Legion of Mary Blog

George Bonina Jr. had a stoke yesterday evening. He is now in Prince William Hospital. Please pray for him and George Sr. and Monica.

The Senate Appropriations Committee hearing today, September 26, 2007 included an unexpected discussion on General Peter Pace remarks standing up for the right of people to hold Christian religious beliefs.

Senator Harkin asked General Pace about his statement that homosexuality is immoral, and General Pace affirmed that those were his personal beliefs. Protests errupted, and the room was cleared.

VATICAN CITY, SEP 19, 2007 (VIS) - In his general audience, held this morning in St. Peter’s Square, the Pope continued with his series of catecheses on the subject of the Fathers of the Church, focussing today on St. John Chrysostom.

The Pope began by recalling the fact that this year marks the 16th centenary of the death of St. John Chrysostom, who was born in Antioch, in modern-day Turkey, in the year 349. “Called Chrysostom, meaning ‘golden-mouthed,’ for his eloquence, it could be said that he is still alive today through his works,” the Holy Father observed.

“Ordained a deacon in 381 and a priest in 386, he became a famous preacher in the churches of his city; … 387 was John’s ‘heroic year’,” said Benedict XVI, the year of “the so-called ‘revolt of the statues’ when people destroyed the imperial statues as a sign of protest against the rise in taxes.”

The Holy Father then went on to observe how this saint “was one of the most prolific of the Fathers, of him we have 17 treatises, more than 700 authentic homilies, his commentaries on Matthew and Paul, and 241 letters. He was not a speculative theologian. He transmitted the traditional and certain doctrine of the Church at a time of theological controversies, caused above all by Arianism, in other words the negation of Christ’s divinity.”

“His is an explicitly pastoral theology,” the Pope continued, “in which he shows a constant concern for coherence between thought expressed in words and real existence, This, in particular, is the common thread of the magnificent catecheses with which he prepared catechumens to receive Baptism.”

Benedict XVI indicated how “St. John Chrysostom was concerned that his writings should accompany the integral - physical, intellectual and religious - development of the person.”

In his works, the saint highlighted the importance of childhood because it is then “that inclinations to vice and virtue appear. For this reason the law of God must, from the beginning, be impressed upon the soul ‘as upon a wax tablet’.”

Childhood, said the Pope referring to the saint’s writings, “is followed by the sea of adolescence in which the gales blow violently as concupiscence grows within us.” Then comes courtship and marriage, about which the saint points out “that a well prepared husband and wife close the way to divorce: everything takes place joyfully and children can be educated to virtue. When the first child is born, he or she is like a bridge: the three become a single flesh because the child brings the two parts together and all together they constitute a family, a little Church.”

Finally, the Pope recalled how the saint used to address his writings to the lay faithful who, “through Baptism, take on the priestly office, royal and prophetic. … This lesson of Chrysostom on the authentically Christian presence of the lay faithful in the family and in society is today more important than ever.”

AG/ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM/… VIS 070919 (510)

VATICAN CITY, SEP 15, 2007 (VIS) - Today, Benedict XVI received the Letters of Credence of Noel Fahey, the new ambassador of Ireland to the Holy See.

Speaking English, the Pope began his address to the diplomat by recalling how “for over 1600 years Christianity has shaped the cultural, moral and spiritual identity of the Irish people, … and it remains as a ‘leaven’ in the life of your nation. Indeed, the Christian faith has lost nothing of its significance for contemporary society since it touches ‘man’s deepest sphere’.” The Holy Father then turned to consider Ireland’s recent economic growth, pointing out how “this prosperity has undoubtedly brought material comfort to many, but in its wake secularism has also begun to encroach and leave its mark.”

Benedict XVI had words of praise for a recent initiative to promote a “structured dialogue” between Church and government in Ireland. “Some might question,” he said, “whether the Church is entitled to make a contribution to the governance of a nation. In a pluralist democratic society should not faith and religion be restricted to the private sphere?”

“The Church, in articulating revealed truth,” he stated, “serves all members of society by shedding light on the foundation of morality and ethics, and by purifying reason, ensuring that it remains open to the consideration of ultimate truths and draws upon wisdom. Far from threatening the tolerance of differences or cultural plurality, or usurping the role of the State, such a contribution illuminates the very truth which makes consensus possible and keeps public debate rational, honest and accountable.

“When truth is disregarded,” he added, “relativism takes its place: instead of being governed by principles, political choices are determined more and more by public opinion, values are overshadowed by procedures and targets, and indeed the very categories of good and evil, and right and wrong, give way to the pragmatic calculation of advantage and disadvantage.”
(more…)

LEGION OF MARY - SAN FRANCISCO SENATUS

WHEN: September 21st To September 28th 2007

WHERE: Immaculate Conception Church, Sparks, Nevada. Click here for a map.

WHAT: DOOR TO DOOR VISITATION

WHY: TO REACH EVERY SOUL IN THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH. TO SPREAD OUR GREAT CHRISTIAN FAITH

THE BLESSED MOTHER NEEDS YOU IN THIS APOSTOLATE

The Perigrinatio Pro Christo movement of the Legion of Mary offers to legionaries, seminarians, religious sisters and brothers a unique opportunity of taking part in the missionary apostolate of the church. Practicing lay Catholics who are not yet Legionaries and are new to the program will be afforded the opportunity to participate in the door to door evangelization. The prospective new members will be required to attend the Legion of Mary meetings to gain knowledge of the methods and techniques employed in this apostolate and will be assured of assignment with experienced Legionaries in the door to door visitation.

The approach will be to everyone. All those who are not Catholic will have the Church offered to them in its fullness. Non practicing Catholics will be gently encouraged to return to the church and Sacraments. Those of other denominations, in the true spirit of ecumenism, will be respected in their faith. Practicing Catholics will be invited to explore the benefits of active and auxiliary membership in the Legion of Mary. The Legion of Mary will provide sacramental and other Catholic materials for distribution.

If interested, please email webmaster@arlingtonregia.com or mail the application to Mrs. Mary Peterson

2511 38th Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94116-2855

In 326 St. Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constantine, discovered the three crosses on which Jesus Christ and the two thieves had been crucified. Archbishop Makarios touched each cross to a dying, sick woman to determine which was the Cross of Christ. She was perfectly healed immediately by the touch of the True Cross. St. Helena then built the Church of the Holy Sepulcher for the Holy Cross to be maintained and venerated at.

In 614, Jerusalem was conquered by the Persians, and the Holy Cross taken. The Persians burned the Church of the Resurrection and stole the Holy Cross.

In 628, Emperor Heraclius of Byzantium defeated the Persian king and brought the Holy Cross back to Jerusalem.

Before taking the cross into the Church, it was revealed to him to remove all his splendid clothing and imperial jewels so that he could carry the Holy Cross in humility, as had Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Therefore, wearing a sackcloth, he walked barefoot with the Holy Cross to plant it on Golgotha.

“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. ” - Jesus Christ

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

COMMENTARY

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has formulated responses to questions presented by His Excellency the Most Reverend William S. Skylstad, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in a letter of July 11, 2005, regarding the nutrition and hydration of patients in the condition commonly called a “vegetative state”. The object of the questions was whether the nutrition and hydration of such patients, especially if provided by artificial means, would constitute an excessively heavy burden for the patients, for their relatives, or for the health-care system, to the point where it could be considered, also in the light of the moral teaching of the Church, a means that is extraordinary or disproportionate and therefore not morally obligatory.

The Address of Pope Pius XII to a Congress on Anesthesiology, given on November 24, 1957, is often invoked in favor of the possibility of abandoning the nutrition and hydration of such patients. In this address, the Pope restated two general ethical principles. On the one hand, natural reason and Christian morality teach that, in the case of a grave illness, the patient and those caring for him or her have the right and the duty to provide the care necessary to preserve health and life. On the other hand, this duty in general includes only the use of those means which, considering all the circumstances, are ordinary, that is to say, which do not impose an extraordinary burden on the patient or on others. A more severe obligation would be too burdensome for the majority of persons and would make it too difficult to attain more important goods. Life, health and all temporal activities are subordinate to spiritual ends. Naturally, one is not forbidden to do more than is strictly obligatory to preserve life and health, on condition that one does not neglect more important duties.

One should note, first of all, that the answers given by Pius XII referred to the use and interruption of techniques of resuscitation. However, the case in question has nothing to do with such techniques. Patients in a “vegetative state” breathe spontaneously, digest food naturally, carry on other metabolic functions, and are in a stable situation. But they are not able to feed themselves. If they are not provided artificially with food and liquids, they will die, and the cause of their death will be neither an illness nor the “vegetative state” itself, but solely starvation and dehydration. At the same time, the artificial administration of water and food generally does not impose a heavy burden either on the patient or on his or her relatives. It does not involve excessive expense; it is within the capacity of an average health-care system, does not of itself require hospitalization, and is proportionate to accomplishing its purpose, which is to keep the patient from dying of starvation and dehydration. It is not, nor is it meant to be, a treatment that cures the patient, but is rather ordinary care aimed at the preservation of life.

What may become a notable burden is when the “vegetative state” of a family member is prolonged over time. It is a burden like that of caring for a quadriplegic, someone with serious mental illness, with advanced Alzheimer’s disease, and so on. Such persons need continuous assistance for months or even for years. But the principle formulated by Pius XII cannot, for obvious reasons, be interpreted as meaning that in such cases those patients, whose ordinary care imposes a real burden on their families, may licitly be left to take care of themselves and thus abandoned to die. This is not the sense in which Pius XII spoke of extraordinary means.

Everything leads to the conclusion that the first part of the principle enunciated by Pius XII should be applied to patients in a “vegetative state”: in the case of a serious illness, there is the right and the duty to provide the care necessary for preserving health and life. The development of the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium, which has closely followed the progress of medicine and the questions which this has raised, fully confirms this conclusion.

The Declaration on Euthanasia, published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on May 5, 1980, explained the distinction between proportionate and disproportionate means, and between therapeutic treatments and the normal care due to the sick person: “When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted” (Part IV). Still less can one interrupt the ordinary means of care for patients who are not facing an imminent death, as is generally the case of those in a “vegetative state”; for these people, it would be precisely the interruption of the ordinary means of care which would be the cause of their death.

On June 27, 1981, the Pontifical Council Cor Unum published a document entitled Some Ethical Questions Relating to the Gravely Ill and the Dying, in which, among other things, it is stated that “There remains the strict obligation to administer at all costs those means which are called ‘minimal’: that is, those that normally and in usual conditions are aimed at maintaining life (nourishment, blood transfusions, injections, etc.). The discontinuation of these minimal measures would mean in effect willing the end of the patient’s life” (no. 2.4.4.).

In an Address to participants in an international course on forms of human preleukemia on November 15, 1985, Pope John Paul II, recalling the Declaration on Euthanasia, stated clearly that, in virtue of the principle of proportionate care, one may not relinquish “the commitment to valid treatment for sustaining life nor assistance with the normal means of preserving life”, which certainly includes the administration of food and liquids. The Pope also noted that those omissions are not licit which are aimed “at shortening life in order to spare the patient or his family from suffering”.

In 1995 the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers published the Charter for Health Care Workers, paragraph 120 of which explicitly affirms: “The administration of food and liquids, even artificially, is part of the normal treatment always due to the patient when this is not burdensome for him or her; their undue interruption can have the meaning of real and true euthanasia”.

The Address of John Paul II to a group of Bishops from the United States of America on a visit ad limina, on October 2, 1998, is quite explicit: nutrition and hydration are to be considered as normal care and ordinary means for the preservation of life. It is not acceptable to interrupt them or to withhold them, if from that decision the death of the patient will follow. This would be euthanasia by omission (cf. no. 4).

In his Address of March 20, 2004, to the participants of an International Congress on “Life-sustaining Treatments and the Vegetative State: scientific progress and ethical dilemmas”, John Paul II confirmed in very clear terms what had been said in the documents cited above, clarifying also their correct interpretation. The Pope stressed the following points:

1) “The term permanent vegetative state has been coined to indicate the condition of those patients whose ‘vegetative state’ continues for over a year. Actually, there is no different diagnosis that corresponds to such a definition, but only a conventional prognostic judgment, relative to the fact that the recovery of patients, statistically speaking, is ever more difficult as the condition of vegetative state is prolonged in time” (no. 2).[1]

2) In response to those who doubt the “human quality” of patients in a “permanent vegetative state”, it is necessary to reaffirm that “the intrinsic value and personal dignity of every human being do not change, no matter what the concrete circumstances of his or her life. A man, even if seriously ill or disabled in the exercise of his highest functions, is and always will be a man, and he will never become a ‘vegetable’ or an ‘animal’” (no. 3).

3) “The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of possible recovery. I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering” (no. 4).

4) The preceding documents were taken up and interpreted in this way: “The obligation to provide the ‘normal care due to the sick in such cases’ (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia, p. IV) includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration (cf. Pontifical Council Cor Unum, Some Ethical Questions Relating to the Gravely Ill and the Dying, no. 2, 4, 4; Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, Charter for Health Care Workers, no. 120). The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission” (n. 4).

Therefore, the Responses now given by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith continue the direction of the documents of the Holy See cited above, and in particular the Address of John Paul II of March 20, 2004. The basic points are two. It is stated, first of all, that the provision of water and food, even by artificial means, is in principle an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life for patients in a “vegetative state”: “It is therefore obligatory, to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient”. It is made clear, secondly, that this ordinary means of sustaining life is to be provided also to those in a “permanent vegetative state”, since these are persons with their fundamental human dignity.

When stating that the administration of food and water is morally obligatory in principle, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not exclude the possibility that, in very remote places or in situations of extreme poverty, the artificial provision of food and water may be physically impossible, and then ad impossibilia nemo tenetur. However, the obligation to offer the minimal treatments that are available remains in place, as well as that of obtaining, if possible, the means necessary for an adequate support of life. Nor is the possibility excluded that, due to emerging complications, a patient may be unable to assimilate food and liquids, so that their provision becomes altogether useless. Finally, the possibility is not absolutely excluded that, in some rare cases, artificial nourishment and hydration may be excessively burdensome for the patient or may cause significant physical discomfort, for example resulting from complications in the use of the means employed.

These exceptional cases, however, take nothing away from the general ethical criterion, according to which the provision of water and food, even by artificial means, always represents a natural means for preserving life, and is not a therapeutic treatment. Its use should therefore be considered ordinary and proportionate, even when the “vegetative state” is prolonged.

——————————————————————————–

[1] Terminology concerning the different phases and forms of the “vegetative state” continues to be discussed, but this is not important for the moral judgment involved.

Concilium Allocutio July 2007
By Fr. Bede McGregor O.P., Spiritual Director to the Legion of Mary

If we were to search for a single sentence that would encapsulate the whole inner life of the Legion the one we have just read in our spiritual reading would be a good choice: The spirit of the Legion of Mary is that of Mary herself. When Frank Duff wrote that sentence he was revealing one of the most profound characteristics of his own spiritual life. The ideals that he put before the Legion he must surely have first put to himself. All his life he aspired to acquire the spirit of Mary especially her humility and above all her faith. He wanted to share in the deepest attitudes, convictions, motivations and maternal mission of Mary. He believed with all his mind, heart and strength that if he could identify himself with the spirit of Mary he would be most perfectly centred on Jesus and through Him on the Holy Trinity. His devotion to Mary was not simply a wonderful theory or idea but the practical implementation of it in his ordinary daily life. His consecration to Mary was the inner dynamo that enabled him to answer the call to both holiness and the apostolic life. This is the secret he offers the Legion - the secret of Mary.

The decisive moment in his discovery of Mary was his contact with St. Louis Marie de Montfort. As you know, he read de Montfort’s book True Devotion to Mary several times without being very impressed. Then reading it once more at the insistence of a dear friend he was suddenly overwhelmed with the unshakeable conviction that everything that de Montfort said in this little book about Our Lady was absolutely true. That almost mystical experience took place around 1920 before the Legion was founded. He spent the next 60 years studying, praying, living and spreading the fundamental insights of St. Louis Marie de Montfort concerning true devotion to Mary. In 1947 he wrote a pamphlet entitled ‘the De Montfort Way’. In this work he gives us all the basic ideas of de Montfort in less lyrical but simpler language that should be accessible to all legionaries and indeed any modern reader. But beyond all doubt he communicates most fully and profoundly his Marian spirituality and devotion to the Legion Handbook. It would be difficult to find anything in de Montfort that is not in some way in the Handbook.

Some people stop at the external chronology of his life and find it on the whole quite ordinary even though marked by some extraordinary achievements and undertakings. But the Handbook unlocks a whole new portrait of Frank Duff. There we find a true picture of his inner life beneath the gentle, good humoured, efficient, accessible, extremely hard working, friendly man in his external portrait. The Handbook is to a large extent the spiritual autobiography of Frank Duff. Several key witnesses who knew him very well over several decades have remarked on his utter sincerity and total integrity. It would be unthinkable that in giving direction to others concerning their very vocation to eternal life he would offer them anything other than the deepest and hard earned convictions of his own spiritual life. This would be particularly true of his understanding and devotion to Mary.

We will come back again and again to the doctrine and life of True Devotion to Mary according to Frank Duff our founder but let me close this brief talk with a quotation from one of his writings: ‘Thus, the symbolism which the Scriptures have put before us, to aid to better understanding of the relation between Christ and the His Church, is that of the Mystical Body. We have likewise seen that by virtue of her motherhood of Christ, Mary is the true Mother of the Christian soul, a motherhood which Our Lord Himself proclaimed at the moment when it acquired its full dominion, that is, when it was consummated by Redemption. If we seek to supplement that image by another which will help us to appreciate the intimacy of the relations of Mary with her children, we have an expressive, though still inadequate one, in the life of the unborn babe. That babe is the soul, and its mother is Mary.

But why should we specify the unborn babe, rather than the infant carried in the mother’s arms and nourished with the natural milk? It is for this reason, that the closeness of the relation between the soul and Mary, which De Montfort - with the Church - depicts, would not at all be sufficiently shown by the babe in arms. The latter is dependant on the mother to a very large extent, but not entirely. It can and does live a little life of its own apart from its mother. It does not draw from her the air it breathes; and portions of its nourishment - all perhaps, in certain circumstances - may be gained otherwise than from its mother. And that mother may go away, or that mother may die; and yet the baby life goes on - in complete independence of her, an conceivably it may fare better without than with that mother.

But how different is the case with regard to the soul. From the day when the soul is born again in Baptism, on to lifetime’s end - perhaps a hundred years later -no single grace will have reached that soul without Mary.

Devotedly, she carries on her mother’s work of sanctification. She receives the divine graces and life life’s blood, she gives them to the soul. Of that blood, not the very least drop, that is to say not the smallest grace, comes to us of the Mystical Body otherwise than through the heart of Mary. What a picture of all-embracing dependence! The babe owes everything - absolutely everything under God - to the good offices of that Mother. Thus the babe unborn must be the image with which we help our minds to understand the role of the Mother of Divine Grace. But even that image only feebly indicates the true position. We grown up people, moving at will, living our lives as we think fit, are nevertheless in a state of dependence on her so close, so intimate, that the confinement of the natural womb is in comparison widest liberty’.

In my opinion, Frank Duff lived this dependence on Mary to an heroic degree and it’s the path he puts before us legionaries.