30 June 2021

30 July, The Holy Rule of St Benedict, Father of Western Monks

CHAPTER XXIII. Of Excommunication for Offences

28 Feb. 30 June. 30 Oct.

If any brother shall be found contumacious, or disobedient, or proud, or a murmurer, or in any way transgressing the Holy Rule, and contemning the orders of his seniors; let him, according to our Lord’s commandment, be once or twice privately admonished by his elders. If he do not amend, let him be rebuked in public before all. But if even then he do not correct himself, let him be subjected to excommunication, provided that he understand the nature of the punishment. Should he, however, prove incorrigible, let him undergo corporal chastisement.

1 July, The Roman Martyrology

Kaléndis Iúlii Luna vicésima prima Anno Dómini 2021

On the morrow is the Octave of the Birth of the holy Baptist John.
July 1st 2021, the 21st day of the Moon, was born into the better life:

On Mount Hor, holy Aaron, the first High Priest of the tribe of Levi.
In Britain, the holy martyrs Julius and Aaron, who suffered in the persecution under Diocletian, after holy Alban at the which time there were very many there who suffered diverse torments and were most cruelly mangled, and so finished their fight, and went to be glad for ever in the Jerusalem which is above.
At Mondragone, in Latium, the holy Bishops Castus and Secundinus, both martyrs.
At Vienne, holy Martin, Bishop [of that see,] a disciple of the Apostles.
In Auvergne, [in the sixth century,] holy Gallus, Bishop [of Clermont.]
In the country of Lyon, the holy Domitian, Abbot [of Bebron,] the first who there led an hermit's life. He gathered very many together there to serve God, and was gathered unto his fathers in a good old age, very famous for great graces, and for glorious and wonderful works.
In the country of Reims, the holy Priest Theodoric, a disciple of blessed Bishop Rémy.
At Angoulême, [in the sixth century,] the holy Abbot Eparchius.
At Hums, in Syria, [likewise in the sixth century,] the holy Confessor Simeon, whose surname was Sali. He became a fool for Christ's sake, but God showed by great miracles how deep was his wisdom.
At Vicenza, [in the eleventh century,] the holy Hermit Theobald, of the family of the Earls of Campania, whose name Pope Alexander III added to the list of the Saints on account of his fame for holiness and miracles.
V. And elsewhere many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins.
R. Thanks be to God.

Memes of the Day

 


29 June 2021

Rapper Lil Nas X Wears Dress Comparing Catholics to Nazis at the Bet Awards

Ironic, considering that the true heirs of the Nazis are the totalitarian, racist, anti-Christian, and anti-Catholic Left of today. This is the same person who marketed 666 pairs of 'Satan Shoes' containing human blood.

From Breitbart

By Hannah Bleau

Rapper Lil Nas X is at the center of another controversy after showing up to the BET Awards donning a dress featuring a distinct, controversial message, depicting what the outfit’s designer described as “parallelism between Nazism” and the Catholic church.

The Montero singer walked the red carpet wearing a gown designed by Andrea Grossi, which stands as part of her “Welcome to DeusLand” collection which supposedly “talks about a future society and the future of human being” and contains imagery drawing parallels between Nazism and the Catholic church.

Lil Nas X arrives at the BET Awards on Sunday, June 27, 2021, at the Microsoft Theater in Los Angeles. (Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP)

The “Old Town Road” artist dazzled Hollywood leftists after concluding BET performance on Sunday with a gay kiss, two years after coming out.

LGBT Activist Dances and Strips in Atrium of Catholic Cathedral

Their hatred for the Mystical Body of Christ is palpable, but it could have been worse. They could have set fire to the Church or attacked the Priest celebrating Mass.

From the National Catholic Register

By Walter Sanchez Silva/CNA

SAN GIL, Colombia — An LGBT activist danced and stripped to scanty underwear in the atrium in front of the cathedral in the town of San Gil, Colombia this week.

The suggestive dance took place amid the ongoing demonstrations for the national strike, and as part of “gay pride” month, creating a controversy on social media and outrage among Catholics.

On the night of June 21, a group of LGBT activists gathered outside the cathedral in San Gil, which is located about 150 miles north of Bogota, and watched a member of their group dance and strip to the rhythm of the music.

In a blurry video posted on Facebook by the Colombian media El Regional, a voice is heard over a loudspeaker system presenting the “performance” by “Sasha” who before starting to dance, exclaims: “Long live the queers and long live the whores!”


“Religion cannot oppress our way of loving, love is love and the strike must be diverse, inclusive and free of stereotypes. We are love, we are diversity,” says a message from the LGBT group as reported by Blu Radio.

A national strike called by different leftist organizations began in Colombia on April 28, and has been marked by violence and excesses in different cities, leaving at least 50 dead and dozens injured.

A citizen, who preferred to remain anonymous, told Blu Radio that the dance presented by the LGBT community showed “a lack of respect, vulgarity and bad values.” He also condemned “their disrespect for a symbol of religion such as the main atrium of the cathedral.”

“They can do their crazy things elsewhere, but not in front of children, families and parts of the community that don’t share these ideas, sexual orientations and ideologies,” he added.

On the El Regional Facebook post, a user identified as Ollu Veri said “at that time the Eucharist was being celebrated, where there were a number of people praying and interceding for their families, going through the pain of losing their loved ones. Put yourself in the place of these families! There are many places in San Gil to make your rights known.”

Although the post has several comments in favor of the dance of the LGBT group, the user named Henry Celis said that what was done in the atrium of the cathedral “is simply unacceptable. Every church is the house of God ”

Prophecy vs Realpolitik: Has the Vatican Chosen State Over Church in China?

In other words, the Vatican has completely sold out to the ChiComs! May God have mercy on the people of China!

From The Pillar

By Ed Condon

The Vatican’s foreign minister on Friday said the Holy See has not spoken out on the clampdown on freedoms in Hong Kong because there is no sense in the Vatican that such an intervention would do any good.

The admission from Archbishop Paul Gallagher, who heads the Secretariat of State’s section for diplomatic relations, highlights the tension between the prophetic and the pragmatic aspects of the Vatican’s role in international affairs, and especially in its dealing with China.

For Hong Kong especially, Gallagher’s remark might undermine whatever good the local Church can hope to achieve in conversations with the government, as the Vatican has already made clear its position.

During the course of a press conference on Lebanon June 25, Gallagher was asked why the Vatican has spoken out on political instability and civil unrest in the Middle East, but not on the situation in Hong Kong, where authorities have led a year-long crackdown on basic civil liberties and freedom of expression, since the imposition of the National Security Law in July last year.

“Obviously Hong Kong is the object of concern for us. Lebanon is a place where we perceive that we can make a positive contribution. We do not perceive that in Hong Kong,” said the archbishop. “One can say a lot of, shall we say, appropriate words that would be appreciated by the international press and by many countries of the world, but I — and, I think, many of my colleagues — have yet to be convinced that it would make any difference whatever.”

Gallagher’s view, that Vatican statements in support of Hong Kong civil liberties and against totalitarianism would have no effect on government action, reflects a broad policy in the Secretariat of State to avoid public challenges of Beijing over widespread human rights violations, including the mass genocide of Uyghurs in the mainland province of Xinjian.

That policy — not publicly commenting on human rights abuses and atrocities in the world’s most populous country — is widely understood to be linked to a provisional agreement signed by the Holy See and China in 2018 and renewed in 2020.

The agreement grants Communist Party authorities effective veto power over the appointment of bishops on the mainland.

From the purely diplomatic perspective, Gallagher would seem to have a point. Beijing’s efforts to dismantle Hong Kong’s special political and legal status have not been deterred by global outcry.

And China’s anti-Uyghur policies continue undettered amid reports of mass concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, systematic rape, forced abortions and sterilizations, and other atrocities.

At the same time, despite the Vatican’s agreement with Beijing, the Communist Party has continued to arrest, detain, and otherwise harass Catholic clergy on the mainland who refuse to acknowledge the party’s effective sovereignty over the Church in the country, and it has continued with local church demolitions.

There is a reasonable calculus that, while intervention by the Vatican to speak out against the Chinese government’s actions is unlikely to help, strident opposition from Rome on humanitarian grounds could make matters worse for Catholics on the ground.

On the other hand, both Church observers and China watchers have noted that the Vatican’s effective silence on Chinese human rights violations, coupled with its closer diplomatic ties through the provisional agreement, can be taken as a tacit endorsement of the regime, and as a source of scandal.

While silence by the Vatican may be strategic, many warn that it compromises the Church’s ability to speak out credibly on other civil and political crises, like Lebanon and Burma. That point seems at least partially illustrated by the question put to Gallagher on Friday.

As China continues to emerge as the globe’s foremost abuser of human rights, activists inside and outside of China have called on the Vatican to offer a prophetic witness for human rights and dignity in the face of political oppression, and even genocide.

To many observers, the Secretariat of State appears to be separating, or even suborning, the Holy See’s prophetic role from its pragmatic diplomatic efforts; in effect choosing a separation of Church and state affairs. While there may be arguments in favor of this approach, it is worth noting that the Holy See claims sovereignty in international law, and engages in diplomacy at all, in order to safeguard her freedom to speak prophetically without having to defer to civil governments.

If diplomatic entanglements like the Vatican-China deal function to restrict, even tacitly, the Church’s ability to witness to human life and freedom, the entire purpose of her sovereign status becomes self-referential, existing to support its own existence and not at the service of the evangelization.

But even accepting that there are special political sensitivities in the case of Hong Kong, it is not clear that Vatican silence on the situation is to the benefit of the local Church.

The Holy See has only just managed to announce the appointment of a new bishop for the diocese which, although not believed to fall under the terms of the 2018/2020 agreement, was a process fraught with political considerations and saw two candidates approved and then spiked before they could be announced over concerns about how they would be perceived both by Beijing and local faithful. During the period between permanent bishops, Catholic institutions, including parishes and schools, have come under direct pressure to endorse state-approved notions of “patriotism” and steer clear of contentious political issues.

Gallagher’s comments on Friday came the same day that Hong Kongers lined up in the streets to buy the final print edition of Apple Daily, the newspaper forced to close by local authorities after the arrest of its owner, Jimmy Lai, a Catholic, last year, and the subsequent freezing of its bank accounts and assets.

In the days before the paper’s final closure, police raided Apple Daily’s newsroom and arrested several top editors and journalists for alleged breaches of the National Security Law, citing some 30 articles in the paper which they said effectively invited international sanctions on Hong Kong and China in response to government actions.

A week earlier, Agnes Chow, another Catholic pro-democracy activist, was released after spending six months in prison for attending an “unlawful assembly” to protest a 2019 law that would have allowed for the extradition to the mainland of Hong Kongers arrested for political crimes.

Earlier in the month, thousands of extra police were deployed to prevent the annual vigil held to remember the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989 — Hong Kong had been the only Chinese territory where it was permitted to mark the event.

Speaking during his first press conference after being named as Hong Kong’s next bishop, Fr. Stephen Chow, SJ, confirmed he had attended a Tiananmen vigil the previous year, despite those events being suppressed, ostensibly because of the coronavirus.

“Religious freedom is a fundamental human right,” said Chow in May. “We would like to remember it in our dialogues with the government, so that it is not forgotten.”

On Friday, Gallagher said “we hope the new bishop is going to do a lot of good work.”

But Chow’s work could be made all the harder, and his position as bishop and defender of the local flock all the more isolated, if China knows the Vatican is already convinced that nothing it says or does will make a difference.

CONTRA GENTILES: BOOK FOUR: SALVATION - Chapter 16 ARGUMENTS WHICH MADE SOME THINK THE HOLY SPIRIT A CREATURE

[1] Now, in the opinion of some, the Holy Spirit is a creature exalted over other creatures. They used the testimony of sacred Scripture for this assertion.

[2] Amos (4:13) says, if we take the Septuagint literally: “Behold He who forms the mountains and creates the spirit and declares His word to man.” And Zechariah (12:1): “Thus says the Lord who stretches forth the heavens, and lays the foundations of the earth, and creates the spirit of man in it.” It seems, then, that the Holy Spirit is a creature.

[3] Moreover, our Lord says, speaking of the Holy Spirit: “He shall not speak of Himself, but what things soever He shall hear, He shall speak” (John 16:23), and from this it appears that He speaks not with the authority of a further power, but to one who commands He is in a service of obedience, for to speak what one hears is proper to a servant. Therefore.’the Holy Spirit seems to he a creature subject to God.

[4] Again, “to be sent” appears proper to an inferior, since there is in the sender an implication of authority. The Holy Spirit, of course, is sent by the Father and the Son, for our Lord says: “The Paraclete, the Holy Ghost~ whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things”; and: “Men the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father” (John 14:26; 25:26). The Holy Spirit, therefore, appears to be less than the Father and the Son.

[5] Moreover, divine Scripture, associating the Son with the Father in matters of divinity, makes no mention of the Holy Spirit. This is clear from Matthew (11:27), when our Lord says: “No one knows the Son but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father but the Son,” making no mention of the Holy Spirit. And John (17:3) says: “This is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You sent.” There, again, no mention is made of the Holy Spirit. The Apostle also says: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 2:7); and: “To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by Him” (1 Cor. 8:6); and in these places also there is nothing said about the Holy Spirit. It seems, therefore, that the Holy Spirit is not God.

[6] There is more. Whatever is moved is created, for it was shown in Book I that God is immobile. But to the Holy Spirit motion is attributed by divine Scripture. One reads in Genesis (1:2): “And the Spirit of God was moved over the waters”; and in Joel (2:28): “I will pour out My spirit upon all flesh.” It seems, therefore, that the Holy Spirit is a creature.

[7] Moreover, everything that can be increased or divided is mutable and created. These seem to be attributed to the Holy Spirit in sacred Scripture. For the Lord said to Moses: “Gather unto Me seventy men of the ancients of Israel; and I will take of your spirit, and will give to them” (Num. 11:16-17). And 2 Samuel (2:9-10) says that Elishah begged of Elijah: “I beseech you that in me may be your double spirit”; and Elijah answered: “If you see me when I am taken from you, you shall have what you asked.” The Holy Spirit, therefore, appears to be mutable and not to be God.

[8] Again, no sorrow can come upon God, since sorrow is passion of a sort and God is not subject to passion. But passion does come upon the Holy Spirit; as the Apostle reveals: “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God” (Eph. 4:30); and Isaiah (63:10) says: “They provoked to wrath and afflicted His Holy Spirit.” The Holy Spirit, therefore, seems not to be God.

[9] What is more, it is not suitable for God to entreat, but to be entreated. But to entreat is suitable to the Holy Spirit; we read in Romans (8:2.6): “The Spirit Himself asks for us with unspeakable groanings.” Therefore, the Holy Spirit appears not to be God.

[10] Moreover, no one makes a thing a gift appropriately unless he has dominion over it. But God the Father gives the Holy Spirit, and so does God the Son. For our Lord says: “Your Father from heaven will give the good Spirit to them that ask Him” (Luke 11:13); and Peter speaks of “the Holy Spirit whom God has given to all that obey Him” (Acts 5:32).

[11] For these reasons it seems, then, that the Holy Spirit is not God.

[2] Once again, if the Holy Spirit is truly God, He ought to have the divine nature. Thus, when the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father” (as John 15:26 has it), necessarily He receives the divine nature from the Father. Of course, what receives its nature from a thing which produces it is generated by that thing. For it is proper to one begotten to be produced unto a similarity in species to its principle. Therefore, the Holy Spirit will be begotten and, consequently, the Son. And this is repugnant to sound faith.

[13] If the Holy Spirit, furthermore, receives the divine nature from the Father and not as one begotten, the divine nature must be communicated in two ways: by way of generation in which the Son proceeds, and in that way in which the Holy Spirit proceeds. But one nature seems not to have two fitting modes of communication if one examines natures universally. It seems, therefore, that the Holy Spirit, since He does not receive the divine nature by generation, does not receive it in any way at all. He thus appears not to be true God.

[14] Now, this was the position of Arius, who said that the Son and the Holy Spirit were creatures: the Son, to be sure, greater than the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit the servant of the Son; just so, he said that the Son was lesser than the Father. Arius was followed in respect of the Holy Spirit by Macedonius, “who rightly held that the Father and the Son were of one and the same substance, but was unwilling to believe this of the Holy Spirit. He said that the Holy Spirit was a creature.” Hence, some call the Macedonians Semi-Arians, because they are in partial agreement with the Arians, and in partial disagreement with the same group.

Next - CONTRA GENTILES: BOOK FOUR: SALVATION - 
Chapter 17 THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS TRUE GOD

Will It Be District Attorneys and Grand Juries Next?

It's too bad Mr Griffey didn't read this before writing this, to see how just shakey Dawn Eden's 'case' was.

From Daffey Thoughts 

By David Griffey

Or just lawsuits the way grandma used to make. So I posted on this a week or so ago.  It was about the Southern Baptist minister Russ Moore leaving the Southern Baptist Convention for good.  The article that wrote of this, as well as Deacon Steven Greydanus, seemed to post a warning for those who refuse to follow the emerging New Left (still have yet to find a good label for this global revolution):

If the faithful continue to turn a blind eye while leaders continue to perpetuate the status quo, God will turn to district attorneys and grand juries - and the pews will grow more and more empty.

As if the modern Left isn't the status quo.  But it was the uncritical warning of the power of the State stepping in to punish those who dare question the narratives and premises of the modern Left, where gender, sexual assault, race relations and other topics are concerned, that struck me.  Basically, these are Catholics, and Christians in general, aligning with the new Caesar and warning all Christians who refuse to follow suit that it will be Caesar (apparently at the Almighty's behest) who will then punish them for their disobedience - and a good thing too. 

Not that those bucking the Left are always right.  But note the easy way in which warning dissenters with threats of the crushing power of the State becomes the next rhetorical step up the ladder of modern compromise. 

I thought of that when I saw this, and this.  Apparently Dawn Eden, Catholic convert and blogger who loomed large in my early days of Catholicism, has gone to court to silence Austin Ruse.  Who is Austin Ruse?  No clue.  I've heard his name.  Perhaps I've linked to him once or twice over the years.  He might be a jerk, or not.  I don't know.  But apparently he's going after Dr. Eden because of her growing ease with targeting various Catholics and Catholic outlets, like EWTN, who are  bucking the Leftwing tidal wave. 

The extent of my legal knowledge

Apparently she didn't like that, so she went to court to get a restraining order.  I have no clue the details, what anyone said, what the courts said, what the decisions were or why.  I'm not a lawyer so I don't get legal-stuff.  I don't know if there is a case there or not.  I just notice that she went to the courts to silence this critic of hers.  

I have no doubt his persistent attacks might be hurtful for her.  They might be bad in general.  Maybe Ruse has gone overboard. I've seen Catholics do that on the Internet.  And not just traditional or conservative ones.  In fact, Dr. Eden has become no stranger to blasting various Catholics, Catholic leaders and Catholic outlets for daring to challenge various leftwing narratives and agendas.  Such is the sad world of the modern Internet.

Nonetheless, I'm not aware of any of those outlets going to court to silence her.  I'm not aware of anyone who has been in her crosshairs turning to the power of the state to stop her criticisms and condemnations.  Granted, many of her swipes do pull the old trick of targeting organizations rather than individuals.  Though not always.  And she may not go after them as much as Ruse has gone after her.  And she might be right about some of her criticisms, just as Mr. Ruse might be right about some of his.   But again, I've seen Catholics on the internet make entire subject threads based on going after particular Catholics they disagree with, like Matt Walsh or Michael Voris, and not always in the most polite ro charitable manner.  It is what it is.

Maybe Voris, Walsh or others have gone to court to silence some of their more zealous critics.  I dunno. If so, shame on them.  But Dr. Eden appealing to Caesar to silence someone who, perhaps going overboard, is nonetheless calling her out while she feels free to call out others, is more than problematic.  Unless he has threatened her or in some way encouraged violence against her, I think this is something she should take on with him one on one, or maybe in a public format, since many of her digs, like his, have been done in public.

But again, that aside, it's the appeal to the State, especially in light of Deacon Greydanu's twitter copy of the article about Russ Moore, that jumped out at me. The threat that "God" will be using the State to come after dissenters, and then a week later we see an appeal to the same principle already in the works, to me is noteworthy.  Whether it will or won't be Moore, or Greydanus, or Eden, when the time comes, it will be someone in the Faith who will gladly stand next to the boxcars and the camp gates ready to herd all dissenters into the stockades.  Never forget that.  Our age is no different than other ages in that regard.   As the organization formerly known as Boy Scouts used to say, be prepared. 

Roger Buck: Ep. 14 - EWTN Interview (Part 2) - on Ireland, the New Age and the Sacred Heart

The second part of Mr Buck's interview with Paul MacAree on EWTN Radio Ireland.

In this second part of a "Celtic Connections" radio interview originally broadcast by EWTN Radio in Ireland, Roger Buck speaks with Irish host Paul MacAree about the New Age Movement, Catholic Ireland and the Sacred Heart of Jesus. He also tells of his conversion to Catholicism, after many years as a New Age activist, including his years as a member of the Findhorn Community in Scotland, probably the most well-known New Age community in the world, which has played a key role in shaping New Age ideology. While the discussion should be helpful to Christians everywhere - Protestants as well as Catholics - trying to understand the New Age Movement, the interview also reflects the Irish context and Buck's profound debt to Irish Catholicism - which very much served to liberate him from his long-held, deeply entrenched liberal, secular and New Age views. Attention is also given to Eucharistic Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus as powerful antidotes to the spread of (a largely Eastern) New Age spirituality. Finally, this episode also features some additional commentary by Roger Buck at the END of the interview - AFTER the closing credits of the original EWTN episode.

The Messed Up Truth Of The Council Of Nicaea

 For being from a secular channel this actually fairly well done.

Word of the Day: Ends of the Mass

ENDS OF THE MASS. The fourfold purpose for which the Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice; namely, adoration, thanksgiving, propitiation, and petition. The Mass is therefore a sacrifice of praise of God's eternal greatness, of gratitude for past and present goodness, of begging mercy for having offended the divine majesty, and of asking for divine favor in the future.

Who’s Really Weaponizing the Eucharist?

The Editors of the Register point out that it is Biden and the 60 apostates in Congress that are using the Eucharist as a political weapon.

From the National Catholic Register

By The Editors

EDITORIAL: It’s the pro-abortion Catholic politicians themselves — including President Joe Biden — who are doing just that.

In the wake of the decision by the U.S. bishops to include a treatment of Eucharistic consistency in a new bishops’ statement about the Eucharist, pro-abortion Catholic politicians and their supporters in the media rushed to collectively accuse the U.S. bishops of “weaponizing” the Eucharist.

But it’s not the bishops who are politicizing this matter. It’s the pro-abortion Catholic politicians themselves — notably including President Joe Biden — who are doing that. By insisting on receiving Communion, despite their actions in support of legal abortion that are in total contradiction to what the Church teaches about the sanctity of human life, they are the ones seeking to wield the central sacrament of our Catholic faith as a political weapon.

To properly understand what’s in play, it’s necessary first to debunk a couple of the misrepresentations propagated by pro-legal-abortion Catholic politicians and their supporters. The U.S. bishops did not vote in favor of establishing a national policy mandating that pastors would be required to deny the Eucharist to wayward political Catholics. Decisions about the fitness of individual politicians to receive the Blessed Sacrament will remain in the hands of their local bishops. A national policy was never what the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ leadership had in mind when they included this issue in the proposed outline of the Eucharistic document they have now been authorized to craft ahead of the three-year National Eucharistic Revival that is scheduled to commence next year.

The proposal debated at the spring assembly, and ultimately endorsed by a strong majority of the active bishops in virtual attendance, was merely to include the problem of dissenting politicians who present themselves for Communion within the context of a far broader presentation on Eucharistic coherence. That presentation is intended to remind all faithful Catholics who receive the sacrament, not just politicians, of their solemn duty to strive to follow God’s will in all their actions.

Another misleading claim of the pro-legal-abortion Catholics is that the bishops are elevating the abortion issue above other equally important political issues, such as immigration, racism, climate change and the alleviation of poverty. In fact, Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, who heads the doctrine committee that will draft the Eucharistic document, specifically communicated at the assembly that other issues will be cited in it (and that politicians won’t be the only public figures referenced).

But more fundamentally, while other aspects of the Church’s social doctrine certainly deserve attention, they aren’t of equal significance to abortion for the straightforward reason that legal abortion is directly responsible for the deaths of 1 million unborn babies in the U.S. every year. Exercising prudential judgments about matters like how many immigrants our nation should welcome annually is necessarily of less political and spiritual importance than working to putting an end to the legalized murder of these unborn babies.

That’s why there’s an urgency for the bishops to speak out about the actions of Biden and other Catholics in the Democrat-controlled Congress to expand access to and taxpayer funding for legal abortion, since the president took office in January. This is a scandal Church leaders simply can’t ignore, as many bishops noted during their debate over the Eucharistic document. And the scandal is compounded immensely by Biden’s continuing reception of Communion, even while totally embracing abortion rights in defiance of moral law and Church teaching.

Admittedly Biden is not playing politics with the Eucharist as contentiously as Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., who publicly dared the bishops to deny him Communion after the spring assembly concluded. But because of his prominence and political authority, the president’s actions remain more scandalous. And, in contrast to Lieu and the other Catholic Democrats in Congress who signed a June 18 letter chastising the U.S. bishops for calling them to a faithfully Catholic political witness regarding abortion, Biden previously has publicly acknowledged the validity of the Church’s teaching about the unequivocal evil of abortion. As recently as 2015, he told America magazine that as a matter of faith, he agrees that “abortion is always wrong.”

Regardless of his shifting during the 2020 presidential campaign to a position of 100% support for the expansion of legal abortion, and while remaining fully aware of the wrongness of abortion, he continues to receive Communion. And make no mistake, he’s not reluctant about scoring political points by doing so.

Whenever one of Biden’s pro-abortion actions is called into question at a press conference, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki has been instructed to sidestep the question by stating that Biden is a “devout Catholic” who regularly attends Mass, thereby implying that no contradiction exists between the president’s promotion of legal abortion and the teachings of his Church.

Herein lies the most damaging witness: Biden publicly claims to be devoutly Catholic while calling the obvious contradiction his policies have with his Church’s teaching a private matter. Countless Catholics who aren’t so public in defying Church teaching are encouraged to do the same.

The reception of Communion is always a public act. The Eucharist exists to bring grace to a community of people who are united in belief and are striving for greater personal communion with God and to bring others to that union, too.

If Biden really wants to be true to what he says he believes, he should at a minimum stop receiving Communion until he repents of his current position on abortion — not because the bishops have “weaponized” the sacrament against him, but first and foremost because of a concern for the salvation of his own soul. And instead of instructing his media underlings to duck away from admitting that he is flagrantly failing to govern in accordance with his Catholic beliefs regarding abortion, he should publicly and personally reaffirm his awareness that legal abortion is a moral evil that every Catholic must strive to correct, to whatever degree they are in a position to do that.

Such a conversion of heart and mind would conflict with the president’s political ambitions, to be sure. Probably to him it also appears more or less impossible, given that his current lofty political perch was purchased in good measure by his campaign-trail willingness to cast aside his residual convictions regarding the evil of abortion.

But if he is truly as devout as he claims, like every other Catholic, President Biden needs to reflect very carefully on the cautionary words of Christ himself about the risk of gaining the acclaim of this world, at the cost of forfeiting one’s own immortal soul.

The Politics of the Sacred Heart

May God speed the coming of the Social Reign of the Sacred Heart of Christ the King!

From Tumblar House

By Charles Coulombe

There is a long history of politics
involving the Sacred Heart of Jesus

Veneration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus has gotten a bum rap. For many people, Catholics and otherwise, the seemingly effeminate images of Our Lord pointing to His — literally — bleeding heart were dismissed as purely private devotional images best suited for old ladies. For others, such things as placards identifying the driver of a car as a member of the Auto League of the Sacred Heart were the worst kind of kitsch. For still more folks of a thoughtful nature, it was all well enough in its way, but a relatively recent devotion without deep roots in Catholic history. All of these notions are dead wrong.
Their refutation begins with Scripture, specifically the Gospel of St. John, 15:13 — “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Christ said it, and then went on to do it on the Cross. In so doing, He redeemed the human race — opening Heaven to all who accepted His gifts. What were these gifts? “But one of the soldiers with a spear opened his side, and immediately there came out blood and water.” (St. John, 19:34). That outpouring of blood and water from His Sacred Heart symbolised the Eucharist and Baptism, the two Sacraments around which the other five revolve. But with these life-giving gifts made available to all mankind came something else: an obligation laid upon those who would receive Him. As Pius XI wrote in his encyclical, Quas Primas, “But a thought that must give us even greater joy and consolation is this that Christ is our King by acquired, as well as by natural right, for he is our Redeemer. Would that they who forget what they have cost their Savior might recall the words: ‘You were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled.’ We are no longer our own property, for Christ has purchased us ‘with a great price’; our very bodies are the ‘members of Christ.’” We are rightfully His subjects not only by His creation of the Universe and all therein, nor just by His descent from King David, but also by conquest — His conquest of our sins upon the Cross.
The Church Fathers dwelt at length on the mystery of the “opened side” of Christ, often declaring that the Church was born from it as Eve was from Adam’s side. By the early Middle Ages, it had become common for theologians to further reverse the flow, so to speak, writing eloquently of entering into Christ’s loving Heart via the wound in His side:
“There is a safe and sure rest for weak and sinful men in the wounds of the Saviour. I dwell in them secure; the interior of His heart lies open to me through the wounds. Whatever is wanting to me, I take for myself from the heart of my Lord; for His mercies are overflowing, nor are holes lacking by which they may flow out. Through the holes in the body appear to me the secrets of the heart; there appears the great mystery of His love, the mercy of our God in which the Orient from on high has visited us.” (Hugh of St. Victor, De Anima, Lib. IV, XXI: PL 177, 181).
This mystical interplay had produced the Church; but the Church was not to be taken to be a merely spiritual, invisible body. Constantine the Great had legalised and favoured her, being acclaimed a Saint as a result. His later successor, Theodosius the Great, received similar treatment, partly in tribute to his making Catholicism the State Church of the Empire and baptism entrance into Roman citizenship. Although the Empire was tottering politically as Germanic tribes set up their kingdoms within its shrinking boundaries, the concept of Christendom — a political polity enfolding all who claimed to be followers of Christ — had emerged. Such figures as Justinian and Charlemagne who attempted to restore the Empire were not trying to breathe life into the realm of the pagan Caesars, but to give this Christendom concrete and effective reality. The cultus of the Military Saints — loyal soldiers who nevertheless accepted martyrdom rather than apostatise, or later warriors who fought the external enemies of the True Faith — arose, and their sacrifices were identified with of Christ; they too had laid down their lives for their friends.
Within Christendom, many of the nations who arose within its undefined boundaries were similarly raised to the altars: England’s St. Edward the Confessor; Scotland’s St. Margaret; France’s St. Louis; Hungary’s St. Stephen; Bohemia’s St. Wenceslaus; Spain’s St. Ferdinand; Denmark’s St. Canute; Sweden’s St. Erik; Norway’s St. Olaf; Poland and Lithuania’s St. Casimir; Russia’s St. Vladimir; Serbia’s St. Sava; Bulgaria’s St. Boris; and many, many more.
The Holy Roman Emperor was a canon of both St. Peter’s Basilica and Aachen Cathedral; the King of France enjoyed the same privilege at St. John Lateran and various other churches in his realm; and the King of Spain atSt. Mary Major. Even the King of England was an honorary monk of St. Paul’s Outside the Walls (whose abbot was in return prelate of the Order of the Garter) and a canon of St. David’s Cathedral in Wales. Imperial and Royal monasteries and parishes abounded, each ruler’s court had an official chaplaincy, and all of them were expected to participate publicly at the liturgy of such feast days as the Epiphany, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Corpus Christi. Each court evolved its own type of spirituality — and foremost in each was the notion that a sovereign must be willing to sacrifice himself for his subjects, as Christ did for His. The greatest sovereigns were also accounted the most pious — both on their own behalf, and that of their peoples.
All of this royal and chivalric spirituality found both its apogee and its final formation in the Crusades. Kings and knights set off for the Holy Land, fighting and dying to free and then to retain the Holy Sepulchre. The symbol of the Crusaders, of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and then of the institutions that survived that Kingdom or attempted to retain something of its inheritance — the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land, and the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem — all used and use the Jerusalem Cross as their symbol. This image — first worn by Godefroi de Bouillon, leader of the First Crusade — consists of one large cross with four smaller ones at each side. These symbolise the Five Wounds, with the central cross representing the wound in the side of Christ, reaching to His Sacred Heart. In keeping with this very public spirit of sacrifice, when Godefroi was asked by his followers to make himself King, he replied, “I will not wear a crown of gold where my Saviour wore a Crown of Thorns!”
The Five Wounds became a very powerful symbol for all who wanted to follow in the wake of Christ the King. The Portuguese Coat-of-Arms has borne them since Afonso I won the battle of Ourique against the Moors, beginning the Kingdom of Portugal. Rosaries and other devotions to Christ’s wounds abounded. The men of the North of England who rose to defend Catholicism against Henry VIII in the Pilgrimage of Grace marched under the Banner of the Five Wounds.
The Protestant revolt caused mayhem throughout Christendom; and, as in England, those who fought for the Old Religion often rallied to the Five Wounds. But no realm in Christendom was more desolated by the Wars of Religion than France, where the Huguenots plundered and burned abbeys and shrines with great abandon. It fell to Henry IV and the House of Bourbon to rebuild his wrecked Kingdom; Henry’s son, Louis XIII, found himself in 1637 without an heir after twenty-three years of marriage and three miscarriages. But after much prayer to the Blessed Mother, the pious Queen, Anne of Austria, conceived, giving birth to the future Louis XIV on September 5, 1638. In gratitude, Her Majesty founded the convent of Val-de-Grace; the King consecrated France to Our Lady of the Assumption, and vowed that there would be processions in thanksgiving on that feast in perpetuity — a vow that (save during the Revolution) has been kept faithfully ever since.
Whatever his many personal sins, Louis XIV, under the guidance of his pious mother, was quite devout. Together they had travelled to the shrine of St. Joseph at Cotignac in Provence during the regency following his father’s death. As a result, on March 12, 1661, three days after taking direct control of his kingdom, Louis decided to consecrate the realm to St. Joseph. To avoid appearing to contradict his father’s previous vow, Louis did so quietly in the chapel of the Louvre.
But while all of this was going on, an obscure nun of the Visitation at Paray-le-Monial, Margaret Mary Alacoque, began receiving revelations from Jesus about the veneration and reparation due His Most Sacred Heart. These she shared with her confessor, Claude de la Colombiere, when he came to Paray in 1675. Most inspired by what he learned (which was in keeping with his own speculations on the topic), he began spreading this devotion at his next assignment the following year — chaplain to Charles II of England’s Queen, Catherine of Braganza. His headquarters was the Queen’s Chapel in London, at the time recently built to accommodate Catholic worship for Catherine and her circle. From thence he worked until imprisonment as a result of the Titus Oats plot forced his return to France.
On June 17, 1689, St. Margaret Mary Alacoque received another revelation from Our Lord, which she described thusly:
“so He wants, it seems, to come with pomp and magnificence into the houses of princes and kings, to be honored as there as He has been outraged, despised and humiliated by His passion; He would receive much pleasure by seeing the great men of the earth lowered and humbled before Him, as He felt the bitterness of being abased by them. And these are the words that I heard on this subject: ‘Make it known to the eldest son of my Sacred Heart, that as his temporal birth was obtained by devotion to the merits of My Holy Childhood, so he will get his birth to eternal glory by the consecration which he will make of himself to my adorable Heart, which means his triumph, and through it, to the great of the earth. I want My Heart to reign in his palace, to be painted on his standard and engraved in his arms, to make him victorious over all his enemies, and by placing at his feet these proud foes, to make him victorious over all enemies of the Holy Church.’”
This request was sent to the King’s confessor.
Although quite familiar, as we have seen, with the concept of national consecration, Louis XIV did not perform it — nor, indeed, did his great grandson and successor, Louis XV. But as the 17th and 18th centuries wore on, despite the heated opposition of Jansenists and “Enlightenment” partisans, devotion to the Sacred Heart grew. Bishops consecrated their own dioceses to it, as the City Council of Marseilles did, offering an annual solemn procession in thanksgiving for the cessation of the plague of 1722 (as with the Vow of the Assumption this practice has continued ever since, save during the Revolution). From the Jesuits and the Sisters of the Visitation, the Sacred Heart devotion leapt from order to order. But as St. Margaret Mary had written to Louis XIV, Jesus Himself wanted homage to His Sacred Heart to be made visibly on the part of the leaders of the various nations. Fortunately, if Louis himself was reluctant, many others were not.
In 1695, Mary of Modena, Queen of the deposed King James II and living with him in France, sought and won from Pope Innocent XII a proper office and Mass of the Sacred Heart for the Visitation nuns. Three years later, she laid the cornerstone of a chapel dedicated to the Sacred Heart at the oldest Visitation convent in Paris (turned by Napoleon into a Protestant church, which it remains). The convent had been financed by her mother in law Queen Henriette Marie of England (widow of the murdered Charles I), another refugee at the French Court.
Moreover, news of the Sacred Heart devotion began to trickle into Royal circles outside of France. In 1717, the Visitation sisters settled in Vilnius, Lithuania, and attracted the favor and support of Augustus II “the Strong,”Elector of Saxony, King of Poland, and Grand Duke of Lithuania (whose capital Vilnius was and is). They roused his interest in the “new” devotion, and in 1726 the King wrote Pope Benedict XIII, asking him to support the Sacred Heart veneration and reparation.
Meanwhile, in Spain, Louis XIV’s grandson, King Felipe V, also heard the Divine call echoing around the House of Bourbon. In 1727, he too wrote a letter to Benedict XIII, asking him for a proper office and Mass for Spain and its dominions.
Augustus’ unsuccessful rival for the throne of Poland was the Polish nobleman Stanisław Leszczyński. Although he would later manage to regain his Kingdom for a time (and then lose it again to Augustus’ son Augustus III, having to content himself with the Duchy of Lorraine thereafter), he shared with his rivals a love of the Sacred Heart. This he passed on to his daughter, Marie Leszczynska, who married Louis XV in 1725. The Queen and her parents prayed devoutly to the Sacred Heart for a male heir; the Dauphin was born in 1729. In response, she and her parents enrolled in the Confraternity of the Sacred Heart at the Jesuit Church in Blois. From that point on, Queen Marie became a tireless campaigner for the devotion, asking Popes Clement XII and Benedict XIV for a universal feast, and erecting a confraternity in its honour at Notre Dame de Versailles. Her zeal was shared by the Dauphin, and eventually her campaign for the Sacred Heart (and establishment of a proper feast for it) was taken up by prelates and princes across Europe and overseas: bishops from France, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Italy, Canada, Mexico, and Paraguay added their voices to the call.
In 1761, Queen Maria I of Portugal, in thanksgiving for the birth of an heir, ordered the construction of the “Basilica da Estrela” in Lisbon, named actually after the Sacred Heart — it was the first great church in the world so named. The building was completed by 1789, at which time Maria ordered the Portuguese Orders of Knighthood to add the Sacred Heart to their coats-of-arms — in so doing she came the closest of any 18th century Monarch to fulfilling Christ’s command to Louis XIV.
1762 saw Augustus III of Poland, who like his father had also beat out King Stanislaw for the throne, ask the Pope to grant his country the Feast of the Sacred Heart. Oddly enough, his daughter had married the Dauphin Louis, Stanislaw’s grandson, thus becoming Queen Marie of France’s daughter-in-law. She came to admire the exiled King Stanislaw, who in 1763 then added his voice to Augustus’, requesting the Pope not only to grant the feast for Poland, but for his own consolation prize of Lorraine as well. A few days later, Maximilian III Joseph, Elector of Bavaria, petitioned the Pope for his own territories. In 1765, at Queen Marie’s request, the General Assembly of the Clergy of France added their voices to the chorus asking the Pope for the feast; it was fruitless, but two years later, to honour the Queen, the Archbishop of Paris ordered that the Feast of the Sacred Heart be observed in his Archdiocese.
All of this royal agitation, while notable as far as what it shows concerned these Monarchs, also points out an unfortunate fact: not only did successive Popes not hear their call, but none carried out for their own countries what Jesus had asked of France and Louis XIV. Neither did Queen Marie, for all her zeal for the Sacred Heart, prevail upon her husband, Louis XV to consecrate his Kingdom. Indeed, the Catholic Rulers had another, more burning project in mind, which doubtless did not incline the Pontiffs to grant their several requests: they wanted (and eventually got) the abolition of the Jesuits, the order most closely identified at the time with devotion to the Sacred Heart. After the Jesuits were successively expelled from the territories of France, Spain, Portugal, Austria, and Naples, Pope Clement XIV was finally strong-armed into abolishing them wholesale in 1773.
The pious Dauphin Louis having predeceased his dissolute father, the dissolute Louis XV was succeeded at his death in 1774 by the far more devout Louis XVI, his grandson. But although devoted to the Sacred Heart as his parents and grandmother had been, he too was taken up with other business — initially, reforming the economy and military. He was successful enough in this quest to defeat the British in his 1778-1783 intervention in the American Revolution — without which the colonial rebels would undoubtedly have been defeated. But financially, it was a pyrrhic victory that bankrupted the French government. When famine broke out in 1786, he was unable to do much to succor his starving subjects in the countryside. His sister, Madame Elizabeth, urged him to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart; concerned with what appeared to be more practical matters, he did not do so.
In 1789, the dreary tale of the French Revolution began. As its earlier stages unfolded, many of the common folk sought refuge in the Sacred Heart; the period 1791-92 saw millions of its images spread among the populace. In the early months of 1792, virtually a prisoner in his palace, Louis XVI privately consecrated his Kingdom at last; moreover, he vowed that if restored to power, he would do so publicly. But the King was overthrown, and on August 10, 1792, the Royal Family became prisoners in the Temple. On January 21, Louis XVI was martyred, and his Queen, Marie Antoinette, followed him later in the year.
Now it was the turn of the common man. On March 10, in the name of Louis XVII (the young imprisoned son of the murdered King), the peasants of the Vendee, in the west of France, rose up against the regicide Revolution. Elsewhere in France, the Chouans did the same. For all of these brave but doomed insurgents, the Sacred Heart became their badge of honour. In response, the Revolutionary regime banned the image. Christians who had pictures of the Sacred Heart were accused of “fanaticism,” and “distributing superstitious pictures;” which crimes led one to the guillotine.
As the French Revolutionary Wars spread across Europe, its Catholic opponents in the Tyrol (where it remains to this day a powerful image of local identity), Naples, Piedmont, Tuscany, Lombardy, and elsewhere often adopted the Sacred Heart as their badge. For such as these, regardless of nationality, the Sacred Heart became a symbol not only of their own deposed Monarchs, but of that Kingdom of Christ of which their former rulers were lieutenants. It became a rallying point for all Catholics who opposed the attempted dethroning of Jesus by the revolution.
After Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo, it appeared that the genie of Revolution had been thrust back into its bottle. The Restoration saw the Monarchs back upon their thrones, and such measures as the Holy Alliance put in place to keep them there. Not surprisingly, in this period of peace, devotion to the Sacred Heart spread ever further throughout Europe. Louis XVIII and then Charles X were called upon to consecrate France publicly and fulfill Louis XVI’s vow. But they did not. In July of 1830, the very pious Charles X was deposed, and a new wave of revolutions hit Europe. His usurping successor, Louis Philippe, would not even consider it — and was deposed himself in 1848, as a new and far worse rash of rebellions spread across the continent.
Out of it all, however, emerged France’s Second Empire. Although Napoleon III himself was continually torn between the two sides of his character — Catholic and Liberal — his pious Spanish empress, Eugenie, knew no such conflict. When the bishops of France gathered for the baptism of the Prince Imperial in June of 1856, she joined her voice with theirs in asking the Papal representative at the ceremony to ask Bl. Pius IX once more to place the Sacred Heart on the Universal Calendar of the Church. On August 25, he did so, finally fulfilling the requests of kings, clerics and faithful to his predecessors over the previous two centuries. But Eugenie would be less successful with her husband, whom she repeatedly asked to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart. Nevertheless, all over the world and in France especially, devotion to the Sacred Heart was literally reaching a fevered pitch, with new orders, sodalities, and movements of every kind dedicated to its veneration and reparation springing up all over.
Nevertheless, Napoleon III collaborated with the Sardinians in the Franco-Austrian War of 1859, which allowed the latter country to begin the process of snapping up the Papal States. In response, the Holy Father called for volunteers from all over the Catholic world — the result was the formation of that splendid and legendary unit, the Pontifical Zouaves. In 1867, they made their first mass consecration to the Sacred Heart.
The Franco-Prussian War broke out in 1870, and had several violent repercussions. The war went very badly; despite the Empress’ strident attempts, Napoleon III still not consecrate his country — he was defeated and deposed, through the war continued. His withdrawal of troops from Rome paved the way for the Eternal City’s conquest by the Italians. Those of the Papal Zouaves who were French returned to their homeland under their heroic commander, Athanase de Charette, and joined the French Army in an attempt to defeat the invaders. They received a banner of the Sacred Heart which circumstances had rendered impossible to give to the besieged garrison of Paris. The Zouaves carried it in all their battles, whilst repeatedly reconsecrating themselves — the last time at their mustering out at the end of the War. Associated with them in all these endeavours was the heroic and saintly General Gaston de Sonis.
In January of 1871, a group of French notables, inspired by the vows of Louis XIII and Louis XVI, drew up a “National Vow:”
“In the presence of the misfortunes that afflict France and the greatest perhaps that still threaten woes. In the presence of sacrilegious attacks in Rome against the rights of the Church and the Holy See, and against the sacred person of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, we humble ourselves before God and our love together in the Church and our country, we recognize that we have been guilty and justly punished.
And to make amends for our sins and get the infinite mercy of the Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the forgiveness of our sins and the extraordinary relief, which can only deliver the Pontiff of his captivity and stop the misfortunes of France we promise to contribute to the erection of a sanctuary in Paris dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. ”
Both the Pope and the exiled Comte de Chambord (de jure Henry V), exiled heir to the Bourbon throne, approved the vow — it was heartily taken up by Charette, de Sonis, and the Zouave veterans, as well as numerous others. Finally, on July 23, 1873, after acrimonious debates, the National Assembly passed a law providing for construction of such a Basilica as an expression of the national will. The result was the famed Basilica of the Sacred Heart at Montmartre.
Inspired by the French example, on October 8, 1873, the heroic President of Ecuador, Gabriel Garcia Moreno, together with the country’s congress and Catholic Bishops, solemnly consecrated the nation — ever since, it has claimed the title of “Republic of the Sacred Heart.” Ten years later, work began on National Basilica in Quito. In 1902, after a rash of municipal consecrations, Colombian President Jose Manuel Marroquin also consecrated his country. There too this was accompanied by eventual construction of a National Basilica to the Sacred Heart in Bogota. So it has been with many other Latin American nations: El Salvador (1874), Venezuela (1900), Nicaragua (1920), Costa Rica (1921) , Brazil (1922) and Bolivia (1925) — all of which featured consecration by the Head of State, even as was required in Our Lord’s message to Louis XIV.
In 1875, during the course of the Third Carlist War, the Carlist claimant to the Spanish Throne, Carlos VII,consecrated his ancestral realm to the Sacred Heart. Carlism was always devoted to the Sacred Heart, and its adherents added the image to both the arms and flag of Spain — again, in keeping with St. Margaret Mary Alacoque’s revelation.
But all of this Hispanic fervour made little dent in France. As the Third Republic wore on, it became ever more anti-Catholic; several attempts were made to torpedo the construction of the Basilica on Montmartre. Although these attempts were defeated, the anti-clericals did manage to strip the effort of its governmental approbation. At last, in 1906, Church and State were separated, church property seized, and most religious orders expelled. So things stood when war broke out in 1914.
At the same time, however, throughout France and the Catholic world, Royalists and others interested in the Social teachings of the Church began exploring the relationship of these to the Sacred Heart. From the writings of such figures as Cardinal Pie, Fr. Fanno Solaro, S.J., and many others came the idea of the “Social Kingship of Christ” – that, that Christ must reign as King over every element of Society, from the Headship of State to the lowliest cottage. There was a great highpoint to these developments in 1900, when Leo XIII solemnly consecrated all mankind to the Sacred Heart. The cause of Christ the King united Catholics across the globe, each in their various political difficulties.
These would be exacerbated by the outbreak of World War I. The horrors of the trenches ground on, and at last, on January 16, 1917, French mystic Claire Ferchaud wrote a letter to President Raymond Poincaire. In it she called on him to win the war by gaining Christ’s blessing on the country. This he was to do by rejecting Freemasonry, placing the Sacred Heart on the French national and battle flags, and giving images of it to soldiers to wear. She underlined these appeals by visiting him personally on March 21, at which time he said he could nothing because of the country’s anti-clerical laws, and that it was a matter for Parliament. Five days later, at the Basilica in Paray-le-Monial, the flags of the allied nations were solemnly blessed by the British Archbishop of Westminster and the French Bishop of Autun. On May 15, allied soldiers gathered again at Paray, and were solemnly consecrated to the Sacred Heart by Cardinal Amette, the Archbishop of Paris. Official reaction was swift. In July, the government prohibited soldiers to be consecrated to the Sacred Heart or carry its image; nor could military flags carry the device.
The following August, the allied governments rejected Pope Benedict XV’s peace plan. The only ruler who showed any interest was Bl. Charles I, Emperor of Austria, whose own devotion to the Sacred Heart was renowned. In the same year, the apparitions of Fatima occurred, during the course of which devotion to the Sacred Heart was explicitly linked to that of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. So too was the idea of national consecration — Our Lady asked that the Pope and all the Bishops of the World would consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart.
Despite the ministers in Paris, reality prevailed to some degree at the front. On June 7, 1918, in defiance of the law, Marshal Ferdinand Foch, having allowed the image of the Sacred Heart to be borne on flags and worn by soldiers, privately consecrated his army to the Sacred Heart at the parish church of Bombom. A few days later, he and his men defeated the Germans at the Second Battle of the Marne — which decisive victory he attributed to the Sacred Heart. In November, he accepted the German armistice. The war was over — but at what a cost! Spain had remained neutral; grateful for this, on May 30, 1919, King Alfonso XIII solemnly consecrated Spain to the Sacred Heart at Cerro de los Angeles, the geographical center of the country.
The 1920s saw continued growth of devotion to the Sacred Heart, most especially enthronement of its images in private homes and other devotions. At the same time, devotion to Christ the King grew, culminating in Pius XI’s 1925 encyclical, Quas Primas. This established the Feast of Christ the King (whose processions would become a rallying point against Nazi tyranny in Germany), and made “Long Live Christ the King!” a shorthand code for all who upheld the Catholic social order against any opposition. Pope Pius made recitation of the Act of Dedication of the Human Race an integral part of the observance. It was little surprise that invocation of their Divine Sovereign was constantly of the lips of the Cristeros and the Spanish Nationalists.
World War II broke out in 1939, and would have even more horrible consequences than its predecessor. On June 1, 1940, as the French army was tottering under German assault, Cardinal Suhard, Archbishop of Paris consecrated his see and France in the Basilica at Montmartre. Although 50,00 were present, including some important officials, the President and Premier were not. On June 16, the government fell, and Marshal Philippe Petain became Head of State, with half the country under German occupation. On November 22, 1940, Petain privately consecrated France to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, asking the Papal representative in attendance to inform Pius XII that he wished to make it publicly “in the hands of His Holiness,” and expressed the wish that the Pope would so consecrate the whole world. This the Pontiff did on October 31, 1942, renewing it solemnly on December 8.
On January 28, 1943, a delegation of Catholics met with Petain in Vichy, and presented him with a flag depicting the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The Marshal expressed his happiness with it, and declared it to be “my flag.” Meanwhile, Cardinal Suhard had been to Rome, and seen Pius XII. Upon his return he conferred with the other French Bishops, and it was agreed that the Consecration of France to the Immaculate Heart of Mary would be made at the same time in all French churches and chapel at the same time on March 28. Hearing of this, Petain declared that as Head of State he would join the effort. At that date and time, the Church of St. Louis in Vichy, Petain solemnly consecrated France to the Immaculate Heart. Emboldened by his actions, Fr. Merme, who had arrange for the flag to be given him, asked the Marshal on June 29 to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart as well, Although Petain responded that he would consult the French bishops about doing so, he said he did not think it would be possible at that time, although, “If its implementation does not currently seem appropriate, it does not mean that it is excluded.” Of course, the Allied invasion and Petain’s subsequent imprisonment by the Germans ended any chance of that happening.
Europe was devastated by the War, and half of it was swallowed by the Communists. But there were signs of hope elsewhere. On October 27, 1946, King Mutara III consecrated his country, Rwanda, to Christ the King, declaring: “Lord Jesus, King of all men and all nations, I, Mutara Charles Léon Pierre, bow to you and to your mother, Mary, Queen of the earth and heaven. I recognize that you are the sovereign Master of Rwanda, the root from which comes all power…. Lord, I give you my country, my countrymen, and my person.” Given the tragedies that dogged the country’s later history — starting with Mutara’s mysterious death — he gave his countrymen something to hang on to. On October 11, 1954, Pius XII issued the encyclical Ad Coeli Reginam, which enacted the Feast of the Queenship of Mary. The following July 25, the President, Congress, and Supreme Court of Brazil consecrated the nation to the “Eucharistic Heart of Christ the King,” at the statue of Christ the Redeemer on the top of Rio de Janeiro’s Corcovado mountain — expressly citing the request to Louis XIV.
The excitement during and after Vatican II had, among other things, the result of dimming — for a while — a great deal of popular interest in the Sacred Heart devotion. In much the same manner, the apparent reconciliation of the Church with the modern liberal state put something of a damper on specifically Catholic social and political work, as opposed to simply assisting the status quo. Those days, thankfully or not (reform in the Church often presages governmental and other persecution), are ending. Where, in the light of all the history we have reviewed, does that leave us?
For starters, we have to fix in our minds just what Our Lord’s Sacred Heart demands of us in our own context. It is hard to envision any government, anywhere today (save perhaps Liechtenstein), where the Head of State would consecrate his country to the Sacred Heart in union with the country’s hierarchy — imagine President Obama doing that! So we must pray and work in hopes that such a regime may one day surface in each of our countries. It may just be possible to do this on a provincial or state level, as Governor Cesar Duarte did with the Mexican State of Chihuahua on April 20 of this year. Some cities might well be able to do so — although doubtless the American Judiciary would forbid any such action.
Dioceses and parishes of course are another matter, and many have been consecrated to the Sacred Heart; more can be and others reconsecrated. Corpus Christi and Christ the King processions are very important in showing our corporate allegiance. Every family should enthrone the Sacred Heart, and show that in that home at least, Christ is truly King. For each of us as individuals, devotion to the Sacred Heart and its allied devotions of the Immaculate Heart, Precious Blood, Divine Mercy, and Kingship and Queenship of Jesus and Mary — starting with things like the First Fridays and First Saturdays — should be paramount. In the current climate (where mentioning “Christmas” can be a risk), displaying the placard of the Auto League of the Sacred Heart so far from being tacky becomes an heroic and counterrevolutionary act!