February 1991 Print

by Father François Laisney

Q. Since the New Order Church has relinquished its obligation to provide guidance to parents with regard to movie ratings and since the movie industry has come out with a new, relaxed rating system (NC-17), I am wondering if it isn't time for the Society to come out with a rating system? (K.P., Reno, NV)

A. The only films I would recommend for viewing would be the videos distributed by Keep the Faith (810 Belmont Avenue, N. Haledon, NJ 07508-2300): lives of the saints, conferences of Bishop Fulton Sheen, etc.

However, while a video is allowed, Archbishop Lefebvre does not allow television for the members of the Society of St. Pius X—not only priest, brothers and sisters, but also for members of the Third Order.

As for all the faithful, the Society of St. Pius X strongly advises the faithful not to have a television. Father Lafitte sent out a good study on this; it is beyond the scope of our limited space here to develop again all that he said. I will, however, give you a few considerations.

Our Lord Jesus Christ has spoken about television! Yes, indeed! He said: "If thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out. It is better for thee with one eye to enter into the Kingdom of God, than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished" (Mk 9:46-47). Now I ask every one of the readers to be honest with himself: if television is an occasion of sin for you, these words of Our Lord apply to you. What is easiest for you—pluck out your eye or to throw away your television? Do not say that you may use your television for good purposes; you can use even more your eye for good purposes; yet, it becomes an occasion of sin for you, do not spare it, pluck it out! So, if your television becomes an occasion of sin for you, do not throw it away without self-pity—rather, with true pity for your soul!

If television is an occasion of sin for your children, have pity on their souls too and throw your television away.

Remember that there is not just one Commandment, but ten of them—and all of them are violated repeatedly on television. Do not think just of the impurities on TV, but also of all the violence, of all the disrespect for parents and legitimate authorities, of all the misuse of the Holy Name of God—so common, so common! Think of all the bad, vulgar and dirty language. Think of the worldly spirit of pursuit of earthly goods with no regard for eternal salvation (and you certainly have this in sports, too: the most ardent pursuit of money and earthly glory!) One could go on and on.

Now, if you rate all the films which offend in one or another of the Ten Commandments, then I really doubt whether there will be one out of a thousand that will be acceptable! The Society cannot preview all of these evil films to find the improbable one which will be acceptable.

Television very often harms and can even destroy family life. This is not mere speculation: I know in America a real case where its presence in a family led to divorce—and that a traditional family! Without TV, you will find time to help your spouse, to be with your children, to help them with their lessons and even to play with them! Your children will not develop a passive attitude in front of the box, but they will rather develop an active attitude, helping their mother or reading good, wholesome literature. You will learn to listen to each other instead of listening to the box... In our times coming near the end of the world, we must return to the fervor of the early Christians. The TV of their time was the games of the circus. The Fathers of the Church were very strongly opposed to these games. The Society of St. Pius X continues their tradition!

 

Q. What do you think of the "Baptism of the Unborn," which is supposedly recommended by some apparition? (C.K., Sydney, Australia)

A.  It is invalid! The Church always taught that the matter of baptism was water flowing on the body. There can be NO baptism at distance. To use the very words of the Sacraments, which are hereby sacred, in an invalid manner is a serious matter, i.e., matter of a mortal sin.

God is Almighty. As He gave sanctifying grace to St. John the Baptist in the womb of his mother, so He has the power to give sanctifying grace to other children in the same manner. Yet this is not a sacrament, and therefore the words of the Sacrament of Baptism should not be used for this prayer.

If an "apparition" promotes the use of the sacred words of Baptism in an invalid manner, such an apparition should not be followed.

The prayer to ask God to grant sanctifying grace to children who are going to be aborted is not bad, but we must not think that Our Lord Jesus Christ is going to grant it in most cases; if any, it will be in very few cases, and here is the reason: There are some privileges which God granted to chosen souls, and does not grant to just anybody. The typical example is that of the Immaculate Conception. It would be a sin for a mother to ask that the children she conceives be "immaculate in their conception." It would be to ask something against the wisdom of God, Who bestows grace with order and measure, and Who gave to Our Lady as a unique privilege that of the Immaculate Conception, proportionate to her mission of becoming the Mother of God. Since that mission is absolutely unique, so is the privilege of the Immaculate Conception.

The privilege granted to St. John the Baptist has been granted also to the prophet Jeremiah, but it was a privilege proportionate to their unique mission of precursor or as a prophecy. It is obviously something extremely rare and we should not expect it to become the common rule for aborted children. Otherwise, it should rather be given to children naturally aborted by devout mothers without any fault of their own. Yet the Church teaches that for children without the use of reason, the only way to be saved is by the waters of Baptism. Adults who are prevented from the reception of the waters of Baptism without fault on their part may receive sanctifying grace through a very special grace of the Holy Ghost by an act of living faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ with perfect contrition for their sins. But children cannot do so. Therefore, good mothers pray that the children they conceive be kept safe until their baptism, and they must have their children baptized without delay.

The great principle here is that our prayers must conform to the wisdom of God. For example, we must not ask to go to Heaven without having to carry our cross. Such a prayer would displease Our Lord Jesus Christ!

In the same way, what we must ask for the unborn children is not "an easy salvation," but rather that their parents may be converted and that they would lead their children to the waters of Baptism: that is the proper prayer. This must also remind us of our duty to work actively against abortion. There is no easy way out.

 

Q. Does it make a difference whether one makes the Sign of the Cross with the right hand or with the left hand? (J.B., Dickinson, TX)

A. The Roman Missal describes the Sign of the Cross in the following words: "Blessing himself, he turns the palm of his RIGHT hand towards himself, having all the fingers extended and joined, he makes the Sign of the Cross from the forehead to the breast, and from the left to the right shoulder."

Even left-handed priests make the Sign of the Cross with their right hand. This is the practice of the Roman Catholic Church, which we all should follow. The same is true for genuflection: it should be made with the right knee, down to the ground. It is a real pity to see the negligence, inattention and carelessness with which these sacred signs are performed by some faithful. Only persons who are physically crippled are excused from this. I remember Archbishop Lefebvre telling us that he had made the prayer to be able to genuflect down to the ground until the end of his life.

Making the Sign of the Cross is a very holy and ancient practice in the Church. The little Sign of the Cross, with the thumb on the forehead as is done before the Gospel and as the Bishop made on us for our Confirmation, is from the very beginning of the Church, and refers to the Apocalypse (7:3; 9:4; 14:1). It is a good custom for parents to bless their children in the evening with such a sign on their forehead. The Sign of the Cross is constantly used by the Church in all her blessings.

The Greek Catholics make it from the right to the left shoulder, and with three fingers joined in honor of the Holy Trinity, the other two folded in honor of the two natures of Christ.

The Sign of the Cross is a sacramental. It gives grace in the measure of the devotion with which we use it. Let us always make it in a worthy manner, respecting the customs of the Church.

 

Q. As many Catholic prophecy books contain prophecies of Nostradamus, are his visions considered by the Catholic Church as being from God or from the devil, considering he dealt with the occult astrology and horoscopes? (J.R., Claremont, NH)

A. I personally know very little about Nostradamus. I looked in The Catholic Encyclopedia. Born in 1505, he died in 1566. He is mentioned as an astrologer (the Court astrologer for Queen Catherine de Medici, of France). The Church has always condemned astrology. He is also mentioned in the article on "Imposters"!

 

Q. Would you tell us Holy Mother Church's requirements for a just war? (M.S., Muskogee, OK)

A. Though there are many abuses in wars, the Church does not always forbid war. As St. Augustine says: "If the Christian religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counseled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On they contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man; and be content with your pay' (Lk 3:14). If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering." There were many saints who were soldiers, e.g., St. Maurice.

Mankind is not a mere collection of individuals. God has established some natural ties, and bonds and societies: family ties, national bonds, etc. God has established some legitimate authorities, in order to provide for the common good of these societies. Each nation has thus, by Divine ordinance, a supreme authority. That authority must not only promote what is good but also repress what is evil. That authority "beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil... Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same."

In other words, authority not only may but must exercise coercion at the service of the common good. That coercion against evil doers is done by the police within the state and by the army against foreign aggressors.

The conditions of a just war are:

1) There must be a just cause. The enemy must have violated the common rights of the nation, not just the private good of some individuals of the nation. (Otherwise war would not be proportionate to the offense.) The case of Iraq totally taking over a neighboring state is an evident case of violation of the common rights of another nation; there is no doubt there! A nation may come to the aid of another nation unjustly attacked, especially if there is a formal alliance between the two nations or an express request from the victimized one; a mere alliance and friendship "de facto" is sufficient to come to the aid of another nation.

2) The war must be declared by the supreme authority of the nation. Private vengeance of individuals is not permitted (one must have recourse to the superior authority.) Only the supreme authority can engage a whole nation in war.

3) War must be the last appeal. All other peaceful efforts must be exhausted, within a reasonable time.

4) There must be a reasonable hope that it will correct the offense and not bring greater evil. (Note that the pacifist argument that the loss of a human life is a great evil is not valid: the Church has always taught that it is virtuous for the member of a society to sacrifice oneself for the common good. And enemy soldiers who defend a wrong power share at least materially in the evil cause they defend.)

5) War is not against the civilians (i.e., non-combatants). Thus bombing residential areas (as was done in World War II, both in France and Japan) is not legitimate. Killing prisoners, who have ceased to be combatants, is not allowed. Evil means, such as treachery, poisoning, weapons causing excessive destruction or excessive suffering, incurable wounds or human defacement beyond the requirements for putting the combatants out of the conflict are excluded.

These first five conditions are, from all evidence, fulfilled in the case of the war against Iraq. But there is another condition!

6) St. Thomas adds rightful intention! (Ila IIæ a. 40 a.1). Thus one should not war for aggrandizement, or for cruelty, or for the lust for power, or for vengeance, etc. It must rather be for the sake of securing peace, or punishing evil-doers and uplifting the good.

That sixth condition may vary from person to person. Thus one soldier may fight with a rightful intention and thus be doing his duty; another may fight with passion for cruelty and thus offend God. It may happen that the intention of the leaders be wrong and not that of the soldiers, and also the contrary. Unless an evil intention of the supreme authority declaring war would be clearly manifested to all, and thus render all cooperation with that war wrong, I think that, if the previous five conditions are fulfilled, soldiers can and should fight for their country, keeping a right intention in all their actions and avoiding the excesses of war as far as they can.