|
July 2000
Feature Article
THE IRISH CONSTITUTION THE FAMILY AND THE LAW
HAVE WE NO SENSE OF OUTRAGE?
���������
--by Terence MacSwiney Field
In the beginning, there was God, and He said:- �It is not good that man should be alone, I will make him a helpmate�. So from the soil God fashioned all the wild beasts and birds of heaven. These He brought to the man to see what he would call them; each one was to bear the name the man would give it. The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of heaven and all the wild beasts - but no helpmate suitable for man was found for him. So God made the man fall into a deep sleep, and while he slept, He took one of his ribs and enclosed it in flesh. God built the rib He had taken from the man into a woman, and brought her to the man. The man exclaimed:
������������
�This at last is bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh! ������������
This is to be called woman. For this was taken from man.�
�This is why a man leaves his father and mother and joins himself to his wife, and they become one body.� - Genesis: 2:18-24.
In 1937, the authors of the Irish Constitution gave to the people an instrument, which has served them well. An instrument, which enshrines and guarantees the basic human and Christian Principles of our Society.
Contained within the Constitution, are perhaps the most important Articles, which define, govern, and guarantee to protect the Family. These Articles have set the foundation for the type of Society, which forms the basic fabric of Irish life.
It was for such Christian Principles, that their forefathers had struggled for, for over eight hundred years. Yet despite the acceptance of the Constitution, several attempts have been made to erode the basic fabric of that Society. The Government, with the full support of the opposition Parties made such an attempt again, in the form of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act (1989). Although amendments were made, the overall Act is such that it allows and indeed provides for the break-up of a Constitutionally formed Family, and a denial of basic Human and Constitutional Rights. Rights, which are �antecedent and superior to all positive law�. It was, in essence the blueprint for the introduction of Divorce.
In making a brief examination of the Articles governing the Family, and the existing legislation governing the child�s legal and Constitutional Rights, one can only be drawn to the conclusion (notwithstanding the Supreme Court�s expected pronouncement in 1996 to the contrary) that this Act is repugnant to the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court dismissed the constitutional challenge to this Act does not alter the truth - rather, it clearly displays a flagrant, arrogant, deliberate and unauthorised attempt to alter the constitution by the imposition of a secular view, which in itself, is a contradiction of the Christian principles enunciated within the constitution, and firmly held by the people.
In dealing with the Articles, which recognise, guarantee and pledge to protect the Family as �� the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society� it must be asked whether the State, by the introduction of this Act is honouring its guarantee and pledge.
Article 41.
The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable1 and imprescriptible 2 rights antecedent and superior to all positive law.
The State therefore guarantees to protect the Family in its Constitution and Authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable3 to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded and to protect it against attack4.
No law shall be enacted providing for the grant of a dissolution5 of Marriage.
Article 42.
The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide according to their means for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education6 of their children.
Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools recognised or established by the State.
The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
There is ample case history to support the fact that the �family� is sacrosanct, and that legislation has been put in place, and often strengthened, to protect the interests of �children�. In itself that has to be commended - but the introduction of Divorce has now clearly and arguably totally undermined the �constitutional rights� which children and �families� once enjoyed.
THE ESTABLISHMENT AND RECOGNITION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES
In re O�Brien, an infant, Justice O�Byrne (SC. 1954) said when delivering judgement:
�Article 42.1 seems to contemplate and require that the children should be members of the Family and attached to the parental home. The sanctity of the Family and the enduring existence of parental authority seem to be guaranteed by these provisions, and I consider that I am entitled to say that the framers of the Constitution considered, and enacted, that the best interests and happiness of the child would be served by its being a member of the parental household�.
In 1970, Chief Justice O�Dallaigh, when delivering judgement in the case of B -v- B (reported 1975) said:
�The main purpose of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964, was to give both Parents of an infant equal rights in guardianship matters. In doing so, it provided a statutory expression of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Section 6(1) of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 provides that:- �The Father and Mother of an infant shall be guardians of the infant jointly�. This section has since been said to be no more that a reiteration of the principles enunciated in the Constitution. Each Parent therefore, now has the same absolute rights in relation to the person of their child, i.e. to Custody, Welfare, Education etc.�
Again, in 1984 in the case of KC -v- KC. Chief Justice Finlay said when delivering judgement:
�In dealing with the Constitutional Rights of the legitimate child, the Court must hold that in addition to the Rights of every child which are provided for in the Constitution, such child has rights under the Constitution as a member of a Family:
To belong to a unit group possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights antecedent and superior to all positive law;
To protection by the State, of the Family to which it belongs;
To be educated by the Family and to be provided by its Parents with Religious, Moral, Intellectual, Physical and Social Education.�
The question to what extent, the beneficiary of a fundamental or natural personal right can waive it, is one with which the Courts have displayed some hesitancy. This is surprising, as ordinary life contains many instances, which can scarcely be all un-Constitutional, in which the exercise of such rights is forgone for certain purposes or periods, such as membership of the Gardai (Police) or Armed Forces. However, Rights excluded from the possibility of Waiver are those contained in Article 41 and 42. Article 42 speaks of the �inalienable right and duty� of parents to educate their children, a formulation which speaks clearly against waiver; and Article 41 asserts the �inalienable and imprescriptible rights� of the Family - a phrase with which Mr. Justice Kenny came to grips with in Ryan -v- Attorney General (1965) in a way which rules out waiver.
In the particular matter of parents purporting to deprive themselves of the custody of children, the Supreme Court held in 1955 in re Doyle an infant, that this was Constitutionally impossible. Chief Justice Maguire reviewed the old Common Law, which did not recognise that a parent could deprive himself or herself of that right and duty to the child and said:
�Had s.10 of the Children Act 1941 (which purported to permit a parent to surrender this right) been passed before the making of the Constitution, it would appear in that portion of it, which is here impugned, to conflict with the common law principle that parents not alone have the right to control the education of their children, but that they cannot surrender this right. The common law however would have had to yield before such a statutory enactment. It seems however to this Court, that the makers of the Constitution by the provisions of Article 42 and particularly by ss.1 and 3 of that Article, deliberately preserved this common law principle and have put it beyond the reach of ordinary legislation.�
In each of the cases cited from the Supreme Court, the issues have been related to the Rights of the Child, and the duties and obligations of the parents. Whilst these Constitutional and legal obligations are clearly enshrined in these Articles, they have in some way been given Statutory expression. The current Act, does undoubtedly undermine these principles, and obviously erodes the Constitutional obligations, duties and rights.
If one is to accept the judgement and interpretation of the Constitutional rights of the child, as pronounced by Chief Justice Finlay that �� such child has rights under the Constitution as a member of a family to which it belongs (a) To belong to a unit group possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights antecedent and superior to all positive law; (b) To protection by the State, of the Family to which it belongs; (c) To be educated by the Family and to be provided by its Parents with Religious, Moral, Intellectual, Physical and Social Education.� Then bearing in mind that the term �Family� is based on the marriage of the �Parents� and that the word �Parents� is used in the plural rather than the singular context, then the Government has clearly and wilfully abdicated from its Constitutional responsibility and Guarantee to the child..
The Tilson Case in 1951 firmly established that the rights and duties of parents in relation to their children under the Constitution are equal. This equality, as we have already seen, was given statutory expression in the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. Each parent now has the same rights in relation to the person of their child; i.e., to custody, to determine the child�s upbringing and education, both secular and religious, and the same powers to appoint a Testamentary Guardian..
Whilst prior to 1964 the Courts stressed that the most important factor in parental disputes concerning children was the welfare of the child, it was not until that date that statutory force was given to the equitable principle that the child�s interests are paramount. Welfare, in relation to an infant is said to comprise its religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social welfare..
Physical Welfare of the Child:
Physical welfare, primarily appears to be concerned with the health, bodily comfort, nourishment and hygiene of children with the qualification that their health may be affected by emotional or psychiatric disturbances which are also of relevance to their intellectual welfare..
Intellectual and Religious Welfare:
Intellectual welfare is concerned with the emotional security, settled affections, and psychiatric stability of children, with plans for their education and intellectual development, the manner in which their environment and their parents contribute to this aspect of their development and with ensuring that children can take the maximum advantage of the educational opportunities available to them..
The religious welfare of children is concerned with their education in and practise of the religion in which they are being brought up.
Social and Moral Welfare:
Social Welfare has been said to mean �the type of welfare which is to be judged by what is best calculated to make them (the children) better members of the society in which they live�. Social welfare is concerned with enabling the children to grow up to be �good citizens� and well-integrated members of society. It is much concerned with ensuring that the child will be inculcated with �correct values� and imbued with a �proper� outlook on life.
Moral Welfare, is concerned with the moral example given by a parent to their child, with the influence that the behaviour of the parent may have on the child�s development and the manner in which the parent�s conduct is likely to affect the child�s religious, intellectual and social welfare. The danger of moral corruption of a child as a result for example of a parent�s adulterous conduct has been a matter of particular concern to the courts and has given rise to a variety of conflicting judicial approaches in the application of the welfare principle..
In all the definitions given, which have been accepted and determined by the Supreme Court, it must be said that the main psychological need for children, if they are to become happy citizens, is a feeling of security, a conviction that people care for them and about them and a feeling of continuity. They should have a chance of putting down roots acceptable to and dictated by society, and not have to live in fear that they will or can be moved around by either parent..
Where the Courts have determined the rights of the child in relation to the existing legislation, this Act does nothing to protect the family as a moral institution with clear duties to the children of that family, rather as has already been said, it creates an instrument which can, and is being used for selfish reasons, and without regard to the Constitutional rights and duties of Parents to their children, to abdicate in part or in full, those responsibilities..
Whilst the Constitution no longer holds a special place for the teachings of the Catholic Church, it is relevant to say that the majority of the people of this nation do subscribe to those teachings. In fact, if one looks at the principles enshrined throughout the Constitution and in particular, to Articles 41 and 42, one can only be drawn to the realisation and conclusion that the principles and teachings of Christ were the basis on which the Constitution was written..
The classic legal definition of marriage is that given by Lord Penzance in the case of Hyde -v- Hyde in 1866 and cited with approval in Griffith -v- Griffith in 1944 (HC) �I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may be defined as the voluntary union for life, of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others�. This definition involves four conditions: a marriage must be voluntary; the parties must intend it to be for life; (as defined in Nachimson -v- Nachimson 1930) it must be monogamous; it must be between parties of a different sex..
Marriage is, both a contract and a relationship. For persons to become husband and wife in the eyes of Irish Law, they must comply with the conditions the law (based on the principles of the Constitution) sets down for entering into a valid marriage contract. They must both possess the capacity to marry each other and they must observe the necessary formalities. The formalities to be observed are those required by the lex loci celebrationis i.e. the law of the place where the marriage is celebrated..
Therefore, if the State requires the parties to solemnise a marriage contract, the conditions agreed upon by both parties prior to the States' certificate of marriage being issued becomes an integral part of that contract. Again it must be stated, that there is no provision in such a contract for the parties to separate or diminish their responsibilities to each other or to their children who are born from such a union. Marriage is a clear-cut undertaking possessing inalienable rights and duties, and the State is constitutionally bound to protect �with special care� the responsibilities undertaken by the Constutionally formed family..
In the case of P -v- P (March 1980) unreported (HC) Mr. Justice Barrington stated when delivering judgement:.
�When parties marry, they marry for better or worse. This, as I understand it, includes accepting the quirks and difficulties in the character of the other marriage partner. To establish �just� cause for leaving the matrimonial home, the partner who has left, must establish some form of serious misconduct on the part of the other partner. Such conduct must, as Lord Asquith said, �� exceed in such gravity such behaviour, vexatious and trying though it may be, as every spouse bargains to endure when accepting the other for better or worse�. The ordinary signs of conjugal life does not in itself suffice�..
Had the State established the necessary machinery and facilities to protect the family, then what starts in many cases, as being vexatious and trying behaviour in matrimonial disputes, would not end up in the form of �serious misconduct�. As has already been said, the three main areas for marital breakdown are, Social, Psychological and Financial..
Whilst other remedies to matrimonial disharmony are available to the Court vis-�-vis Maintenance of Spouses and Children Act; Protection and Barring Orders etc., these in themselves do not alter the �unit group�, but rather provide, albeit a paltry mechanism, a mechanism with which to control the disharmony which has ensued. This Act however, seeks to provide the mechanism with which the �unit group� can be effectively dismantled..
Undoubtedly, some marriages do run into serious difficulties. Those which do, need a suitable professional, and independent intermediary. Litigation is definitely not the answer. Once litigation has commenced, it is seldom that reconciliation takes place, and if it is attempted it is even less likely to succeed. The inclusion or imposition of a legal system in any matrimonial dispute is such, that whatever chances there may have been in resolving what in many cases has been caused by Social, Psychological, or Financial problems, the introduction of litigation takes away from the basis of the problem, and introduces a new dimension. A dimension which seldom reflects the original problem, and only leads to further hardship and frustration of the original problem..
Obviously there are numerous reasons, which cause such a tragedy. A tragedy, which does affect the lives of the innocent, yet nothing is done to prevent this tragedy, be it by way of legislation or Social Policy, despite the Constitutional Guarantees and pledge to �protect with special care the institution of marriage, on which the Family is founded and to protect it against attack�..
To those who have been fortunate, not to have been affected by this trauma and yet propagate the acceptance of Divorce or Separation as a solution to the problem, I would suggest this; go into the Courts and see how many dry eyes and smiling faces there are after a couple have been well and truly battered by the professionals. Then ask, who won?.
Ask the litigants; did they enjoy their personal and intimate details of their lives being exposed? Listen to those innocent children who suffer the torment of their parents. Listen to their heartbroken cries at night, as they try to sleep. Listen to them explain, with embarrassment, to their playmates and school friends as to why one parent is missing, or, as to whom this strange person in their life is..
Then, watch them being torn emotionally and psychologically between each parent as they battle for custody and access. Then, witness the psychological and emotional destruction of an innocent child..
Watch them open their presents at Christmas time, almost alone. Ask those who have separated about the loneliness they endure and listen to them say, �if only�..� Then try, if you dare, to convince yourself that divorce is the answer. It is not the answer, but it is the only option at the moment. The only option, a morally bereft Government, has given to the people. An option which few, if any, would willingly choose, yet are forced to accept. Forced upon them because the State has completely abdicated from its guarantee to protect the �family with special care�..
For a couple to Divorce without first being able to avail of suitable competent professional help over a considerable period of time, is to say the least, totally irresponsible. The repercussions of a divorce are far more reaching than one could imagine at the time the concept was first thought of.
One�s desire to escape the emotional trauma that is being endured prior to the concept of a divorce is such, that it tends to cloud any semblance of rational thinking, and the realisation of the subsequent consequences of such an action. It is accepted, that some marital problems are extremely difficult to reconcile, but none the less, the State has a Constitutional obligation to provide all the basic facilities and machinery to enable a sincere, genuine and reasonable attempt to be made. It is here, in this context, that the State has clearly and unequivocally abdicated itself from this Constitutional and moral responsibility.
Judicial Authority
The preamble to the Constitution is abundantly clear as to where, or more correctly, from whom, the State receives its Authority to legislate, and to whom it must answer for its actions. The wording is precise and unambiguous enough to show, that it is not merely a collective responsibility, but also, an individual responsibility.
The preamble commences as follows: �In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority, and to Whom as our final end, all actions both of men and State must be referred, we the people of Eire, humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ ���
The source of this �authority� is further proven and indeed enhanced in Article 6.1.
�All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State, and in final appeal, to decide all questions of policy, according to the requirements of the common good.�ter>
If one then looks at the precise wording of the Oath, as stated in Article 34.5.10 and taken by every Judge appointed under the Constitution, then one must surely come to the conclusion that not only do they not have the proper or required �authority� but that they are intentionally �flying� in the face of God, by granting Divorces contrary to God�s Law. The strength of the wording is such, that they cannot possibly distance themselves from their actions, by hiding behind the terminology that they are enforcing �Policy�.
Article 34.5.10
�In the presence of Almighty God I, ��.. do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of (as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me.�
Can there be a clearer statement than that? The wording, is far more meaningful than the �normal� wording in an Oath, as in �I swear by - or - to Almighty God�. I am of course drawing particular attention to the wording �In the presence of Almighty God �.�
Not only has each and every Judge clearly, unambiguously and unequivocally recognised the very presence of God, but also, has solemnly promised in His presence to uphold the authority of God, as stated in the preamble. Further, each Judge in recognising this endorses it by asking, �May God direct and sustain me".
This is not the God who is exclusive to the Roman Catholic Church; nor is it the God of Judaism, or of the Muslims, or Hindus, or any other �religion�. He is the One True God of all - and irrespective of how the Judiciary try to pawn him off - whichever God he is, He is the One in whose �presence� they made their solemn promise, and in doing so, willingly recognised that their �authority� derives from God, through the people.
No doubt the Supreme Court will adopt the wording of the US Supreme Court when it said �The American Constitution means what the US Supreme Court says what it means.� In other words - to hell with God!!
The fifth, sixth and ninth commandments given to us by God are so explicit that they simply do not need any Ecclesiastic or Judicial interpretation:
- 5th. Thou shalt not kill.
- 6th. Thou shalt not commit adultery
- 9th. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour�s wife.
There are no sub-clauses or sub-divisions to confuse our simple minds - the message is abundantly clear - so which part of these commandments is it, that the Government and Judiciary have such difficulty in understanding?
�Leaving there, he came to the district of Judea and the far side of the Jordan, and again crowds gathered round him, and again he taught them as his custom was. Some Pharisees approached him and asked �Is it against the law for a man to divorce his wife?� They were testing him. He answered them �What did Moses command you?� �Moses allowed us� they said �to draw up a writ of dismissal and so to divorce�. Then Jesus said to them, �It was because you were so unteachable that he wrote this commandment for you, but from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. This is why a man must leave father and mother and the two become one body. They are no longer two, therefore, but one body. So then what God has united, man must not divide.� Back in the house the disciples questioned him again about this, and he said to them, �The man who divorces his wife and marries another is guilty of adultery against her, and if a woman divorces her husband and marries another she is guilty of adk 10: 1-12.
Ireland has for many years, tried to catch up with the rest of the world - at least economically. In doing so we have sold our Souls. When a Nation tolerates it�s leader flaunting his mistress before the public - then we have no shame. When Politicians steal from their people and walk free - then we have no sense of outrage. When Soldiers lower their heads at the burial of their comrade - they hang their heads in sorrow. The Irish nation would do well to hang its head in sorrow and shame, since we have ridiculed the absoluteness of truth and called it - Pluralism. We have worshipped false gods and called it - Multiculturalism. We have endorsed perversion and called it - Alternative Lifestyle. We have exploited the poor and called it - The Lottery. We have killed our unborn and called it - Freedom of Choice. We have abused and corrupted power and called it - Politics. We have neglected to discipline our children and called it - Building Self-Esteem. We have coveted our neighbour�s possessions and called it - Ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it - Freedom of Expression. We have ridiculed the time-honoured values of our forefathers and called it - Enlightenment.
Will we as a nation ever acquire a sense of outrage with those who dare to erode the fabric of our Society? A society, which we were once proud of, and recognised throughout the world for its Christian principles. It has been said that �Politics is the science of governing people�. That may well be true; unfortunately, Ireland would now appear to be devoid of such a 'science'. A 'science', which has been supervened by morally bereft people who see politics purely as �Votes� �Jokes� and �Corruption�.
Men like Wolfe Tone, Eamon deValera, Michael Collins, Oliver Plunkett, Terence MacSwiney, and many more, did not devote their lives to regain some 50,000sq miles of land lying off the west coast of England. That in itself would have been a shallow form of patriotism. The heart of patriotism to them was the rejection of and safeguard of a nation becoming a pluralist society. A society, which holds the very concept of God and Christianity in contempt. A society, which by its very nature, rejects the sanctity of matrimony in its laws.
Perhaps there is some truth in the expression �United we stand, divided, we fall!� The Government, through its wilful neglect allowed the family to be divided, and in doing so is bringing about the total collapse of this society. Should such a concept be allowed to continue, then in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom as our final end, all actions both of men and state must be referred - have mercy on us all.
--Terence
�copyright2000 Terence MacSwiney Field all rights reserved no portion of this article may be reproduced without the express written permission from the author
News From The Domestic ChurchIf God Had Voice Mail
IF GOD HAD VOICE MAIL......
We have all learned to live with "voice mail" as a necessary part of
modern life. But have you wondered, what if God decided to install voice
mail?"
Imagine praying and hearing this:
Thank you for calling My Father's House. Please select one of the
following options:
Press 1 for Requests
Press 2 for Thanksgiving
Press 3 for Complaints
Press 4 for All Other Inquiries.
* What if God used the familiar excuse... "I'm sorry, all of our angels
are busy helping other sinners right now. However, your prayer is
important to us and will be answered in the order it was received, so
please stay on the line"
* Can you imagine getting these kinds of responses as you call God in
Prayer:
If you would like to speak to:Gabriel, Press 1 ,For Michael Press 2
For a directory of other Angels, Press 3.
If you would like to hear King David sing a Psalm while you are holding
please press 4.
To find out if a loved one has been assigned to Heaven, Press 5, enter
his or her Social Security number, then press the pound key. (If you get
a negative response, try area code 666.)
* For reservations at "My Father's House" please enter J-O-H-N followed
by 3-1-6.
* For answers to nagging questions about dinosaurs, the age of the earth
and where Noah's Ark is, please wait until you arrive here.
* Our computers show that you have already prayed once today. Please
hang up and try again tomorrow.
* This office is closed for the weekend to observe a religious holiday.
Please pray again Monday after 9:30 AM. If you need emergency assistance
when this office is closed, contact your local pastor.
THANK GOD, HE DOESN'T HAVE VOICE MAIL AND HE LISTENS WHEN WE PRAY!!!
submitted by --Bob Gold
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monks And Flowers
Three friars were behind on their belfry payments, so they opened up a small
florist shop to raise the funds. Since everyone liked to buy flowers from the
men of God, the rival florist across town thought the competition was unfair.
He asked the good fathers to close down, but they would not. He went back
and begged the friars to close. They ignored him. He asked his mother to go
and ask the friars to get out of the business. They ignored her too.
So the rival florist hired Hugh MacTaggart, the roughest and most vicious
thug in town, to "persuade" them to close. Hugh beat up the friars and
trashed their store, saying he'd be back if they didn't close shop.
Terrified, they did so, thereby proving that Hugh, and only Hugh, can prevent
florist friars
submitted by---Jackie Galloway
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Musings
Catechist's Lament --by Vickie Shepherd
I am a Catechist.
I teach adolescent children.
I love my job, although there�s no pay.
I rack my brain, for a new game to play.
I talk to them and read from the book,
There�s a buzz in the room, when I can�t look.
Asking them questions about what I�ve read,
No one answers or listens; it�s just what I dread.
I know the Old Testament�s just like the New,
Just different people, still pagans and Jew.
Sometimes I �ll find the lessons to work,
Other times they fail and I feel like a jerk.
But after each class, the kids say goodbye,
�See you next week, Mrs. Shepherd�, they cry!
I am a Catechist.
I teach adolescent children.
I love every minute of it!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Escape" --by Vickie Shepherd
Far away from all the noise,
A little city lies.
In the valley of quietness
Tranquility survives.
Hoards of people coming here
To spend a restful day.
Bringing coolers, babies and lots of food,
For a couple hours stay.
Look pitifully at what they�ve done,
To our pretty little town.
Tourists running in and out
Making the natives frown.
No more restful days at home,
We go on Sunday drives.
To the country for a while,
Retreat from tourist�s lives.
Prayer for July
Prayer for Vocations
Lord Jesus Christ, Savior of the world, we humbly beg of Thee to revive in They Church that spirit which Thou didst so abundantly bestow on the Apostles. Call, we pray Thee, very many to Thy priesthood and to the religious life. And may zeal for Thy glory and the salvation of souls inflame those whom Thou hast chosen, may they be saints in Thy likeness, and may Thy Spirit strengthen them. O Jesus, give us priests and religious after Thine own Heart! (Imprimatur: Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York)
Prayer Intention for July
For an increase of vocations to the Priesthood, the Diaconate and to the Religious Life.
APOSTLESHIP OF PRAYER
July 2000 General Intention
That the followers of the various religions
May grow in respecting one another and collaborating
to consolidate justice and peace in the world
God calls men to serve him in spirit and in truth. Consequently they
are bound to him in conscience but not coerced. God has regard for
the dignity of the human person which he himself created; the human
person is to be guided by his own judgment and to enjoy freedom....
When the principle of religious freedom is not just proclaimed in
words or incorporated in law but is implemented sincerely in
practice, only then does the Church enjoy in law and in fact those
stable conditions which give her the independence necessary for
fulfilling her divine mission. Ecclesiastical authorities have been
insistent in claiming this independence in society. At the same time
the Christian faithful, in common with the rest of men, have the civil
right of freedom from interference in leading their lives according
to their conscience. A harmony exists therefore between the freedom
of the Church and that religious freedom which must be recognized as
the right of all men and all communities....
It is clear that with the passage of time all nations are coming into
a closer unity, men of different cultures and religions are being
bound together by closer links, and there is a growing awareness of
individual responsibility. Consequently, to establish and strengthen
peaceful relations and harmony in the human race, religious freedom
must be given effective constitutional protection everywhere and that
highest of man's rights and duties--to lead a religious life, with
freedom in society--must be respected.
May God, the Father of all, grant the human family by carefully
observing the principle of religious liberty in society may be brought
by the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit to that
"glorious freedom of the children of God" (Rom 8:21) which is sublime
and everlasting.
--Vatican II, Dignitatis humanae,(Declaration on Religious Liberty),December 7, 1965
Scriptures for reflection
John 4:21-24. Worship in spirit and truth.
Hebrews 8:10-12. "... they shall be my people."
Acts 17:22-34. Paul speaks to those who honor "an unknown god"
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1907, 2104-9, 2211, 1782, 1730-31, 1738
For this intercession we can ask the intercession of Our Lady,
Queen of Peace, and Saint Francis of Assisi, who prayed "Lord, make me
an instrument of your peace."
July 2000 Mission Intention
That all those who are tried by sickness and loneliness may offer their suffering with Christ for the conversion of the world
Patron Saint for July
St. Benedict Abbot July 11
Commonly known as the father of Western monasticism, Benedict was born at Nursia, Italy around 480 AD. At a young age, he retreated to the mountain at Subiaco to live the life of a hermit, in penance and prayer. There he was taught Christian asceticism by St. Romanus, a solitary, who lived nearby.
Soon word of his sanctity spread, and he attracted large numbers of followers, for whom he built monasteries. His followers lived in community under a monastic rule. He left Subiaco to go to Monte Cassino, and founded the great Abbey there which later became an important center of European religious life. He is especially remembered today for his famous "Rule of Life" which he wrote. This "Rule" is still in use by many monastic religious orders today.
His sister, St. Scholastica, became the first Benedictine nun. She became the abbess for a monastery of nuns near Monte Cassino. St. Benedict died March 21,543 immediately after receiving the eucharist. He is the patron saint of poison sufferers, farm workers, monks, also for kidney and inflamatory diseases, and by school children.
prayer: Almighty Father, by the intercession of St.Benedict, founder of Western monasticism, may we come to lose all desire for material posessions of this world, living a life of simplicity and service to others, in harmony with Your holy will. Amen
Featured Website for July
Catholic Doors Ministry http://www.catholicdoors.com
Catholic Doors Ministry is a site full of good Catholic information and resources. It operates from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. The Director of the Catholic Doors Ministry is Father Maurice Levesque, a Roman Catholic Diocesan priest of Saskatoon. The website features Catholic: - prayers
- prayer requests
- bible studies
- homilies
- graphics
- music
- religious postcards you can email to a friend
- chat
- forums
- and much more!
Definitely --Worth the click!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To view past issues of Catholic Reflections 2000, please visit our archives. Click here to enter ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Image of St.Benedict used with kind permission from Catholic Saints(Catholic Pics)
Image of the Holy Family used with kind permission from Catholic Doors Ministry
�2000 eCatholic/2000 all rights reservr>
|