Paul goes to mass at the coolest places...

click the picture for more photos and to learn where.

Paul III's Sublimus Dei reaches across 500 years.

There has been much interest of late expressed in popular media and educational circles regarding the native peoples of America when the Spanish first arrived in the New World, as well as the English and French at later dates. Five years ago, I visited Mexico along with a number of other people from Nampa, Idaho, and spent 10 days there, staying in a village called Tizapan el Alto on the largest lake in Mexico called Laguna Chapala [40 to 50 miles south of the city of Guadalajara, State of Jalisco(central Mexico)].

It was a beautiful place--somewhat high desert, not unlike Idaho, mild weather, and a city or municipality [not unlike counties in the U.S.] with approximately 20 to 30,000 people. Approximately one-half the population, I was told, was working in the United States. I met a few people that were an Indian mix, including some that claimed to be the progeny of the Aztecs. (Not a difficult claim based upon the proximity to Mexico City).

Upon my return to the States, I read the "Conquest of Mexico" by the Spanish padre, Juan Diego. That journal of events read like a storybook, commanding my keen interest and attention. The book is to be commended to anyone interested in the earliest involvement of Europeans on the North American continent. Of course, the Catholic Faith flourished after the conquest. Some say that the Spanish treatment of the Indians was terrible. Indeed, many Europeans whether English, Spanish, or otherwise, automatically viewed the Indian peoples summarily as savages, incapable of believing in God and the Catholic Faith, and that as savages, they should be enslaved, their property to escheat to the crown, and freedom denied.

Of course, that is illogical. The Gospel is for all humankind. It knows no bounds. In fact, the Gospel civilized the savages of northern Europe 1200 to 1800 years ago.

To learn history is a life-long task. I am no a history scholar. On the other hand, there is much prejudice regarding the history of the Faith, the Church, and how the Indians were treated. There is no one uniform story, for when people believe in Christ and that His Heart is for all peoples in all times, will largely treat people rightly. Much good was done. However, with human involvement comes evil. No doubt the evil of slavery and ignorance abounded and still does to this day.

Regardless, the Faith was passed on and it is testified that after the Mexican conquest, millions of men, women, and children were baptized into the Catholic Faith.

As an early example of papal admonitions about how to deal with foreign peoples and social justice, the Roman Pontiff, Paul III, issued the following bull "To all faithful Christians" with regard to the treatment of the American Indians demanding that the native folk be respected, that their freedom be honored, and their right to possession of their property. He clearly demanded that the Indians not be enslaved, "should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect."

It still read as a short statement on how to treat people to this day: Respect the person, respect liberty and property, do not enslave.

Here is the bull in its entirety and simplicity, issued on May 29, 1537:

Sublimus Dei

Pope Paul III (Topic: the enslavement and evangelization of Indians)

To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction.

The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and behold it face to face; and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office 'Go ye and teach all nations.' He said all, without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith.

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.

We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living.

Equivocation - a postscript

This post is a post-script to the earlier post on equivocation; it is from Fr. Gerard S.J.’s “The Autobiography of a Hunted Priest.” For context, Fr. Gerard is living undercover as a gentleman of means…

Once in this lady’s house I was sitting with her in the dining-room after dinner – her maids-in-waiting were there, but the servants had gone downstairs for their own dinner. We were discussing spiritual subjects and sitting at the table. Suddenly some servants came up with a guest who had just arrived. He was a Doctor of Divinity from Oxford and a well-known persecutor of Catholics. His name was Abbot. Just recently he had published a book against Father Southwell, who had been executed, and Father Gerard, the man who had escaped from the Tower. These two priests had defended the doctrine of equivocation which he set out to refute. After its publication this good man was promoted to the Deanery of Winchester, which carried with it an annual income of 8,000 florins.

The gentleman, as I said, was shown upstairs and walked into the dining-room. After the fashion of these dignitaries, he was wearing a silk soutane that came down to his knees. He found us, or so he thought, playing cards. Actually we had put the cards away to attend to better things as soon as the servants had gone downstairs, and we had resumed our game when this gentleman was announced. So he found us sitting at the card-table piled with money.

I should explain that whenever I was with Catholics and we had to stage a game of circumstances like these, we had an understanding that everybody got his money back at the end and that the loser said an Ave Maria for ever counter returned. In this way I often played with brother Digby and others, when there was occasion to act a part and make bystanders think that we were playing for money in good earnest.

The good minister, therefore, did not have a moment’s suspicion. After an exchange of courtesies he began talking volubly. It is all these men can do; they have no solid knowledge, but with their persuasive words of human wisdom they lead poor souls astray and ‘subvert whole households, teaching what they ought not.’ So after a good deal of frivolous take, this man came out with the latest news from London: the story of a Puritan who had thrown himself from a church tower and had left behind a note in which he claimed that he was certain of his eternal salvation. The doctor did not mention that, but I heard it from another source.

‘Poor fellow,’ I said. ‘What could have induced him to destroy his body and soul in one fell act?’

‘Sir,’ answered the doctor, in a learned and magisterial manner. ‘Sir, it is not for us to pass judgment on any man.’

‘Quite so,’ I said. ‘It is possible, of course, that the man repented of his sin as he was still falling, inter pontem et fontem, as they say. But it is very unlikely. The man’s last act which we have any means of judging was a mortal sin and merited damnation.’

‘But,’ said the doctor, ‘we don’t know whether this was such a sin.’

‘Pardon me,’ I said, ‘it is not a case here of our own judgment. It is a question of God’s judgment; He forbids us under pain of hell to kill anyone, and particularly ourselves, for charity begins at home.’

The good doctor was caught. He said nothing more on the point, but he turned the subject, saying with a smile:

‘Gentlemen should not dispute on theological questions.’

‘I agree,’ I said. ‘We don’t, of course, pretend to know theology, but we should at least know the law of God, even if our profession is to play cards.’

When the lady I was playing with heard this retort she could hardly keep a straight face. What would he have thought if he had known whom he was talking to? But the doctor did not stay much longer. He went away after about an hour. I don’t know whether he left sooner than he had intended, but I do know that we much preferred his room to his company.

Equivocation

Veritas - the Truth. We have a duty to the truth, and always being truthful is a part of that. This duty I have seen most painfully questioned in regard to situations where the questioner has no right to know; such as in the historical case of person who would have been hiding Jews during WWII, what to say to the direct question of the SS/Gestopo: are there Jews here?

I’ve seen this discussed in various places, but I’d not heard the doctrine of equivocation until reading it in Fr. John Gerard’s “The Autobiography of a Hunted Priest.” For context, it’s the closing days of the sixteenth century; Father Gerard S.J. has been arrested, moved to the tower of London, and after torture, is questioned by the crown:

The Queen’s Attorney-General put to me a series of questions, following, as he said, the same phrasing, order and form that he would observe in the actual prosecution.

He started with my priesthood and my coming to England as a priest and a Jesuit. Then he asked whether I had dealt with any people with the intention of seducing them from the faith and religious profession approved by law, to the Pope’s allegiance. I confessed straightway that I was guilty on all these counts-that was sufficient for a legal sentence. But when they asked me to name the persons with whom I had plotted against the government, I denied I had done any such thing. Nevertheless they persisted: how could I be so anxious for the conversion of England, they urged, and yet keep out of politics, which were the best means to my purpose?

As near as I can recall now, this is what I answered:
‘I will speak my mind plainly in this matter of conversion and politics, so that you will be left in no doubt and have no need to question me further. I call on God and His Angels to bear me out – I am not lying. I am hiding nothing from you that I have at heart. If I could have fulfilled all that I wish and desire, I would want the whole of England to return to Rome and the Catholic faith: the Queen, her Council, and yourselves also, and all the magistrates of this realm; yet so, my Lords, that neither the Queen, nor you, nor any officer of state forfeit the honor or right he now enjoys; so that not a single hair of your head perish; but simply that you may be happy both in this present life and in the life to come. But do not think that I want this conversion for any selfish reason of my own – that I may be freed and may enjoy the good things of life. I call on Almighty God to witness: I would gladly go out tomorrow morning to be hanged just as I stand before you now. These are my thoughts, my aspirations. I am not an enmity with the Queen nor with you, nor have I ever been.’

For a few moments the Attorney-General was at a loss for an answer. Then he asked me to name the Catholics I knew. Did I know so and so?

‘I don’t’, I said, and, as usual, I explained that, even if I did know I could not mention their names. Then he went off on to the question of equivocation and began to disparage Father Southwell’s character.

Now at his trial Father Southwell had refused to admit that he knew the woman who was brought in to give evidence for the prosecution. Though she swore he had visited her father’s house and had been received there as a priest, Father Southwell denied it – and he had been captured in that very house and in the very hiding-place which that woman had betrayed to the pursuivants. She was a monstrous creature and thought nothing of bartering away her own father’s life and Father Southwell’s too. But Christ who came not to set peace, but a sword, between the wicked and the good, separated this wicked daughter from her good parents.

Father Southwell was astonished at the woman’s impudence, but he denied everything she alleged. And he explained why he did so, putting his reasons well and showing clearly and convincingly that it was wrong for him to increase the burden of those who were already suffering for their faith and had been kind to him. Then, following up, he argued very learnedly that it was lawful and in some cases even necessary to resort to equivocation. Though many, he said, abhorred the doctrine, he showed there were solid reasons for it, and it rested on amply authority in Sacred Scripture and the Doctors of the Church.

The Attorney-General reprobated such teaching, and tried to show it countenanced lying and undermined social intercourse between men. Against this I maintained that equivocation was different from lying. In equivocation the intention was not to deceive, which was the essence of a lie, but simply to withhold the truth in cases where the questioned party is not bound to reveal it. To deny a man what he has no claim to was not deception. I showed that this teaching in no way destroyed the bonds of society, or made human intercourse impossible. ‘Equivocation’, I said, could not be invoked in contracts, since every man is bound to give his neighbor even his smallest due, and in contracts truth is due to the contracting party. Nor could it be invoked in ordinary conversation to the prejudice of plain truth and Christian sincerity, and still less in matters falling under the lawful cognizance of the State. For instance, a man cannot deny a crime if he is guilty and lawfully interrogated.’

‘What do you mean by lawful interrogation?’ asked the Attorney-General.

‘The question must be asked by a person who has authority or jurisdiction and it must concern an action in some way harmful to the State, otherwise the law cannot take cognizance of it. Wrong acts, that are merely internal, are reserved to God’s judgment alone. Again, there must be some evidence adduced against the accused person. In England it is the custom for the accused, when asked whether he is guilty or not, to answer ‘Not guilty’, until witnesses are produced against him or a verdict of guilty returned by the jury who examine the case. This is the general practice and no one calls it lying. In general, equivocation is unlawful save when a person is asked a question, either directly or indirectly, which the questioner has no right to put, and where a straight answer would injure the questioned party.’

Then I explained that this was the practice of Our Lord and of the saints and all sensible men. ‘The board examining me now’, I said, ‘would do the same if, for example, they were questioned about some secret sin or were attacked by thieves and asked where their money was hidden.’

When did our Lord use equivocation?’ they asked.

‘When he told His Apostles’, I answered, ‘that no one new the day of judgment, not even the Son of Man; and again, when He said He was not going up to Jerusalem for the feast, and then went. He knew He was going when He said He was not.’

Wade broke in.

‘Christ was ignorant of the day of judgment as Son of Man.’

‘The word “ignorant”’, I said, ‘cannot be used of the incarnate Word of God; His human nature was hypostatically untied to the divine. He was constituted Judge by God the Father, and would therefore know all that touched His office. Moreover, He was infinite wisdom and knew all that concerned Himself.’

Now, Protestants don’t admit all St. Paul teaches. They claim, of course, to follow him, but this was a case in point; Paul teaches that the fullness of the Godhead resided in Christ, corporally, and that in Him were all the treasures of the wisdom and knowledge of God. However, this passage did not occur to me at that moment.

They had practically no answer to make. But the Attorney-General wrote down every word and told me he would use it against me before very long when I came up for trial. But he did not keep his promise, for I was unworthy to enter the house of God. Nothing defiled can enter it, and I was still to be cleansed, and made to pass much time in exile; and then, if it please God, be saved, yet as by fire.

Taking a stroll in ancient Rome...

to the tomb of St. Peter? well, not as impossible as you might think!

Pilgrims at the Tomb of Peter. As in Ancient Rome

Ten meters beneath the Vatican basilica, it is possible to walk the same path that led to the tomb of the apostle, among rows of Roman tombs that have emerged, intact, from the excavations. The latest restoration was presented just a few days ago. A marvel of art, history, faith

by Sandro Magister

Amazing!

England & Edmund Campion

Many innocent hands are lifted up to heaven for you daily by those English students, whose posteritie shall never die, which beyond seas, gathering virtue and sufficient knowledge for the purpose, are determined never to give you over, but either to win you heaven, or to die upon your pikes. And touching our Societie, be it known to you that we have made a league - all the Jesuits in the world, whose succession and multitude must overreach all the practices of England - cheerfully to carry the cross you shall lay upon us, and never to despair your recovery, while we have a man left to enjoy your Tyburn, or to be racked with your torments, or consumed with your prisons. The expense is reckoned, the enterprise is begun; it is of God, it cannot be withstood. So the faith was planted: so it must be restored.

Campion's Brag [To the Right Honourable, the Lords of Her Majestie's Privy Council] in Edmund Campion, by Evelyn Waugh (1946)

I think I'm going to enjoy this book...