For many reasons I have wanted to start a discussion about Humanae Vitae. That 1968 document from Pope Paul VI, to me, gets at the core of everything that has gone wrong with sexual mores – rather sexual immorality, sexual confusion, and now 21st century sexual Gnosticism – in the past 60 years. What follows takes the approach of a historical survey, through the review of the Church’s moral teaching on contraception, leading to an array of moral exhortations.
Part I: Church Teaching on Contraception prior to 1968
The Catholic Church has always held fast to a clear teaching that sexually-contracepted acts are contrary to marital sexuality. This was always so, even before the introduction of modern contraceptive technologies. A century before chemists invented hormonal contraceptives (e.g. “the pill”), the chemical breakthrough of vulcanization expanded the use and promotion, not only of rubber car tires, but lots of condoms also.
Historically, let us go back and hear the Church’s teaching on contraception before the so-called “sexual revolution” of 1960s America. Let us review the teaching of Pope Pius XI, who in 1930 issued the Encyclical Casti Cannubii. The occasion of this teaching was that contraception, for the first time ever, was being endorsed by Protestants. Protestants and Catholics agreed up until then that all contraception was wrong. Then, the Anglican Church said the practice could be moral, within marriage, if there were serious reason to avoid more children. Casti Cannubii was a response.
Pius XI taught:
“Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act [ie the marital act of intercourse] is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” – Casti Cannubii #56
I will jump fully into this topic in a moment. But first I will spill the beans here and tell you up front my end-point in this discussion. I must quote those most important words of our Lord:
Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. – Matthew 16:24–27
The Church, we the Disciples of Christ, can never forget these words. They were remembered well when St. Paul preached, remembered when St. Luke wrote, and then remembered when the Christians of the Apostolic Age received the Scriptural sayings, such as,
“Through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God” Acts. 14:21
My topic here is Humanae Vitae and the living of the Marriage Sacrament. These cannot be divorced from the commandment to take up our cross and follow Christ. This is a note to which we will return.
Now…
In 1930, Casti Cannubii used a higher and more civilized language to deal with the sins against marital morality (i.e. marital chastity, including the right and sanctified use of the sexual marriage act). We may need to translate these into more crude and recognizable modern terms. When, in the words of Casti Cannubii, the pope condemned “frustrating the marriage act” #53, “anything intrinsically against nature” #54 , as “a deed which is shamefully and intrinsically vicious” #54 , and “a grave sin” #56 he was condemning what we call today simply “contraception.”
A frank discussion of the specific actions herby condemned by the Pope would name these concrete, contraceptive acts as intrinsically evil moral objects. (The moral theology has called these “grave matter,” or “mortal sin generically”):
- To use a barrier contraceptive (e.g. condoms) blocking the exchange of semen to enter the womb…
- To use a substance contraceptive, killing, neutralizing, or otherwise eliminating the semen (e.g. douches)
- To commit “the sin of Onan,” engaging the sexual faculties, without any deposit of semen into the woman (i.e. pull-out or withdrawal)
- Or any other act causing “Intercourse… where the conception of the offspring is prevented” as Pius XI quotes from Saint Augustine.
The pope intended to refer to all contraceptive techniques in use in 1930 (NB: prior to the pill), each as a definitive, evil act to prevent the conception of offspring DURING intercourse. Remember also, this is always in reference to husbands and wives who are bound together with the sacrament of marriage. In the moral conversation, fornication and masturbation were already identified as evil, no exceptions.
Quickly to state what should be obvious, the subsequent issuing of Humanae Vitae in 1968 intended directly to add to this list of deeds called “shamefully and intrinsically vicious.” Officially the list would expand to include chemical methods or other modern “advances” of technologies, like…
- The hormonal contraceptive pill, chemical contraceptive patches, contraceptive shots and implants, Intra-Uterine Devices (IUDs), and standardized surgical sterilization methods
In very stark terms, what are the “alternatives” endorsed by the pope and the Catholic Church for family planning? They are basically two-fold:
+Moral Option A. be always open to life and invite potentially a large family, with both the hardships and the rewards this brings: Have as many kids as God gives.
+Moral Option B. utilize the marriage act only during naturally infertile periods so as to space or postpone pregnancies.
Pope Pius XI did allow for the use of the recently created “Rhythm Method.” Using average durations of monthly menstrual cycle days, it would be roughly 80% effective in postponing pregnancies when planning abstinence during fertile periods. It should be noted that such a “family planning method” was not given any politically simplistic descriptions such as “a good choice” or “an evil choice.” Rather it was accepted as a set of choices surrounding fertile and infertile periods, which would not be intrinsically immoral; but nor could it be said to be universally advisable; nor was it strongly ill-advised, but only contrasted, between A. complete invitation to the conception of more children, or B. even complete cessation of all marital intercourse (which was indeed, in some circumstances, the “birth control” method taken up by Catholic spouses).
Along with this note, one additional note should be made about the “intrinsic evil” of the above-proscribed contraceptive methods. Simply put, we know that the grace of God can indeed overcome such evils, but that does not make an excuse for the evil. Nor are good intentions or noticeable good outcomes, which can in fact accompany or follow after an evil means, adequate justifications. “Intrinsically evil” means that there is always an evil element which undermines the good and detracts from it, even if it is not acknowledged or immediately noticed.
Now for the option which the Pope Pius XI said could be chosen, in rejection of all such intrinsic-evils in contraception. Good or bad intentions or circumstances may impact this option, but there is no intrinsic evil.
Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. – Casti Cannubii #59.
I add the fascinating historical note that it was asked if these secondary ends could only be enjoyed in the “accidental” case of infertile periods in an otherwise fertile couple. How consistently and how exclusively could a married couple go on choosing to have intercourse precisely during infertile periods? Two years after Casti Cannubii was issued, the Sacred Penitentiary in Rome made is it explicit that all infertile periods could be chosen intentionally for the marital embrace when conception was judged to be practicality impossible on account of the accurate tracking of a wife’s cycle. There was no theoretical or theological “limit” to the number of times a couple could choose intercourse during infertile periods. Such was definitely ruled as not intrinsically evil according to the teachings of Casti Cannubii. Obviously, there is more to the picture to be filled in later.
Part II: The Church in the 1960s
In the early 20th century there was no significant gesturing, at least in writing, that the Pope or Bishops wanted Catholic spouses to plan smaller families. Being open to a large family was largely the encouraged norm. The contrary idea would not come until the 1960s when Church documents started to reference the “concern” that overpopulation could be a problem. Of course, even these occasions, viz. parts of Vatican II documents, made clear reference to the Church’s morality of marriage and chastity: contraception could not be entertained as an option for addressing the so-called “difficulties” of population growth. But if the good fathers of Vatican II had prophetically seen how fanatically the pill would lead Western society to a radically renewed Malthusian campaign – against conceiving children or allowing conceived ones to live on this planet – if they had known of the possibility of 21st century population implosion, or the schizophrenia of deified-environmentalism paired with depression-laden, contracepting, “Big Pharma” societies, then they might have treated the concerns about overpopulation a little differently.
But here we consider the moment just after Vatican II, in 1968.
Humane Vitae was prophetic. I don’t trust the theology of any Catholic who denies it. Yet this encyclical of Pope Paul VI came at a cost.
Pope Paul VI set up a commission to study the issue of contraception. Why bother given the inflexibility of all we have just covered? In short, the chemical contraceptive appeared so quickly and so unexpectedly, no one seemed in a position to proclaim definitively where it was leading, or whether it was something outside the moral pronouncements of Casti Cannubii. Would synthetic hormones somehow regulate cycles to make the Rhythm Method more than 80% effective? Would they be acceptable in moderate use, like some virtually-naturalistic way of extending the woman’s naturally infertile periods? And wouldn’t this be in keeping with nature’s cycles, only… improved slightly? I have on my bookshelf a 1963 work from a studied, on-top-of-the-issue priest: Birth Control and the Catholic Church. He did his best to promote the ideal of generously welcoming children, while also introducing the advancements of early NFP methods (already improving in the 60s, by studying daily fertility signs as opposed to monthly averages). Yet this work could not definitively take the prophetic stance that Humane Vitae could in 1968. The pill was so new that many people were duped into thinking that a woman, or “just a few random married women,” would be prescribed the pill, and maybe only “for a few months” at the most. The rumor was also spreading that it was a healthy corrective to those rhythm-busting irregular cycles, even though that rumor was demonstrably false from the beginning.
Take all this in. The pill was so new and unexpected that Pope Paul VI decided to put together a “Commission” to revisit the topics of family planning in the 20th century. Dr. Janet Smith claims that his intention was from the start to advance the same moral non-negotiables that the Church always had, just also to handle now a detailed analysis of the new chemical contraceptive technologies.* The Commission did not help him. A majority of members recommended an endorsement of chemical contraceptives, and a softening of all the standards set out in Casti Cannubii. Cardinal Karol Wojtyla led the minority of the commission, advancing a standard in keeping with natural law against all contraceptive acts, even those bio-chemical ones that appeared to use pseudo-natural means. This teaching of Wojtyla was reiterated in Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae encyclical, and reinforced again when Karol Wojtyla was elected Pope John Paul II.
*These statements came from clear and direct recollection of a talk she gave at Mt. St. Mary’s Seminary when I was studying there.
Humanae Vitae did hardly more than reiterate what Casti Cannubii had already said about the issue of contraception. In the 40s, and 50s, the Church (clergy and catechists) in America had maintained a somewhat notable effort to expound that teaching and follow through with it.* And yet dissent quickly began to grow and multiply as soon as there was the leaked rumor that Pope Paul VI’s commission was going to give their “expert” recommendation that he should “change Church teaching on contraception.” The rumors became an inevitability, soon expected. Then there was the alarming, leaked information that Pope Paul VI would NOT change anything. Dissent against Humane Vitae flared up before Humane Vitae was even published. With the brewing dissent, there was a surprisingly quick “academic consensus” to just ignore the Pope’s affirmation of the Church’s teaching (again, while it was still forthcoming). It has pretty much been ignored ever since, despite the brilliant theological leadership and holiness of Pope John Paul II, who very much had Humane Vitae in mind when he started giving his Theology of the Body audiences.
It must here be said that this does not capture all of the story. Things would not have happened this way unless there were other factors at work. Something had weakened the resolve and foundation of the Church in these moral teachings. The forces that had weakened the resolve within the Church, to carry the cross and follow Christ, are too vast to explore here. But I should mention a few, in broad brush strokes:
- The prideful progeny of the enlightenment, to ditch all the miraculous and strip the Bible of divine inspiration.
- Marxism, or rather the atheism which Our Lady of Fatima called “The errors of Rusia.”
- Freemasonry, loosely described as an ethos, just as much as an organized activity. I personally describe this as, more or less, the secularized Protestant ethos, which deems oneself (and of course all people who agree with me) to be the magisterium of all salvific truth.
- A certain Clericalism: which I insist was NOT the belief that priest should be holy because they were leaders, and were leaders because holiness is the calling from God to all people. Rather, I mean a clericalism that was a comfort, being enjoyed by clergy only slightly more than the laity, which grew content with a superficial holiness, being more and more play-acted by the priests and nuns, so that all could believe that all was well, and the times were only getting better.
This list of ailments to the Church might stir up no little controversy. Here I can only appeal to the Gospels to keep to a line of argument. In this first place I say this whole conversation will be vastly different if directed at someone who does not believe that God is incarnate in Christ our Lord, nor that Christ is speaking to us authoritatively in and through the Gospels. But to those who actually believe those two things, Catholic or Protestant, I trust my comments on Humanae Vitae may be worth considering. In the second place, my goal is actually to reach Catholics, in particular those who are ready and willing to consider an introduction to Church teaching on contraception. Who has even read Humanae Vitae to begin with?
Part III – Humana Vitae, Contraception and Sins of Omission
First let us look more fully at the teaching of the encyclical. I wish to focus on those sections about the morally-permissible means to space or delay conception. Some comments are inserted.
16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God [the reality that our bodies are not mere irrational matter for manipulation!].
If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20) [As we noted, this was explicitly clarified in 1932, the choosing of an NFP method for spouses is not an intrinsic evil. In terms of classic moral theology, there is no evil object being chosen. Separate evaluations must be made of the intentions and the circumstances for the choice, and that is where we will encounter the cross.]
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use [I.e. they may use, but are not obligated at any moment] their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
Note the words about intentions being possibly the same, both in the case of a contracepting couple and an NFP practicing couple. The neglect of graces from God, and sins of omission, might lead a couple to form wrongly the intention to avoid having children at odds with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This intention is one thing, and it may be evil, i.e. formed with a sinful motive and possibly multiple additional sinful intentions (e.g. greed, or pride, or distrust, or despair). But if a couple makes the series of choices through NFP, to follow through on the wrong intention, they are not actually committing an additional evil during the marital embrace. The couple that chooses to contracept one or more marital acts is choosing to commit at least one or more evil actions with a bad moral object and likely a bad intention. It must be said plainly that these evils will partially undermine and sabotage even the truly good considerations (health, community, prudence, etc.) that might be rolled into the “intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result.” The ends don’t produce the practical results to justify the means.
I have here mentioned sins of omission. I do believe that neglecting to cooperate with the grace of God can lead a couple – or wife or husband – to develop bad or selfish motives for postponing pregnancy. If this “neglect” is a moral defect, how is it different from the moral defect we are here condemning in contraception? I would say the difference is such. Contraception, I repeat, has in its object a truly intrinsic evil (the manipulated severance of the procreative and the unitive in the choosing of intercourse). This distorts nature by elevating the material element of human existence over the spiritual reality of the person. This is an intrinsic contradiction in the way we claim be be “improving” ourselves, an affront to our creator and to the meaning and purpose he made for the person. It says to God, “to accept the gift you gave me in sexuality for the purposes for marital relations, I must first fix the way in which you chose to give it to me, so that it will be changed to my own meaning and purposed.”
The above is not the same sin as omissions which neglect graces that God is giving for the sake of generosity in bearing children. God can and does bestow on spouses such graces for the growth of the family. The neglect of these graces is exactly this, an omission that hinders progress to greater good, not necessarily an intrinsic contradiction working immediately against the present good.
Now it may be helpful to consider that all moral defects, via sins of omission or commission, are unfailingly linked to a shortfall in the habit of faith, or hope, or charity. But a shortfall is not synonymous with total destruction. Mortal sin (such as the sin of contraception defined objectively) is that which destroys the habit of the theological virtues (specifically charity towards God). The neglect of graces of the Holy Spirit oriented towards the Christian vocation of family (neglect of signs or promptings, from God, to accept new life) certainly damages the habit of virtues. Yet in this aspect they should be seen as venial sins, up until such a point that the Church’s teaching on grave matter has clearly been transgressed.
Such is a merely academic survey of some moral aspects in Humanae Vitae. Where does this leave us practically? It leaves us with the Gospel, and with St Paul: “For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him”! (Phil. 1:19).
The cross is the thing which forces our hand. Either we will grow in virtue and overcome even our venial sins (at least some of the old ones, perhaps falling into new ones); or, we will fall into mortal sin while harboring, deep in the dark recesses of our heart, the excuse “… but THIS cross if just too much for me to carry, and so I must reject God himself!” The cross is quite literally at the crux of the matter. Yes, every mortal sin is indeed a violation of the natural law, a committing of an intrinsic moral evil. But whatever be the exact sin, for a Catholic it also entails a rejection of the Cross as our salvation, because Christ made the Cross synonymous with Charity, and mortal sin is that sin defined as exclusive of divine charity.
The difficulties of so-called “family planning” amount to nothing other than the cross of Christ within the sacrament of marriage. Here the whole truth must be put bluntly for those who have never heard it such. Natural Family Planning is not easy by any measure. In many ways it will either take effort, or it will take gigantic effort. It is not as if the option is between this cross and that cross. It is between this set of crosses, and that set of crosses.
Moral Option A. “Be fruitful and multiply, filling the earth” (Gen. 1:28) – be always open to life and invite potentially a large family with both all the hardships and rewards it brings. Have as many kids as God gives.
Moral Option B. “Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control” (1 Cor. 7:5) – utilize the marriage act only during naturally infertile periods so as to space or postpone pregnancies; reevaluate the situation frequently with much prayer.
Being very practical, we may observe, making ongoing series of choices for “fewer” children is very practically done today as a way of making life “manageable.” It is “too much” even to think about “more than three children,” or even “more than two.” “We ‘can’t’ have another one now that our family of four is at this stage in life.” Might we honestly state it as the rationalization we are trying to justify? “We need to keep our crosses in life to a minimum, for we’re just trying to survive!” The response of the Gospel is to ask who exempted you from the cross of Christ?” Have you found another way to eternal life besides the Passion of Christ?
Is this response hyperbole? Let us think of the “well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances.” What comes to mind as honest reasons but the crosses in life that God allows without any option to avoid them? Don’t we think of hardships and sicknesses which make procreative relations not only difficult to consider, but sometimes even impossible? “For better for worse for richer for poorer in sickness and health …”
As for couples who have tried and tried to have a child (or sometimes “tried to have more children”), yet are subject to infertility, who will say to them they are “so blessed” to have all the sex with no need to worry about “family planning methods”? One set of crosses is removed, another set has been given.
If we are to be truly Christian, and also realistically look at the sacrament of marriage, those words of Christ placed for consideration at the start of this essay will inevitably come upon us in ways that are too familiar for our own comfort. But as sure as judgement, they will come. We know by faith, although we are at pains to admit it, it is verily due to the very mercy of God that he allows that set of crosses, “for my grace is sufficient for you”!
Part IV – the need for mutual encouragement in carrying the cross.
On this issue we can come back to the word clericalism. Recall how I defined it. It is by no means a manipulation of the flock for priests to tell the flock they are called to holiness. If priests impose the hard demands of the Gospel on the flock, it is not clericalism. It may be damnable hypocrisy, if priests “do not lift a finger to help carry the load.” But it is not clericalism.
What does smack of clericalism is priests gaining the “good graces” of their flock by never calling the flock to the full demands of the Gospel, never pointing to the heights of Gospel holiness, never tracing the path of the cross as a true path if hope. It is often in such cases where the nicest feathers get reserved for the clerical nest, while the purported ease and happiness – of the compromised Christian vision – leaves the flock restless, even while it seems to cause them no immediate discomfort.
Where does this come from? Well, among pagans, secularist lifestyles has been happening for time immemorial. But I am indeed here saying that where this attitude has become prevalent among Catholic families, it has come in too large a part from Catholic priests!
It is true to say there was a failure in catechesis in the 1970s and 80s. It is equally true there was a devastating collapse in the priesthood. The weakest of the week in their faith were certain to leave in those decades, even though they may have been decent men capable of leadership if they had been fortified personally. And the lesser catechized among priests also left. And sadly among those who stayed, a small percentage would get fired in 2002 for their misconduct with minors, while the same bishops who fired them did not apply the same zero tolerance policy to their own ranks. We must face it, the American clergy did not rise to every occasion in the latter half of last century. They were not entirely in a good position to insist on carrying the cross as a universal call to holiness.
And to this dismal recounting of the tale familiar to American Catholics I hope to add some ray of hope. And it is simply a truth: God has not stopped calling us to holiness. We must thank Him for that.
No one can proceed with their Christian life with the attitude, “well, at least the sins I’m attached to are only venial sins.” We try to proceed thus all the time. But God in his mercy just does not let us get away with it. And how do we know? Because of the cross. It returns again and again with providential inconvenience. Every good deed seems to be punishable for the Catholics who stayed faithful and endured the previous scandal… and it is the Paschal Mystery at work once again. Every misfortune seems ready to fall upon the most prayerful… and it is the redemption of the world happening right before our eyes. As always, it is the very act of Christian faith to seek the glory of the resurrection precisely through the willing endurance of these crosses.
With all this said, let us list the difficulties for married life, and try to offer some mutual encouragement in carrying these sets of crosses, certainty with assistance from pastors. I hope these two notes are seen as imminently applicable to the “cross” of family planning that has so extensively, if not efficiently, been recounted above:
- Working hard and still living on a shoestring budget? Recall that “by the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground” (Gen. 3:19). This also is a grace uniting us to Christ. Cynicism can build up when the work never ends, and we seem to get little help. Gratitude is the antidote, and it must be cultivated intentionally. The Archangel Raphael says in Tobit “do not be slow to give God thanks” (Tobit 12:6), and we must intentionally say thank you sometimes, without waiting for warm sentiments of gratitude to overcome us. Instead of waiting to feel grateful, thank God first, and then notice if you have become a grateful.
- Communication? “Humbly regard others as more important” (Phil 2:3). It is not my keen insight or competency that bears fruit, but it is doing the will and workings of God. How many arguments are there because “I know better,” and I yet I don’t even have a “mustard seed’s amount” of faith, that God is at work in every action done through love. His ways are not our ways (Is. 55:8). Related to this is the other essential ingredient to avoid cynicism: Be humble enough to communicate honestly and vulnerably when you need help with something. (Of honorably mention here, are those Internet Accountability programs/partners, for a spouse trying to live that beatitude: “Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God in their spouse if they have respected others enough not to objectify other people through use of pornography.”)
These are Gospel lessons. May Christ speak to all of us through them, but especially married couples.
It is said in two ways, that there is no rest for the weary, but also there is no rest for the wicked. It is because the grace of God also does not rest. That fact is as certain and unavoidable as the reckoning of consciences. And the certainty of this is what gives hope and peace to the faithful. Peace is not the absence of difficulties, but a contentment and courage that carries us through the difficulties.
So let us repeat one last time, that the cross, when shared with us by the daily workings of divine providence, is a mercy from God. This is meant to instill hope. I cannot put it any better that a quote from Pope Benedict XVI about Purgatory, in his encyclical on Hope, Spe Salvi. Read it and ask if Purgatory is not started on earth.
His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ’s Passion. At the moment of judgement we experience and we absorb the overwhelming power of his love over all the evil in the world and in ourselves. The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy.
“The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy.” We are all the more happy when we accept that on earth.
Praised be Jesus Christ!
Saints Joachim and Anne – pray for us!
Saint Louis and Zélie Martin – pray for us!
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph – hear our Prayers.
+++
Ubi Petrus VT 