Ecce Verbum

Calumny and Detraction Both calumny and detraction unjustly damage a person’s reputation by revealing a fault. The calumniator knows the accusation to be false, whereas the detractor believes it to be true. Here is what four Franciscan saints have to say about detraction: St. Francis of Assisi describes the sin quite vividly: “The sin of detraction is the impediment to the very source of piety and grace; it is abominable in the sight of God, because the detractor feeds on the blood of the souls which he has murdered with the sword of his tongue.” He argues that “the malice of the detractor is far greater than that of the thief, because the law of Christ, which is fulfilled by showing mercy, commands us to desire more ardently the salvation of the soul than the safety of the body.” He further states: “The tongue is the instrument of life and death to man, not on account of the food it takes, but on account of the words it utters.” St. Leonard of Port Maurice gives this advice on dealing with detractors: “Detraction is the poison of conversation. Never let any one who is given to this fault meet with any applause or approbation from you. On the contrary, do what you can to justify your neighbour, or else show your displeasure by a significant silence, or by turning the conversation, where this is practicable.” St. Francis exhorts us: “Be modest, showing kindness to all, never judging or condemning anybody. And, as our Lord says, let us not pay attention to the small sins of others, but rather ponder on our own in the bitterness of our hearts.” St. Bonaventure adds: “Beware of ever repeating what you have heard of others, unless it be something very edifying.” Finally, the learned St. Antony of Padua offers this useful advice: “Use your ears oftener than your tongue. One often repents of having spoken, and scarcely ever of having been silent.” #speech

St. Albert on Eucharist

For this sacrament brings the grace of communion, and beyond this, the grace of atonement, and upon these two it piles the grace of redemption, and in addition to these three it piles up the grace of vivification, and beyond these four, it gives the grace of spiritual refreshment, and beyond these five, it signifies to us the glory of eternal beatitude. From these it will be shown that it bestows a heap of grace and of holiness; indeed, by his body, it confers the grace of communion with all the members of Christ, and by his blood, it gives the grace of atonement, and by his soul, it truly [gives] the grace of redemption, and from the spirit of Christ, it gives the grace of vivification and of virtue, and by his divinity, it causes the grace of refreshment, and by the whole sacramental sign, it gives the grace of eternal beatitude.

Albert the Great, On the Body of the Lord, p. 61 (Distinction 1, Chapter 5)

Porphyry, Letter to his wife Marcella. 

On the importance of spreading good books Don Bosco

ABC of Thomism J.M. Bocheński 4.Thomistic ethics 🧵 1. What does the moral value of human act depend on?  Rejection of subjectivists and utilitarians, criticism of Kant According to Thomistic ethics, every human act has an object. This object is related to the deed in the same way as an act is related to potency. It gives it meaning and content. Thus, in the first instance, a human act is good or evil depending on the object (immediate intent) rather than the result of the deed or state of the person commiting the act. Thomistic ethics rejects subjectivist fallacies, which hold that the value of an act is determined by subjective factors. It also rejects utilitarian viewpoints which place the moral value on the outcomes of an action. While these numerous aspects may impact the judgment of an act, its  value is determined by its object. Thomistic ethics is a form of objectivist, object-oriented ethics. "The object" of an act is what Thomism refers to as a "direct purpose," which is closely tied to the act's content and without which the act is impossible. For example, the object of lying is to provide misleading information. This object might then be used as a means to another end, for example, a lie can be used to save lives, but the moral value of an act is determined primarily by the object (the direct end).  The statement "the ends justify the means" is therefore untrue. The end can only justify the neutral means, but it cannot make an immoral act (evil by virtue of its object) good. Thus, a good intention, a good further aim, cannot make lying morally acceptable, but it can make, for example, singing (which is morally neutral in and of itself) morally good or bad, depending on the further end. Therefore, it is the object (the direct purpose) rather than the further end (the pleasure or displeasure of the person acting, the benefit or damage that may arise from the act), that primarily determines the moral value of the act. Thomism does not exclude other factors, and, in a general moral evaluation, it also considers the secondary purpose and circumstances.  It should be noted that Thomism does not follow Kant in rejecting satisfaction, pleasure, etc., as allegedly detrimental to the morality of an act. Satisfaction, according to Thomistic ethics, is the natural result of a good act and cannot therefore be separated from it. But for an act to be good, it must not be performed for the sake of satisfaction but for the sake of the moral value of its object. Thus, for example, one should eat not for the sake of pleasure but to nourish oneself. However, it does not mean that the pleasure of eating is morally wrong.

"On the love of the homeland" Jadwiga Zamoyska *Zamoyska, in her short but succinct work 'O miłości Ojczyzny', gives a very tangible lecture on what patriotism should be. "Love of the Fatherland does not consist in some mayhem about national rights, and in poeticizing them, it does not consist in manifestations, patriotic feasts, toasts, pompous speeches, or affectionate sentiments. Love of the Fatherland has nothing to do with national pride and vanity." "Love of the Fatherland is a virtue: a virtue in the order of God's will, because it arises from the duty of the state; a civic virtue. And since it is a virtue, it is a force, and since it is love, like all love, it is creative." The author mentions three necessary obligations: 1. respecting and maintaining what is good, 2. correcting what is harmful 3. fighting for the country and accomplishing what is desirable. 1. Respecting and maintaining what is good *The first issue that Zamoyska believes needs to be addressed urgently and seriously is our mother tongue. We should care for the beauty of the language and try to pass it on to future generations. The attitude toward our language is one of the marks of patriotism. "Our language is very beautiful! Let us stand by it, let us strive to perfect it, let us respect its richness, let us guard the purity of our language as our most precious treasure, let us not forget the old names and expressions, let us not replace them with foreign words, and let us not cripple our language with carelessness in the way we write and express ourselves. Let us learn, by all means, to speak and write correctly." *Another value that we are to respect and maintain is our native land. "Let us respect every bit of this land inherited from our fathers; let us not let it fall into foreign and hostile hands; let us save what is endangered!It is also important to cultivate customs, fine arts, national and regional dress, and traditional greetings. Everything that identifies us as a nation should be given urgent care and attention, even today. For here, as in the case of language, the fascination with what is foreign is far overshadowed by admiration for what is ours" 2. Correcting what is harmful *Zamoyska condemns pride, vanity, indulging oneself, lack of restraint in eating and drinking, dressing, games, laziness, wasting time, and falling into debt. She sees national vices as deficiencies in upbringing—for both men and women.  "If women are not brought up to be good mothers who will be able to take proper care of future generations, and the upbringing of young boys is entrusted to men who are full of vices and not always proven tutors, then there is no hope for the good condition of society.."   "Whoever, having children, does not work on them by the sweat of his brow while they are young, will weep over them when they are grown up." *The cure for all national vices is the acquisition and cultivation of virtues, both theological (faith, hope, and charity) and cardinal (prudence, temperance, and fortitude). This is a teaching that is still extremely relevant today, even though virtues are not popular; they have been reduced to symbols of an anachronistic social order (which, of course, they are not!). However, it is important to remember that they are permanent dispositions to do good. Virtue is more than just a mere habit. It is the strength of our will that directs us to do good. Virtues, though unpopular and ridiculed, are a real answer to social problems even today.

An Exhortation to Educators Don Bosco Letter from St. John Bosco to his Salesians, from Rome, May 10, 1884 outlining the place of friendship, relationship and recreation in his ‘preventative’ approach. Dear sons in Jesus Christ, Near or far, I am always thinking of you. My only desire is to see you happy both in this world and the next. That is why I am writing this letter to you. My absence from you weighs heavily on me, and not being able to see and hear you hurts me more than you can imagine. Indeed, I wanted to write to you a week ago but was prevented from doing so by endless business. It will not be all that long now before I am back among you, nevertheless I want to anticipate my return by means of a letter since I am unable to come in person. I am speaking as one who loves you tenderly in Christ Jesus and who feels it his duty to speak to you with the freedom of a father. You’ll allow me that, won’t you? And you will listen to me carefully and do what I tell you. As I said, you are the sole object of my thoughts. Well then, I went up to my room a few nights ago and began to say the prayers my good mother taught me, before getting into bed, and whether I was simply overcome by sleep or carried away by a distraction I don’t really know, but it seemed that two of the former pupils of the Oratory were standing there before me. One of them came forward and greeted me affectionately, saying “Don Bosco! Do you know me?” “Of course, I do,” I replied. “And do you remember me?” he went on. “Yes, not only you, but the others too. You’re Valfre and you were at the Oratory before 1870.” “Tell me,” he added, “would you like to see the boys who were at the Oratory in my time?” “Oh, yes, let me see them.” I replied, “I would be delighted.” Valfre then showed me the boys just as they were at that time, the same features, height and so on. It seemed to me that I was in recreation in the Oratory of those days. Everywhere I looked there was life, movement and joy; some were running, some jumping, some skipping. Some were playing leap-frog, some tag, some with a ball; in one corner was a huddle of boys hanging on the words of one of the priests as he told them a story; in another corner a cleric was playing with a group of lads. There were songs and laughter on all sides, Brothers and Priests everywhere and the joyful cries of the boys around them. It was perfectly clear that the greatest cordiality and confidence existed between the boys and their superiors. I was overjoyed by the sight and Valfre said to me: “As you can see familiarity breeds affection and affection breeds confidence. This is what opens hearts; the boys can open up without fear to their teachers, assistants and superiors. They become frank both inside and outside the confessional and in general they show great docility to the commands of those of whose love they are sure.” At that moment the other past pupil, who had a pure white beard, now came forward and said: “Don Bosco, would you like now to know and see the boys who are at the Oratory today?” It was Joseph Buzzetti who spoke. “Yes,” I replied, “For it is more than a month since I last saw them.” So he showed me them. I saw the Oratory and everyone of you in recreation. But the cries of joy and the songs I no longer heard, nor was there the lively activity of the previous scene. Instead boredom, weariness and ill-humour could be seen in the actions and on the faces of many of the lads, together with a lack of trust which made me sore at heart. There were many, it is true, who were moving and running about in a spirit of carefree joy. But I saw others, and their number was anything but small, standing by themselves, leaning against the pillars where they were a prey to disturbing fantasies, or standing on the steps or in the corridors or on the garden terraces, trying to get away from the common recreation.

Dionysus the Areopagite on the Sacrament of Baptism

ABC of Thomism J.M. Bocheński 3. Thomistic theism 🧵 1. Rejection of the views of the intuitionists, pseudo-mystics, ontologists and the errors of Descartes and St. Anselm Thomistic theism teaches that man does not and cannot naturally possess an experience of God. Man cannot prove the existence of God by the mere dissection of concepts, by their analysis, without being based on a concrete, experiential reality. Arguments called 'moral' have no evidential value in this matter.  Thomistic theism rejects the views of intuitionists and pseudo-mystics who recognise the non-existent experience of God. It rejects the fallacies of ontologists who believe that God is an immediate object of the human mind. It rejects the 'ontological' argument of St Anselm and Descartes, who attempt to prove the existence of God by dissecting the very notion of an infinite Being. Thomism teaches that in human experience we encounter only finite entities, never an infinite Being, and that the object of our mind is indeed being as such, but by no means it is the Being of God. Thomism therefore denies that we have any natural direct access to God. If the existence of God can be known in a natural way, it is necessary to use reasoning. But much of the popular reasoning does not represent any value -especially the reasoning based on the need for an Infinite Judge- because this reasoning is not based on facts, but on human desires.  Similarly, the reasoning of St Anselm, who wished to deduce the existence of God from the concept of God, is erroneous. Thomism teaches that only other desires can be deduced from desires, and only other concepts can be deduced from concepts. The way to the real God must lead only through the real being (that which is).

 Wealth without sin * (Sirach 13:24 ) Wealth is good as long as it's free of sin; the ungodly speak of poverty as an evil in and of itself. *In the words of Jesus, the rich man's road to heaven is particularly winding and difficult. It is full of dangers and certainly "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 19,24). Our Saviour repeatedly instructs us not to lay up for ourselves treasures on earth, but in heaven (Mt 6,19- -21), not to get gold or silver or copper for our purses (Mt 10,9), to get rid of our worries about what to eat and drink and what to wear (Mt 6,25). The fate of the possessors of riches is defined by Christ's "woe to you rich men, for you have already taken away your comfort" (Lk 6,24). "Woe" is also mentioned in the parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31). Through this parable, Jesus intends to explain to his listeners that they are mistaken in thinking that if someone is successful in this world, it means that God is favourable to him and, conversely, a lack of success means that God does not give him his blessing. The rich man did not get into hell because he was rich, but because he thought only of himself and did not help Lazarus even though he had the means to do so. *For the people of Israel, wealth was a sign of God's blessing. God bestowed it as a reward on righteous men, such as Solomon (1 Kings 3:13; 5:1-8; 10:14-22) and Job (Job 1:1-3.9-10; 42:10-12). People believed that having wealth and health was a sign of God's blessing. Sickness and poverty, on the other hand, is a punishment for sins committed. In the book of Job in the Old Testament there is an attempt to break down this way of thinking. Job was a righteous man, yet experienced poverty, illness and other misfortunes. His friends moved away from him because they saw his fate as a punishment for his sins. *Christ teaches that it is not what is external that makes a person unclean, but what comes from the heart (Mt 15:10-20). Man must not absolutise his property, make it into an idol and thereby aggravate the disorder of his soul. *Scripture, especially the Gospel, is not an economic treatise. God's revelation directs a moral message to us. Above all, man, whether rich or poor, must guard against the pride to which the misuse of earthly possessions can lead. Pride, which is a hypocrisy, as we all depend on the merciful God in everything. Such a pride leads to blindness. The Old Testament warns: "Do not rely on your riches, and do not say, 'I am self-sufficient'" (Sir 5:1). Putting one's hope in temporal goods withdraws one from spiritual matters (Wis 11:24; Lk 12:15; Rev 3:17). *The Lord Jesus does not condemn the mere possession of wealth, nor does he condemn the rich or make an ideal out of poverty. The blessing of the poor concerns above all the sphere of humility - spiritual poverty (Mt 5:3). Our Saviour calls for conversion and the preservation of the primacy of the spiritual sphere in our hierarchy of values. Spiritual poverty consists in the conviction that one's life does not depend on one's possessions (Lk 12:15) “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions". *According to Christ, the rich man is the one who thinks that his life depends on the goods he possesses and not on God, who has given him these goods for use. Such a person recognises money as his master, whom he serves. But Christ said: no one can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold with the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon (Mt 6:24) *The Gospel shows how the rich can make use of their endowment: The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want (Mk 14:7).The prudence of those who manage their wealth and gain friends through it is praised (Lk 16:1-12) Jesus praises the rich Zacchaeus, who shares his wealth with the needy and makes amends for the wrongs done (Lk 19,1-10).

The value of prayer Servais Pinkaers, Passions and Virtue pages 130- 136

ABC of Thomism J.M. Bocheński Thomistic personalism Thomistic personalism teaches that society is an ensemble of human persons with a common goal, which is the common good of society; that society is therefore not a thing, not a substance,not a person in the ontological sense of the word; that the only substances, persons in society are the concrete, individual human persons of which society is composed. Thomistic personalism teaches that society does not possess, nor can it possess, a soul or spirit in the strict sense of the word, and that it is not immortal. This personalism rejects the errors of Hegel, Marxists and other collectivists who attribute to society a greater fullness of being than to man and believe that society possesses a soul, a "spirit", or that it is a person in the ontological sense of the word. Personhood is granted on earth only to the human person.  Thomism defines the person as follows: " an individual spiritual substance". Thus, in order for an entity to be a person, it must be (1) a substance, i.e. a complete and indivisible entity (accidents such as culture, etc. are not persons; (2) fully individual (an arm or a leg is not a person), (3) spiritual (an animal is not a person. Society is not a person because it is not an individual substance, but a set of substances-people.  Thomism therefore rejects all theories that attribute to society a mode of being that is superior to that of an individual human . These theories tend to regard societies, as a substance, and to regard human beings simply as a part of that substance with no intrinsic being. The proponents of such theories consistently claim that society has a higher purpose than that of the individual human being, and view the human person as a simple instrument for serving this purpose. The moral consequence of this thesis is the stripping of man of his dignity as a person, and the political consequence is universal slavery. Thomism rejects these consequences, not only because they are false per se, but also because their ontological basis is false.  *It is important to emphasise that Thomistic philosophy is a consistent realism and that its doctrine of society is based on a theory of substance and accidentality, without which it is incomprehensible. A fundamental part of Thomistic philosophy is ontology (the science of being; that to which existence is due). It discusses the laws governing every being, Its principles are applied to all other branches of Thomistic philosophy.

Original sin didn't deprave man's substance St. Hippolytus "The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the world was made from nothing; wherefore it is not God; as also because this world admits of dissolution whenever the Creator so wishes it. But God, who created it, did not, nor does not, make evil. He makes what is glorious and excellent; for He who makes it is good. Now man, that was brought into existence, was a creature endued with a capacity of self-determination, yet not possessing a sovereign intellect, nor holding sway over all things by reflection, and authority, and power, but a slave to his passions, and comprising all sorts of contrarieties in himself. But man, from the fact of his possessing a capacity of self-determination, brings forth what is evil, that is, accidentally; which evil is not consummated except you actually commit some piece of wickedness. For it is in regard of our desiring anything that is wicked, or our meditating upon it, that what is evil is so denominated. Evil had no existence from the beginning, but came into being subsequently. Since man has free will, a law has been defined for his guidance by the Deity, not without answering a good purpose. For if man did not possess the power to will and not to will, why should a law be established? For a law will not be laid down for an animal devoid of reason, but a bridle and a whip; whereas to man has been given a precept and penalty to perform, or for not carrying into execution what has been enjoined " From a fragment of The Refutation of All Heresies, chapter XXIX - The Doctrine of the Truth more: 🔗 substance and accident - Christian Philosophy by Louis De Poissy 🔗 substance and accident in short 🔗 will and free will in Summa Theologiae 🔗 The effects of original sin in Summa #freewill #sin

All the good that is in us comes from God - On the words of prideful men "Humility is charitable, interpreting all things for the best and pitying and excusing the faults of others as much as possible. For this reason St. Peter, wishing to exhort us to love and have compassion upon our fellow-creatures, also exhorts us at the same time to be humble: "Having compassion one of another, being lovers of the brotherhood-----humble," [1 Pet. iii, 8] for there can be no charity without humility, and therefore to censure and criticize too readily the actions of our neighbors and to judge and speak ill of them are vices which are directly opposed to the virtue of humility. Who has given me the power to judge my brethren? When I thus constitute myself their judge and in the tribunal of my thoughts condemn first one and then another, I am usurping an authority I do not possess and which belongs to God alone: "For God is Judge." [Ps. xlix, 6] And if this is not pride, what is pride? In punishment of such arrogance God often permits us to fall into the very faults that we have condemned in others, and it is well for us to remember the teaching of St. Paul: "Wherefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest. For wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thyself." [Rom. ii, 1] There is always some pharisaical pride in the heart of him who judges and speaks evil of others, because in belittling others he exalts himself. It is in vain that we try hard cover our evil-speaking under ,the veil of some good motive; it must always be the result of pride which is quick to find out the weaknesses of others while remaining blind to its own. If we are guilty of pride let us try and amend and not flatter ourselves that we possess the smallest degree of humility, until by our good resolutions carefully carried out we have mortified our evil tendency to speak ill of our neighbor. Let us hearken to the Holy Ghost: "Where pride is there also shall be reproach, but where humility is there also is wisdom." [Prov. xi, 2] The proud man is scornful and arrogant in his speech; and the humble alone knows how to speak well and wisely. If there is humility in the heart it will be manifested in the speech, because "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good."  [Luke vi, 45]  What good qualities have we of our own for which we can praise ourselves? All the good that is in us comes from God, and to Him alone we must give praise and honor. When, therefore, we praise ourselves we are usurping glory which is due to God alone. Even though in praising ourselves we sometimes refer all to the honor of God, it matters little; when there is no absolute necessity it is better to abstain from self-praise, for although we refer all to the glory of God with our lips, our ingenious and subtle self-love cannot fail to appropriate it secretly. And even speaking depreciatingly of ourselves there may lurk some hypocritical pride in our words, such as was mentioned by the sage of old when he said: "There is one that humbleth himself wickedly, and his interior is full of deceit." [Ecclus xix, 23] Therefore we can never watch over ourselves enough, because there is nothing that teaches us so well to know the pride of our heart as our words, with which we either reveal or hide the depravity of our affections. And this is the characteristic of the proud, according to St. Bernard: "One who boastfully proclaims what he is, or lies about what he is not." [Epist. lxxxvii] Let us bear in heart and mind this precious advice given by Tobias to his son: "Never suffer pride to reign in thy mind or in thy words." [Tob. iv, 14] The words of a proud man are nauseous, whether he speaks of himself or others, and they are hated both by God and man: therefore we should detest this vice, not only from the Christian but also from the human standpoint." Humility of Heart by Fr Cajetan Mary da Bergamo #humility