1373, which threaten ecclesiastical penalties including interdict for those who promote hatred towards prelates or disobedience of the same. Thus obedience is not only a personal affair but is required in a public, ecclesiastical capacity.

How can one obey unless one loves? Yet there is so much written about the Church in our day, even by avowed practicing Catholics, that sounds so negative. Let us obey what the Church in our day teaches. There is a great cost to our own souls if we stop doing this. In fact, the ultimate cost. Yes, there is sometimes ambiguity in what is currently taught. But stop worrying, as the Church is a good mother to us and we need not fear that she will harm us. 

These are troubling times with many upsetting ambiguities in the Church’s teachings. Certainly, there have also been some imprudent acts and words even by some prelates. The things which are stated can also have consequences in our daily lives which seem unfair or destructive. But we must be patient and pray for our pastors, remembering that the Holy Spirit still guides the Church. Above all we must love the Church and pray for better times, making known to our pastors the needs of our communities.

Note: this is the author’s personal view as derived from Dom Gueranger and not necessarily that of Gaudium magazine.

This week we have a short issue with two offerings, one responding to a growing phenomenon in our society: the drag queen story hour, and another reflecting on Willam Dromgoole’s poem, “The Bridge Builder,” and its call to self-sacrifice for and service to future generations.

Happy Reading!

Drag Queen Story Hours Are Not about "Acceptance" or "Tolerance"

Supporters of so-called “drag queen story hours” often claim they are about promoting acceptance and tolerance, but that is plainly untrue. They are not about promoting acceptance and tolerance at all, but about promoting a particular, controversial, and harmful ideology. And this ideology offers too much uncertainty, too much potential heartbreak and suffering, and too much that is plainly implausible to promote to children. Read more about the problems with DQSH’s here.

Service and Sacrifice in Dromgoole's "Bridge Builder"

William Dromgoole’s poem, “The Bridge Builder,” speaks of love for others, the duty to future generations, and the willingness to self-sacrifice.  We have the same duty: to labor patiently as parents, teachers, faithful Catholics, whatever our station and position, for the good of those who will come after us.  Read more here.

On one hand, of course, the answer to such nonsense is quite simple.  We are told multiple times in Scripture that we are made, as we are, in our maleness and femaleness by God Himself.  “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you” (Jeremiah 1:5), “male and female, He created them,” (Genesis 1:27), and the words of the Psalmist: You formed my inmost being you knit me in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am wonderfully made.” (Psalms 139:13-14).  Our bodies are an inextricable part of us; they are given to us as a gift by God and, as such, represent a calling to be lived out.  It is not for us to reject either the gift or calling, attempting to remake ourselves according to some other image or idea in our minds. 

But, of course, it is not easy to cite Scripture to people so committed to a secular model, a fact that Thomas Aquinas recognized in many works, including his Summa Contra Gentiles.  What other considerations, then, might be offered that might oppose such a story hour?  How to answer the claim that drag queen story hours (or DQSH) are really about “tolerance, acceptance, and inclusion”?

The question is almost hard to take seriously enough to answer.  Why is it necessary that a grown man in a dress, a wig, and an often terrifying amount of makeup, read stories to children?  Even if the desire genuinely were to teach acceptance and tolerance, is there no other, better way to do so than to subject one’s children to stories read by such a person?  

Of course, there are other, better ways to teach tolerance.  But then, the DQSH’s are not about teaching tolerance and acceptance at all.  Having a man in a wig and dress reading stories to children is not about promoting literacy, reading, tolerance, acceptance, or any other such disingenuous justification the promoters of such events try to use.  They are about teaching something else altogether.  

Those supporting the DQSH agenda are about teaching a particular ideology and about teaching it to children.  It is an ideology that includes several main points:

• Gender is separable from biological sex, rather than how men and women, in society, live out their biological sex. 

• That biological sex is assigned, rather than recognized, at birth. 

• That, because biological sex is assigned, as if arbitrarily, it is changeable and flexible.  

• That reality is dependent on our beliefs, rather than that our beliefs should be dependent on reality.

• Hence, that a person can actually be born “in the wrong body.”

• That if a person’s mind and body are out of line, should seek to bring the body into line with the mind, rather than the mind into line with the body.  

DQSH’s are not about promoting “acceptance”; they are about teaching a particular ideology.  And it is not hard to argue that this is not an ideology that libraries should not be promoting or teaching to children.  

Too much of it is uncertain.  Why should we believe or teach children that sex is something assigned at birth, like one is assigned to a team or group at school, rather than recognized at birth?  Why introduce into a child’s head the idea that he (or she) is not a boy for any good reason except that some doctor or his parents randomly chose to assign him one sex rather than the other?  Why introduce into his head the idea that, if this is the case, he might easily have been assigned to the wrong sex?  Does he like drama, reading, and music?  He might actually be a girl!  Does a girl like sports and physical activity?  She might actually be a boy!  When children have enough uncertainties in childhood, why introduce this doubt into a child’s mind?

Why should we see gender as separable from biological sex, rather than how men and women live out their biological sex in society?  Why think that a person can be born in the wrong body?  

If the mind seems to believe one view of reality and the body seems to reflect another, why should we bring the body into line with the mind rather than the mind into line with the body?  If a biological girl comes to believe she is “trapped in the wrong body,” and is really a boy, why try to change the body rather than the mind?  If it is possible (as DQSH promoters believe) that a person can be trapped in the wrong body, is it possible for them to be wrong about being trapped in the wrong body?  The existence of detransitioners those pushed to try to change their biological sex who later changed their minds, sure prove that people’s beliefs on this may be wrong.  Other common evidence holds that 80-95% of children who experience discordant gender beliefs will, if not encouraged to do otherwise, will actually come to identify with their biological sex.  

Human beings hold wrong beliefs all the time, what about trans beliefs make it impossible for them to be wrong?  A teenage girl sees herself as grossly overweight and needing to lose weight dramatically.  She starves herself and purges almost to the point of death.  Do we “validate” her belief and agree she is indeed overweight? Or do we recognize that her belief does not align with reality?  A perfectly healthy person believes he is really a disabled person trapped in a healthy person’s body.  He wants to have a limb amputated in order to align his body with his mind.  Do we do that?  A boy believes he is really a girl and wants to mutilate himself in order to align his body with his mind.  Do we do that?  

And, of course, the answer in each case is that we do not.  Gender ideology, the promotion of which is the real goal of the drag queen story hours, offers too much uncertainty, too much potential heartbreak and suffering, and too much that is plainly implausible to promote to children.  A library, meant to be a neutral, public, source of information has no business promoting such an uncertain ideology to our children.  Drag queen story hours have nothing to do with teaching acceptance or tolerance.  It is time we stop trying to justify them by claiming that they do.  

By Will Allen Dromgoole

An old man going a lone highway,
Came, at the evening cold and gray,
To a chasm vast and deep and wide.
Through which was flowing a sullen tide
The old man crossed in the twilight dim,
The sullen stream had no fear for him;
But he turned when safe on the other side
And built a bridge to span the tide.
“Old man,” said a fellow pilgrim near,
“You are wasting your strength with building here;
Your journey will end with the ending day,
You never again will pass this way;
You’ve crossed the chasm, deep and wide,
Why build this bridge at evening tide?”
The builder lifted his old gray head;
“Good friend, in the path I have come,” he said,
“There followed after me to-day
A youth whose feet must pass this way.
This chasm that has been as naught to me
To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be;
He, too, must cross in the twilight dim;
Good friend, I am building this bridge for him!”

Source: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/52702/the-bridge-builder

In a recent article, I considered some examples of self-centeredness that were common and influential in our modern world.  In one sense, of course, there is nothing new about selfishness.  It is one of the original and most basic temptations of mankind.  When a creature has a self, there is immediately the temptation to put the self first, before others, and even before God.

Yet while this has always been a temptation of man, in past ages, we could recognize selfishness as a sin, even if we sometimes fell prey to it:  the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.  Our modern age, though, sometimes seems to celebrate selfishness. Modern slogans about looking out for number one, being true to oneself, doing whatever makes one happy: all seem to celebrate a life lived with oneself at the center.  Such self-centeredness makes love impossible.  For love looks outward to others, instead of looking in at oneself. 

In contrast to such instances of self-centeredness, the poem “The Bridge Builder” by William Dromgoogle speaks of our duty to others.  In the gray evening, an old man comes to a chasm, with a swollen stream running under it.  He has no fear of chasm or stream and crosses without fear or difficulty.  But then he did something peculiar. After crossing the stream, he immediately turned around and, rather than going on his way, he took the time to build a bridge across that stream.

A fellow-traveler saw him do this and was confused.  Why waste time and strength after he had already crossed safely? The old man’s answer is deeply moving.  He is not the only one who must cross the stream.  A little after him follows another traveler, a young man.  And the old man fears that “this chasm which has been naught to me/ to that fair-hued youth a pitfall may be.”  He is building the bridge not for himself, but for that young man.  

The poem and message are delightful, speaking of one generation’s duty to the next and an example of love and service to others.  We are like the old man in the poem, and must do good for others, even though we ourselves derive no benefit from it.  We must do good that we ourselves will not live to see.  For we ourselves have benefited from the deeds done by others, the good of which they may not have lived to see.  

J.R.R. Tolkien has Gandalf speak of this duty in The Return of the King.  He explains the heroes’ duty to do what they could against the evil Sauron, even if it meant walking into a trap that might mean certain doom for themselves.  But they had to do so nonetheless: 

It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.

As it turned out, the Captains of the West in Tolkein’s story came through the trap and returned home.  But, still, they were all willing to give up themselves for the good of future generations that they themselves would never see.  Frodo Baggins explains the same to a tearful Sam Gamgee: that he himself would never benefit from his perils and sacrifices.  Sam struggles to understand, but Frodo explains: 

I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: someone has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.

This is the same spirit of William Dromgoole’s poem: the love for others, the duty to future generations, and the willingness to self-sacrifice.  We have the same duty: to labor patiently as parents, teachers, faithful Catholics, whatever our station and position, for the good of those who will come after us. 

Happy (belated) Fourth of July. Our current newsletter looks a man of principle, St. John the Baptist, and another important principle, patriotism or love of country. Both the man and the principal are much needed today, and are well worth turning our attention to.

Happy Reading!

In Defense of Patriotism

Sadly, it has become fashionable today, especially among the young, to despise the flag, see patriotism as a vice, and condemn those who founded it. And yet we should love our country.  Love of country is merely an extension of love of home and community; and those are not only legitimate loves, but necessary ones.  We should indeed love our home.  We should be grateful to it and to the men who made it what it is.  They were none of them perfect; they were heroes, not saints.  Yet, many of them fought and toiled and bled and even died for the country they loved; and this is the country they have left to us. Read more here.

John the Baptist

If the young St. John was portrayed as sweet and graceful by Raphael and by other Renaissance painters, as a voice in the wilderness, he was hard as nails, or as the truth. He wore no soft clothes, nor ate fine foods.  Rather than making friends and influencing people, he denounced the scribes and Pharisees who came to hear him, warning them also to repent, else they would not be spared the coming wrath. 

St. John taught the truth, and he could not soften it, not even for the decadent, decaying descendant of the once mighty Maccabees: King Herod Antiphas. Read more here.

After trying (and probably failing) to make them understand the difference between an extreme nationalism or jingoism, and an appropriate love of one’s country, I could help but reflect with sadness at the assumption so common among many of the young today.  The mere display of a flag of our country meant that I was a “nationalist,” and nationalism, whatever it was, was bad.  These views allowed for no possible legitimate love of country.  That was forbidden altogether 

I thought of this again recently when reading in my local paper (a practice I usually avoid whenever possible), about the removal of the statue of Philip Schuyler, a local hero of the American Revolution.  He was, however, a hero and not a saint, and unfortunately for him, one of his sins involved owning slaves.  During the initial wave of statue smashing that occurred in the summer of 2020, the city determined to remove the statue and, three years of delays later, finally did so. 

A display of the American flag can be seen as “nationalist.”  A statue of a local historical figure has to be removed.  These are only local microcosms of what is taking place across the country.  It is becoming cool, sophisticated, and “woke” to despise the flag, denigrate historical figures, and reject love of country, which, properly understood, is really nothing more than an extension of love of home. 

This should frighten every one of us.  Who wants us, especially wants the young, to hate our own country and history… and why? My high schoolers will (actually already have) gone off to college and become one day the next group of college students smashing statues, renaming buildings, “decolonizing” curricula, and, in general, working to erase our shared history and nation. 

Why?  Why erase the things that tie us together?  Why erase our shared history, past, and the values they represent?  The only reason is because they want to replace one culture so that they can replace it with another.  How else to interpret one of the stranger photos to come out of pride month: the White House using two American flags to flank a more prominent Pride flag?  The nation gave way to pride.  As some observed, as the Philip Schuyler statue was being removed, there in the background, hanging from City Hall, were several prominent pride flags.  Again, a symbol of our history must leave, giving way to a new ideology.  Teaching our nation to hate its history and despise even the nation itself thus becomes necessary to substitute a new ideology and new values.  

And yet we should love our country.  Love of country is merely an extension of love of home and community; and those are not only legitimate loves, but necessary ones.  

We should indeed love our home.  We should be grateful to it and to the men who made it what it is.  They were none of them perfect; they were heroes, not saints.  Yet, many of them fought and toiled and bled and even died for the country they loved; and this is the country they have left to us.  And if they have left us work yet to do, that is no reason to scorn them, but to be grateful for the chance to join their labor. 

But while we join that work, we should do it in a spirit of gratitude for the work itself and for the country we have been given.  We did not make our home.  We were given it by the labor of many who lived long ago.  Is it asking too much that we should be grateful for it?

Love of country is not the highest love, and patriotism is not the highest value.  It should be subordinated to love of family, love of goodness and virtue, and most of all, love of God.  And should it contradict these higher goods, then the nation  deserves to fall.  

No nation lasts forever, and neither will ours.  But until that time, it is ours to love, to defend, and to toil over.  And so it is right to commemorate and even celebrate that nation and those who left it to us.

Why do I take as my hero a man who brings about his own death because he can’t put his hand on an old black book and tell an ordinary lie? For this reason: A man takes an oath only when he wants to commit himself quite exceptionally to the statement, when he wants to make an identity between the truth of it and his own virtue; he offers himself as a guarantee. 

St. Thomas More brings to mind another man of principle, another man who would not tell a very ordinary lie even to save his own life: St. John the Baptist.  The two men both have something in common.  Both can be plainly and fairly said to have died in defense in marriage, that is, in defense of what God Himself declared marriage to be in the beginning, and what Our Lord declared marriage to be when He walked the earth: 

Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. (Matt. 19:4-6). 

From this principle neither St. Thomas More, nor St. John the Baptist, would budge one iota, not even for the convenience of the kings of their own day.  Like St. Thomas, St. John would stand upon the truth of God whatever it cost him.  

What we know for certain about St. John comes from the Gospels; he was a cousin of Our Lord, born to his mother Elizabeth in her old age.  Renaissance painters delighted to show the two of them together as children; Raphael’s Madonna of the Meadow with the Christ Child and John the Baptist is an especially famous example, though we know little of their actual childhood together.  

We do know that John took his mission as the forerunner of the Messiah very seriously.  His own needs were simple, and he met them the same way; Matthew tells us that he came clothed in a camel skin, eating only locusts and wild honey.  Nor did he go to the cities and towns where crowds and important hearers were to be found.  Rather, John went to the desert. He was Isaiah’s voice “[c]rying in the wilderness, Make ready the way of the Lord.”  His reputation spread to Jerusalem and beyond, and many came out to the desert to be baptized by him.  Even the religious scholars and elite of his day, the scribes and Pharisees, came to hear him. 

If the young St. John was portrayed as sweet and graceful by Raphael and by other Renaissance painters, as a voice in the wilderness, he was hard as nails, or as the truth. He wore no soft clothes, nor ate fine foods.  Rather than making friends and influencing people, he denounced the scribes and Pharisees who came to hear him, warning them also to repent, else they would not be spared the coming wrath. 

St. John taught the truth, and he could not soften it, not even for the decadent, decaying descendant of the once mighty Maccabees: King Herod Antiphas.  Where St. John lived in the desert, King Herod lived in a fine palace; where St. John wore a camel skin and ate locusts and wild honey, King Herod wore soft clothes and ate the finest of foods.  If there was one man St. John might have been wise to avoid angering, it was King Herod Antiphas.  But John cared little for worldly wisdom.  When King Herod called St. John to him, perhaps out of curiosity to hear what he might say, St. John pulled no punches.  He pointed straight at Herod, illicitly “married” to his brother’s wife, and told the king: “It is not lawful for you to have her.”  Herod took this no better than Henry VIII did just over 1500 years later.  

And for that testimony to the truth of marriage, St. John the Baptist lost his head, the same fate that would later befall St. Thomas More.  Two men, separated by so many centuries, but united by their firm adherence to the truth of God.  Two men. who believed that marriage was what God had declared it to be, and that no one, not even a king, had the power to make it otherwise.  

It is the same today.  Marriage remains what God has declared it to be, and no king, government, Supreme Court, or media-entertainment complex, has the power to make it otherwise.  We should remember that always and especially this June, when there is so much pressure to think otherwise.  

Sts. John the Baptist and Thomas More, pray for us.

In this month of the Sacred Heart, and drawing near to the Feastday of His Most Sacred Heart, we offer articles in battle against the prideful spirit of the world. Rejecting the rainbow gods and self-important tendencies of today’s world, we hope instead to draw closer to His Heart. Let each of us pray often:

O Jesus, meek and humble of Heart, make my heart like unto thine.

— The Editors

“Complicated Feelings” about Blasphemy

When the Dodgers reinstated their honor toward an anti-Catholic drag group, many Catholics decried the team and the group, but not all. One Catholic writer claimed to have complicated feelings, diminishing the weight of the groups’ intentions and actions. But what complicated feelings are there to be had about blasphemy: about trying to deny God the glory due Him, about insulting His Holy Name, about rejecting the truths of the Catholic faith? Read more here.

Pride, Humility… and Gravity

In the middle ages, man’s view of the universe differed from modern man’s today. Not only did everything in the universe have its proper place, everything naturally tended toward or sought its proper place: even inanimate objects. And what was true of inanimate objects, was true of man as well.  Man also had a proper place and sought it, and was restless until he found it... read on here.

And the significance is this: for the medieval man, the universe wasn’t simply just a thing to be observed and looked at: it was a manifestation of the omnipotence of God.  This meant that man’s everyday mindset regarding, for example, natural phenomena, was different. For in the Middle Ages, men believed that everything had its proper place.  The universe, like a grand Gothic Cathedral, was a magnificent work of order and organization.  How could it not be?  God had made it.  As the universe had a maker and designer, a rational mind, it was not the work of random chance, but a creation both orderly and comprehensible.  And, not being the result of random chance, it could be ordered and investigated.  

Not only did everything in the universe have its proper place, everything naturally tended toward or sought its proper place: even inanimate objects. This proper place is what Aristotle and ultimately, St. Thomas Aquinas, named as the “cause of causes” or the queen of causes: something’s purpose, its intended end.

Today we think that a stone falls because of something called gravity, that mysterious ill-defined force that objects exert on one another. This is, however, at best a lesser cause (perhaps the “efficient cause,” the agent of movement). Modern men tend to disregard the idea of a final cause or purpose altogether. In these times, we wonder about “how” things move and change, but overlook or ignore the “why.”

 In the Middle Ages, however, a stone fell because it was seeking its proper place. 

And that place was thus: since everything in nature was composed of four elements: earth, water, air, and fire, things rose or fell based on the makeup of the thing itself.  A stone did not fall because of gravity, but because it was seeking its proper place.  Since it was made up primarily of earth, and the proper place of earth was the very center of the universe, the stone tended downward toward the center of the universe, the place to which it belonged.  Earth was at the center, followed by water, air, and fire (hence how fire rose in the air).  All things were made of these elements and all things sought their proper place, and were restless until they did.  

What was true of inanimate objects, was true of man as well.  Man also had a proper place and sought it, and was restless until he found it.  For this reason, St. Augustine could write: “My weight is my love,” and, “You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts and restless until they rest in You.”  To say that his weight was his love, was to say that he would be attracted to what he loved.  If he loved earthly things, he would be pulled downward; if he loved heavenly things, upward to God.  Likewise, the human heart also had a proper place, with God; and if it sought that place, all was well, if it sought lesser things, well, only heartache and a restless heart could follow. Man’s final purpose is to be united with God; anything less will bring unhappiness because it is not what we are meant for.

Some things, of course, pulled humans in another direction from God. To the Middle Ages, the greatest and most dangerous of these things was pride.  Pride was the “queen of the vices,” sometimes regarded as so serious that it was not always even listed as one of the seven deadly sins, but as a special sin in a class of its own. And it definitely pulled one downward toward hell, away from God.  Hence, the medieval model of the universe offers an interesting way to explain the danger of pride.  Pride makes a man heavy and pulls him down; humility makes a man light and allows him to be lifted up to heaven.  Hence, it was pride that caused Satan to fall from heaven; as one writer put it, Satan fell by the force of gravity.  

We ought still to study and acknowledge the usefulness of medieval explanations about pride, and of our need for God.  We say that a proud man often gives himself too much weight or importance, as opposed to a humble man who, we might say, takes himself “lightly.” Even today, we instinctively don’t tend to like people who give themselves, and many unimportant matters, too much weight; rather, we tend to like people who don’t act self-important. We like (even if we don’t consciously think about) their humility. 

This month, while the secular world, corporations, mass media, the entertainment industry, and others are busy celebrating the deadly sin of pride, it is worth remembering that pride is nothing to celebrate.  It means enmity with other men, and ultimately, with God.  While the world celebrates pride, we should take the chance to remember to take the truth seriously; but to take ourselves lightly, so that our hearts too can rise to their proper place in heaven.