Ave Maria!

Among the topics in this episode, Corinn and her guests give a historical overview of the Connecticut Pro-Life movement and discuss how, prior to Roe vs. Wade, this was the strongest pro-life state in the nation. In 1829, it was the first state in the country to pass a pro-life law protecting the “unborn child” (so stated in the law) from the point of quickening (approximately half-way through the pregnancy) to birth. This law was implemented in all states and augmented by the AMA (American Medical Association) in the 1850s, when scientific evidence demonstrated that the unborn child was a human being from the moment of conception.

Corinn also notes that as various states today have been successfully passing traditional marriage legislation, a similar movement was afield in the early 1970s when states were passing a wave of abortion bans, all of which were ultimately struck down by Roe vs. Wade. (May God spare us from repeating such a disaster.)

The panel also discusses the sexualizing of our third and fourth-grade children with a scandalous book written by a Planned Parenthood executive entitled “It’s Perfectly Normal”. [Note: If your child is in public schooling, be aware of what is being taught to them!!! Please get involved with their education!]

Corinn and her guests also put out a call to pro-lifers to join their local town committees, which is were politics and educational decision-making begins.

Ave Maria!

The post Video – Face of Pro-Life #8: History of CT Pro-Life & Scandalizing Our School Children first appeared on AirMaria.com.

The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator. It has always been a source of great joy to them, even though it sometimes entails many difficulties and hardships.

The fulfillment of this duty has always posed problems to the conscience of married people, but the recent course of human society and the concomitant changes have provoked new questions. The Church cannot ignore these questions, for they concern matters intimately connected with the life and happiness of human beings.

Faithfulness to God’s Design

13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred?all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.”

Consequences of Artificial Methods

17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings?and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation?need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

The post July 25th: The Anniversary of a Prophetic Encyclical first appeared on AirMaria.com.

IVF:? Part Three

(Part Two here)

“The Lord called me from birth:
from my mother’s womb
he gave me my name.”? (Isaiah 49: 1-6)

What’s the big deal? Have we not advanced to the point of making babies in lab dishes, so everyone can be a proud parent? I recall reading one woman’s indignation, demanding to know why the Pope did not want her to have a baby. You know some alert theologian could have jumped in at that time and presented the rock-bottom truth of our faith that, evil may not be done, even to secure some perceived good.

Some physicians have, as noted above, ethical concerns about all of this and have decided not to implant more than four embryos. This would supposedly reduce the risk of having to abort so many. “Four is the limit recommended by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine for women aged 35 to 40, although it will accept five for women older than that.”[i] Other doctors wonder if the woman has the right to expose babies in multiple pregnancies to future medical problems (and the studies continue to mount from all over the world about fetal abnormalities from IVF: birth defects, mental retardation, behavior disorders, etc.) What a high degree of “ethics” by the society above – don’t kill more than four! As opposed to “moral”, “ethical” is a nice semantic term you can take all over the place. Others express “distaste” about “reducing;” read that: uneasy.

How in the world did we get here? We got here because God’s authority continues to be completely rejected. There is societal indifference to what goes on, a disinterest in anything which does not directly affect me and my lifestyle. Is IVF more nuclear fall-out from abortion? That is one answer but incomplete; it is not the whole story. The key element was synthetic birth prevention. And, contrary to the ardent feminist denial of the facts, from the outset abortion became “backup contraception”. I remember the 60’s. I remember the triumph when the birth control pill was introduced to the world. The “women’s liberation” movement’s first plank then and now is equality is impossible without abortion. With the pill, they were jubilant. The pill would release forever a woman’s responsibility for the conception and nurturing of offspring.

Once procreation was separated from the conjugal act, the whole bowl of wax began to unfold. Pandora’s Box was shattered, freeing the evils that would bedevil mankind. Late-term pregnancy abortions gradually were accepted and are now de rigueur in certain clinics. With IVF we have arrived in contemporary America and the new world order at, to name a few: “make your own baby”, including “fetal reduction,” delayed motherhood, surrogate mothering, embryo transfer (moved embryo from one women to another), storage problems of half a million frozen embryos (90% of which do not survive their ice age,) “extra” embryos to be harvested as extra body parts; insurance coverage in many states; support groups for mothers who reduce; designer children; sex selection of children (banned in some countries;) “money-back” guarantees (frowned on by some meds); recruiters on college campuses for eggs/sperm donors (some provide photos of donors’ eyes, ears, etc., not to omit glowing intellectual and medical histories;) anonymous (drive-by) sperm donors; sperm banks; egg banks; egg donor ads, running regularly in daily newspapers, and on the Internet (“Apply on line to become an egg donor.”); the Yellow Pages; donor marketing agencies; serious medical complications from “hyper-stimulation” of ovaries to secure eggs; screening of embryos to avoid genetic hazards; cloning; cloning of human beings with other species, and on and on ad infinitum. By the by, “donors” are usually paid handsomely for selling their bodily wares. Some profess to do this for altruistic motives, to assist the childless. However, the very real probability that embryos will die or be eliminated makes that assertion of nobility something of an oxymoron.

Less I be accused of exaggeration, the above are facts gleaned from an enormous supply of material on the whole subject of IVF. At one library I pulled up relevant book lists; there were 39 under the heading of IVF. The internet is endless in its offerings of such material. Newspapers, journals are getting into this curious and controversial story, so fraught with extremes – sensationalism at its most provocative. A sub-plot showed up recently on the television series E.R., when several children gathered to meet their slightly abashed doctor “father”. Some of the “diaries,” books/journals describing a woman’s complete IVF experience, are often crude, discouraging the reader from pursuing the story line. To draw quotes from these would render their authors more attention.

Crudity is so common in our country we barely notice the daily bombardment and degradation. Subjects unmentionable are discussed casually on television at any hour. Disrobing has become an art form. In a doctor’s office recently, I saw the image of a full-term, pregnant, nude woman displayed on the cover of Newsweek (12/10/07). It was so blatantly bad–this image, casually available on the clinic coffee table. Such presentations utterly deprive women of any dignity whatsoever, pregnancy a public exposure of the most prurient type. There will be no reaction from our jaded culture. (Some maternity stores this season were displaying scanty bathing suits for advanced pregnancy.) To the more morally alert, it is just one more outrage, an execrable example of depraved media. It reminds you of the judge in the parable who “respected neither God nor man.” The result: We are all stricken with some kind of mental paralysis as we try to go about living in trendy America. We are numb. This is a kind of protective shield. How many shocks a day can an individual stand? We can’t – we don’t — ask anymore, what is next? There is no refuge to escape the panoply.

After spending several weeks on this essay, and reading more about IVF and affiliated horrors than I imagined at the beginning, I have come to the conclusion expressed well by Judy Brown of American Life League, the entire process must be outlawed, by legislatures, and if there is any dignity, integrity left in our courts, there too. We have created a monster, fulfilling what Pope Benedict anticipated and feared when he wrote Donum Vitae. Thank God, the church is always ahead of the movement of societal cultures – The gift to us Roman Catholics as well as to the world. On February 1, 2008, Pope Benedict said the following: “When human beings in the weakest and most defenseless state of their existence are selected, aborted, killed or used as pure ?biological material,’ how can it be denied that they are no longer… ?someone but something.'”[ii] This is food for thought in our over-hurried world – a world according to John Paul II with an over emphasis on “efficiency.”

[iii] reported an internet site which

Donor Sibling Registry Logo

Where are we going? What is next? The Fort Worth Star Telegram “connects children born from the same eggs or sperm.” In other words, the searcher endeavors to learn how many half-brothers and sisters he has out there somewhere – and their common sperm donor. A “Donor Sibling Registry” was established in 2000; about 19,000 people posted personal details; About 4,700 matches were found. People, the article tells us, are startled by the looks of strange children at the park sand lot, who look so much like their own child. In one search it was discovered that a single donor had sired more than 100 kids. I leave it to the imagination of the reader to follow this news into the future… Obviously there is a yawning distance between adopting a newborn infant, and utilizing an anonymous egg/sperm. As Abraham responded to the rich man seeking help from the poor Lazarus, between us there is a great chasm, so that we cannot cross over to your side.

In the last few months I have been removing stones from one of the flower gardens here in New England – stones tossed there by the builder, which prevent any flowers from taking real root. There are also roots to detach. It is hard work, though satisfying, but not complete because new dirt has to be inserted in the gaping holes. It reminds me of the indescribable lies, distortions and omissions thrown at our whole culture, the evils now so pronounced as to make it impossible for most to accept the truth about God and life. The garden is full of rocks, with long-running roots. It has been made infertile and must be cleansed and then replanted. Christ warned us that once evil is dismissed, care must be taken lest new and worse devils enter in. What is next?

The paucity of truth! What is it? “I AM the way, the truth and the life” says the Lord. American Heritage defines truth as “conformity to knowledge, fact or actuality; veracity.” The media appears to define truth through interviews (e.g., opinion); varied reports from random sources and those which are politically correct. Thus the opportunity for truth has been circumscribed. As evidenced by the prominence of IVF acceptance, the anti-Christ forces are masters of distortion. Dr. Leon Kass describes present day scientism as “soul-less”, which he says is an effort to reduce all questions of human life to the “purely material.”[iv]

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us, now and at the hour of our death!

[ii] Life Site News: from Catholic Online International News

[iii] Fort Worth Star Telegram, 3/23/08

[iv] Life Site News; 11/7/07, from a Manhattan Institute lecture

The post The Dry Wood – Hilda Nicolosi – Paring Down the Human Race: In Vitro Breeding – Part 3/3 first appeared on AirMaria.com.

Today marks 700 years since the death of Bl. John Duns Scotus, The Marian Doctor

Who is Blessed John Duns Scotus?

John Duns Scotus, described by Pope Paul VI as “the perfector” of St. Bonaventure and “the most

distinguished representative” of the Franciscan School, was born towards the end of 1265 or at the beginning of 1266 in the little village of Duns in southern Scotland. From his earliest years, he received a good formation from his Catholic family.

A pious tradition relates that he loved to study, and earnestly desired to apprehend the truths of the faith. But in spite of his good will, his progress at school was slow: little John was just not blessed with particularly acute intelligence. With simplicity and confidence the boy appealed to Our Blessed Lady, the Mother and Dispensatrix of all graces, and beseeched Her to supply for what was wanting in his intellectual capacity. Our Lady heard his prayer, and from then on, John astonished his companions and teachers with his acute ability to understand and to learn. Later, the celebrated Franciscan historian Wadding would write of him: “During his adolescence Scotus was so brilliant in his study of letters that he surpassed the powers of man and the limits of nature, thus showing the particular gifts which he had received from God through the intercession of the Immaculate, who had appeared to him.” In his subsequent career, Blessed John would put his “particular gifts” to good use in the service of his most generous and lovable Mother and Patroness.

John’s uncle, Fr. Elias Duns, was Father Guardian of the Franciscan friary at Dumfries. Discerning his vocation to religious life, John followed his uncle and received the Franciscan habit as a novice in approximately 1280. At some point, John was sent to England to continue his studies, probably at Northampton and Oxford. It is thought that he was a student for a while of the famous Master, William of Ware. On 17^th March, 1291, John was ordained a priest by Bishop Oliver Sutton of Lincoln. He was 25 years old. Between 1293 and 1297, he studied theology at Paris. He then returned to England to pursue higher theological studies at Oxford.

On Christmas Eve in 1299 at the friary in Oxford, John received another special grace from God. While immersed in the contemplation of the mystery of the Incarnation, Our Lady appeared to him and placed Her Infant Son in his arms. This event must surely have had an important impact on the development of John’s thought about the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word.

In 1300 in Oxford, John began his first commentary on the Sentences of the Master, Peter Lombard. He was sent to Paris in 1302 to continue his studies, but his stay there was to be short lived, because in June of 1303 he was forced to flee the city with a number of other friars on account of his allegiance to the Holy Father in a dispute between Pope Boniface VIII and the King of France, Philip the Fair. This gesture of uncompromising obedience to the Supreme Pontiff on the part of our Blessed is perfectly in accord with the admirable spirit of obedience and faith that permeates all his theological writings.

Between 1303 and 1304 Blessed John taught at the University of Oxford, and it was there that he wrote his masterpiece, the Opus Oxoniense, or Ordinatio, as it is now more commonly known. John was soon able to return to Paris, and, after enthusiastic recommendation by the Minister General of the Friars Minor, Fr. Gonsalvus of Spain, once a professor at Paris, he was awarded a doctorate in theology. After a further short period at Oxford, John return once again to Paris. According to the testimony of one of Scotus’ disciples, William of Alnwick, it was during this last period that the great theologian spent in Paris that he wrote his Quodlibetum.

But the most celebrated event connected with the great Franciscan Doctor at Paris is the famous dispute which he conducted in defence of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. According to an ancient and constant Franciscan tradition, Blessed John defended the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in front of the entire academic corpus of the Sorbonne University of Paris. At that time, on the basis of the thought of famous theologians such as St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure, the University of Paris was quite opposed to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It is related that, prior to the debate, Blessed John, passing before a stone statue of Our Lady, paused for a few moments, and then humbly offered up the following heartfelt prayer: “Allow me to praise you, O most holy Virgin; give me strength against your enemies.” The head of the statue moved, bowing a little before the Blessed, as if to reassure him that his proposed defence of the Immaculist thesis was indeed according to God’s will and that Our Lady would accompany her faithful servant with her special help and protection. When the moment of the debate arrived, John illustrated the truth of the Immaculate Conception with such brilliance and acumen that the assembled members of the academic staff could not refrain from crying out in unison, “Scotus has won!” This victory of our Blessed was so decisive, in fact, that the University of Paris subsequently became a convinced supporter of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

On 25 October 1307, responding promptly to the expressed wishes of his superiors, Scotus departed for Cologne in Germany to oppose the errors of the Beghards, whose pseudo-mysticism was on the rise in the Rhineland. There he died on 8 November 1308, at the young age of 43.

According to an ancient tradition, Scotus died while defending the Mother of God in a debate. He surrendered his pure soul to God, worn out by fatigue and penance, but victorious in the love and truth of God, whom he had always served so well.

After his death, Blessed John was almost immediately styled “blessed” in popular devotion. His cult was widespread in Europe until the times of the Reformation. Today, his body is venerated in the historic church of the Holy Cross, in the care of the Franciscans, at Cologne in Germany. The honour shown him through the centuries for his holiness of life was officially confirmed on 20 March 1993 by the Servant of God, John Paul II, who enrolled him among the Blessed of the Roman Catholic Church.

The post News – 7th Centenary of Death of Bl. John Duns Scotus first appeared on AirMaria.com.

Instruction “Dignitas personæ“

on some bioethical questions

Introduction

1. The dignity of a person must be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death. This fundamental principle expresses a great “yes” to human life and must be at the center of ethical reflection on biomedical research, which has an ever greater importance in today’s world. The Church’s Magisterium has frequently intervened to clarify and resolve moral questions in this area. The Instruction Donum vitae was particularly significant. And now, twenty years after its publication, it is appropriate to bring it up to date.

The teaching of Donum vitae remains completely valid, both with regard to the principles on which it is based and the moral evaluations which it expresses. However, new biomedical technologies which have been introduced in the critical area of human life and the family have given rise to further questions, in particular in the field of research on human embryos, the use of stem cells for therapeutic purposes, as well as in other areas of experimental medicine. These new questions require answers.

http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Dignitas_Personae.pdf

The post Instruction “Dignitas personæ” first appeared on AirMaria.com.

Father Powell puts his finger on the fear of many Catholics to speak the truth in the face of Protestant objections: “That we would flinch from speaking the truth because some might misunderstand simply means that we fear a negative response from our ecumenical partners.” I find this very true, for example, when discussing the meaning of the term “coredemption.” Many of the Catholic objectors to the dogma say that “coredemption” is an inherently confusing term because of the various ways in which “co-” can be used as a prefix. In English it means generally, as Father Powell points out, “with” and “equal to,” which is not the case in Latin. The point is that, yes, the term needs to be explained, but so what? Why don’t we just explain it?

A very similar problem arises from the use of the term “Mother of God.” Many “Bible Christians” think that the Catholic teaching on this point makes Mary equal to God; however, the problem is not that the term is inherently ambiguous, but that the explanation has either not been heard or has not been accepted, even though the term has been adequately explained by Catholics since the Council of Ephesus in 431. I do not think the fundamental problem here is deeply theological. On the contrary, it is a superficial assumption based on the bias that Catholic doctrine is anti-biblical and man made. Unfortunately, some Catholics seems to share this bias.

Father Powell also points out that Protestants have themselves felt free to unilaterally redefine Christian teaching, as the Anglicans have with respect to contraception and abortion:

The objection that the proposed fifth Marian dogma will damage ecumenical relations seems somewhat dubious in the harsh light of the ecclesial reality dropped into our Catholic laps without our consultation. Why this sudden need for Protestant approval of Catholic teaching?

Father Powell’s reply to this second objection is particularly outstanding where he points out the fear among astute Catholics of being tagged as “theologically unsophisticated”:

My guess is that this objection is really more about a certain sort of generational embarrassment with Marian dogma and devotion in general and rests on the need of some in the Church to please those they feel are more theologically sophisticated. How am I supposed to show my Catholic face at the next meeting of the American Academy of Religion when all of my more enlightened Protestant colleagues from Harvard and Yale know we silly Catholics have infallibly declared that Mary is Co-Redemptrix? How embarrassing! Such individuals are left with the choice of defending what appears to be another exercise of raw papal power and earning the pity of their more progressive betters or rejecting the dogma and winning the accolades of their more enlightened colleagues. Guess which one they choose over and over again.

In my opinion, some of the most basic reasons for Catholic hesitancy to defend Marian coredemption have more to do with cultural and social assumptions than they do to any fundamental theological problems. It seems to me that I have never really heard a “Catholic” reason for not defining the dogma. All the objections are essentially Protestant.

I do think it needs to be pointed out, however, that the contemporary controversy runs deeper than merely arguing over whether the Virgin’s free consent at the Annunciation can be in any way construed to have contributed to our redemption. Protestants and the Catholic objectors generally know that the content of the doctrine connotes more than that. In fact, Father Powell indicates that this is so at the beginning of his post when he defines very simply the meaning of Coredemprix:

. . .[T]he Holy Father is being asked to declare solemnly and infallibly that the Blessed Virgin Mary is a co-worker in the redemption of mankind through her initial assent to be the mother of God and through her suffering with Christ as he dies on the cross. [emphasis mine.]

But when Father Powell goes on to explain how Mary is Coredemptrix with Christ he does not mention how it is that She is His “co-worker . . . through her suffering with Christ as he dies on the cross”:

. . . Assuming Mary’s freedom to accept or reject Gabriel’s call to become the Mother of God, we can see that Mary’s assent made it possible for the second Person of the Blessed Trinity to become man—a step necessary in for the universal efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Without her consent, the Son would have not been incarnated. You might object here and say that Gabriel could have accepted her no and moved on to another woman with the same invitation. This is purely speculative, of course, but had he done so, any woman who said yes would be our spiritual mother and worthy of the title “Co-Redemptrix.”

The problem here is that no other woman was immaculately conceived or could be called the Immaculate Conception. Even if the objection Father Powell here answers is purely speculative, it needs to be pointed out that no other woman other than Mary was predestined by God to be His Mother. Only one is immaculately conceived, and only one is predestined to cooperate in this unique way in His plan.

St. Maximilian Kolbe, for example, points out that neither Adam, nor Eve, nor anyone else but Mary could be addressed with the title of Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception is a prerogative that belongs to Mary alone by virtue of an eternal predestination.  Both the dogmatic declarations defining the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption refer to the joint predestination of Jesus and Mary in the divine plan. Here are the corresponding passages from the respective apostolic constitutions:

And hence the very words with which the Sacred Scriptures speak of Uncreated Wisdom and set forth his eternal origin, the Church, both in its ecclesiastical offices and in its liturgy, has been wont to apply likewise to the origin of the Blessed Virgin, inasmuch as God, by one and the same decree, had established the origin of Mary and the Incarnation of Divine Wisdom (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, Apostolic Constitution defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, emphasis mine).

Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences . . . (Pope Pius XII, Munifentissimus Deus, Apostolic Constitution defining the dogma of the Assumption, emphasis mine).

So while one might speculate on the great mystery of the Virgin’s perfect freedom and how it was that God made so much contingent upon Her free cooperation, we still must affirm that there is much more unique about this one woman than that She happened to say “yes” as opposed to “no.”

I mention this because understanding it will help us appreciate that the free cooperation of the Virgin in the mystery of our redemption is extended to the foot of the cross. By virtue of Her predestination with Christ, Mary does contribute to our redemption “through her suffering with Christ as he dies on the cross.”

In fact, prior to the Second Vatican Council among theologians and during its sessions among the council fathers, when the question of coredemption was being debated, the doctrine was understood  not only to include, but to primarily refer to Mary’s compassion at the foot of the cross. Our Lady’s suffering was argued to have been coordinated with that of Her Son, not as the sufficient cause of our redemption, but as the predestined coefficient of His work.

In the Franciscan school, the argument for this would be similar to that of Duns Scotus for the Immaculate Conception. Both are based on the joint predestination of Jesus and Mary. Scotus argued that preservative redemption (complete freedom from original sin—Immaculate Conception) not only takes nothing away from the dignity of the Redeemer, but exalts it incomparably more than liberative redemption (the washing away of original sin already contracted). So in the same way, that one should be able to cooperate effectively in the very act of redemption, not only takes nothing away from the merit of the One Mediator, but exalts it incomparably more than would be the case otherwise. This is because Mary’s unique power is based on the fact that She has been redeemed in an incomparably more perfect way than anyone else. She is Coredemptrix because She is the perfect fruit of a perfect redemption.

Whether one buys this argument or not, it should be noted that our Protestant brethren object to the doctrine of the coredemption due of their understanding of the one mediation of Christ. That mediation takes place principally on the cross and it is there that the coredemption is primarily posited.

Again, upon close examination of this question it becomes apparent that the only objections against coredemption are Protestant. They will be the same ones that are used to reject tradition, the sacramental order, the priesthood and good works. Either we can cooperate with Christ or we cannot. And if we can, then it should not be hard to understand how the predestined Mother of God, prepared before hand by her Immaculate Conception, gives God a glory greater than which cannot be conceived by Her free and effective cooperation at the foot of the cross.

I would concur with Father Powell that the Catholic understanding of our own cooperation in the work of redemption reveals a logic consistent with that of the Coredemption.

In all of her titles, Mary is understood to be the perfected form of a human response to God’s invitation to live in union with Him in eternity (CCC 967-70). So, in every sense, we all participate in an imperfect way in all of Mary’s titles. We all mediate God’s grace to others—what are the corporeal works of mercy but our human use of divine gifts for the benefit of others? We all give birth to the Word made flesh—what is Eucharistic communion but the taking in of Christ so that we might become more and more the Word given flesh? We are all “co-operators” (operators with) God’s will for us when we assent to and make good use of His gifts for others (CCC 1996-2000).

What I would further point out is that this logic is consistent with the coredemption because the Mother of God stands in the first place (in primis from the Roman Canon) in the matter of that cooperation which is accomplished at the consummation of the mystery of redemption at the foot of the cross.

The post Insights into the Coredemption first appeared on AirMaria.com.

Homily #100211 ( 10min) Play – On this feast of Our Lady of Lourdes Fr. Angelo makes the connection between the Annunciation where an angel appeared to Mary and the Apparition at Lourdes when Our Lady appears to St. Bernadette. Our Lady tells  Bernadette she is the Immaculate Conception which is just another way of saying what St Gabriel said to Mary, “Hail, Full of Grace”
Ave Maria! Apparition of Mary at Lourdes – Mass: EF, Vidi Civitatem Sanctam – Readings: 1st: rev 11:19-12:1, 10 – Gsp: luk 1:26-31

Audio (MP3)

+++

The post Feb 11 – Homily – Fr Angelo: Lourdes and the Annunciation first appeared on AirMaria.com.

Marycast #122 ( 10min) Play – “I am the Immaculate Conception.” Dr. Mark Miravalle explains how these words which Our Lady spoke in her apparition at Lourdes, France in 1854 are relevant to our life today especially in dealing with suffering.

To ask questions regarding Mary, email Dr Mark Miravalle: marycast@airmaria.com

Ave Maria!

Audio (MP3)

+++

The post Video – Our Lady of Lourdes Today Part II – Dr. Miravalle: Mcast122 first appeared on AirMaria.com.

MaryCast Specials #66 ( 09min) Play – Mark Miravalle asks us to defend Pope Benedict and pray for the declaration of the Fifth Marian Dogma, relating Pope Benedict’s persecution to that of Jesus. He points out that it was not until Pope Pius IX was similarly persecuted and had to flee for his life from Rome in 1848 that he declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. The Papacy then enjoyed over a century of growing prestige. Yes, let us pray for this!!

To ask questions regarding Mary, email Dr Mark Miravalle: marycast@airmaria.com

Ave Maria!

Audio (MP3)

+++

The post Video – Defend Pope Benedict & Fifth Marian Dogma pt1 – Dr. Miravalle: Mcasts66 first appeared on AirMaria.com.

MaryCast Specials #67 ( 07min) Play – Mark Miravalle continues from his previous video where he asks us to defend Pope Benedict and pray for the declaration of the Fifth Marian Dogma, Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate.  He notes how it was in a time of life threatening crisis that Pope Pius IX declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and how the Papacy then enjoyed over a century of growing prestige. Is it a coincidence, then, that as the persecution mounts against Pope Benedict he has started using the title “Mediatrix of Graces” for Mary. Yes, now is the time to pray for this declaration!!

To ask questions regarding Mary, email Dr Mark Miravalle: marycast@airmaria.com

Ave Maria!

Audio (MP3)

+++

The post Video – Defend Pope Benedict & Fifth Marian Dogma pt2- Dr. Miravalle: Mcasts67 first appeared on AirMaria.com.