Wednesday, April 4, 2012


Vatican City, 3 April 2012 (VIS) - Made public today was the annual Message to Buddhists for the Feast of Vesakh, issued by the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue. The message is signed by Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran and Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata, respectively president and secretary of the council. (IMAGE RADIO VATICANA\)
Vesakh is the main Buddhist feast and commemorates the three fundamental moments in the life of Gautama Buddha. According to tradition, the historical Buddha was born, achieved enlightenment and passed away during the full moon of the month of May. Thus Vesakh is a mobile feast which this year falls on 5 and 6 May, while in China it is celebrated on the eighth day of the fourth month of the Chinese calendar, which this year corresponds to 28 April. On those days, Buddhists decorate their houses with flowers and perfume them with incense, visit local temples and listen to the teaching of the monks.
This year's message is entitled: "Christians and Buddhists: Sharing Responsibility for Educating the Young Generation on Justice and Peace through Inter-religious Dialogue": Extracts from the English-language version of the text are given below.
"Today, more and more in classrooms all over the world, students belonging to various religions and beliefs sit side-by-side, learning with one another and from one another. This diversity gives rise to challenges and sparks deeper reflection on the need to educate young people to respect and understand the religious beliefs and practices of others, to grow in knowledge of their own, to advance together as responsible human beings and to be ready to join hands with those of other religions to resolve conflicts and to promote friendship, justice, peace and authentic human development.
"With His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, we acknowledge that true education can support an openness to the transcendent as well as to those around us. Where education is a reality there is an opportunity for dialogue, for inter-relatedness and for receptive listening to the other. In such an atmosphere, young people sense that they are appreciated for who they are and for what they are able to contribute; they learn how to grow in appreciation of their brothers and sisters whose beliefs and practices are different from their own. When that happens there will be joy in being persons of solidarity and compassion called to build a just and fraternal society giving thus hope for the future.
"As Buddhists you pass on to young people the wisdom regarding the need to refrain from harming others and to live lives of generosity and compassion, a practice to be esteemed and recognised as a precious gift to society. This is one concrete way in which religion contributes to educating the young generation, sharing the responsibility and cooperating with others.
"As a matter of fact, young people are an asset for all societies. By their genuineness, they encourage us to find an answer to the most fundamental questions about life and death, justice and peace, the meaning of suffering, and the reasons for hope. Thus they help us to progress in our pilgrimage towards Truth. By their dynamism, as builders of the future, they put pressure on us to destroy all the walls which unfortunately still separate us. By their questioning they nurture the dialogue between religions and cultures.
"Dear friends, we join our hearts to yours and pray that together we will be able to guide the young people by our example and teaching to become instruments of justice and peace. Let us share the common responsibility we have towards the present and future generations, nurturing them to be peaceful and to be peace makers".

Vatican City, 3 April 2012 (VIS) - Beginning in the second week of May when many countries around the world celebrate Mother's Day, the text of the "Rite for the Blessing of a Child in the Womb", having received the approval of the Holy See, will be made available in parishes throughout the United States. The announcement was made recently in a note issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops informing the faithful that the the text - printed in both English and Spanish - has received the "recognitio" of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, archbishop of Galveston-Houston and chairman of the episcopal conference's Committee on Pro-Life Activities, has explained that the blessing was prepared to "support parents awaiting the birth of their child, to encourage parish prayers for and recognition of the precious gift of the child in the womb, and to foster respect for human life within society". The blessing may be imparted either during the liturgy or outside of Mass and the text will eventually be included in the Book of Blessings, after it has been revised.
The blessing of unborn children was promoted by Archbishop Joseph Edward Kurtz of Louisville. When bishop of Knoxville he had asked the Committee on Pro-Life Activities to see whether a blessing existed for a child in the womb. When none was found, the committee began preparing a text which was presented to the Divine Worship Committee in March 2008. In November of the same year the full body of bishops approved the prayer and it was sent to the Holy See for the "recognitio".

Vatican City, 3 April 2012 (VIS) - The Holy Father:
- Appointed Bishop Jose Carlos Cabrero Romero of Zacatecas, Mexico, as archbishop of San Luis Potosi (area 19,428, population 1,925,000, Catholics 1,845,000, priests 264, permanent deacons 10, religious 985), Mexico. He succeeds Archbishop Luis Morales Reyes, whose resignation from the pastoral care of the same archdiocese the Holy Father accepted, upon having reached the age limit.
- Appointed Bishop Castor Oswaldo Azuaje Perez O.C.D., auxiliary of Maracaibo, Venezuela, as bishop of Trujillo (area 7,400, population 788,000, Catholics 746,000, priests 117, permanent deacons 23, religious 93), Venezuela. He succeeds Bishop Vicente Ramon Hernandez Pena, whose resignation from the pastoral care of the same diocese the Holy Father accepted, upon having reached the age limit


Appeal for solidarity with autistic people  | Archbishop Zygmunt Zimowski,Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care, autistic people

Archbishop ZimowskiIND. CATH. NEWS REPORT:
Archbishop Zygmunt Zimowski, president of the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care, has written a message for the Fifth World Autism Day, which took place yesterday, in which he makes an appeal for sensitivity and supportive solidarity towards autistic people and their families. In the message he recalls how "autistic spectrum disorders constitute ... a grave alteration of behaviour, of verbal and non-verbal communication, and of social integration, with a wide-ranging effect on the normal development and evolution of the personality".

"The Church sees as impelling the task of placing herself at the side of these people - children and young people in particular - and their families, if not to breakdown these barriers of silence then at least to share in solidarity and prayer in their journey of suffering". This is particularly important because families with autistic children, although they look after these children with loving care, experience repercussions as regards the quality of their own lives, and are often, in their turn, led to be closed up in an isolation that marginalises and wounds".

For this reason the Church and all men and women of good will "feel committed to being 'travelling companions' with those who live this eloquent silence, which calls upon our sensitivity towards the suffering of others".

The president of the pontifical council highlights the efforts of health care workers, educators, professionals and volunteers, adding that "the scientific world and health care policies must also be encouraged to engage in and ... increase diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative pathways that can address a pathology which affects more people in numerical terms than could have been imagined only a few years ago. To encourage and sustain, in the supportive action of the world of schools, voluntary work and associations, these efforts is a duty, not least to discover and bring out that dignity which even the gravest and most devastating disability does not eliminate, and which always fills us with hope".

Finally Archbishop Zimowski commends autistic people and their families to God. "Although enveloped in the mystery of silence because of a grave psychological disturbance, they are never alone, inasmuch as they are passionately loved by God and, in Him, by the community of those whose faith commits them to becoming a living and transparent sign of the presence of the Resurrected Christ in the world".

Source: VIS


Agenzia Fides REPORT - The Archbishop of San Salvador, His Exc. Mgr. Jose Escobar Alas, complained that for the past three months, the Metropolitan Cathedral has been occupied by a group of ex-combatants, which does not allow the religious celebrations to be held. "We regret that our Cathedral is still occupied, especially during this special moment such as Holy Week. This is why, once again, we ask the people who are inside to reflect and desist from this evil act that goes against the respect and honor of God and violates the right of people to worship God in his temple", said the Archbishop talking to the press.
According to local Fides sources, the Archbishop stressed that this situation constitutes a violation of the right to the freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution of the Republic. Meanwhile, the occupants have expressed their willingness to negotiate and leave the premises of the church. Camilo Artiga, one of the occupants, explained that this forceful action continues because the negotiation process has stopped for the Easter holidays. "The Government of the Republic and the Archbishop know our willingness to continue negotiations and to give temple back before Holy Week, but it was not possible because the American government went on vacation," said Artiga. The occupants have also criticized Mgr. Escobar Alas’ words, when he said that their decision is "an act of disrespect" towards the faithful.
The ex-combatants, who entered the cathedral occupying it at the beginning of January, announced that they are not going away until a commission to negotiate with the government is set up. The demands of ex-combatants regard their reinstatement as veterans of the police and the reinstatement of their representative in parliament; the recognition of their trade union (see Fides 16/01/2012). They also stressed their good will because, without having yet reached any agreement, they have opened the Cathedral to ensure that the faithful could visit the grave of Archbishop Romero, on the anniversary of his assassination. "Everything depends on the government if a proper agreement is reached, and if there is an agreement , tomorrow the faithful can also come to Mass in the Cathedral" said Artiga. (CE) (Agenzia Fides 03/04/2012)


Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee's Inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010
+ Cardinal George Pell,
30 Mar 2012


Catholics hold strong beliefs about the dignity of the human person and the goodness and beauty of marriage as a natural institution between a man and a woman. In response to the subject inquiry, I make the following submissions regarding the nature of marriage and why the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia must continue to recognise and support marriage as meaning the exclusive and permanent union of one man and one woman.
What is marriage?
Marriage is a natural institution whereby a man and a woman give themselves to each other for life in an exclusive sexual relationship that is open to procreation. It is a union that is publicly recognised, honoured and supported because of its unique capacity to generate children and to meet children's deepest needs for the love and attachment of both their father and their mother. In the words of Professor Robert George of Princeton University:
"Marriage is the community formed by a man and a woman who publicly consent to share their whole lives, in a type of relationship oriented toward the begetting, nurturing and educating of children together. This openness to procreation, as the community's natural fulfilment, distinguishes this community from other types."1
By contrast, although the community formed by a homosexual couple may involve genuine caring, affection and commitment to one another, it is not an inherently procreative community, because their sexual relationship is not designed to generate children. Marriage is not simply a loving, committed relationship between two people, but a unique kind of physical and emotional union which is open to the possibility of new life.
The definition of marriage as an inherently procreative community does not exclude heterosexual married couples who cannot have children for reasons of age or infertility. They are still married because their sexual union is naturally designed to give life, even if it cannot give life at a particular point in time, or ever. Marriage between a man and a woman always has an inherent capacity for, and orientation towards, the generation of children, whether that capacity is actualized or not.
How does marriage between a man and a woman make a unique contribution to society?
Marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to society because a stable, loving marriage provides the best conditions for raising children. Through marriage, children are able to grow up knowing that they were created through an act of intimate love and with the knowledge that their mother and father have committed to each other for life. Marriage also contributes uniquely to society in modelling the way women and men live interdependently, recognising the equal dignity, beauty and value of the other, and committing to seek the good of each other. The family based on marriage is also the best social framework for the promotion of inter and intra-generational biological connectivity, which is an important and vital social good.
Marriage: discrimination against same-sex couples?
Unjust discrimination against persons is always wrong, but participation in particular social institutions is not always equally available to all persons within society. Distinguishing between certain groups is essential for the maintenance of the validity of the institution; e.g. university access is based on academic merit and not simply on the desire to attend a university. Women's and girls' only schools and colleges are permitted to deny entry to men, because society recognises that receiving men into the institution would change its essential character.
It is not unjust discrimination against homosexual couples to uphold marriage as being between a man and a woman. Marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. Justice, in fact, requires society to recognise and respect this difference.
Marriage: a basic human right?
"The right to marry and found a family" is affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). International law has always understood and affirmed the enduring, unchanging truth that marriage is a life-giving union of a man and a woman. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, which monitors international human rights treaties, has stated that the right to marry "implies, in principle, the possibility to procreate".2 The right to marry is a fundamental human right. However, to respect this right means to accept the objective reality of marriage as a union of a man and a woman that is inherently procreative.

Why should secular society recognise, structure and encourage marriage?
Secular society has always recognised marriage as a public institution because the marital relationship makes a unique and essential contribution to the common good. Marriage is pre-political and the state has in this sense inherited marriage. The state should not alter and supply different reasons for an institution which it has inherited; rather it can only consider the reasons why this institution has deserved - and still deserves - social recognition and support. The primary reason why nation states have been interested in marriage and why it has attracted public support is because of its procreative aspect, encompassing the generation and raising of children:
"Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good".3
Companionship and love are undoubtedly important, but it is not the role of the state to legislate on the basis of private affections. Procreation, however, constitutes the public reason for marriage, because the creation and raising of children is publicly significant, with immense implications for the common good. The family, based on marriage, is the basic unit on which society and the extended family is built. As such, the state has an interest in and duty to ensure children are raised, as far as possible, by their natural families.4
The state cannot grant the legal status of marriage to same-sex unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the public good.
While same-sex couples can have children by means of donor sperm or eggs, or through adoption, their relationship does not inherently have the possibility of creating children. For same-sex couples, having a child will always involve the use of one or more persons outside their relationship. This is unjust to children and destructive of their family connectedness. This practice should not be publicly endorsed or encouraged, because it involves a profound loss and deprivation for the child concerned: the loss of a pre eminent and vital relationship with their biological father or mother.
Although it is deeply natural and good to desire children, the child should always be seen as a gift - a person whose rights and dignity must always be respected. As affirmed by international law, children have a right to their biological heritage.5 It is a grave injustice to deliberately deprive children of the experience of being loved and raised by their natural mother and father6 and to prevent them from having a developing and ongoing relationship with their biological siblings.
Religious freedom at risk for all Australians
Some proponents of same-sex marriage have argued that in the event of marriage being redefined, the Catholic Church and other religious communities will be "protected" or "exempted" from being required by law to perform same-sex marriages. Such proposals fail to understand the immensely powerful role and influence of the law in our society. Changing the Marriage Act would, in practice, compel Catholics and other faith communities to recognise and accept same-sex marriage in their schools, charities, social welfare, health care and adoption services.
An 'exemption' would only apply to religious celebrants, and would offer no legal protection for the vast majority of Catholics and other Australians with a religious and/or conscientiously-held belief that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.
The Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, with or without any accompanying 'exempting' legislation, poses a grave danger to religious freedom. It would threaten the right of Catholics and all Australians who believe in marriage to live, teach and publicly practise their belief that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.
In March 2012 the European Court of Human Rights handed down a judgment reaffirming its earlier decision that same-sex marriage is not a human right under the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Court added that:
"Where national legislation recognises registered partnerships between same sex, member states should aim to ensure that their legal status and their rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a similar situation."7
Mr Neil Addison, an English barrister who specialises in discrimination law, explained that what this means is that:
"Once same-sex marriage has been legalised then the partners to such a marriage are entitled to exactly the same rights as partners in a heterosexual marriage. This means that if same-sex marriage is legalised in the UK it will be illegal for the Government to prevent such marriages happening in religious premises."8
Australia is not a party to the European Convention on Human Rights and is not bound by the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. But this reasoning is likely to be followed by Australian courts and tribunals to read down 'exemptions' intended to protect religious freedom.
The meaning of marriage is important for all of us
The philosopher Ronald Dworkin, himself a supporter of homosexual marriage, explains why there is a strong case for not changing the meaning of marriage. He begins with the premise that the institution of marriage is:
"a unique and immensely valuable cultural resource. Its meaning and hence its value have developed over centuries, and the assumption that marriage is the union of a man and a woman is so embedded in our common understanding that it would become a different institution were that assumption now challenged and lost. Just as we might struggle to maintain the meaning and value of any other great natural or artistic resource, so we should struggle to retain this uniquely valuable cultural resource.
I believe that argument to be the strongest that can be made against gay marriage. It raises a larger and even more important issue. Who should have control, and in what way, over the moral, ethical, and aesthetic culture in which we must all live and that defines the meaning of our social and legal institutions and shapes our lives in many other ways?"9
We should not treat lightly those legal and social norms which limit marriage to persons of opposite sex. Often out of a sense of not wanting to unfairly discriminate, we can think that allowing equal status to other forms of unions somehow seems just. However, when we equate same-sex relationships with marriage, it further undermines our understanding of family by wrongly implying that biological connectivity of children with their parents and siblings is not important. In addition, it mistakenly says that having both a mother and a father is an unnecessary and superfluous duplication. Contrary to everything we intuitively and sociologically know about effective parenting, it adds further confusion by saying that mothers can 'father' just as well as men, and that fathers can 'mother' just as well as women.
When we permit same-sex relationships to mimic marriage we also say that a child gains no benefit from the knowledge that they were created through an intimate act of love between their parents. As a result, our understanding of children also changes. Instead of seeing children principally as gifts created in love we begin to treat them as an entitlement.
When legislatures act to change laws, social norms change as a consequence, and these impact on all members of the community. Because marriage is one of the greatest resources of society, one that encourages men and women to commit to each other for life and to love and raise their children together, any change in the definition of marriage away from procreation to simply an emotional union will fundamentally alter society's values. Professors David Tubbs and Robert George explain the impact of a change in the definition of marriage:
"the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships as marriages is likely to further destabilize an institution already damaged by the casual acceptance of cohabitation and unwed childbearing as well as by the high rate of divorce. If a desire to stamp social approval on homosexual conduct and relationships leads to a redefinition of marriage that detaches it not only from biological complementarity and procreation but also from the related norm of sexual exclusivity, what will be left of the institution?"10
Legislation similar to the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 is being considered in the United Kingdom. As the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales stated recently in their letter of 10 March 2012:
"The law helps to shape and form social and cultural values. A change in the law would gradually and inevitably transform society's understanding of the purpose of marriage. It would reduce it just to the commitment of the two people involved. There would be no recognition of the complementarity of male and female or that marriage is intended for the procreation and education of children."11
I reiterate strongly the declaration of the English and Welsh bishops that we have a duty to all married couples, and to future generations, to do all we can "to ensure that the true meaning of marriage is not lost".12 The real and distinctive meaning of marriage - a meaning cherished and preserved for countless generations of the human family - must not be taken away because of a deeply misguided idea that marriage only means any kind of committed relationship between two individuals.
Marriage: our common heritage
Pope Benedict XVI has reminded us that marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental element of the "common patrimony" of humanity - our most precious heritage as human beings. Marriage is the place where sexuality is truly humanized, where man and woman through their exclusive commitment to each other create a family and pass this love on to their children and to future generations:
"We have a positive idea to offer, that man and woman are made for each other … that marriage develops, first of all as a joyful and blessing-filled encounter between a man and a woman, and then, the family, which guarantees continuity among generations and through which generations are reconciled to each other and even cultures can meet."13
I urge you once again to recognise that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, uniquely designed for the gift of children, and to support the essential and irreplaceable contribution marriage makes to our society.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission on such an important matter of national interest.

  1. Robert P. George, In Defense of Natural Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1999, p.168.
  2. UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No 19.
  3. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, June 3, 2003. Available at:
  4. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 7(1).
  5. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 30.
  6. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 7(1).
  7. "Gay Marriage is not a human rights, according t European ruling" The Telegraph (UK), 21 March 2012.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Ronald Dworkin, "Three Questions for America", The New York Review of Books, September 21, 2006.
  10. David L. Tubbs & Robert P. George, "Redefining Marriage Away", City Journal, Summer 2004.
  11. A Letter on Marriage. Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales. 10-11 March 2012. Available at:
  12. Ibid.
  13. Press interview with Pope Benedict XVI, Castel Gandolfo, Italy, August 5, 2006.


by David Viehland
Members of the Inter-Religious Solidarity Movement for Peace condemn the killing of Arturo Eustaquio III, president of Universidad de Zamboanga, gunned down by unknown assailants on Sunday. He had been involved in education for years. His university was one of the main centres of higher education on the island of Mindanao.

Manila (AsiaNews) - Christian and Muslim leaders have condemned the killing of Universidad de Zamboanga (UZ) president Arturo Eustaquio III, calling on the authorities to stop the spate of killings in the southern Philippines city. Two suspects, reportedly on motorcycles, shot to death the 69-year-old Eustaquio, a Muslim, on Sunday in Santa Maria village.

An active member of the Inter-Religious Solidarity Movement for Peace (IRSMP), Eustaquio was laid to rest the next day on the grounds of the university, founded by his family. The college serves at least 8,000 students, both Christians and Muslims, and over the years has become one of the most prominent centres of higher education in the region. Its main campus is in Zamboanga City and Ipil, but plans are on the drawing board to start another branch in Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur.

The Eustaquio family also owns one of the main private hospitals in the city.

According to police, one motive for the murder was that the university was getting too big. In recent months, the victim had received death threats, the latest on 21 March. Police had warned him that he might be abducted for ransom.

In a press statement signed by IRSMP secretary Fr Angel Calvo and other Christian and Muslim religious leaders, the organisation described the slain educator as a peace advocate who helped students from poor families.

The group complained about the violence that is sweeping the city, with killings and kidnappings. Increasingly, residents are concerned and fearful about their safety.

"If an assassin can kill with impunity a man of stature like Eustaquio, who then in this city can be safe from a similar attack?" IRSMP leaders asked.

The IRSMP appealed to President Benigno Aquino III to exercise his extraordinary and special powers to order appropriate officials, agencies and sectors to restore and preserve peace and order and the rule of law in Zamboanga City and the rest of the island.

After 40 years of fighting between the Filipino military and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), Mindanao has become one of the most dangerous places in the Philippines and the world. Abductions, attacks and killings are everyday occurrences, and most go unpunished.

During his election campaign, President Aquino promised to change direction from that taken by her predecessor, Gloria Arroyo. The latter is currently on trial on corruption charges and has been accused of protecting friendly businessmen involved in brutal murders.


Cisa News REPORT
DAR ES SALAAM, April 03, 2012 (CISA) -The Second Dar es Salaam Counter Human Trafficking Symposium for the grassroots and faith based organizations came to an end on March 29, 2012.
The symposium was organized by Reintegrated Efforts for Social Transformation (REST), Hope for the Children Organization (HFCO) and the Daughters of Mary Immaculate (DMI) Sisters in Dar, Tanzania assisted by KARDS and Consolation East Africa from Nairobi, Kenya.
Several faith based and other local organizations were represented in this symposium including The Catholic Professionals of Tanzania (CPT), Wanawake Wakatoliki Tanzania (WAWATA), Caritas Tanzania, Legal Human Rights Center (LHRC), University of Dar es Salaam and Youth for Change (Y4C).
The symposium provided a healthy forum for exchange of ideas, perspectives and information on the Challenge of human trafficking in Tanzania. The important outcome of the symposium was the fact that participants felt the need to strengthen networking and collaboration amongst themselves.
The primary topic handled by the symposium was the reintegration of the victims of human trafficking in Tanzania. This appears to be a great challenge as facilities for temporary safe haven are lacking. So far only one organization provides facilities the DMI sisters in Kimara.
Organizations working in countering human trafficking have little know how of what it entails and its scope. Hence constant forums for knowledge exchange that also contribute to promotion of networking play an important role. The participants from Kenya shared with the other participants that the Church in Kenya dedicated the first week of the 2011 Lenten period to discuss amongst human trafficking. By entrenching the message against human trafficking in the Lenten Campaign the Kenyan Church indicated that they saw it as a peace and justice issue.
The next symposium is scheduled for 28th and 29th June in Mombasa and the last major symposium for this year will be held in Nairobi on 21st, 22nd and 23rd November. The third counter human trafficking symposium for Tanzania will be held in 28th and 29th March 2013.


John 13: 21 - 33, 36 - 38
21 When Jesus had thus spoken, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, "Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me."
22 The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke.
23 One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus;
24 so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said, "Tell us who it is of whom he speaks."
25 So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, "Lord, who is it?"
26 Jesus answered, "It is he to whom I shall give this morsel when I have dipped it." So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.
27 Then after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, "What you are going to do, do quickly."
28 Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him.
29 Some thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him, "Buy what we need for the feast"; or, that he should give something to the poor.
30 So, after receiving the morsel, he immediately went out; and it was night.
31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of man glorified, and in him God is glorified;
32 if God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once.
33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me; and as I said to the Jews so now I say to you, `Where I am going you cannot come.'
36 Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?" Jesus answered, "Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you shall follow afterward."
37 Peter said to him, "Lord, why cannot I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you."
38 Jesus answered, "Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three times.


St. Richard
Feast: April 3

Feast Day: April 3
Born: 1197 at Droitwich, Worcestershire, England
Died: 3 April 1253 at Dover, England
Canonized: 1262 by Pope Urban IV
Major Shrine: Chichester Cathedral
Patron of: coachmen
St. Richard was born at the manor of Wiche, famous for its salt wells four miles from Worcester, being second son to Richard and Alice de Wiche In order to keep faithfully his baptismal vows, he from his infancy always manifested the utmost dislike to gay diversions, and ever held in the highest contempt all worldly pomp: instead of which his attention was wholly employed In establishing for himself a solid foundation of virtue and learning. Every opportunity of serving others he regarded as his happiness and gain. The unfortunate situation of his eldest brother's affairs gave him an occasion of exercising his benevolent disposition. Richard condescended to become his brother's servant, undertook the management of his farms and by his industry and generosity effectually retrieved his brother's before distressed circumstances. Having completed this good work, he resumed at Paris those studies he had begun at Oxford, leading with two select companions, a life of piety and mortification, generally contenting himself with coarse bread and simple water for his diet; except that on Sundays and on particular festivals he would, in condescendence to some visitors, allow himself a little meat or fish. Upon his return to England, he proceeded to become master of arts at Oxford, from whence he went to Bologna, in Italy, where he applied himself to the study of the canon law, and was appointed public professor of that science. After having taught there a short time, he returned to Oxford, and, on account of his merit, was soon promoted to the dignity of chancellor in that university. St. Edmund, archbishop of Canterbury. having the happiness of gaining him for his diocese, appointed him his chancellor, and intrusted him with the chief direction of his archbishopric; and Richard was the faithful imitator of his patron's piety and devotions. The principal use he made of his revenues was to employ them to charitable purposes, nor would he on any terms be prevailed on to accept the least present in the execution of his office as ecclesiastical judge. He accompanied his holy prelate in his banishment into France, and after his blessed death at Pontigni, retired into a convent of Dominican friars in Orleans. Having in that solitude employed his time in the improving himself in theological studies, and received the order of priesthood, he returned to England to serve a private curacy, in the diocese of Canterbury. Boniface, who had succeeded St. Edmund in that metropolitan see, compelled him to resume his office of chancellor, with the care of his whole diocese. Ralph Nevil, bishop of Chichester, dying in 1244, king Henry III. recommended to that see an unworthy court favorite, called Robert Passelew: the archbishop and other prelates declared the person not qualified, and the presentation void: and preferred Richard de Wiche to that dignity. He was consecrated in 1245. But the king seized his temporalities, and the saint suffered many hardships and persecutions from him and his officers, during two years, till his majesty granted him a replevin: upon which he recovered his revenues, but much impaired. And as, after having pleaded his cause at Rome before pope Innocent IV. against the king's deputies, and obtained a sentence confirming his election, he had permitted no persecution, fatigue. or difficulty to excuse him to himself for the omission of any part of his duty to his flock so now, the chief obstacles being removed, he redoubled his fervor and attention. He, in person, visited the sick, buried the dead, and sought out and relieved the poor. When his steward complained that his alms exceeded his income: "then," said he, "sell my plate and my horse." Having suffered a great loss by fire, instead of being more sparing in his charities, he said, "Perhaps God sent us this loss to punish our covetousness;" and ordered upon the spot more abundant alms to be given than usual. Such was the ardor of his devotion that he lived as it were in the perpetual contemplation of heavenly things. He preached the word of God to his flock with that unction and success which only an eminent spirit of prayer could produce. The affronts which he received, he always repaid with favors, and enmity with singular marks of charily. In maintaining discipline he was inflexible, especially in chastising crimes in the clergy, no intercession of the king, archbishop, and several other prelates could prevail with him to mitigate the punishment of a priest who had sinned against chastity. Yet penitent sinners he received with inexpressible tenderness and charity. While he was employed in preaching a holy war against the Saracens, being commissioned thereto by the pope, he fell sick of a fever, foretold his own death, and prepared himself for it by the most melting ejaculations of divine love and thanksgiving. He died in an hospital at Dover, called God's House, on the 3d of April, in the year of our Lord 1253, of his episcopal dignity the ninth, of his age the fifty-sixth. His body was conveyed to Chichester, and interred before the altar which he himself had consecrated in his cathedral to the memory of St. Edmund. It was removed to a more honorable place in 1276, on the 16th of June, on which day our ancestors commemorated his translation. The fame of miraculous cures of paralytic and other distempers, and of three persons raised to life at his tomb, moved the pope to appoint commissaries to inquire into the truth of these reports, before whom many of these miracles were authentically proved upon the spot; and the saint was solemnly canonized by Urban IV, in 1262.
source: EWTN

No comments: