Cliquez sur le lien pour le sermon en audio:
2 careme 2012
lundi, mars 05, 2012
dimanche, mars 04, 2012
Sermon pour le 2e dimanche de Careme
Après nous avoir rappeler la necessité de la charité, il y a deux semaines, Saint Paul nous entretient aujourd’hui des exigences de la vie chrétienne: “Ce que Dieu veut, c'est votre sanctification; c'est que vous vous absteniez du péché de la chair; c'est que chacun de vous sache posséder son corps dans la sainteté et l'honnêteté, sans vous livrer à une convoitise passionnée, comme font les païens qui ne connaissent pas Dieu.”
L'impureté, nous dit saint Jean Chrysostome, est, pour tous, un mal pernicieux. Et il ajoute qu’il est difficile de se laver de cette souillure. C’est pour cela qu’il vaut mieux prévenir que guérir et tacher avec la grâce de Dieu de nous préserver de toute souillure de l’âme et du corps. Nous demandions dans la collecte de la messe hier que la grâce divine nous prévienne et nous suive afin que chacune de nos oeuvres commence et finisse par Lui. Il s’agit bien là d’une intention générale que nous serions bien tous inspirés de renouveler chaque jour que Dieu fait. Cette intention est bien nécessaire afin de “marcher pour plaire à Dieu,” comme nous y invite saint Paul aujourd’hui. Plaire à Dieu ! Voilà bien la marque de ceux qui aiment vraiment ! Ceux là sont ceux qui ont compris l’évangile et qui lorsqu’ils servent leur Dieu et Seigneur, ne le font point pour en retirer un quelconque avantage, mais le font bien et simplement pour l’amour de Dieu.
“Il y a, pour la vertu, deux moments, nous dit encore saint Jean Chrysostome: se détourner du mal, et faire le bien. Il ne suffit pas de s'écarter des vices, pour arriver à la vertu; le chemin qui détourne du péché n'est que le commencement de la route qui conduit au bien; il faut, pour parvenir, l'ardeur de la bonne volonté. La conduite, en ce qui concerne les vices à éviter, n'est, leur dit l'apôtre, que l'obéissance aux préceptes, et il a raison, car les mauvaises actions attirent les châtiments, mais on ne mérite pas d'être loué, parce que l'on n'en commet pas.” Diverte a malo et fac bonum nous dit encore le Psaume 33: Evite le mal, detourne toi du mal et fais le bien!
L’experience nous montre d’ailleurs, hélas, que les chrétiens qui se contentent d’éviter le mal, ou du moins le péché mortel, ne persévèrent jamais longtemps dans leurs résolutions. On ne progressera pas dans la pratique de la charité si la pratique de la charité ne consiste qu’à ne pas pécher contre cette vertu. Que penseriez-vous d’un mari ou d’une femme qui se satisferait juste de ne pas faire de mal a son conjoint comme marque d’amour conjugal ? Certes on ne saurait l’en blamer, mais on est très loin de l’idéal du mariage dont on rêve lorsque l’on a 20 ans. Et bien des couples se voient menacer simplement par l’absence de gestes, d’intentions, de marques visibles et sensibles d’amour, ce qui rappelons le toutefois ne saurait constituer une excuse pour le divorce qui demeure un désordre moral. Mais la nature a ses exigences. Il en va de même de la la grâce, qui comme nous le rapelle saint Thomas, nous fait d’une certaine façon conjoint de Dieu.
Chrétiens, notre seul idéal de vie chrétienne ne consisterait-il qu’à éviter le péché mortel, au risque justement d’y tomber pour ne pas pratiquer la vertu comme il se doit pour nous qui connaissons Dieu ? Le temps du Carême, qui nous invite à une conversion plus profonde et plus sincère nous rappelle que cela ne saurait être suffisant. Oh bien sur, Jésus connait bien notre nature et nos faiblesses, Lui qui rappelait à ses Apotres, ceux là même qui étaient au Thabor avec Lui lors de sa Transfiguration, que si l’esprit est prompt en revanche la chair est faible. Voilà pourquoi il nous invite à veiller et à prier pour ne pas tomber en tentation. Car les tentations demeureront toujours en cette vie quoi que nous fassions. Et les tentations de la chair perdent un grand nombre d’âmes, celles là même qui ne possèdent pas leur corps à la manière des païens qui ne connaissent pas Dieu.
Le monde est pris dans un tourbillon de folie et prêche le plaisir sous toutes ses formes. Il nous fait croire, à grand renfort de medias et de pseudo psychologues, que le secret pour être pleinement épanoui et heureux est de se laisser aller à suivre nos passions et nos pulsions. C’est bien là une grande illusion et une grande victoire de Satan. Mais Jésus qui est la voie, la vie et la vérité nous dit tout autre chose. Que celui qui veut avoir la vie éternel garde mes commandements ! Que celui qui veut être mon disciple se renonce et porte sa croix ! Et j’ajouterais: Qu’il Lui offre son coeur ! Sursum corda. Mes bien cher frère, ne laissons pas nos coeurs s’endurcir, car cela constitue une menace pour nos corps. Regardez ! C’est à cause de la dureté de leurs coeurs que Moise a permis aux Hebreux de répudier leur femme et que Dieu a toleré pour un temps la polygamie. Apprendre à donner son coeur est un remède contre l’impureté, car il est bien plus facile de donner son corps que de donner son coeur.
L'impureté, nous dit saint Jean Chrysostome, est, pour tous, un mal pernicieux. Et il ajoute qu’il est difficile de se laver de cette souillure. C’est pour cela qu’il vaut mieux prévenir que guérir et tacher avec la grâce de Dieu de nous préserver de toute souillure de l’âme et du corps. Nous demandions dans la collecte de la messe hier que la grâce divine nous prévienne et nous suive afin que chacune de nos oeuvres commence et finisse par Lui. Il s’agit bien là d’une intention générale que nous serions bien tous inspirés de renouveler chaque jour que Dieu fait. Cette intention est bien nécessaire afin de “marcher pour plaire à Dieu,” comme nous y invite saint Paul aujourd’hui. Plaire à Dieu ! Voilà bien la marque de ceux qui aiment vraiment ! Ceux là sont ceux qui ont compris l’évangile et qui lorsqu’ils servent leur Dieu et Seigneur, ne le font point pour en retirer un quelconque avantage, mais le font bien et simplement pour l’amour de Dieu.
“Il y a, pour la vertu, deux moments, nous dit encore saint Jean Chrysostome: se détourner du mal, et faire le bien. Il ne suffit pas de s'écarter des vices, pour arriver à la vertu; le chemin qui détourne du péché n'est que le commencement de la route qui conduit au bien; il faut, pour parvenir, l'ardeur de la bonne volonté. La conduite, en ce qui concerne les vices à éviter, n'est, leur dit l'apôtre, que l'obéissance aux préceptes, et il a raison, car les mauvaises actions attirent les châtiments, mais on ne mérite pas d'être loué, parce que l'on n'en commet pas.” Diverte a malo et fac bonum nous dit encore le Psaume 33: Evite le mal, detourne toi du mal et fais le bien!
L’experience nous montre d’ailleurs, hélas, que les chrétiens qui se contentent d’éviter le mal, ou du moins le péché mortel, ne persévèrent jamais longtemps dans leurs résolutions. On ne progressera pas dans la pratique de la charité si la pratique de la charité ne consiste qu’à ne pas pécher contre cette vertu. Que penseriez-vous d’un mari ou d’une femme qui se satisferait juste de ne pas faire de mal a son conjoint comme marque d’amour conjugal ? Certes on ne saurait l’en blamer, mais on est très loin de l’idéal du mariage dont on rêve lorsque l’on a 20 ans. Et bien des couples se voient menacer simplement par l’absence de gestes, d’intentions, de marques visibles et sensibles d’amour, ce qui rappelons le toutefois ne saurait constituer une excuse pour le divorce qui demeure un désordre moral. Mais la nature a ses exigences. Il en va de même de la la grâce, qui comme nous le rapelle saint Thomas, nous fait d’une certaine façon conjoint de Dieu.
Chrétiens, notre seul idéal de vie chrétienne ne consisterait-il qu’à éviter le péché mortel, au risque justement d’y tomber pour ne pas pratiquer la vertu comme il se doit pour nous qui connaissons Dieu ? Le temps du Carême, qui nous invite à une conversion plus profonde et plus sincère nous rappelle que cela ne saurait être suffisant. Oh bien sur, Jésus connait bien notre nature et nos faiblesses, Lui qui rappelait à ses Apotres, ceux là même qui étaient au Thabor avec Lui lors de sa Transfiguration, que si l’esprit est prompt en revanche la chair est faible. Voilà pourquoi il nous invite à veiller et à prier pour ne pas tomber en tentation. Car les tentations demeureront toujours en cette vie quoi que nous fassions. Et les tentations de la chair perdent un grand nombre d’âmes, celles là même qui ne possèdent pas leur corps à la manière des païens qui ne connaissent pas Dieu.
Le monde est pris dans un tourbillon de folie et prêche le plaisir sous toutes ses formes. Il nous fait croire, à grand renfort de medias et de pseudo psychologues, que le secret pour être pleinement épanoui et heureux est de se laisser aller à suivre nos passions et nos pulsions. C’est bien là une grande illusion et une grande victoire de Satan. Mais Jésus qui est la voie, la vie et la vérité nous dit tout autre chose. Que celui qui veut avoir la vie éternel garde mes commandements ! Que celui qui veut être mon disciple se renonce et porte sa croix ! Et j’ajouterais: Qu’il Lui offre son coeur ! Sursum corda. Mes bien cher frère, ne laissons pas nos coeurs s’endurcir, car cela constitue une menace pour nos corps. Regardez ! C’est à cause de la dureté de leurs coeurs que Moise a permis aux Hebreux de répudier leur femme et que Dieu a toleré pour un temps la polygamie. Apprendre à donner son coeur est un remède contre l’impureté, car il est bien plus facile de donner son corps que de donner son coeur.
dimanche, février 19, 2012
Sermon pour la Quinquagésime
C’est le grande hymne à la charité que l’Eglise propose à notre meditation en ce dimanche de la Quinquagesime. Saint Paul nous dit que la charité ne passera jamais. “Qu’est-ce-que-cela veut dire,” s’interroge André Comte Sponville. “Tout le monde a entendu ce texte dix fois sans se poser la question. Heureusement, un jour Saint Augustin en relisant peut-être pour la centième fois ce texte se demande: qu'est-ce-que ça veut dire: tout le reste passera, la charité seule ne passera pas? Est-ce-que ça veut dire que la foi passera? Est-ce-que ça veut dire que l'espérance passera?”
André Comte Sponville se définissait comme un athée fidèle. D’autres ont vu en lui un chrétien athée. Il n’avait certainement pas la foi, pourtant les mots de l’Apotre l’ont touché. Et s’il faut nous garder de l’imiter dans son athéisme, peut être devrions-nous nous laisser toucher par les mots de Saint Paul afin que nous ne devenions pas à des cymbales retentissantes et que notre foi ne demeure vaine et stérile. Pour Comte Sponville, le Royaume de Dieu est un royaume séculaire, car il n’y a justement pas de Dieu. Selon lui, dans ce royaume, il n’y a rien à croire ni à espérer puisque “tout est à faire et à espérer. A faire pour ce qui dépend de nous et à aimer pour ce qui n'en dépend pas. Dès lors que nous sommes ici et maintenant dans le royaume, la question de savoir si ce royaume continue ou pas après la mort est une question dérisoire qui n'a d'importance qu'à proportion de l'intérêt narcissique que nous lui prêtons, au point que je mesure le degré d'élévation spirituelle d'un individu à l'indifférence plus ou moins grande où le laisse cette question.”
Il y a une certaine noblesse dans ces propos et dans cette vision d’un athée, et nous ferions bien de nous en inspirer, chrétiens qui avons recu la foi. Certes, au ciel, il n’y aura plus rien à croire puisque nous verrons et plus rien à espérer puisque nous aurons. Mais ici bas, nous devons vivre de la foi et espérer au delà de toute espérance, sans négliger la charité sans laquelle tout demeurerait vain. Et nous savons que nous pouvons perdre encore ce que nous avons déjà ou espérons encore, parce que rien n’est définitif en cette vie, pas même la vie. Il s’ensuit alors une grande tristesse, qui pour les uns pourra mener au desespoir - de l’absence d’espérance au desespoir, il n’y à qu’un pas - et qui pour d’autres pourra devenir un chemin de rédemption. Dans les deux cas, cela ne se fera pas sans souffrance et cette souffrance sera soit destructive soit rédemptrice. C’est là toute la différence entre un Juda et un Saint Pierre! Mais sans aller jusqu’à ces cas extrêmes, nous devons dire que c’est notre lot en cette vallée de larmes.
Mes frères, il est dans la nature même de l’amour de faire souffrir. Entendez bien que nous parlons de l’amour en notre présente condition, après la chute originelle! Car l’amour en soi est bien au contraire source de joie. Mais ce n’est qu’au ciel que l’amour, qui ne passera pas, ne sera plus que joie. Ici bas il nous faut aimer dans la douleur, et c’est peut être pour cela que peu savent aimer, car peu acceptent la douleur. L’amour est crucifiant! Et Dieu qui est amour s’est fait homme, pour être crucifier par amour! Nous ne comprendrions absolument rien à notre religion si nous n’acceptons pas ce message de l’evangile: le message d’un Dieu fait homme qui meurt par amour sur une croix. Voila pourquoi le grand saint Paul n’a voulu connaitre et prêcher que Jésus Christ et Jésus Christ crucifié!
dimanche, décembre 04, 2011
Vertebras and Shellfishes
Report from the Chronicles of the Fortress of Heaven
When Captain Hugues de Beautrad from the Alpine troops arrived in
Solvanie, a French Province lost in the Mountains of the East and far from the Métropole, to take his command, he already knew the region, as he had served there as a young lieutenant several years before. But he did not know that Providence would soon make him the “Governor” of what was left of the western civilization. A few months after his arrival, the decree of a state of emergency put him at the head of the last bastion which resisted the global anarchy that followed the fall of the West. Deprived of means of communication, cut off from the rest of the world, the young Governor, heir of his predecessors of the seventeenth century, carried out his mission, which was to maintain and to save what could be saved.
Baudoin Forjoucq invites us, in his two books that form the Chronicles of the Fortress of Heaven, to follow the young officer. In the first volume, Twenty-one Steps of Black Marble, we discover the fortress of Saint Romuald in the imaginary Province of Solvanie, where the young Lieutenant meets with the tough reality of the field in a difficult social and cultural context. In the second volume, The Duke of the Apocalypse, Captain de Beautrad and his men try to maintain what is left of our civilization. To help him in his task, he can count on his friend, Father Mounot, alias “the captain of the Angels,” the young Pastor who reestablished the old liturgy of the Church in his parish at the ends of the earth. The prayers of the Benedictine monks of Bédonic, led by their Abbot, Dom Mayeul, will appear soon to be of crucial importance. It is simply the harmony of many centuries of Christendom, when the temporal order meets the spiritual order, which the warriors of the last times will preserve against all odds.
But is this book really a fiction? In fact, Baudoin Forjoucq affirms that the men described in his book truly exist, which I have no doubt. “This book is also a story of men and of virile friendship, also a love story, a story of these selfless sentiments that many people have forgotten nowadays,” he says. It is a book for those who “love the one who stands while others snigger or give up.” It is a book for those who believe that “the silence of a cloister is filled,” for those who are “attracted by the wide horizons,” or those who “know how to be moved by the look of a young woman whose words are neat.”
It is a book dedicated to the soldiers, to those who gave up their ambitions to serve their country, to those who still believe in our civilization, and, finally, to “the Benedictine monks, soldiers of heaven and roots of the West,” who offered the author hospitality to write his book. I would recommend you to read this book if there were not a little problem: it is only in French! Nevertheless, I translated a passage for you. It is a discussion between Captain de Beautrad and one of his lieutenants, Imbarek, about vertebras and shellfishes. Yes, it is a novel, but not so far from the reality!
- “Well, Captain, you can do whatever you like here; truly, whatever you like!”
- “It is true that I have a great autonomy. Some would say a total autonomy. But as a matter of fact, I do what the circumstances command me to do, according to the conscience that I have of my duties. Nothing more!”
- “This is what I say, Captain. So, you could make a little fief to yourself and live as a despot and take many wives.”
With a roar of laughter, the Captain answers: “These are interesting perspectives, my dear. I did not think about that. No, more seriously, you see, it is in extraordinary circumstances that we collect the fruits of the education we have received.”
“Do you really believe that it is a matter of education?”
“In the original sense of the word, yes. This has nothing to do with the social level, as I have already noticed. You know, there are two kinds of men: vertebras and shellfishes.”
“Vertebras and shellfishes? Explain, Captain…”
“Imbarek, one day you will be amazed to see how the behavior of men can be really different from what you thought. I have often noticed, in operations or overseas, that many quiet fathers of families, faithful to their wives and honest in Métropole, became some kind of hoods when they were far away from their usual surroundings. They are shellfishes, who need an external carapace: the social pressure to restrain their flabby flesh. On the other hand, the vertebras rely on the principles received from their parents or masters. Whatever are the circumstances, a vertebra stands. He does not deviate from the right way because he is well-built from inside, and less than others, he needs formal and positive laws.”
“Do you believe that the law is almost useless for vertebras?”
“This is my conviction! Did Saint Louis ever need formal laws in addition to the natural law and the Decalogue in order to act with uprightness? And look at so many others who used their power only for the common good: Lyautey, Sonis, hundreds of administrators, of prefects, of governors, of engineers, of family leaders throughout our long history!”
“Why, then, all these laws, all these piles of legislative texts? Is this because shellfishes are in greater numbers?”
“Probably. I do not remember the exact numbers, but I read a few months ago an article that basically said that we need to find a solution against the proliferation of legislative texts and rules in our country. There were in 2004 more than 7,500 laws in force, more than 15,000 texts of general scope, 200,000 regulations and instructions, and I even do not mention the 80,000 additional European texts. Another example: in 1980, the Journal Official de la République Française had 7,000 pages, and 17,000 in 2000…”
“That’s chilling! What can be the reason of this inflation?”
“It is because of the refusal of a superior and transcendent reference, because of the loss of the moral sense of our fellow citizens and a part of the ruling class. The negation of the natural law, the rejection of the Decalogue, the inversion of the principle of subsidiarity, as well as the desire to bring the law into line with the mores which have led the ruling class, that is even unable to govern itself, to draw up more and more texts. They were regulating everything, and thus they thought they could make up for their refusal of a moral order. But refusing a moral order was the proof that they desired moral disorder, and moral disorder does not allow men to live in harmony. Therefore, it was necessary to regulate everything in order to limit the consequences of this disorder. Just consider the avalanche of the texts of law during the first years of the Republic at the end of the eighteenth century! While this Republic was pretending to fight against the arbitrary, it fell into the Terror and revolutionary tribunals. These were instituted by laws that created an even greater arbitrary system. The more laws there are, the more the shellfishes are tempted to beat the game, and, therefore, they make more laws.”
“But then, there is no end to this. We are condemned to legislate always more.”
“Yes, and this is what happened! A soon as a problem arose, they immediately made a new law instead of referring to an inviolable rule. My conclusion is that nothing is more important for social man than having a moral; and the worst is to put rights first instead of duties. If one day I were asked about a code or a declaration of universal range, I would propose to begin this text with this simple sentence: Any right is the counterpart of a duty. You would see that the consequences of such an assertion would be enormous. Truly, it would be a new revolution.”
“Nothing would be framed by the law?”
“Yes, of course. We cannot do without the law, and rights are precisely a mark of a civilization. Without them, it would be a ‘law of the jungle’, the law of the strongest, and this is what we are going to fight against in the following days. In the field of the law, as for anything else, we only have to see reason. For instance, we need the right of ownership, the right to trade, or even fiscal right. In fact, these are but developments of the Seventh Commandment of God. But we need a right that is clear and laws that are brief, like the Napoleonic Code, and not this recent inflation of texts of circumstances. I am convinced that this proliferation of laws and of rules has contributed to the fall of our civilization. And what about the laws against nature we recently had?”
“Are you thinking about something in particular?”
“Sure, I am thinking about the law that authorizes abortion.”
“Why this one?”
“Because it is the most serious illustration of what I mean to say. In all times, in all the civilizations, even the roughest, the law consists in protecting the weakest against the strongest. Is there anyone weaker than an unborn child? Everywhere and in all times, abortion has been prohibited, from Sumer to China, where they still count the age of man by adding nine months to the date of his birth. In our own country, without mentioning the Christian ages, even the First Republic decreed that abortion was a “crime against the nation,” which truly it is. And suddenly, in 1975, it is decriminalized, and even since then it is reimbursed by Social Security. Hence millions of dead children! Authorizing abortion even became an imperative condition for a country to join the European Politic! This terrible example shows that when a law is not founded on the natural law, it can lead to the worst excess, and, first of all, to the loss of moral sense of entire people that killed their children because “Madame,” who happened to be pregnant without planning this, wanted to go to winter sports.”
“And we were defending this society, Captain?”
“We were not defending this society, Imbarek, but France, the synthesis of the West.”
“But you said that our country was living under the empire of criminal laws!”
“Not all the laws, but many were criminal, yes. And many young men who remained straight concluded that it was no longer worthy to serve our country. Then, they refrained from taking up civil services, like these aristocrats of the nineteenth century who did not want to take any responsibility in the service of the new regimes, because the Republic had guillotined their ancestors and drove God out of the country.”
“In my opinion, they were right!”
“No, Imbarek, they were wrong! How can you complain that things are bad when you do nothing to make them better, except only criticize? The “empty chair” policy had never been a good policy. Those who are absent always get the blame, and chairs do not remain empty for a long time. A post of responsibility that is not occupied by a good person will be by a bad one. We had to wait until the Great War and the invasion of the national territory to see these “exiles of the inland” accepting to be engaged in politics and taking again their natural positions in the society.”
“Captain, the aristocrats and other monarchists got involved, they shed their blood, and in 1918, the Republic that many of them detested came out from this trial politically stronger with almost all the population of our country behind it.”
“This is a very interesting objection. For all that, should we have let Wilhelm II take Paris? Certainly not! What would have been France under a German occupation? The example of what happened twenty years later, when this time the French could not stop the invasion, makes us think. Also, we should keep in mind, when a soldier puts politics in the first place of his preoccupations instead of the defense of the country, he can be quickly tempted by treason, or he can excuse it under the pretext that he does not like the regime of the country. In this area, the only solid and military thing that I know is this British saying that Captain Porral told me once: Right or wrong, my country!”
Imbarek was pensive. He paused a while before answering.
“Well, after the war, it seems that things went from bad to worse, and everything led us to where we are now. So, the rallying to the Republic did not change a thing.”
“Yes, it did. A part of the descendants of those who had contributed to build our country for thirteen centuries took their places again under the roof of France. It is already something to not live as a foreigner in your own country. But let us go further, if you would like. Things were disastrous on a moral level prior to the events of this summer. Let us imagine what would have happened if nobody among those who kept a traditional thought had loyally served in the army or the public services. Who would stand now in order to limit the damages?”
“I guess nobody.”
“Indeed! It is worth thinking about that. It is good that many young people did not despair at the awful sight of our country and did not throw away everything.”
“Don’t you think, Captain, that we might be deceived once again, as has happened so many times in our history?”
“You miss a crucial point. In 1918, nothing regarding the regime or the institutions had changed. Only God knows what the future will be, but today, when everything is shattered, I think that we should invent something new or come back to institutions that proved themselves. Nevertheless, we should remember the mistakes of the past. For instance, Louis XVIII believed that he could reestablish a traditional monarchy after Napoleon. In exile for fifteen years, he did not understand how much our country had changed. It was a fiasco, as the ideas of the Revolution made their way into public opinion, and the people did not remember the crimes of the Terror, but the ideas of liberty and of equality. The old aristocracy had lost its position of the ruling elite in the country, and the aristocrats, who looked with condescension upon the new nobility of the Empire, gained with arms, did not understand the situation.”
“What should we do then, once the order will be reestablished? Shall we need to build a new regime? I mean somebody will have to build a new regime, to establish a new system. But which one?”
“This somebody can only be one of us, the survivors. Concerning this regime, I have no idea, but I already know some of the mistakes that we should not do again. Basically, we know what to not do, but we do not know yet what to do. Besides, shall we be consulted, you and me?”
Imbarek steadfastly looked at his Captain and smiled while retorting:
- “Forgive my insolence, Captain, but don’t you think that you do not see further than the end of your nose if you think that you are out of touch, considering your present responsibilities?”
- “This insolence suits you very well! After all, it is a privilege of your rank, since in the French Army, lieutenants are traditionally “insolent, scrawny and hopeless”… Concerning my responsibilities, they only command me to preserve what can be preserved, here and now, in other words, to maintain.”
The darkness had already enveloped the old building and swarms of braises carried out by the wind were rising in a serene sky. The two officers had in common the peace of the soul given by the sentiment of carrying out their duties in spite of the difficulty.
Solvanie, a French Province lost in the Mountains of the East and far from the Métropole, to take his command, he already knew the region, as he had served there as a young lieutenant several years before. But he did not know that Providence would soon make him the “Governor” of what was left of the western civilization. A few months after his arrival, the decree of a state of emergency put him at the head of the last bastion which resisted the global anarchy that followed the fall of the West. Deprived of means of communication, cut off from the rest of the world, the young Governor, heir of his predecessors of the seventeenth century, carried out his mission, which was to maintain and to save what could be saved.Baudoin Forjoucq invites us, in his two books that form the Chronicles of the Fortress of Heaven, to follow the young officer. In the first volume, Twenty-one Steps of Black Marble, we discover the fortress of Saint Romuald in the imaginary Province of Solvanie, where the young Lieutenant meets with the tough reality of the field in a difficult social and cultural context. In the second volume, The Duke of the Apocalypse, Captain de Beautrad and his men try to maintain what is left of our civilization. To help him in his task, he can count on his friend, Father Mounot, alias “the captain of the Angels,” the young Pastor who reestablished the old liturgy of the Church in his parish at the ends of the earth. The prayers of the Benedictine monks of Bédonic, led by their Abbot, Dom Mayeul, will appear soon to be of crucial importance. It is simply the harmony of many centuries of Christendom, when the temporal order meets the spiritual order, which the warriors of the last times will preserve against all odds.
But is this book really a fiction? In fact, Baudoin Forjoucq affirms that the men described in his book truly exist, which I have no doubt. “This book is also a story of men and of virile friendship, also a love story, a story of these selfless sentiments that many people have forgotten nowadays,” he says. It is a book for those who “love the one who stands while others snigger or give up.” It is a book for those who believe that “the silence of a cloister is filled,” for those who are “attracted by the wide horizons,” or those who “know how to be moved by the look of a young woman whose words are neat.”
It is a book dedicated to the soldiers, to those who gave up their ambitions to serve their country, to those who still believe in our civilization, and, finally, to “the Benedictine monks, soldiers of heaven and roots of the West,” who offered the author hospitality to write his book. I would recommend you to read this book if there were not a little problem: it is only in French! Nevertheless, I translated a passage for you. It is a discussion between Captain de Beautrad and one of his lieutenants, Imbarek, about vertebras and shellfishes. Yes, it is a novel, but not so far from the reality!
- “Well, Captain, you can do whatever you like here; truly, whatever you like!”
- “It is true that I have a great autonomy. Some would say a total autonomy. But as a matter of fact, I do what the circumstances command me to do, according to the conscience that I have of my duties. Nothing more!”
- “This is what I say, Captain. So, you could make a little fief to yourself and live as a despot and take many wives.”
With a roar of laughter, the Captain answers: “These are interesting perspectives, my dear. I did not think about that. No, more seriously, you see, it is in extraordinary circumstances that we collect the fruits of the education we have received.”
“Do you really believe that it is a matter of education?”
“In the original sense of the word, yes. This has nothing to do with the social level, as I have already noticed. You know, there are two kinds of men: vertebras and shellfishes.”
“Vertebras and shellfishes? Explain, Captain…”
“Imbarek, one day you will be amazed to see how the behavior of men can be really different from what you thought. I have often noticed, in operations or overseas, that many quiet fathers of families, faithful to their wives and honest in Métropole, became some kind of hoods when they were far away from their usual surroundings. They are shellfishes, who need an external carapace: the social pressure to restrain their flabby flesh. On the other hand, the vertebras rely on the principles received from their parents or masters. Whatever are the circumstances, a vertebra stands. He does not deviate from the right way because he is well-built from inside, and less than others, he needs formal and positive laws.”
“Do you believe that the law is almost useless for vertebras?”
“This is my conviction! Did Saint Louis ever need formal laws in addition to the natural law and the Decalogue in order to act with uprightness? And look at so many others who used their power only for the common good: Lyautey, Sonis, hundreds of administrators, of prefects, of governors, of engineers, of family leaders throughout our long history!”
“Why, then, all these laws, all these piles of legislative texts? Is this because shellfishes are in greater numbers?”
“Probably. I do not remember the exact numbers, but I read a few months ago an article that basically said that we need to find a solution against the proliferation of legislative texts and rules in our country. There were in 2004 more than 7,500 laws in force, more than 15,000 texts of general scope, 200,000 regulations and instructions, and I even do not mention the 80,000 additional European texts. Another example: in 1980, the Journal Official de la République Française had 7,000 pages, and 17,000 in 2000…”
“That’s chilling! What can be the reason of this inflation?”
“It is because of the refusal of a superior and transcendent reference, because of the loss of the moral sense of our fellow citizens and a part of the ruling class. The negation of the natural law, the rejection of the Decalogue, the inversion of the principle of subsidiarity, as well as the desire to bring the law into line with the mores which have led the ruling class, that is even unable to govern itself, to draw up more and more texts. They were regulating everything, and thus they thought they could make up for their refusal of a moral order. But refusing a moral order was the proof that they desired moral disorder, and moral disorder does not allow men to live in harmony. Therefore, it was necessary to regulate everything in order to limit the consequences of this disorder. Just consider the avalanche of the texts of law during the first years of the Republic at the end of the eighteenth century! While this Republic was pretending to fight against the arbitrary, it fell into the Terror and revolutionary tribunals. These were instituted by laws that created an even greater arbitrary system. The more laws there are, the more the shellfishes are tempted to beat the game, and, therefore, they make more laws.”
“But then, there is no end to this. We are condemned to legislate always more.”
“Yes, and this is what happened! A soon as a problem arose, they immediately made a new law instead of referring to an inviolable rule. My conclusion is that nothing is more important for social man than having a moral; and the worst is to put rights first instead of duties. If one day I were asked about a code or a declaration of universal range, I would propose to begin this text with this simple sentence: Any right is the counterpart of a duty. You would see that the consequences of such an assertion would be enormous. Truly, it would be a new revolution.”
“Nothing would be framed by the law?”
“Yes, of course. We cannot do without the law, and rights are precisely a mark of a civilization. Without them, it would be a ‘law of the jungle’, the law of the strongest, and this is what we are going to fight against in the following days. In the field of the law, as for anything else, we only have to see reason. For instance, we need the right of ownership, the right to trade, or even fiscal right. In fact, these are but developments of the Seventh Commandment of God. But we need a right that is clear and laws that are brief, like the Napoleonic Code, and not this recent inflation of texts of circumstances. I am convinced that this proliferation of laws and of rules has contributed to the fall of our civilization. And what about the laws against nature we recently had?”
“Are you thinking about something in particular?”
“Sure, I am thinking about the law that authorizes abortion.”
“Why this one?”
“Because it is the most serious illustration of what I mean to say. In all times, in all the civilizations, even the roughest, the law consists in protecting the weakest against the strongest. Is there anyone weaker than an unborn child? Everywhere and in all times, abortion has been prohibited, from Sumer to China, where they still count the age of man by adding nine months to the date of his birth. In our own country, without mentioning the Christian ages, even the First Republic decreed that abortion was a “crime against the nation,” which truly it is. And suddenly, in 1975, it is decriminalized, and even since then it is reimbursed by Social Security. Hence millions of dead children! Authorizing abortion even became an imperative condition for a country to join the European Politic! This terrible example shows that when a law is not founded on the natural law, it can lead to the worst excess, and, first of all, to the loss of moral sense of entire people that killed their children because “Madame,” who happened to be pregnant without planning this, wanted to go to winter sports.”
“And we were defending this society, Captain?”
“We were not defending this society, Imbarek, but France, the synthesis of the West.”
“But you said that our country was living under the empire of criminal laws!”
“Not all the laws, but many were criminal, yes. And many young men who remained straight concluded that it was no longer worthy to serve our country. Then, they refrained from taking up civil services, like these aristocrats of the nineteenth century who did not want to take any responsibility in the service of the new regimes, because the Republic had guillotined their ancestors and drove God out of the country.”
“In my opinion, they were right!”
“No, Imbarek, they were wrong! How can you complain that things are bad when you do nothing to make them better, except only criticize? The “empty chair” policy had never been a good policy. Those who are absent always get the blame, and chairs do not remain empty for a long time. A post of responsibility that is not occupied by a good person will be by a bad one. We had to wait until the Great War and the invasion of the national territory to see these “exiles of the inland” accepting to be engaged in politics and taking again their natural positions in the society.”
“Captain, the aristocrats and other monarchists got involved, they shed their blood, and in 1918, the Republic that many of them detested came out from this trial politically stronger with almost all the population of our country behind it.”
“This is a very interesting objection. For all that, should we have let Wilhelm II take Paris? Certainly not! What would have been France under a German occupation? The example of what happened twenty years later, when this time the French could not stop the invasion, makes us think. Also, we should keep in mind, when a soldier puts politics in the first place of his preoccupations instead of the defense of the country, he can be quickly tempted by treason, or he can excuse it under the pretext that he does not like the regime of the country. In this area, the only solid and military thing that I know is this British saying that Captain Porral told me once: Right or wrong, my country!”
Imbarek was pensive. He paused a while before answering.
“Well, after the war, it seems that things went from bad to worse, and everything led us to where we are now. So, the rallying to the Republic did not change a thing.”
“Yes, it did. A part of the descendants of those who had contributed to build our country for thirteen centuries took their places again under the roof of France. It is already something to not live as a foreigner in your own country. But let us go further, if you would like. Things were disastrous on a moral level prior to the events of this summer. Let us imagine what would have happened if nobody among those who kept a traditional thought had loyally served in the army or the public services. Who would stand now in order to limit the damages?”
“I guess nobody.”
“Indeed! It is worth thinking about that. It is good that many young people did not despair at the awful sight of our country and did not throw away everything.”
“Don’t you think, Captain, that we might be deceived once again, as has happened so many times in our history?”
“You miss a crucial point. In 1918, nothing regarding the regime or the institutions had changed. Only God knows what the future will be, but today, when everything is shattered, I think that we should invent something new or come back to institutions that proved themselves. Nevertheless, we should remember the mistakes of the past. For instance, Louis XVIII believed that he could reestablish a traditional monarchy after Napoleon. In exile for fifteen years, he did not understand how much our country had changed. It was a fiasco, as the ideas of the Revolution made their way into public opinion, and the people did not remember the crimes of the Terror, but the ideas of liberty and of equality. The old aristocracy had lost its position of the ruling elite in the country, and the aristocrats, who looked with condescension upon the new nobility of the Empire, gained with arms, did not understand the situation.”
“What should we do then, once the order will be reestablished? Shall we need to build a new regime? I mean somebody will have to build a new regime, to establish a new system. But which one?”
“This somebody can only be one of us, the survivors. Concerning this regime, I have no idea, but I already know some of the mistakes that we should not do again. Basically, we know what to not do, but we do not know yet what to do. Besides, shall we be consulted, you and me?”
Imbarek steadfastly looked at his Captain and smiled while retorting:
- “Forgive my insolence, Captain, but don’t you think that you do not see further than the end of your nose if you think that you are out of touch, considering your present responsibilities?”
- “This insolence suits you very well! After all, it is a privilege of your rank, since in the French Army, lieutenants are traditionally “insolent, scrawny and hopeless”… Concerning my responsibilities, they only command me to preserve what can be preserved, here and now, in other words, to maintain.”
The darkness had already enveloped the old building and swarms of braises carried out by the wind were rising in a serene sky. The two officers had in common the peace of the soul given by the sentiment of carrying out their duties in spite of the difficulty.
lundi, juillet 25, 2011
Sermon for 6th Sundat after Pentecost
You certainly remember, dear Brethren our meditation during Lent when we were considering the Cross of Jesus Christ as the main source of our faith and therefore as the main inspiration for our lives. You certainly remember the great proclamation of faith of the Apostle Saint Paul who wants to know only Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
After Lent, Easter came, and we put behind us the austerity of this holy time and the rigor of penance in order to celebrate the great mystery of the Resurrection of Our Savior and to rejoice in it. The feast of Pentecost ended a liturgical cycle and we have been now for 6 weeks in this time after Pentecost that will lead us to the end of the liturgical year. It is the time that is given to us in order to continue in our own lives the mysteries of the life and of the death of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is no longer the life of Jesus that we directly contemplate during the Liturgy but rather His teaching that we listen to and that we try to assimilate, though we can hardy separate the life of Jesus from His teaching. Living the life of Christ, according to His own teaching is now our program and Saint Paul reminds us today that we have been baptized in Christ Jesus and in His death.
Therefore our Baptism makes sense only if we accept to crucify our old man and to destroy the body of sin, because it is the necessary condition to live unto God. The Gospel shows us that following Jesus means accepting certain privations and inconveniences, like this crowd that followed Him for three days and had nothing to eat. Christian life is basically a life of renunciation and of abandon: renunciation to Satan first, as the rite of Baptism invites us to do, and therefore renunciation to sin; renunciation to the world; finally renunciation to ourselves. But these renunciations would be unbearable without a total abandon to God’s Providence who provides for all our need, provided that we accept our condition and fulfill our duties according to our state of life. Renunciation and abandon certainly does not mean passivity; it rather means that we put all our heart, our energy, our strength to love and serve God. And we do that we the confidence that our sacrifices, our renunciations, and even persecutions, when they come, are not vain, but are rather the beginnings of eternal life, the life unto God.
Renouncing to sin requires training and a discipline of the will that can more easily be gained when renouncing ourselves, especially with the virtue of obedience. Discipline and obedience have always been, even on a mere natural level, the mark of the strong, and a key to success. It is true in many fields such as education, sport, army, etc…. And when these virtues are elevated by the Divine grace, it is a key that opens the gates of heaven. Renouncing the world is more delicate, as we have to renounce its spirit but not its physical reality. In fact, unless you have a particular vocation such as monastic life, you have to sanctify yourself in the world and there are many ways of doing that.
First, it supposes that you are not afraid of it. The world is indeed a large field of apostolate in which you should be comfortable; you should be aware of its danger, yes, but also comfortable. Do not be afraid to be involved in its life so that you can bring the testimony of your faith in all your activities: at work, in your neighborhood, in the different association in which you may be involved, in your sport teams, at school, at university, wherever you go, whatever you do. Bring always with you the light of Christ and His love. Do not remain entrenched at home, but participate in the mission of the Church. The Church is visible, but it is not only visible by her churches, but also by her schools – and I can never emphasize enough about their necessity today – and different associations and activities. Be involved in the life of your town, your county, your state, your country. If you do not, then you may complain about the evilness of our times in vain. Abandoning the battlefield means giving the victory to the enemies of Christ. If you have the required abilities, run for positions in the world, not for yourself but for Christ. The more good Catholics are in charge in the many areas of social and public life, the better it will be for the common good of our societies. This can be done as well on the smallest local level as well as on a national or even international level. Do not let someone else take the place you can have in this world!
Yes there are many wrong and bad things in the world today. But there would be certainly less if we all would take our responsibility in the society and even in the Church. And what we certainly need first is to know the teaching of the Church on many subjects and issues that regard the social life; what we call the social doctrine of the Church and that regard many areas such as education, politics, economy or arts.
With the Grace of God, we shall try to expose this beautiful doctrine in other sermons and conference soon.
mercredi, avril 27, 2011
An invitation from Saint John Bosco Academy
St. John Bosco Academy is presenting a dinner theatre “Summer Comes to the Diamond-O” on May 14th at St. Patrick's Catholic Church (North Little Rock, AR), in the Gym. 6:00 dinner, 7:00 show.
Tickets are $20.00 for a family or $10.00 individual. Tickets will be sold at the door.
Please call for reservations: Lorri Sonnier at (870) 834-8993 or Colleen Strandquist at (417) 284-3987.
Visit our website: http://www.saintjohnboscoacademy.net/
jeudi, avril 21, 2011
Sermon for Lent
Sermon VIII: Continuation on the Truth
Si veritatem dico vobis, quare non creditis mihi? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me?
The truth is a queen who has her eternal throne in heaven, the seat of her sovereignty in the bosom of God. Nothing is nobler than truth because everything comes under its governance. It should reign over the reason which is intended to govern all things. Nothing is stronger and nothing is more powerful than the truth, especially the truth of the Gospel which has been established on facts, and which is proposed by faith, in our present condition, and which openly appears uncovered in heaven. Even the devils believe in it, as Saint James says, and not only do they believe, but they also tremble as the truth stands out to them in its whole dramatic and terrible dimension. It is certainly not the least of the pains of the devils and damned souls to realize that the truth that was offered to them, and which could have freed them, now enchains them, keeping them captive in infernal and eternal torment. The truth is known and respected in heaven, and there it is loved. But the truth is also known and respected in hell – respected, or at least observed – although it is hated there. Yes, the truth is known and observed in heaven and in hell, but between heaven and hell, here on earth is the only place where truth is despised. In heaven and in hell, the truth cannot leave you indifferent: you love it or you hate it with your whole heart and your whole mind. Here, on earth, you may find such sentiments toward the truth, but you also find a lot of indifference and a great lack of concern for it. Very often, it simply leaves men with a great coldness. We have already given the reasons for this in the beginning of this Lenten season’s sermons.
Let us continue our reflection with the help of Bossuet, and let us try to take a closer look at the reasons that push men to despise or to hate the truth. First, we say with Saint Thomas that “truth in general cannot be the object of hatred.” You certainly remember, dear brethren, that good, truth, and being are the same in reality. They just differ as considered by reason. So, “truth in general cannot be the object of hatred because disagreement is the cause of hatred, and agreement is the cause of love, while being and truth are common to all things. But nothing hinders some particular being or some particular truth from being an object of hatred, in so far as it is considered as hurtful and repugnant, since hurtfulness and repugnance are not incompatible with the notion of being and truth, as they are with the notion of good.” (Ia IIae Q 29 Art 5)
Bossuet develops the thought of Saint Thomas, and he says that men can hate the truth in three different ways, in three different subjects, wherein truth dwells, when truth is considered as it is in God, as it appears in men, or as we feel it in ourselves. In each case, truth hurts the sinful man. In God, the immutable laws of truth condemn man. In man, who is the present witness of the laws of truth, they correct him. Within himself, in the secret of his conscience, the laws of truth trouble and make him worry. In each case they displease the sinful man. The pride of his mind does not accept that truth condemns him. The obstinacy of the sinner prevents him from being corrected. The blind love for his vices cannot permit him consent to be bothered. Therefore the sinner hates truth, or at least he pretends to ignore it, by enclosing himself in a state of indifference towards it.
The Gospel of Saint John that we have been reading at Mass for the last few days, and which we continue to read during the Passion time, is extremely affirmative in this regard, as it shows us the increasing antinomy between the Jews and Jesus, and the indifference of the Gentiles. Jesus gives testimony to the truths that He saw in the bosom of His Father, and the Father gives testimony to Jesus. These truths condemn those who do not receive them. Furthermore, it is on behalf of these truths that Jesus is put to death.
“Jesus corrects their vices, and while His words convince them, their hatred of truth makes them hate the One who announces it,” Bossuet says. “They get angrier at Him; they call Him a Samaritan and a demonic person. They take stones to throw at Him. Yet, He presses them more and brings to the depth of their hearts the light of truth: ‘Yet a little while, the light is among you.’ (John 12:35) But they hate the adorable truth so much that they extinguish the feeble ray of light that was still in them. They look for the dark night that covers their bad works.” In a last attempt, as the ultimate resort, He asks them: “If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me?” (John 8:46)
The sinners hate the law of God, even when they pretend to follow it. It is a religious tribunal that condemns Jesus to death; a tribunal of men who pride themselves of being the faithful observers of the law. Yes, Saint Paul is absolutely right when he says that the letter kills, but it does not only kill metaphorically; it also kills literally. It kills first the One who gives it to men. The sinners hate the law of God and the truth. And they know that it is precisely this truth that condemns them. “Miserable men,” Saint Augustine says, “who, because wishing to be wicked, deny that to be the truth whereby the wicked are condemned.”
Therefore, they try to abolish the law and to kill the legislator. The sinners are revolutionaries by nature. They organize themselves in impious assemblies in order to free themselves from God. They establish a structured system that denies the truth and, when it is necessary, they eliminate the heralds and the heroes of the truth. When sin is not simply tolerated, but rather encouraged, in a society, it can only generate a secular or even an atheist environment where people may be still free to give themselves a god, provided that it is a god who does not come to recall to them that they have duties and obligations to him, or toward the truth.
We said in the beginning of Lent that faith has two kinds of enemies: ignorance and corruption. We showed how a life of sins leads a soul astray from God. What was said about individuals is true for societies, too. We have been witnessing the apostasy of the old Christian nations for the past two centuries, in spite of the solemn and repeated warnings from the Popes since the Revolution. Today, human rights have replaced the commandments of God, even sometimes in the minds and the hearts of many members of the clergy. After all, it was not said that the clergy would be immunized against the errors of our time, which are the errors of any time. It is even the clergy that often leads the faithful toward rebellion, as it was the clergy that condemned Jesus to death. But once again, we do not have to be surprised. It was announced by Jesus that wolves would come to scatter and cast the sheep.
Now, dear brethren, we could go on and on about this subject. It can be very comforting for some Catholics who are still faithful in these times of apostasy to contemplate the pathetic state of our society and even of our Church, to pronounce solemn anathemas, to condemn everything and everyone that is not entirely Catholic, and to think that, after all, they are not so bad since they are faithful to the authentic teaching of Jesus Christ. Well, it is precisely to these faithful that I am speaking now, as I do not see among our congregation many atheists or modernists.
Certainly, you have not rejected Christ, and you receive the truth of His speech. But let me ask you again the same question I asked last week. Have you received the entire truth of the Gospel? You would say that you do not hate the truth, but we have just said that the truth in general cannot be the object of hatred. Are you sure that there is no particular truth that you don’t like? Have you taken great care, since the beginning of Lent, to examine your conscience in detail? You think that you hear the truth, and you do not want to be counted among the enemies of Christ who crucifies Him. But where were the friends of Jesus during His Passion? You claim to be a friend of Jesus, but are you better than all his friends who abandoned Him, who ran away when He was arrested, judged, and crucified?
When Jesus speaks about the truth, He does not speak only to the Jews who condemn Him. He also intends to teach His disciples to love and to respect His holy truth, so that when they contemplate it in their Judge, they can be corrected; when they hear it from others, they can receive it with humility; when they listen to it in their conscience, they can be enlightened, changed, and converted by it. And conversion is precisely a permanent process which is never achieved in this life, but which requires a deep, serious, and ongoing investigation of your conscience.
Let us bring some light on one point. The Fifth Commandment forbids us to kill. You think that you have not broken this Commandment since you have never killed anybody. This is your conclusion after your own reflection, based upon your own interpretation of the law. But are you in the truth? Being in the truth is not the same thing as thinking you are in the truth! Saint John says that whosoever hates his brother is a murderer.
Hatred pushes men to destroy what they hate, what they have already destroyed in their heart, and, therefore, when the object of hatred is a person, it generates a secret intention to murder. You can recognize that you hate someone when his presence hurts your feelings, when you have a kind of repulsion for anything that comes from him, when you consider that meeting him is something grievous, when you take any opportunity to speak behind his back to denigrate him, to lower him, to mock him. Now, if you include all these elements in your examination of conscience, are you still certain that you have not broken the Fifth Commandment? Are you still certain that you are truly a friend of Jesus who says as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me? And then, are you still certain that you are not like the Jews who condemned Jesus to death? If you hate your neighbor, you are guilty of murder. And if you murder your neighbor, you murder Christ Himself. You do not hate the whole truth since you cannot, but you still hate a particular truth that bothers you, hurts your feeling, or displeases you. And you try to forget this, and to hide this sin in a dark corner of your conscience, comforting yourself in the observance of the other commandments, forgetting that, in fact, you have broken all of them, according to Saint James: “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, has become guilty of all.” (James 2:10)
Again, dear brethren, it is the whole truth that we have to hear and to accept, and not only the particular truths that are more convenient to us. The truth will be our judge, and there will be no way to escape this. Please God that we may tremble more often in front of the truth, instead of hiding ourselves behind it, or using it for our own convenience and satisfaction.
Inscription à :
Messages (Atom)