Author: Br. John M. Samaha

3 min read

Mary

Why Does Our Lady Appear on Earth?

Br. John M. Samaha

January 23, 2020 9:00 am January 23, 2020

3 min read

3947 views

Comments Off

3 min read

What is the significance of the apparitions at Lourdes and other places? What is the meaning of Marian apparitions in general? In our world of rationalism and secularism, of materialism…

What is the significance of the apparitions at Lourdes and other places? What is the meaning of Marian apparitions in general?

In our world of rationalism and secularism, of materialism and consumerism, God and the supernatural realm seem far removed from most people. Yet He continues to intervene in human history by sending the mother of Jesus when the Christian faith is challenged and under attack.

The human family needs to be reminded, sometimes in a dynamic and supernatural way, that God exists, that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a universal call to goodness and holiness, that we are all responsible before our Maker for our choices.

Apparitions are a wake-up call for a corporate examination of conscience about how well we may be responding to God’s manifold invitations to personal salvation and world peace. So how are we responding to Him?

Private Revelation

The Church is necessarily both cautious and open in the matter of private revelation. She must discern what is false. And she must avoid the risk of losing credibility as the guardian of public revelation by too hastily confirming a reported private revelation or apparition.

Yet we can clearly observe the abundant blessings of Mary’s action in private revelation. Her appearance is a heaven-sent reminder, an invitation to the world to live the Gospel fully and to assist the Church in its continuing mission of evangelization.

What would the 16th century have been without Guadalupe? Or the 19th and 20th centuries without the Miraculous Medal revealed at Rue de Bac in Paris, without Lourdes, without Fátima? We can thank God for the tremendous graces and blessings that result from authentic apparitions of Mary.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms, the purpose of private revelation is never to replace public revelation contained in Scripture and Tradition. Rather, the goal of authentic private revelation is to “help people live out their faith more fully” (Glossary; see No. 67). It accentuates the challenge of the Gospel to prayer, penance, fasting and conversion, which lead to peace of heart and the peace of all human societies.

In contemporary times we have seen more apparitions approved than in any other era of Church history. What does this say about our individual and communal faithfulness and relationship to God? If true Marian apparitions are on the increase, perhaps our age is in greater need of encouragement to live generously the Christian life.

Recall the words of Blessed Pope John XXIII about Lourdes in 1959: “Listen attentively to the salutary warnings of the Mother of God, who seeks to guide us in our conduct.”

Mother and Son

Pope John Paul II taught us to see that Marian doctrine and devotion are indeed both Christ-centered and Church-centered. He noted the harmony of her unique participation as Co-Redemptrix in the redemption earned by Jesus Christ with her continuing maternal mediation and advocacy for all humanity. Mary is the perfect model for the People of God in their journey to become, with Jesus and herself, co-redeemers and intercessors for each other and all humankind.

Knowing and teaching the whole truth about Mary is thus the best means to teach the whole truth about Jesus and His saving incarnation, about His redemption and about His Church. The full truth about Mary safeguards the full truth about Jesus.

Mary is the most effective guiding star and mediating force for the new evangelization. The mother prepares the way for the Son. Is it any wonder, then, that He sometimes sends her to appear in our midst, so she can call us once again to draw close to God?

Brother John M. Samaha, S.M., writes from the Marianist Center in Cupertino, California.

Comments Off

1 min read

Sacraments

Divorce and Communion

Father Reginald Martin

January 21, 2020 7:58 am January 21, 2020

1 min read

1237 views

Comments Off

1 min read

If one is civilly divorced and has not remarried, can he or she receive Communion? The Church’s Code of Canon Law describes marriage as an indissoluble covenant (see Canons 1055-1057)….

If one is civilly divorced and has not remarried, can he or she receive Communion? The Church’s Code of Canon Law describes marriage as an indissoluble covenant (see Canons 1055-1057). The law derives these terms from scriptural sources, including St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, where he compares the union of marriage to that of Christ and the Church (see Eph 5:22). This mystery is so profound that if we were to lose every other sign of God’s love, we would have the right to look at married couples in our midst and conclude that what keeps them in love with one another is the same mysterious force that keeps Christ in love with us. The result, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, is the same: “The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator’s generosity and fecundity” (No. 2335, emphasis in original).

Divorce alters the domestic arrangements of a married couple, but does not affect the indissoluble nature of their union. Church law, thus, views a divorced person as married. This means divorced Catholics cannot remarry unless a Church court finds some flaw in their previous marriage. However, the law states, “On the other hand, [divorced persons] are neither excommunicated nor prohibited from receiving the sacraments” (Commentary on Canon 1155).

Comments Off

6 min read

Human Dignity

A Look at Complementarity through the Eyes of ‘Me Too’

Sister Anna Marie McGuan

January 20, 2020 6:55 am January 20, 2020

6 min read

1367 views

Comments Off

6 min read

Amid all the discussions related to the “Me Too” movement, there has been much attention given to the mistreatment and even abuse of women by men. Sometimes this panned decades,…

Amid all the discussions related to the “Me Too” movement, there has been much attention given to the mistreatment and even abuse of women by men. Sometimes this panned decades, including multiple victims. The growing awareness of these situations has raised questions about the social and cultural roles of men and women. And it’s also worth reflecting on how the differences between men and women are complementary, which means they are mutually beneficial and enriching. There are many questions for us to consider.

First, are men and women actually different? To answer, simply consult your own experience and use your common sense. Take note of obvious differences in size and shape. Look at how men interact with men and how women interact with women. Notice how a man is a father and how he treats the children differently than his wife, who is their mother. Next, look at yourself. Young girls have different struggles than adolescent boys; women face growing pains that men do not, and vice versa. They are also interested in different things. Those sorts of differences are not bad, but really are very good, though not always easy to experience.

Going further, is it wrong to be different, to be “unequal”? No, because being different is not related to one’s dignity. Unequal dignity, as a philosophical position, is false and should be opposed. The “Me Too” movement (in part) is a response from women who have experienced an insult to their dignity precisely in the realm of their difference from men. In the material grounding of what makes her her, she was injured and degraded. Yet, she has nothing of which to be ashamed. Abuse and derogatory behavior toward the opposite sex are inexcusable and unacceptable. Acknowledging differences and attractions between men and women does not degrade either sex, nor do differences necessarily lead to the objectification and use of the other. What, then, is the alternative?

In a word, it is complementarity. Complementarity is a way of relating between man and woman, male and female, that respects and reverences the differences in the other without making “different” mean “less than” or “better than” the opposite sex. Pope St. John Paul II wrote: “Womanhood expresses the ‘human’ as much as manhood does, but in a different and complementary way. When the Book of Genesis speaks of ‘help’ (2:18-25), it is not referring merely to acting, but also to being. Womanhood and manhood are complementary not only from the physical and psychological points of view, but also from the ontological. It is only through the duality of the ‘masculine’ and the ‘feminine’ that the ‘human’ finds full realization” (Letter to Women, No. 7, emphases in original).

In other words, without both men and women, what humanity really is cannot be expressed or even fully known by us. This does not mean that every person has to be married or raise a family in order to realize his or her full potential. It does mean, however, that if we really want to know and understand men, we have to understand women, too. If we want to grow as individuals in strength of character, spirit and body, we have to do that in a community that teaches respect and understanding for the differences inherent in masculinity and femininity. These differences bring out the best of both worlds — the best of what is masculine or feminine in each of us.

None of this means we should do away with strong women or kind men. In fact, just the opposite is the goal. Let women become strong in an appropriately feminine way. Let men be compassionate in ways that incorporate all their masculinity. A young father recently confessed to me, “I’m a better father when my wife is around. I look at her and I want to be better for her sake, and for the kids. Her presence makes me do it right.” This is complementarity in action: she cannot be the father, only he can. But her presence makes him a better one. The same would be true for her mothering — it’s better with him there.

As Mary Prudence Allen, RSM, PhD wrote in her article, “The Fruitful Complementarity of Men and Women,” complementarity has four essential characteristics: equal dignity, significant difference, synergetic relation, and intergenerational fruition. Here, I only speak about the first two, but the last two can be summed up like this: something more happens when you have a man and woman together, and that something can be fruitful for generations (the obvious, but not only, example is children, grandchildren, etc.).

The equal dignity of man and woman is rooted in their creation in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:26-31). It can also simply be observed and known through philosophical inquiry. However, this knowledge is obscured by sins, especially sexual sins, which tend to make the other into an object for me, rather than a person who has rights and dignity that go beyond my pleasure. This goes both ways — women objectify men and men objectify women. Neither is good nor healthy. Making positive choices toward virtue, especially to interrupt the type of thinking or acting that objectifies the other person, is critical to understanding this foundation of complementarity.

The significant difference between men and women is known from experience and observation. Go back to your own reflection on what you see between men and women. They are different — this is not bad. Difference can be non-competitive; we can learn from each other rather than try to beat one another. In this same vein, we can learn to appreciate and even love what is “other” in men and women.

The biblical roots of “image and likeness” shape the Christian understanding of the human person. A Christian anthropology takes the polemics out of the differences between sexes: different is good, not a threat. The differences between male and female, man and woman, find their purpose in the relationship of complementarity. Therefore, not only is being different from each other not a threat, it actually brings out the best of both men and women.

Sister Anna Marie McGuan is with the Religious Sisters of Mercy in Alma, Michigan.

Comments Off

7 min read

Evil

Can the Existence of Evil Disprove God’s existence?

Sister Anna Marie McGuan

January 20, 2020 6:08 am January 20, 2020

7 min read

1238 views

Comments Off

7 min read

The existence of evil is a common objection to the existence of God, or at least to a personal God who is all-knowing and all-good. How is it possible to…

The existence of evil is a common objection to the existence of God, or at least to a personal God who is all-knowing and all-good. How is it possible to reconcile belief in God with the clear evidence of evil and its manifold manifestations? This is a good question, and one that people have been asking for thousands of years (just read through the book of Job in the Old Testament). To answer the question, two related, yet distinct ideas must be examined.

The meaning of evil

Firstly, it is necessary to establish what exactly is meant by “evil.” When speaking of evil, it is easy to see it as a force that drives nature or people toward destruction. However, evil does not exist per se, meaning in and of itself. It only exists in things as a lack of something that should be present. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote: “…every being, as such, is good; …evil can exist only in good as in its subject” (STh., Q. 49, a. 3). For example, blindness is not something added to the eye; it is the lack of a power that should be there. The eye suffers the deprivation of the good of sight, which is an evil. Sickness is not the addition of a new perfection; it is the lack of health in a body. Hence, a physician works precisely to restore someone to health, the good state the body should be in.

This understanding of evil is important because it immediately rules out the idea that the material world is evil and must be overcome in order for human persons to be happy. That dualistic perception of the world and its origins is at the heart of the Manichean heresy, which lies within the Gnostic tradition. Essentially, the two eternal principles of “good” and “evil” are at war, and all matter is seen as evil. This, of course, is in direct opposition to the biblical tradition which precedes it, in which all creation is declared “good,” even “very good,” in Genesis 1. Matter is definitely not evil in the biblical vision.

What about when bad things happen? Physical or natural evil that people experience is the playing out of the laws of the universe, like the earthquake that causes the tsunami that causes the destruction of an island and all the plants and creatures living on it. One the one hand, it is seen as a tragedy. On the other hand, however, how it happened is perfectly logical and can be traced back through the laws of nature. This type of evil can also be quite relative. For example, the lion eats the antelope. Good for the lion, evil for the antelope. As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “Now, the order of the universe requires…that there should be some things that can, and do sometimes, fail” (STh., Q. 49, a. 2).

The existence of evil

Secondly, once evil is understood as the privation of a good and not a principle of existence, the idea free will in rational creatures must be addressed. Moral evil is more nuanced than physical evil, and it is really at the heart of the above-stated question about God. Moral evil refers to the choice by a rational creature to do what he knows is not good, either for himself or for others. In this case, the privation of the good that ought to be there is caused by the choice of the creature. For example, the thief lacks the virtue of justice. The good that ought to be present, namely, the ready disposition to give to each what is due, is lacking. Instead, the thief has an inordinate desire to possessions and violates justice in order to satisfy that desire. A famous line from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn summarizes this perfectly: “Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes … right through every human heart — and through all human hearts.” Man, each and every man, chooses to commit moral evil or not. God is not the cause of this type of evil, but he does allow it to exist.

If God is all good — why doesn’t He stop people from doing bad things? This is the conundrum, right? The answer lies in the great value and the goodness of freedom, even when it has gone wrong. Make no mistake — God has explained what freedom is for: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Dt 6:5). Or, as St. Paul wrote: “The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rm 3:9-10).

Each person has an innate understanding that what St. Paul says is true, and freedom’s true purpose is clear. Yet, if someone makes a bad or a vicious choice, God still permits the choice. The power of goodness and love, latent within the human will, is so great and good, that God will not thwart man’s use of it. He wants humans to choose to love freely — to love him freely, to love the self freely, and to love others freely. He could have created puppets who automatically loved him and could not do otherwise. He did not. As such, there are adverse consequences to human freedom: sin and the effects of sin.

Sin and evil

That is really the crux of the problem. It can be explained metaphysically and in a satisfactory way that evil exists, but God’s seeming absence from the scene right when we need him fails to satisfy. But, is he absent? St. Augustine said: “For the Almighty God, who, as even the heathen acknowledge, has supreme power over all things, being Himself supremely good, would never permit the existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil.”

St. Augustine’s argument here is actually the only solution. The existence of evil cannot disprove the existence of God, because evil exists only in something good as in a subject (blindness in the eye, illness in the body) or as part of the lawful order of the universe. Yet, God’s allowance of evil, especially evil freely chosen on the part of human persons, cannot but bring us to the question of why? To begin to understand this, the nature of human freedom must be appreciated and understood. Freedom is a power for good, not for evil, but it can be misused. God allows this because this is how he created rational human beings — for the good, capable of evil. He will not go back on his creation. At the same time, the evil that God permits, will, in his time and purposes, be an avenue from which he brings good.

Sister Anna Marie McGuan is with the Religious Sisters of Mercy in Alma, Michigan.

Comments Off

4 min read

Saints

St. Marianne Cope: A saint for outcasts and lepers

Michael R. Heinlein

January 17, 2020 9:53 pm January 17, 2020

4 min read

2221 views

Comments Off

4 min read

After nearly 50 religious orders refused Hawaiian King Kalakaua’s invitation to care for the victims of leprosy in his kingdom, St. Marianne Cope said “yes.” The Mother Provincial of the…

After nearly 50 religious orders refused Hawaiian King Kalakaua’s invitation to care for the victims of leprosy in his kingdom, St. Marianne Cope said “yes.” The Mother Provincial of the Sisters of St. Francis in Syracuse, New York, responded wholeheartedly to the request, saying, “I am hungry for the work, and I wish with all my heart to be one of the chosen ones, whose privilege it will be to sacrifice themselves for the salvation of the souls of the poor Islanders. … I am not afraid of any disease, hence, it would be my greatest delight even to minister to the abandoned ‘lepers.’”

The family of Barbara Koob — St. Marianne’s birth name — emigrated from Germany for America the year after her birth in 1838, and the immigrant family’s name became Cope. Although she felt called to religious life, Cope began factory work after eighth grade to help her family’s finances when her father became ill. When her father died in 1862, Cope could finally profess vows with the Franciscan Sisters in Syracuse. The newly named Sister Marianne soon began service in German immigrant schools. Her leadership skills were apparent early on, which led her to establishing hospitals in central New York State and a tenure as administrator of St. Joseph Hospital in Syracuse. Cope’s intelligence and interpersonal abilities were apparent, and all who knew her were aware that God was her sole inspiration. She became provincial in 1877.

Already secure in her calling, God called Cope to an even more sacrificial life when she responded favorably to King Kalakaua’s request. It might seem astounding that Cope responded with such ease to something she never imagined in her ministry. However, it’s easily understandable when one is more acquainted with her willingness to serve the Lord. At her beatification in 2005, Cardinal José Saraiva Martins recalled Cope’s dependence on God’s providence, saying, “She left everything and abandoned herself completely to the will of God, to the call of the Church and to the demands of her new brothers and sisters. She put her own health and life at risk.”

Cope and six Franciscan sisters arrived in Hawaii in 1883 and operated hospitals and schools among the leper community. Initially overseeing a hospital for the victims of the disease in Oahu, she later established a home to care for children of leper victims. There, Cope and her sisters cared for the children with a mother’s love. Known for her undying optimism and trust in God’s providence, Cope taught her sisters about their role among the lepers, saying they were “to make life as pleasant and as comfortable as possible for those of our fellow creatures whom God has chosen to afflict with this terrible disease.”

Cope carried on her motherly love of the lepers when she opened a home for women and girls on the island of Molokai. This was a further sacrifice because she knew going to the leper’s island-prison meant essentially she was isolated from the outside world forever. While on Molokai, she developed a close relationship with St. Jozef Damien De Veuster after he was diagnosed with leprosy. Cope lovingly took care of this “apostle to the lepers” in his final days and carried on much of his work among the men’s section of the leper colony after his 1889 death. In 1895, she secured religious brothers to staff it.

Cope led the sisters in the Hawaiian missions until her health began to decline after a life of tireless work as an embodiment of the Good Samaritan. Miraculously, however, she never suffered from leprosy. An 80-year-old Cope died on Molokai on Aug. 9, 1918, originally buried on the island. Never returning to her Syracuse motherhouse in her lifetime, Cope’s relics arrived in Syracuse in 2005 and stayed there until enshrinement in the Honolulu cathedral in 2014. Cope was canonized in 2012 by Pope Benedict XVI, who said she, “showed the highest love, courage and enthusiasm.”

Her feast day is Jan. 23.

Michael Heinlein is editor of Simply Catholic.

Comments Off

4 min read

Saints

St. Francis de Sales

Michael R. Heinlein

January 17, 2020 8:39 pm January 17, 2020

4 min read

403 views

Comments Off

4 min read

‘Do not lose your inner peace for anything whatsoever, even if your whole world seems upset.’ Born in France in 1567, St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622) received an outstanding education…

‘Do not lose your inner peace for anything whatsoever, even if your whole world seems upset.’

Born in France in 1567, St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622) received an outstanding education in preparation for the career path his father had chosen for him. A privileged life of nobility awaited Francis, with a career in the legal profession. It never came to pass, though, because God had better plans.

During the years when Francis pursued his education, Calvinism was on the rise in Europe, and many Catholics were leaving the Church. For a time, Francis was convinced of predestination, one of Calvinism’s central tenets. He quickly became consumed by a fear that he was predestined for eternal damnation. Several months of spiritual darkness ensued, and Francis was exhausted emotionally and physically. He credited Mary’s intercession with a conversion experience, in which he abandoned himself totally to God’s providence and pledged to love whatever God had in store for him.

During this time of spiritual testing, a calling to ordained priesthood grew stronger for him. Although he felt the call from an early age, he did not want to disappoint his father. After Francis revealed that he wanted to abandon the career and life that had been prepared for him, his father gave his reluctant approval, and Francis was ordained a priest in 1593. By the time his father died seven years later, the two had not fully reconciled.

As Europe was absorbed by the political and religious divisions that followed the Protestant Reformation, Francis worked to bring peace and truth to all he encountered. Through his preaching and teaching, he manifested great evangelical skills for overcoming the divide between Catholics and Calvinists. He accomplished this by the tireless efforts of preaching and publications of various treatises in which he proposed anew the teachings of the Church in a simple, understandable language.

His work came with great costs: Francis barely escaped martyrdom on several occasions. His living conditions were rough, his health deteriorated, his father cut off financial assistance in hopes he would give up his missionary work. And doubts entered his mind on account of his daily interactions with those who did not believe in what he did. Through it all, Francis persevered with heroic virtue. He depended solely on God’s providence, a cause of true joy for him.

As a diocesan bishop, Francis forged a strong bond with the flock entrusted to his care. He left a major mark through his teaching, preaching and example.

Remembered as a uniquely gifted spiritual director, many of Francis’ writings were distinctive because of his strong belief that anyone could serve God in any vocation and that anyone could pursue a holy life. This was novel in many ways, since common thinking of the day held that holiness was best pursued by clergy and religious. He taught that all are called to holiness no matter their state in life.

As an attentive shepherd, Francis understood the great divisions in the Church and society and knew they would only be healed by holy living. His teaching later was a foundation for the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on the universal call to holiness.

St. Francis de Sales’ last years were spent dealing with increasing health problems. On his deathbed, having suffered a stroke, a nun attending to him begged for some last advice from the dying saint. Given paper and pen, he wrote thrice, “humility.” De Sales died on Dec. 28, 1622, in Lyon, France. He was canonized in 1665, named a Doctor of the Church by Blessed Pope Pius IX in 1877, and was formally named patron of writers in 1923. His feast is Jan. 24.

Michael R. Heinlein is editor of OSV’s Simply Catholic and a graduate of The Catholic University of America. He writes from Indiana. This article is taken from the ‘Saints in Times of Crisis’ booklet from Our Sunday Visitor.

Comments Off

First Name *

Last Name *

Email Address *