The Word does not belong to the preacher; the preacher belongs to the Word. This was true of Saint Alphonsus Liguori, it was true of Saint Peter Julian Eymard, and it is true of today’s saint, the holy parish priest Jean-Marie Vianney. The Curé of Ars stands in a long line of preachers possessed by the Word, and compelled to speak it without compromise.

 

The Lord said to Jeremiah, “Behold, I am making my words in your mouth a fire, and this people wood, and the fire shall devour them” (Jeremiah 6:14). Holy preaching is, necessarily, incendiary. Jean-Marie Vianney was not particularly eloquent; he preached in a cracked and broken voice, but his words communicated the fire of the Holy Spirit. Even the greatest preacher of the nineteenth century, the Dominican Père Lacordaire, fell silent before the charism of holy preaching in Jean Marie Vianney.

 

When the Curé of Ars spoke of the Sacrament of the Altar, he glowed. He communicated to his hearers the Eucharistic fire that burned in his own heart. Twenty-one years in ago in 1986, Pope John Paul II devoted his Holy Thursday Letter to Priests to Saint Jean–Marie Vianney. I think that today we can read that letter as one saint talking about another. This is what Pope John Paul II said:

 

Like Saint Alphonsus and Saint Peter Julian, Saint Jean–Marie Vianney is a saint for today. His message was prophetic. His whole being spoke not only in the pulpit, but also in the confessional, and on his knees before the Blessed Sacrament. Not everyone welcomed his message, especially at first. There were those who disdained him, those who murmured against him, those who criticized and maligned him.

 

In every age, the Holy Spirit raises up prophets: saints in whose hearts burns a fire capable of renewing the priesthood and the Church. Saint Jean-Marie Vianney, the third figure in this week’s triptych of Eucharistic holiness, was one of these. After having listened this week to Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Saint Peter Julian Eymard, and the Curé of Ars, how can we not respond generously to Christ who in the mystery of the Eucharist waits to show us His Face and desires to draw us to His Heart?

 

Great intentions solicit our prayer: peace in the world; persecuted Catholics in China; the tragic plight of fallen priests; the spiritual needs of priests suffering temptation, loneliness, and discouragement; the return of fallen–away Catholics to the sacraments; the many baptized children and young people whom no one has prepared for their First Holy Communion; the rekindling of a Eucharistic fire in every parish, community, monastery, and family; the suffering souls of the departed. Linger today in the presence of Our Lord. Who knows? You may even hear the cracked and broken voice of the Curé of Ars saying to you with indescribable sweetness, “Il est là! Il est là! He is there! He is there!”

 

this article discovered here

 

Let us examine more closely the culminating point of Gemma’s devotion–Holy Communion–in which precisely the Mystery of the Love of Jesus is accomplished. Would that she who so often disclosed to me the secrets of her soul on this subject would now enable me to relate adequately and exactly what she then told me of the fire that the Divine Spouse enkindled in her heart at the Holy Table. It was her hunger and thirst for Holy Communion that made this young girl hover like a butterfly near the Tabernacle.

 

Her heart longed for this Divine Food only.

 

And we have seen that even when quite a child her ardent desire to make her first Communion almost brought her to death’s door.

 

Now I add that this hunger and thirst, far from being satisfied by her daily Communion, kept on increasing until they consumed her whole being. “Every morning,” she said to me, “I go to Holy Communion. The greatest and only comfort I have, although I am in no wise provided with what is needed to worthily approach Jesus. The loving treatment that Jesus bestows on me every morning in the Holy Communion excites within me an unutterable sweetness and draws to itself all the weak affections of my miserable heart.” And then she exclaimed: “Behold O Lord, my heart and my soul; come Lord, I open my breast to Thee. Send in Thy Divine Fire. Burn me, consume me, come and delay no longer. I would fain be the dwelling of all Thy fires.”

 

The Life of Gemma Galgani

Fr. Germanus, C.P.

 

this article discovered here

Jesus Christ, Who wishes to lead a soul to the Eucharist as to her sovereign grace, prepares her by a certain grace of sentiment which at first may be little appreciated. On First-Communion Day the feeling of happiness caused by the presence of Jesus is the first call; without the soul’s knowing it, this initial grace grows imperceptibly, very much like the germination of a seed in the earth. Well cared for, it later develops into a need, a disposition, a habit of thought, an instinct. Everything then points to the Eucharist; if the Eucharist is missing, everything is missing with it. A soul under the influence of this grace directs her piety, her virtues to the Blessed Sacrament. She experiences the need of Holy Mass and Communion. She feels drawn to enter churches to see the tabernacle. Something continually impels her in that direction. What is that power? The sovereign grace which, after having educated her, has become the mother of all her other graces, the moving principle of all her actions. She says: “I feel drawn to the Blessed Sacrament. It is not a sacrifice for me to be in Its presence. In fact, I am happy only there.” It could not be otherwise, for she is living according to her special grace…

 

… he that receives Holy Communion several times a week is drawn in a special way by the Eucharist; his sovereign grace is eucharistic. He must, therefore, turn all his other practices of piety to the Eucharist as to their mother and queen; he must foster them with the Eucharist, instill the eucharistic spirit into them.

 

The sap of a tree lies in the heart of it; it is protected by the wood and the bark. Everything in the tree tends to preserve it during the winter frosts, because it is the life of the tree.

 

Well, your sovereign grace is the sap of your spiritual life. It will make all the branches of your life fruitful. Preserve it and defend it as the heart, the soul of your supernatural life.

St. Peter Julian Eymard

 

this article discovered here

 

Archbishop Burke with Thomas McKenna

Note: In June Archbishop Raymond L. Burke was appointed by the Holy Father to serve as the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura.    The Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura is the administrative appellate tribunal of the Holy See and, consequently, the highest judicial authority of the Catholic Church besides the Pope himself.

The Holy Eucharist: A Right or a Gift?

Examining the pastoral aspects of Canon 915 and respect for the Holy Eucharist.

Interview by Thomas J. McKenna

August 2008

Your Excellency, in today’s world there seems to be a lax attitude regarding the reception of the Holy Eucharist. Why do you think this is and do you feel that this affects the faithful in the way they lead their lives as Catholics?

One of the reasons I think that this laxity with regard to the Holy Eucharist has developed is that there has not been sufficient emphasis on Eucharistic devotion. Especially worship of the most Blessed Sacrament, through processions, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, extended times of adoration and 40 Hours Devotion. Without devotion to the Blessed Sacrament people quickly lose Eucharistic faith.

We know that there is a high percentage of Catholics who do not believe that the Eucharistic species are the Body and Blood of Christ. We know too that there is an alarming percentage of Catholics who do not participate in Sunday Mass. Another aspect is a loss of the sense of connection between the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance.

In the past, perhaps there was an exaggerated emphasis to the point where people thought that each time they were going to receive Holy Communion, they had first to go to Confession, even though they had not committed an unconfessed mortal sin. But now people go to Communion regularly and perhaps never, or very seldom, go to Confession. They have lost the sense of their own unworthiness to approach the Sacrament and of the need to confess their sins and embrace repentance in order to receive Holy Communion worthily.

Also connected with this is a sense that has grown up from the civil sphere, which is that receiving Holy Communion is a right, that I, as a Catholic, have a right to receive Holy Communion. It is true that once we are baptized and reach the age of reason we should be prepared for Holy Communion, and, as often as we are well disposed, we should receive Holy Communion. On the other hand we never have a right to Holy Communion. Who could claim that he has a right to receive the Body of Christ? This is all an act of God’s immeasurable love. Our Lord makes Himself available to us in His Body and Blood for Holy Communion. But we can never say that we have the right to Him, that we can demand to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion.

Each time we approach, we should approach with a profound sense of our own unworthiness.

These would just be some of the elements which I think have entered in and explain the lax attitude toward the Holy Eucharist, in general. We see this even in the way people dress for participation in Mass. For example, we see during Mass people going up to receive Holy Communion not folding their hands and even sometimes visiting with others along the way.

Some, even at the time they are actually receiving Holy Communion, do not show the proper reverence. All of these are indications of the need of a new evangelization regarding Eucharistic faith and practice.

There are laws of the Church to control inappropriate actions by the faithful for the good of the public. Could you please comment on this and explain to what degree the Church and the hierarchy have an obligation to intervene to clarify or correct issues.

With regard to the Holy Eucharist for instance, there are two canons in particular that have to do with the worthy reception of the sacrament. Canons 915 and 916. They have in mind two goods. One is the good of the person himself. To receive the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily is a sacrilege. To deliberately receive Holy Communion unworthily, when one is in the state of mortal sin, is a sacrilege. So, for the sake of the person himself, the Church has to instruct us that each time we are going to receive Holy Communion, we should first examine our conscience. If we have a mortal sin on our conscience, we should first confess that sin and receive absolution, and only then approach to receive the Sacrament.

Many times, our serious sins are hidden and only known to ourselves or maybe one or another person. In that case, we have to be the one to monitor the situation and discipline ourselves not to approach to receive Holy Communion. But there are other cases in which people are committing grave sins knowingly and publicly. An example is a public official who knowingly and willingly supports actions which are against the Divine and Eternal moral law; for instance, to publicly promote procured abortion, which is the taking of innocent, defenseless human life. A person who is sinning in this way publicly is to be admonished not to receive Holy Communion until he has reformed his life. If a person, who has been admonished but persists in serious or mortal sin in a public way, receives Holy Communion, then the minister of Holy Communion has the obligation to refuse Holy Communion to that person.

Why? First of all, for the sake of the salvation of the person himself, lest he commit a sacrilege. But, secondly, for the sake of the whole Church, lest there be scandal in two ways. Number one, scandal regarding what our disposition should be to receive Holy Communion. In other words, people would be led to think it is alright to be in the state of mortal sin and to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion. Or it could be scandal, in a second way, in that people think that the public act which this person is committing, which everyone thinks is a serious sin, must not be so serious because the Church permits that person to receive Holy Communion.

If you have a public figure who is openly and deliberately supporting abortion rights, and that same person approaches and receives Holy Communion, what are people to think? They could be led to imagine that some how it is alright to support publicly the taking of innocent and defenseless lives in the womb. So the Church has these disciplines and they are very ancient. They actually go back to the times of St. Paul. But, throughout the Church’s history, She has always had to discipline the reception of Holy Communion which is the most sacred treasure we have in the Church.

It is the gift of the Body and Blood of Christ.

The Church has always had to discipline the reception of Holy Communion so that, number one, people do not approach and receive Holy Communion unworthily to their own serious moral harm; and number two, the faith in the Eucharist is always respected, and members of the Church are not led into confusion, or even error, regarding the sacredness of the Sacrament or of the moral law.

There are instances of Catholic public officials who attend Mass, receive the sacraments and publicly declare they are Catholic, but who, in practice, support legislation that is contrary to Catholic morality. Some of them, as a type of disclaimer, state that they feel that they are not doing anything wrong according to their conscience and that it is a private matter. Can you please comment on how this is erroneous and how forming one’s own conscience is not something subjective?

It is true that we must act in accord with the dictates of our conscience. But our conscience has to be properly formed. Our conscience must conform to the truth of situations. Conscience is not some sort of subjective reality where I make up for myself what is right and good. Rather, it is an objective reality where I conform my own thinking to what is true.

Sometimes people speak about their primacy of conscience in the sense that they say, “what ever I decide in my conscience, that is what I should do,” and that rules the day. Of course that is true as long as the conscience is properly formed. I like something that Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, has said. “Rather than talk about the primacy of conscience, we should talk about the primacy of truth,” the truth of God’s moral law to which our conscience needs to be conformed.  Once it is properly informed, then of course, conscience has the primacy that is ascribed to it.

Some people say that it is a right to receive Holy Communion and that no one else has the right to tell another not to receive the Sacrament. Not even a bishop, priest or minister. What would you respond to them?

In responding to this question, the first thing that needs to be said is that the Body and Blood of Christ is a gift of God’s love to us. It is the greatest gift, a gift beyond our ability to describe. No one, therefore, has a right to the gift. Just as we don’t have a right to any gift that is given to us. A gift is freely given out of love and that is what God is doing for us every time we are able to participate in Mass and approach to receive Holy Communion. So to say that I have a right to receive Holy Communion is not correct.

If one means by this that, if he is well disposed and the Mass is being offered, he has a right to receive Holy Communion in the sense that he has a right to receive.  Yes, that is true. Now, regarding the reception of Holy Communion, there is Our Lord Himself who is involved. There is the person who is receiving Holy Communion. Then there is the minister of the Sacrament, the one who has the responsibility to make sure that the Sacrament is distributed only to those who are properly disposed.

Certainly the Church does have the right to tell someone who persists in public grave sin that he may not receive Holy Communion because he is not well disposed.  That right of the minister to refuse to give Holy Communion to someone who persists in public and grave sin is safe guarded in the Code of Canon Law, under canon 915. Otherwise the minister of Communion would be put in the situation of violating his conscience regarding a most serious matter, when he sees a notorious sinner coming to receive Holy Communion to the scandal of everyone, and he is somehow told he does not have the right to refuse to give Holy Communion, in such a circumstance.

That simply would be wrong.

The enforcement of compliance with Church law by a bishop, priest or even a Vatican office oftentimes seems to be perceived by some as a mean act or even bullying of the faithful. Many people seem to forget that the Church considers that when a person in not in a worthy state to receive the Holy Eucharist, generally it is because they are in a state of mortal sin which is very serious and directly related to their eternal salvation. It seems that when a bishop or priest enters into dialogue or takes disciplinary measures with a sinner, it is a mercy. That this is an outreach of the bishop or priest which is an obligation they have to the faithful under their care. To try to bring them back into the fold. For this reason the Church has these laws. Can you please comment on this aspect of ministry?

I certainly agree with this.  It is the greatest act of charity to prevent somebody from doing something that is sacrilegious that is, to warn them, and then actually refuse to be party to a sacrilege.  It is analogous to a parent whose child wants to play with fire and the parent refuses to let him.  We would not say that somehow the parent is being unkind to the child by disciplining him. We would say this parent is truly a loving parent. In the same way the Church, in Her love, prevents people from doing things that are gravely offensive to God and gravely damaging to their own souls.

Your Excellency, some say that when a member of the Catholic hierarchy publicly admonishes a Catholic, who holds a position of public office, he is using his influence to interfere in politics. How would you respond to this?

The Bishop or Church authority, it could be the parish priest, who intervenes in such situations, is dealing solely with the good of the soul of the politician or public figure who is involved. This has nothing to do with trying to influence public policy and has to do with the state of the soul of a politician or public official who happens to be Catholic and, therefore is held in the public sphere to follow the divine moral law. If he does not, he should be admonished by his pastor. So, to try to silence a shepherd from doing what is for the good of the soul of a member of the flock by telling him that it is interfering in politics is simply ridiculous and wrong.

This also flows from something that His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI recently addressed with the bishops of the United States and, that is, the desire of certain people in our society to relegate religious faith completely to a private sphere and to say that it has nothing to do with the public square. That is simply wrong. We have to give witness to our faith not only in that part of our lives that we live in the privacy of our homes, but also in our public interaction with others to give a strong witness to Christ. So we have to break down that idea that somehow our religious faith is some completely private matter and has nothing to do with our public life.

this article discovered here

When I was growing up in the 1950s, the pastor would rail against parishioners who would arrive late or linger in the vestibule. When parishioners left Mass after Communion, he threatened to send altar servers to accompany them with lighted candles to the parking lot ­ because they had so recently received the Eucharist.

 

In this month when the Church celebrates the feast of Corpus Christi ­- the solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ ­ you and I should take another look at what is lost by arriving late for Mass and leaving early. I’d also like to suggest a remedy for this problem.

 

When we arrive late for Mass, we forfeit almost any opportunity to put ourselves into a good frame of mind and heart for the Eucharist. We miss the chance to speak to the Lord in private prayer before Mass begins. We pass up the chance to recollect ourselves and to ask forgiveness for our sins that hinder us from opening our hearts to the redeeming love Jesus wants to share with us in and through the Eucharist.

 

Even more seriously, we may deprive ourselves from listening to the Word of God. If we were invited to a talk given by our favorite athlete or author, we’d make sure we didn’t miss a word. Yet when the Lord comes to us in the power of the Holy Spirit to speak to us the words of eternal life, we find ourselves a few blocks away from church, perhaps with music or news bombarding our senses.

 

Thankfully most of the congregation remains for the presentation of the gifts and the eucharistic prayer. At the same time, participation in the eucharistic prayer requires attentive listening to the Word of God. The Mass, after all, is not like a football game with two parts interrupted by a half-time show (the homily). Rather, the Mass is a single act of worship. By listening to the revealed Word of God in Scripture and by reflecting on its meaning for our lives, we are prepared to enter, heart and soul, into Christ’s ultimate act of love for us ­ his saving death and glorious resurrection. We are prepared to experience, all over again, the depth of his love for us and for the whole Church to whom his love unites us.

 

Alas, as mentioned earlier, some begin leaving church as soon as they have received holy Communion. If we think of the Eucharist as the banquet of Christ’s sacrifice, people who leave early choose not to linger with their “host” and fellow guests. Instead, they rush back into the rough and tumble of daily life with little or no opportunity to adore the one whom they have received, the one whose Spirit unites us to the Father and to one another.

 

So, what to do? Unlike the intrepid pastor of my childhood, I do not propose teams of altar servers with lighted candles to escort offending parishioners to their cars. Rather, I propose increased opportunities for eucharistic adoration. Far from detracting from the celebration of the Eucharist and far from privatizing the Eucharist, eucharistic adoration increases our capacity to believe in the eucharistic mystery, to participate in its celebration with devotion and joy, and to go forth in charity to serve the needs of others.

 

Indeed, in his recent reflection on the Eucharist, Pope Benedict XVI expressed the sentiments of bishops all over the world when he spoke of “the intrinsic relationship between eucharistic celebration and eucharistic adoration.” The pope mentions the objection we sometimes hear about adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, namely, “that the eucharistic bread was given to us not to be looked at, but to be eaten” (Sacramentum Caritatis, 66).

 

But this objection shouldn’t deter us. After all, in the Eucharist the Son of God comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine to share with us his saving love. He becomes for us “the bread of life.” Eucharistic adoration prolongs the joy and gratitude we should feel at every Mass and gives us the opportunity to deepen our friendship with the Savior who loves us so profoundly.

 

If more Catholics spent more time in eucharistic adoration, I think two things would happen: Many who have abandoned the regular practice of the faith might well rediscover it. And those who have acquired the bad habit of arriving late for Mass and leaving early might want to linger instead ­ to spend time with the Lord who thirsts for our love.

 

this article discovered here

 

O Lord, may Thou find shelter and rest

gently within the heart of Thy priest…

Make him, O Lord, a priest according to Thy heart:

meek, humble, zealous,

so that all he does will be for Thine honor and glory.

Mold him into a man of prayer and labor,

insensible to earthly things,

and sensible only to Thy love

and to the graces of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.

 

 

this prayer discovered here

 

 

 

These words of condemnation were spoken by a British magistrate of her majesty Queen Elizabeth. On Tuesday, March 15, 1586, in the Court of York, Judge George Clinch condemned to death Margaret Middleton Clitherow, a 33-year-old Yorkshire housewife who was pregnant with her fourth child. Her crime was sheltering Roman priests who were “traitors and seducers of the queen’s subjects.”

 

We know many of the details of the life of this heroic martyr, especially her last painful days of imprisonment, from her spiritual director Father John Mush, a seminary priest. Recognizing the holiness of her life and the great inspiration she was to persecuted Catholics throughout Elizabethan England, Mush wrote a detailed biography in the days immediately following her gruesome execution.

 

Margaret Middleton was born during the last years of the reign of Mary Tudor. Her parents were Thomas and Jane Middleton. Her father was a respected businessman­a candlemaker­in the city of York. One of five children, she was brought up Protestant and like the other girls in the family she was not taught to read or write. This did not mean she was a neglected child but that the closing down of the religious orders had all but destroyed the country’s educational system. Few of the girls living in the city of York in those days received any education at all.

 

Margaret lived in turbulent times. Elizabeth came to the throne in 1558. The vast majority of English people were Catholic and wished to remain Catholic. When the new queen threatened to destroy their Church, they shrugged their shoulders and waited for it to all blow over. It took several years for them to realize, when it was too late, that if they wanted to retain their faith, they must be ready to suffer for it. The law clearly stated that the Mass was outlawed and the whole population was ordered to attend the new services in their parish church.

 

The Middleton family accepted the new religion and the Queen as the head of the Church. Her father prospered and became sheriff of York. He died when his daughter was 14.

 

When Margaret was 18, her mother arranged that she marry a Protestant, John Clitherow, who owned his own meat business and became one of the wealthiest men in the city. He was confident that his new wife would join him in worshipping in the Queen’s Church.

 

This she did for the first couple of years of their marriage. At the age of 21, however, the bride returned to the Church of her ancestors and made her profession of faith and allegiance to the Pope of Rome. At the same time John professed his Protestant faith and became a chamberlain in the city of York.

 

The Clitherow family reacted to this difference of religion in the same way that many of the wealthy families did. The husband conformed to the new religion while his wife did not. Throughout their marriage, John paid her fines for not attending church services, even allowed his wife to bring up their children as Catholics and was very careful not to know if the forbidden Popish Mass was being celebrated in his house.

 

John was not hostile to the Church. In fact his brother William was ordained a Catholic priest. Like many others in England of his day, the chamberlain of York probably expected the Catholic faith would return before long and he did not want to be completely on the wrong side of the fence if this should happen. So he did make things as easy as he could for his wife. He was careful to ignore the fact that Father Mush was a frequent visitor and obviously was celebrating Mass for Margaret and her friends.

 

Margaret proved to be a loving wife and mother. She was disturbed by John’s protestations of faith in the Queen’s religion but she still loved him dearly. Speaking of him in later life she remarked, “Know you, I love him next to God in this world. . . . If I have offended my husband in any way, save for my conscience, I ask of God and him forgiveness.” Her husband shared her love. He said that he could wish for no better wife, “except only two faults, and these were, she fasted too much and would not go with him to church.”

 

The Clitherows had three children: Henry, Anne, and the third child William born when she was in prison for failure to attend services at the established church. While in prison, she taught herself to read and write. She always maintained a great rapport with all her children and they grew up as staunch Catholics even though they never knew their mother beyond their twelfth year. Knowing that she could not educate them herself she violated the law by hiring a Catholic tutor, a man named Stapleton. He became responsible for the education of the two younger children and she secretly sent her oldest son to be educated in the Catholic college at Douai in France. She never lived to see the day when her two sons were ordained as priests and her daughter entered religious life.

 

Her home became one of the most important hiding places for fugitive priests in all of England. The Clitherow house was equipped with a secret cupboard where the vestments, the wine and the altar breads were kept. It also had a “priest’s hole” where the fugitive cleric could be hid. When her house was under almost constant surveillance, Margaret hired a room some distance off that also provided a hiding place for the priest. Local tradition among the Yorkshire people said that she also housed her clerical guests right under the noses of the authorities in the Black Swan Inn at Peaseholme Green. Mass, it was said, was celebrated in the inn where the Queen’s agents were lodged.

 

Margaret, meanwhile, was becoming a fearless and very outspoken Catholic.

 

The government was perturbed by the persistence of so many of the people of Yorkshire in the old faith. The area was far removed from London. For a long time past, the Kings of England had appointed a special body called the Council of the North to carry out the royal policy in this remote area of the land. From the reports of government agents, it was clear that the north was solidly Catholic in sentiment, though not always in outward behavior. The change of religion had to be carried out largely by men who were specially sent down by the government for that purpose.

 

Those close to the Queen demanded that the Council of the North crack down with strong measures to make an example of the prominent Catholics in the community. On March 10, 1586, the council summoned the Chamberlain of York, John Clitherow and demanded that he explain the absence of his son abroad. This was a bold move because the chamberlain was a well respected member of the Protestant community. He was outraged and refused to give them any information about the whereabouts or activity of his son Henry who had enrolled in the seminary in France.

 

Margaret was not upset to find out that her husband was summoned. She was sure that the authorities would use the occasion to search their home but she was certain that they would find nothing that would incriminate her or her husband. Mass had been said that morning and the priest had escaped. The faithful Mr. Stapleton was conducting class for a group of children. When the alarm was sounded, the teacher escaped through a window. When the searchers burst open the schoolroom door, they found nothing but a group of children studying their lessons. Had it been only the Clitherow children and their Catholic neighbors involved, the authorities would not have learned very much. The Yorkshire children were strong in their faith and were not easily intimidated.

 

There was in the group a weak spot. There was an older student whom the children considered a foreigner. He was older than all the rest-about 14 years of age. He was Flemish and a stranger to the ways of England and its anti-Catholic laws. Fear showed on his face and the authorities recognized it. They stripped him and threatened him with a flogging. He quickly gave in and told them everything he knew.

 

He showed them everything­where the Mass was said and where the vestments and altar breads were kept. This was more than the searchers had even hoped for. It clearly proved that Mass was being celebrated in the house despite the law. The Flemish boy told them everything he knew and even some things he did not know. He was only too willing to speak and not too accurate in what he said.

 

Quickly the authorities ransacked the house. They carried off all of the incriminating evidence. The two Clitherow children were taken to loyal Protestant families and Margaret was never allowed to see her children again. The servants were arrested and thrown into prison because they were loyal to their mistress. Once again Margaret found herself in prison.

 

When she was brought before the council, she astonished everyone. She was not only fearless, she had a smile on her face. She seemed relieved at being arrested. It was as if she had foreseen the danger and it may have been a relief to have the suspense end when the outcome was known to be inevitable. She was confined with her friend Anne Tesh who was being held for hearing Mass. The two were supportive of each other and confounded their captors with their continued good humor in their jail cell.

 

On the third day of her confinement, the authorities allowed her husband John to visit her briefly. The visit took place in the presence of the jailer. She was never to see her husband again. The meeting had a sobering effect on both.

 

During the days of her confinement, the authorities spread rumors about her throughout the community. One of the priests that said Mass at her home, Father Francis Ingleby was arrested but the Council could not find anyone who could connect him with Margaret. The great difficulty in getting evidence showed how strong was the popular sentiment on the Catholic side.

 

Early in the evening of Monday, March 14, Margaret Clitherow was brought before the judges at Common Hall in the city of York. A large crowd was in the streets and in the court for she was dearly loved by many of the citizens. Her indictment was read and she was asked how she pleaded. In answer she said, “I know of no offense whereof I should confess myself guilty. Having made no offense, I need no trial.”

 

Following her refusal to plead guilty the judges tried to convince her to stand trial. For hours they tried to discredit her but she refused to be shaken. Judge Clinch warned her that if she refused to stand trial, the law would sentence her to a far more painful death than a jury could. The other judges on the panel accused her of crimes of every kind including having intercourse with the priests she harbored. Nothing seemed to move her and the presiding judge sent her back to prison for the night hoping that the solitary confinement would alter her thinking and bring her to her senses.

 

On the next day she was taken back to the Common Hall in the early morning. Judge Clinch reminded her that under the law of Queen Elizabeth, when an accused person refused to make a plea and stand trial before a jury, the accused would be sentenced to what was called “peine forte et dure.” The person was laid naked on the stone floor of an underground cell with a door laid over him and on the door heavy stones were piled. Further weights were piled upon him until he was pressed to death.

 

Margaret refused to make a plea and to stand trial because she did not want her young children called to court. She told her friend Mrs. Tesh that she knew she would be executed in any case and she did not want to have her children forced to give evidence against their mother. Many at the court pleaded with her to change her mind. Even the judge tried to persuade her to no avail.

 

Finally the judge passed sentence that she should be crushed to death as a punishment for having “harbored and maintained Jesuits and seminary priests, traitors to the Queen’s majesty and her laws.”

 

Ten days were allowed to pass between her sentencing and execution. On the day of her execution she was calm and forgiving. When asked to pray for the Queen, she asked God to turn Her Majesty to the Catholic faith. They placed the board upon her and the hired executioners placed the huge stones upon her. Within a quarter of an hour she was dead. The sheriffs left the body under the door from nine in the morning until three in the afternoon. They then buried her body in some waste ground, where they hoped it would never be found.

 

Her death took place on March 25, 1586 on Good Friday.

 

In 1970, Pope Paul VI canonized St. Margaret Clitherow under the charming title of “The Pearl of York.” Her home at #36 The Shambles is on one of the most beautiful streets in her native city. It has become a martyr’s shrine and each year thousands of pilgrims come to pay her homage.

 

Margaret Clitherow was a martyr for her Catholic Faith. She died because she harbored the priests of Christ’s Church and made it possible for them to celebrate the Eucharist for the faithful in England in the time of Queen Elizabeth. It was through the faith and the courage of women like St. Margaret that the Church survived the Great Persecution and survives and flourishes today.

This article appeared in the April 1994 issue of “The Homiletic & Pastoral Review,” 86 Riverside Dr., New York, N.Y. 10024, 212-799-2600, $24.00 per year.

 

 

this article discovered here

 

 

 

We have a mission to carry on with Jesus, the Lamb.  Behold the Lamb of God, who continues to take away the sin of the world.  Jesus taught His Apostles this.  He said, “When you pray (this was right at Ascension time), wherever you go, in My name preach penance for the remission of sins.  Preach the Cross.  Tell My people not to be afraid of suffering because this is how we eradicate sin.  This is how we take away sin.”

 

We’re called to live Jesus and His Cross because this is living His agape love to the fullest.  Pain is useless if it’s not united with the pain of Jesus.  So with any kind of pain or suffering, physically or of the heart especially,  unite it with the suffering of Jesus and then that pain becomes powerful to save souls.

It becomes redemptive.

 

And so God is calling us to follow Him.  He’s calling us to evangelize.  Some days it might be following Him right into the enemy’s camp.  It might be to follow Him into our own family unit and bring our family members and put them in the chalice because maybe they are not coming to the Cross.  Maybe they don’t even want to know Jesus, but the Blood of the Lamb is what defeated Satan, and it’s what defeats Satan today.  The Blood of the Lamb is on our altars everyday—the same Blood that was on Calvary.  Bring your loved ones, bring those who you don’t even know very well, and put them in the Blood of the Lamb.  That Blood will cleanse the sin and will heal them.   The Blood of the Lamb will give them new life.  This is a very simple way to intercede at daily Mass.

 

Jesus Himself speaks to us at Mass.  When that chalice with the Blood of the Lamb is lifted up, He says, “Do this in memory of Me.” In other words, “You do this.  You lay down your lives now for others.  You love one another as I have loved you.  You do this in remembrance of Me.”  Love makes us vulnerable so our hearts will be pierced from time to time at this level.  There is no protection for a heart that’s loving and open to receive love, and so we will experience the piercing of the heart, but we can use it as it was used on Calvary.  When the heart of Jesus was pierced and that blood and water flowed out, He was giving life.  He was giving life to all the sacraments of the Church.  He was giving life to humanity again.

 

Our Lady’s heart was also pierced there also.  It was the fulfillment of Simeon’s prophetic word to her, “Your own heart a sword shall pierce so that thoughts of other hearts can be revealed.”  And so we see how these graces are working at Pentecost.  The pierced heart of Jesus is releasing that new life, the Spirit, and the pierced heart of Mary is opening the hearts to receive the Gift.  The twin hearts of Jesus and Mary always work together.  And so if your heart is pierced, know that the Spirit is coming and someone is receiving that (Him?), but also that someone is getting the grace from your pierced heart to receive the grace that is coming.

 

I would like to close with “You are Sacrament”:

 

“You are sacrament.

 

You are a sign of the gentleness of God.

 

You are a symbol of the smile of Divinity.

 

Oh do you not know your sacramental power?

 

The transforming power of the Church is yours, carried in the delicate vessel of your words, your prayers, your heart.

 

You are sacrament.

 

You smile and through your eyes must radiate the Son of God.  For you are sacrament.

 

You warmly clasp a hand and the wheat-grains of a heart are changed to Christ.

 

For you are sacrament.

 

You endure, with spirit-filled courage, the wood of the Cross, which is warmed by the Body of Christ.

 

For indeed you are sacrament.

 

You must love and in your love the world will encounter God.  Oh what price the emptying of the vessel that you may serve as instrument, as sacramental channel!

 

It is the price of parenthood,

 

of bringing forth life in the Spirit and in the Body,

 

being willing to die to your own desires to sacrifice,

 

to be vulnerable.

 

It is the price of parenthood, nurturing development in pain and patience and in prayer.

 

It is the price of giving birth.

 

It is the price of giving birth.

 

Your life consumed on a paten

 

that the life of Christ may be chaliced.

 

Is the price too high?

 

Is it too high to be sacrament?

 

Do you not know that love knows no counting,

 

that fire does not measure as it consumes.

 

So if in being sacrament I house the God that I channel,

 

then Lord bless the water of my openness, touch my earthen shell, and ordain me, God, with the oil of joy.”

 

This is what Mary experienced in this great mystery.  She is evangelizing.  She is proclaiming in her whole personhood the greatness of the Lord.  “Because He who is mighty has done great things for me” (Luke 1:49).  He who is mighty is doing great things for each of us.  And today we experience the words that Elizabeth gave her, that we, too, are blessed, blessed, ever so blessed, because like Mary, we have chosen to be sacrament.  God bless you all!

 

Excerpt from “Sacrament of Love,” Syracuse, NY, 2000.

 

this article discovered here