Evangelization, Conversion and the Crisis of Faith

 

Fr. C. John McCloskey. III. and Russell Shaw

Ignatius Press 2007

Page 59

 

A SERMON FOR OUR TIMES

 

I have a dream that one of these days a conscientious new pastor is going to get up in the pulpit of his church and say something like this:

 

“My dear brothers and sister in Christ:

” I want you to understand that my associates and I are here above all to preach, to administer the sacraments, and to catechize. We do these things for you, our parishioners, so that you can do a better job of bringing Christ - and being Christ - to your families and your neighborhoods, to the people where you work and go to school, to your community, your nation, your culture, your world.

 

” That being the case, I’m here to tell you not to worry about it if you don’t have the time to get heavily involved doing things in the parish - lay ministries, committees, all that. Those things are good, and we priests welcome the participation of those among you who are able to lend a hand in that way. But doing things in the parish isn’t your first and most important job as Catholic lay people.

 

“Your job is to go out and change the world - to do what it takes to place Christ at the summit of all human activity and to help more and more people know Him and accept Him and love and serve Him.

 

” That’s what it’s all about. Please let us priests know how we can help you laity do it better.”

 

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

 

TO THE VENERABLE PATRIARCHS, ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS

AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH

THE APOSTOLIC SEE,

TO PRIESTS, THE FAITHFUL AND TO ALL MEN OF GOODWILL

NOTE: For information on specific topics,  see the topical outline at the end  of this document. ³

Venerable Brothers and Beloved Sons:

   1. The most serious duty of transmitting human life, for which married persons are the free and responsible collaborators of God the Creator, has always been a source of great joys to them, even if sometimes accompanied by not a few difficulties and distress.

 

   At all times the fulfillment of this duty has posed grave problems to the conscience of married persons, but, with the recent evolution of society, changes have taken place that give rise to new questions which the Church could not ignore, having to do with a matter which so closely touches upon the life and happiness of men.

 

   2. The changes which have taken place are in fact noteworthy and of varied kinds. In the first place, there is the rapid demographic development. Fear is shown by many that world population is growing more rapidly than the available resources, with growing distress to many families and developing countries, so that the temptation for authorities to counter this danger with radical measures is great. Moreover, working and lodging conditions, as well as increased exigencies both in the economic field and in that of education, often make the proper education of a larger number of children difficult today.

 

  A change is also seen both in the manner of considering the person of woman and her place in society, and in the value to be attributed to conjugal love in marriage, and also to the appreciation to be made of the meaning of conjugal acts in relation to that love.

 

   Finally and above all, man has made stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature, such that he tends to extend this domination to his own total being: to the body, to psychical life, to social life and even to the laws which regulate the transmission of life.

 

   3. This new state of things gives rise to new questions. Granted the conditions of life today, and granting the meaning which conjugal relations have with respect to the harmony between husband and wife and to their mutual fidelity, would not a revision of the ethical norms, in force up to now, seem to be advisable, especially when it is considered that they cannot be observed without sacrifices, sometimes heroic sacrifices?

 

   And again: by extending to this field the application of the so-called “principle of totality,” could it not be admitted that the intention of a less abundant but more rationalized fecundity might transform a materially sterilizing intervention into a licit and wise control of birth? Could it not be admitted, that is, that the finality of procreation pertains to the ensemble of conjugal life, rather than to its single acts? It is also asked whether in view of the increased sense of responsibility of modern man, the moment has not come for him to entrust to his reason and his will, rather than to the biological rhythms of his organism, the task of regulating birth.

 

4. Such questions required from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection upon the principles of moral  teaching on marriage: a teaching founded on the natural law, illuminated and enriched by divine revelation.

 

   No believer will wish to deny that the teaching authority of the Church is competent to interpret even the natural moral law. It is, in fact, indisputable, as our predecessors have many times declared [1], that Jesus Christ, when communicating to Peter and to the Apostles His divine authority and sending them to teach all nations His commandments [2], constituted them as guardians and authentic interpreters of all the moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel, but also of the natural law, which is also an expression of the will of God, the faithful fulfillment of which is equally necessary for salvation [3].

 

   In keeping with this mission of hers, the Church has always provided–and more amply in recent times–a coherent teaching on the nature of marriage as well as on the correct use of conjugal rights and on the duties of husbands and wives.[4]

 

   5. The consciousness of that same mission induced us to confirm and enlarge the study commission which our predecessor Pope John XXIII of happy memory instituted in March, 1963. That commission which included, besides several experts in the various pertinent disciplines also married couples, had as its scope the gathering of opinions on the new questions regarding conjugal life, and in particular on the regulation of births, and of furnishing opportune elements of information so that the Magisterium could give an adequate reply to the expectation not only of the faithful, but also of world opinion [5].

 

   The work of these experts, as well as the successive judgments and counsels spontaneously forwarded by or expressly requested from a good number of our brothers in the episcopate, have permitted us to measure more exactly all the aspects of this complex matter. Hence with all our heart we express to each of them our lively gratitude.

 

   6. The conclusions at which the commission arrived could not, nevertheless, be considered by us as definitive, nor dispense us from a personal examination of this serious question; and this also because, within the commission itself, no full concordance of judgments concerning the moral norms to be proposed had been reached, and above all because certain criteria of solutions had emerged which departed from the moral teaching on marriage proposed with constant firmness by the teaching authority of the Church.

 

   Therefore, having attentively sifted the documentation laid before us, after mature reflection and assiduous prayers, we now intend, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to us by Christ, to give our reply to these grave questions.

 

   7. The problem of birth, like every other problem regarding human life, is to be considered, beyond partial perspectives –whether of the biological or psychological, demographic or sociological orders — in the light of an integral vision of man and of his vocation, not only his natural and earthly, but also his supernatural and eternal vocation. And since, in the attempt to justify artificial methods of birth control, many have appealed to the demands both of conjugal love and of “responsible parenthood,” it is good to state very precisely the true concept of these two great realities of married life, referring principally to what was recently set forth in this regard, and in a highly authoritative form, but the Second Vatican Council in its pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes.

 

   8. Conjugal love reveals its true nature and nobility when it is considered in its supreme origin, God, who is love [6], “the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named” [7].

 

   Marriage is not, then, the effect of chance or the product of evolution of unconscious natural forces; it is the wise institution of the Creator to realize in mankind His design of love. By means of the reciprocal personal gift of self, proper and exclusive to them, husband and wife tend towards the communication of their beings in view of mutual personal perfection, to collaborate with God in the generation and education of new lives.

 

   For baptized persons, moreover, marriage invests the dignity of a sacramental sign of grace, inasmuch as it represents the union of Christ and of the Church.

 

   9. Under this light, there clearly appear the characteristic marks and demands of conjugal love, and it is of supreme importance to have an exact idea of these.

 

  This love is first of all fully human, that is to say, of the senses and of the spirit at the same time. It is not, then, a simple transport of instinct and sentiment, but also, and principally, an act of the free will, intended to endure and to grow by means of the joys and sorrows of daily life, in such a way that husband and wife become one only heart and one only soul, and together attain their human perfection.

 

   Then, this love is total, that is to say, it is a very special form of personal friendship, in which husband and wife generously share everything, without undue reservations of selfish calculations. Whoever truly loves his marriage partner loves not only for what he receives, but for the partner’s self, rejoicing that he can enrich his partner with the gift of himself.

 

   Again, this love is faithful and exclusive until death. Thus in fact do bride and groom conceive it to be on the day when they freely and in full awareness assume the duty of the marriage bond. A fidelity, this, which can sometimes be difficult, but is always possible, always noble and meritorious, as no one can deny. The example of so many married persons down through the centuries shows, not only that fidelity is according to the nature of marriage, but also that it is a source of profound and lasting happiness.

 

   And finally this love is fecund for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to continue, raising up new lives. “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents” [8].

 

   10. Hence conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of “responsible parenthood,” which today is rightly much insisted upon, and which also must be exactly understood. Consequently it is to be considered under different aspects which are legitimate and connect with one another.

 

   In relation to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means the knowledge and respect of their functions; human intellect discovers in the power of giving life biological laws which are part of the human person [9].

 

   In relation to the tendencies of instinct and passion, responsible parenthood means that necessary dominion which reason and will must exercise over them.

 

   In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.

 

   Responsible parenthood also and above all implies a more profound relationship to the objective moral order established by God, of which a right conscience is the faithful interpreter. The responsible exercise of parenthood implies, therefore, that husband and wife recognize fully their own duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society, in a correct hierarchy of values.

 

   In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, as if they could determine in a wholly autonomous way the honest path to follow; but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church [10].

 

   11. These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, “noble and worthy” [11], and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of the husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life [12].

 

   12. That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.

 

    Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man’s most high calling to parenthood. We believe that the men of our day are particularly capable of seizing the deeply reasonable and human character of this fundamental principle.

 

   13. It is in fact justly observed that a conjugal act imposed upon one’s partner without regard for his or her condition and lawful desires is not a true act of love, and therefore denies an exigency of moral right order in the relationships between husband and wife. Likewise, if they consider the matter, they must admit that an act of mutual love, which is detrimental to the faculty of propagating life, which God the Creator of all, has implanted in it according to special laws, is in contradiction to both the divine plan, according to whose norm matrimony has been instituted, and the will of the Author of human life. To use this divine gift destroying, even if only partially, its meaning and its purpose is to contradict also the plan of God and His will. On the other hand, to make use of the gift of conjugal love while respecting the laws of the generative process means to acknowledge oneself not to be the arbiter of the sources of human life, but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. In fact, just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, with particular reason, he has no such dominion over his generative faculties as such, because of their intrinsic ordination towards raising up life, of which God is the principle. “Human life is sacred,” Pope John XXIII recalled; “from its inception it reveals the creating hand of God” [13].

 

   14. In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth [14].

 

   Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman [15].

 

  Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, propose, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible [16].

 

   To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil to promote a greater good [17], it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom [18]; that is to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life.

 

   15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result there from, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed [19].

 

   16. To this teaching of the Church on conjugal morals, the objection is made today, as we observed earlier (no. 3), that it is the prerogative of the human intellect to dominate the energies offered by irrational nature and to orientate them towards an end conformable to the good of man. Now some may ask: in the present case, is it not reasonable in many circumstances to have recourse to artificial birth control if, thereby, we secure the harmony and peace of the family, and better conditions for the education of the children already born? To this question it is necessary to reply with clarity: the Church is the first to praise and recommend the intervention of intelligence in a function which so closely associates the rational creature with his Creator; but she affirms that this must be done with respect for the order established by God.

 

   If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier [20].

 

   The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love.

 

   17. Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based, if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificial birth control. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men — especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point — have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer his respected and beloved companion.

 

   Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies. Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of the community those means acknowledged to be licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem? Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their peoples, if they were to consider it necessary, the method of contraception which they judge to be more efficacious? In such a way men, wishing to avoid individual, family, or social difficulties encountered in the observance of the divine law, would reach the point of placing at the mercy of the intervention of public authorities the most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy.

 

   Consequently, if the mission of generating life is not to be exposed to the arbitrary will of men, one must necessarily recognize insurmountable limits to the possibility of man’s domination over his own body and its functions; limits which no man, whether a private individual or one invested with authority, may licitly surpass. And such limits cannot be determined otherwise than by the respect due to the integrity of the human organism and its functions, according to the principles recalled earlier, and also according to the correct understanding of the “principle of totality” illustrated by our predecessor Pope Pius XII [21].

 

   18. It can be foreseen that this teaching will perhaps not be easily received by all: Too numerous are those voices — amplified by the modern means of propaganda — which are contrary to the voice of the Church. To tell the truth, the Church is not surprised to be made, like her divine Founder, a “sign of contradiction” [22], yet she does not because of this cease to proclaim with humble firmness the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical. Of such laws the Church was not the author, nor consequently can she be their arbiter; she is only their depositary and their interpreter, without ever being able to declare to be licit that which is not so by reason of its intimate and unchangeable opposition to the true good of man.

 

   In defending conjugal morals in their integral wholeness, the Church knows that she contributes toward the establishment of a truly human civilization; she engages man not to abdicate from his own responsibility in order to rely on technical means; by that very fact she defends the dignity of man and wife. Faithful to both the teaching and the example of the Saviour, she shows herself to be the sincere and disinterested friend of men, whom she wishes to help, even during their earthly sojourn, “to share as sons in the life of the living God, the Father of all men” [23].

 

   19. Our words would not be an adequate expression of the thought and solicitude of the Church, Mother and Teacher of all peoples, if, after having recalled men to the observance and respect of the divine law regarding matrimony, we did not strengthen them in the path of honest regulation of birth, even amid the difficult conditions which today afflict families and peoples. The Church, in fact, cannot have a different conduct towards men than that of the Redeemer: She knows their weaknesses, has compassion on the crowd, receives sinners; but she cannot renounce the teaching of the law which is, in reality, that law proper to a human life restored to its original truth and conducted by the spirit of God [24].

 

   20. The teaching of the Church on the regulation of birth, which promulgates the divine law, will easily appear to many to be difficult or even impossible of actuation. And indeed, like all great beneficent realities, it demands serious engagement and much effort, individual, family and social effort. More than that, it would not be practicable without the help of God, who upholds and strengthens the good will of men. Yet, to anyone who reflects well, it cannot but be clear that such efforts ennoble man and are beneficial to the human community.

 

  21. The honest practice of regulation of birth demands first of all that husband and wife acquire and possess solid convictions concerning the true values of life and of the family, and that they tend towards securing perfect self-mastery. To dominate instinct by means of one’s reason and free will undoubtedly requires ascetical practices, so that the affective manifestations of conjugal life may observe the correct order, in particular with regard to the observance of periodic continence. Yet this discipline which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value. It demands continual effort yet, thanks to its beneficent influence, husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace, and facilitates the solution of other problems; it fosters attention for one’s partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love; and deepens their sense of responsibility. By its means, parents acquire the capacity of having a deeper and more efficacious influence in the education of their offspring: little children and youths grow up with a just appraisal of human values, and in the serene and harmonious development of their spiritual and sensitive faculties.

 

   22. On this occasion, we wish to draw the attention of educators, and of all who perform duties of responsibility in regard to the common good of human society, to the need of creating an atmosphere favorable to education in chastity, that is, to the triumph of healthy liberty over license by means of respect for the moral order.

 

   Everything in the modern media of social communication which leads to sense excitation and unbridled customs, as well as every form of pornography and licentious performances, must arouse the frank and unanimous reaction of all those who are solicitous for the progress of civilization and the defense of the common good of the human spirit. Vainly would one seek to justify such deprivation with the pretext of artistic or scientific exigencies [25], or to deduce an argument from the freedom allowed in this sector by the public authorities.

 

   23. To Rulers, who are those principally responsible for the common good, and who can do so much to safeguard moral customs, we say: Do not allow the morality of your peoples to be degraded; do not permit that by legal means practices contrary to the natural and divine law be introduced into that fundamental cell, the family. Quite other is the way in which public authorities can and must contribute to the solution of the demographic problem: namely, the way of a provident policy for the family, of a wise education of peoples in respect of moral law and the liberty of citizens.

 

   We are well aware of the serious difficulties experienced by public authorities in this regard, especially in the developing countries. To their legitimate preoccupations we devoted our encyclical letter Populorum Progressio. But with our predecessor Pope John XXIII, we repeat: no solution to these difficulties is acceptable “which does violence to man’s essential dignity” and is based only on an utterly materialistic conception of man himself and of his life. The only possible solution to this question is one which envisages the social and economic progress both of individuals and of the whole human society, and which respects and promotes true human values [26]. Neither can one, without grave injustice, consider divine providence to be responsible for what depends, instead, on a lack of wisdom in government, on an insufficient sense of social justice, on selfish monopolization, or again on blameworthy indolence in confronting the efforts and the sacrifices necessary to ensure the raising of living standards of a people and all of its sons [27]. May all responsible public authorities — as some are already doing so laudably — generously revive their efforts. And may mutual aid between all the members of the great human family never cease to grow: This is an almost limitless field which thus opens up to the activity of the great international organizations.

 

   24. We wish now to express our encouragement to men of science, who “can considerably advance the welfare of marriage and the family, along with peace of conscience, if by pooling their efforts they labor to explain more thoroughly the various conditions favoring a proper regulation of births” [28]. It is particularly desirable that, according to the wish already expressed by Pope Pius XII, medical science succeed in providing a sufficiently secure basis for a regulation of birth, founded on the observance of natural rhythms [29]. In this way, scientists and especially Catholic scientists will contribute to demonstrate in actual fact that, as the Church teaches, “a true contradiction cannot exist between the divine laws pertaining to the transmission of life and those pertaining to the fostering of authentic conjugal love” [30].

 

   25. And now our words more directly address our own children, particularly those whom God calls to serve Him in marriage. The Church, while teaching imprescriptible demands of the divine law, announces the tidings of salvation, and by means of the sacraments opens up the paths of grace, which makes man a new creature, capable of corresponding with love and true freedom to the design of his Creator and Saviour, and of finding the yoke of Christ to be sweet [31].

 

   Christian married couples, then, docile to her voice, must remember that their Christian vocation, which began at baptism, is further specified and reinforced by the sacrament of matrimony. By it husband and wife are strengthened and as it were consecrated for the faithful accomplishment of their proper duties, for the carrying out of their proper vocation even to perfection, and the Christian witness which is proper to them before the whole world [32]. To them the Lord entrusts the task of making visible to men the holiness and sweetness of the law which unites the mutual love of husband and wife with their cooperation with the love of God the author of human life.

 

   We do not at all intend to hide the sometimes serious difficulties inherent in the life of Christian married persons; for them as for everyone else, “the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life” [33]. But the hope of that life must illuminate their way, as with courage they strive to live with wisdom, justice and piety in this present time [34], knowing that the figure of this world passes away [35].

 

   Let married couples, then, face up to the efforts needed, supported by the faith and hope which “do not disappoint …because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us” [36]; let them implore divine assistance by persevering prayer; above all, let them draw from the source of grace and charity in the Eucharist. And if sin should still keep its hold over them, let them not be discouraged, but rather have recourse with humbler perseverance to the mercy of God, which is poured forth in the sacrament of Penance. In this way they will be enabled to achieve the fullness of conjugal life described by the Apostle: “husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church … husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church … this is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband” [37].

 

   26. Among the fruits which ripen forth from a generous effort of fidelity to the divine law, one of the most precious is that married couples themselves not infrequently feel the desire to communicate their experience to others. Thus there comes to be included in the vast pattern of the vocation of the laity a new and most noteworthy form of the apostolate of like to like; it is married couples themselves who become apostles and guides to other married couples. This is assuredly, among so many forms of apostolate, one of those which seem most opportune today [38].

 

   27. We hold those physicians and medical personnel in the highest esteem who, in the exercise of their profession, value above every human interest the superior demands of their Christian vocation. Let them persevere, therefore, in promoting on every occasion the discovery of solutions inspired by faith and right reason, let them strive to arouse this conviction and this respect in their associates. Let them also consider as their proper professional duty the task of acquiring all the knowledge needed in this delicate sector, so as to be able to give to those married persons who consult them wise counsel and healthy direction, such as they have a right to expect.

 

   28. Beloved priest sons, by vocation you are the counselors and spiritual guides of individual persons and of families. We now turn to you with confidence. Your first task — especially in the case of those who teach moral theology — is to expound the Church’s teaching on marriage without ambiguity. Be the first to give, in the exercise of your ministry, the example of loyal internal and external obedience to the teaching authority of the Church. That obedience, as you know well, obliges not only because of the reasons adduced, but rather because of the light of the Holy Spirit, which is given in a particular way to the pastors of the Church in order that they may illustrate the truth [39]. You know, too, that it is of the utmost importance, for peace of consciences and for the unity of the Christian people, that in the field of morals as well as in that of dogma, all should attend to the magisterium of the Church, and all should speak the same language. Hence, with all our heart we renew to you the heartfelt plea of the great Apostle Paul: “I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement” [40].

 

   29. To diminish in no way the saving teaching of Christ constitutes an eminent form of charity for souls. But this must even be accompanied by patience and goodness, such as the Lord himself gave example of in dealing with men. Having come not to condemn but to save [41], he was indeed intransigent with evil but merciful towards individuals.

 

   In their difficulties, may married couples always find, in words and in the heart of a priest, the echo of the voice and the love of the Redeemer.

 

   And then speak with confidence, beloved sons, fully convinced that the spirit of God, while He assists the magisterium in proposing doctrine, illumines internally the hearts of the faithful inviting them to give their assent. Teach married couples the indispensable way of their assent. Teach married couples the indispensable way of prayer; prepare them to the recourse often and with faith to the sacraments of the Eucharist and of Penance, without ever allowing themselves to be discouraged by their own weakness.

 

   30. Beloved and venerable brothers in the episcopate, with whom we most intimately share the solicitude of the spiritual good of the People of God, at the conclusion of this encyclical our reverent and affectionate thoughts turn to you. To all of you we extend an urgent invitation. At the head of the priests, your collaborators, and of your faithful, work ardently and incessantly for the safeguarding and the holiness of marriage, so that it may always be lived in its entire human and Christian fullness.  Consider this mission as one of your most urgent responsibilities at the present time. As you know, it implies concerted pastoral action in all the fields of human activity, economic cultural and social; for, in fact, only a simultaneous improvement in these various sectors will make it possible to render the life of parents and of children within their families not only tolerable, but easier and more joyous, to render living together in human society more fraternal and peaceful, in faithfulness to God’s design for the world.

 

   31. Venerable brothers, most beloved sons, and all men of good will, great indeed is the work of education, of progress and of love to which we call you, upon the foundation of the Church’s teaching, of which the successor of Peter is, together with his brothers in the episcopate, the depositary and interpreter. Truly a great work, as we are deeply convinced, both for the world and for the Church, since man cannot find true happiness — towards which he aspires with all his being — other than in respect of the laws written by God in his very nature, laws which he must observe with intelligence and love. Upon this work, and upon all of you, and especially upon married couples, we invoke the abundant graces of the God of holiness and mercy, and in pledge thereof we impart to you all our apostolic blessing.

 

   Given at Rome, from St. Peter’s, this 25th day of July, feast of St. James the Apostle, in the year 1968, the sixth of our pontificate.

                                                                                                                       POPE PAUL VI

 

[1] Cf. Pius IX, Encyclical Qui Pluribus, Nov. 9, 1846: PII IX P.M. Acta I, 9-10; St. Pius X, Encyclical Singulari Quandam, Sept. 24, 1912: AAS IV (1912), 658; Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, Dec. 31, 1930: AAS XXII (1930), 579-581; Pius XII, Alloc. Magnificate Dominum to the episcopate of the Catholic world, Nov. 2, 1954: AAS XLVI (1954), 671-672; John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961: AAS LIII (1961), 457.

 

[2] Cf. Matthew 28:18-19.

 

[3] Cf. Matthew 7:21.

 

[4] Cf. Catechismus Romanus Concilii Tridentini, Part II, ch. VIII; Leo XIII, Encyclical Arcanum, Feb. 19, 1880: Acta Leonis XIII, II (1881), 26-29; Pius XI, Encyclical Divini Illius Magistri, Dec. 31, 1929: AAS XXII (1930), 58-61; Encyclical Casti Connubii: AAS XXII (1930), 545-546; Pius XII, Alloc. to the Italian Medico-Biological Union of St. Luke, Nov. 12, 1944: Discorsi e Radiomessaggi VI, 191-192; to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives, Oct. 29, 1951: AAS XLIII (1951), 857-859; to the seventh Congress of the International Society of Haematology, Sept. 12, 1958: AAS L (1958), 734-735; John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra: AAS LIII (1961), 446-447; Codex Iuris Canonici, Can. 1067; Can. 1968, S1; Can. 1066, S 1-2; Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution <Gaudium et Spes>, nos. 47-52.

 

[5] Cf. Paul VI, Alloc. to the Sacred College, June 23, 1964: AAS LVI (1964), 588; to the Commission for the Study of Problems of Population, Family and Birth, March 27, 1965: AAS LVII (1965), 388; to the National Congress of the Italian Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Oct. 29, 1966: AAS LVIII (1966), 1168.

 

[6] Cf. 1 John 4:8.

 

[7] Cf. Ephesians 3:15.

 

[8] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, no. 50.

 

[9] Cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 94, art. 2.

 

[10] Cf. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, nos. 50, 51.

 

[11] Cf. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, no. 49.

 

[12] Cf. Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii: AAS XXII (1930), 560; Pius XII: AAS XLIII (1951), 843.

 

[13] Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra: AAS LIII (1961), 447.

 

[14] Cf. Catechismus Romanus Concilii Tridentini, part II, Ch. VIII; Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii: AAS XXII (1930), 562-564; Pius XII, Discorsi e Radiomessaggi VI (19440, 191-192: AAS XLIII (1951), 842-843, 857-859; John XXIII, Encyclical Pacem in Terris, Apr. 11, 1963: AAS LV (1963), 259-260: Gaudium et Spes, no. 51.

 

[15] Cf. Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii: AAS XXII (1930), 565; decree of the Holy Office, Feb. 22, 1940: AAS L (1958), 734-735.

 

[16] Cf. Catechismus Romanus Concilii Tridentini, part II, ch. VIII; Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii: AAS XXII (1930), 559-561; Pius XII: AAS XLIII (1951), 843, AAS L (1958), 734-735; John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra: AAS LIII (1961), 447. [17] Cf. Pius XII, Alloc. to the National Congress of the Union of Catholic Jurists, Dec. 6, 1953: AAS XLV (1953), 798-799.

 

[18] Cf. Romans 3:8.

 

[19] Cf. Pius XII, Alloc. to Congress of the Italian Association of Urology, Oct. 8, 1953: AAS XLV (1953), 674-675, AAS L (1958), 734-735.

 

[20] Cf. Pius XII: AAS XLIII (1951), 846.

 

[21] Cf. AAS XLV (1953), 674-675; AAS XLVIII (1956), 461-462.

 

[22] Cf. Luke 2:34.

 

[23] Cf. Paul VI. Encyclical Populorum Progressio, March 26, 1957, no. 21.

 

[24] Cf. Rom. 8.

 

[25] Cf. Second Vatican Council, decree Inter Mirifica, On the Media of Social Communication, nos. 6-7.

 

[26] Cf. Encyclical Mater et Magistra: AAS LIII (1961), 447.

 

[27] Cf. Encyclical Populorum Progressio, nos. 48-55.

 

[28] Cf. Pastoral constitution Guadium et Spes, no. 52.

 

[29] Cf. AAS XLIII (1951), 859.

 

[30] Cf. Pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes, no. 51.

 

[31] Cf. Matthew 11:30.

 

[32] Cf. Pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes, no. 48; Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, no. 35.

 

[33] Matthew 7:14; cf. Hebrews 11:12.

 

[34] Cf. Titus 2:12.

 

[35] Cf. 1 Corinthians 7:31.

 

[36] Cf. Romans 5:5.

 

[37] Ephesians 5:25,32-33.

 

[38] Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, nos. 35 and 41; Pastoral Constitution Guadium et Spes, nos. 48-49; Second Vatican Council, Decree Apostolicam Actuositatem, no. 11.

 

[39] Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, no. 25.

 

[40] Cf. 1 Corinthians 1:10.

 

[41] Cf. John 3:17.

 

NOTE: The numbers that follow the topics shown below refer to paragraph numbers in the Encyclical - not page numbers.

Abortion, 14

Bishop’s duties, 30

Chastity, 22

Contraception, 17

Marriage, 8

Media, 22

Medical personnel’s duties, 27

Natural law, 4, 11

Natural Family Planning (NFP), 16, 21, 24

Overpopulation, 2

Populorum Progressio, 23

Priest’s duties, 28

Principle of Totality, 3

Sterilization, 14

******

 

this article discovered here

 

Because of that, he was forced to “marry” 150 girls and women.  When he went to Rome, he appeared before the Holy Father to speak about what had happened.  After listening to the priest, the Pope told him to tell the world about his mission and his work!

In the culture of a certain tribe in Fr. Francis’ diocese, old men could buy girls to become their wives and act as servants to their other wives, or be a lucrative source of income when he sells her body for other men to use.

A woman or female child could marry only once till death, but men were allowed to have as many wives as they could afford as a source of pleasure and income.  It made the old men richer, and they often bought more young girls.

When he first arrived at the mission, Fr. Francis was distraught about this shameful practice.  In a letter he wrote home, he said, “It is always to me a sad sight to see these poor little mites of from eight to ten years old, becoming the playthings of old greybeards whose older wives too often make them drudges, and he thinks nothing of making them objects of shameful trading.”

One day a little girl named Martina, came running to him and begged him to help her.  An old man had come to claim her, saying “I have come to fetch my wife.”  Martina cried, with copious tears streaming down her face.  ”Oh, help me, Father.  I do not want to go with this old man; he is ugly.”

Fr. Gsell could do nothing.  He knew he must not interfere with tribal law.  He watched her, sobbing, unwillingly being returned to the camp.  Upon arrival at the camp, she refused to show submission to his other wives.

When she resisted the approaches of the old man, he drove a spear through her leg.  This, by tribal law, was justified.  She escaped again, and despite her wound, she managed to get back to the mission.

There she waited, well aware of the enormity of her flight, but she had nowhere else to go!  Now this matter was no longer a problem between man and wife, because what she had done could affect the entire tribe, and it could affect the behavior of disobedient woman and girls in the future.

If she resisted, she must die as a lesson to other unhappy captive girls, so that they would not try to escape.  She must become a lesson to the other women and girls in the tribe, and her punishment must be severe.

She knew that the punishment could be a slow death, for she had seen it a number of times before, and the men actually seemed to take pleasure in “teaching this lesson” to the young females of the tribe.

Her own parents and family understood the culture of the tribe, and though they grieved, they believed that their daughter and sister was guilty of a crime, and must be punished.

Fr. Gsell and his God were her last recourse, but, as the mission was new, she did not know that God very well and had little hope.  Nevertheless, such a marriage, to her, seemed to be worse than death.

In the meantime, the young men of the tribe got prepared for the possible kill.  They gathered together, and while putting on their war paint, and gathering their deadly spears and nulla-nulla knives, … with yells, shouts, and dances, they worked themselves up into a frenzy.  Then they came running and screaming in a march toward the mission.

In was terrifying, and Fr. Gsell was powerless.  He thought, she believes, poor little one, that I can save her.  But it is not possible.  If she still wants her and they do let her live, if she tries to escape again, the husband has the right to thrown no more than 12 spears at his girl-wife, who is permitted to move, but not to run.

The priest had only heard of one girl who had lived through this ordeal, and it was because her husband had been so old, shaky, and blind, that he could not throw spears properly.

When the warriors came, the French priest stood there, facing the tribesmen.  ”Help me, God!” he prayed.  And help came in a peculiar way.

He had an inspiration which he believed came from the Holy Spirit.  He knew that the warriors were tired and hungry after the march, so he decided to feed them first.  He spread out all the food and drinks that the mission could get together.  They accepted, and when they had finished eating, the tribesmen lay down to sleep.  There was no hurry, since the girl could not get away.

Father knew that if he could save Martina, he probably could save other little girls who came to him.  He decided to buy Martina.  It was not the custom of the tribe to sell a girl outright, only to lend her to a man.  In this way, she remained useful for further exchange.

Fr. Gsell then proceeded with a lot of prayer and great cunning!

While the men were sleeping, he set out, on two long tables in front of the mission house, everything that he could think of that could possibly attract them.  Nothing was more valuable to him than the girl!

On the two tables, among other things, were a blanket, a sack of flour, a sharp knife, a hatchet, a mirror, a teapot, some sparkling colored beads, tobacco and smoking pipes, brightly colored cotton cloth, tins of meat, and cans of treacle.  All the while, the well-fed men slept on.

Fr. Gsell, wide-awake, but afraid and alert, waited behind a fence, out of sight.  The sleepers began to wake up.  They saw the tables, they nudged their sleeping partners to wake up.  They approached the tables, then crowded over them, chattering, gazing longingly at the riches, “trembling with desire.”

Fr. Gsell waited in his hiding place, afraid to appear too eager.  The he drew himself up to his full height and attempted to look clam and majestic.  He stalked towards them, trying to look like a great man.  He wanted to advance like a regal being.  In truth, he need not have bothered with the majestic approach, because the young men could not take their eyes off the tables.   He had them!

In the annals of the missionary endeavor, this moment ranks with the most tense.  One culture standing toe to toe with another - tribal law.

On the one hand, if the men sold him the girl, they could be punished by their tribal elders.  On the other hand, if Fr. Gsell tried to protect the girl or interfere with tribal custom, he may, by white man’s law, be forced to leave the mission or even have it disbanded.

The least that could happen to him would be an outcry down south that could well have repercussions in parliament, and missions everywhere in the country!

After long deliberations and discussions so to how to gain the gifts, yet slave their conscience in this defiance of tribal custom, as well as to placate the elders, the tribe found a splendid solution.

The hairy old man who was Martina’s husband, and who came to the mission with the young men, also wanted some of the treasures that were on the tables.  Because it was his wife, by rights, he could have the first choice of the items.  After all, he had a number of other wives, and some of these things could be of greater value and use to him that a reluctant wife!

Quite justly, according to native law, the old man came up to where the priest stood waiting and praying, and said to him, “We sell you the girl.  Condition is that you must keep her for yourself always, and she must not be passed on to any other man; in exchange, I take this knife, and sack of flour.”

Fr. Gsell merely answered, “I am glad you decide to sell.  All of you, take everything, and I will take the girl.  You decide who gets what.”  He did not mention the condition, and in their eagerness to possess the goods, ignored the exception.  In moments, the tables were emptied.

Martina, Fr. Gsell, and the mission people wept with joy.  In fact, the old “husband” showed his new knife and sack of flour to the other old men, and then some of them began to come to the mission to “sell” their wives - of all ages.

When the tribe saw there was no attempt to wean the girls from their native way of life, apart from the point of the condition, and that Fr. Gsell was willing, indeed anxious, that they should marry young men of the tribe, all doubts fled.

One day, a very old man, a bearded Methuselah, came in carrying a four-day-old baby in his arms.  By tribal custom, it was his wife.  ”Father, I have come to sell you my wife.  I am too old for it.”  The old man explained that if her could sell the baby, his wife, he would have something to live on in his old age.  So, a very young “wife” was added to the collection.

The harem had women of all ages.  One poor old crone, who like the old bearded Methuselah, claimed that she was too old for it, said that her husband, who had a number of younger wives, told her to le