GRACE, FREEWILL AND PREDESTINATION

By Fr David Watt

 

 

Part I: Theological Underpinnings

 

  The title of this piece may provoke the reaction that ‘fools rush in where angels fear to tread’. Certainly I would be the first to agree that far greater theologians than I have grappled with these questions, and that if those such as myself show any perception at all on such matters, it is that of dwarves sitting on the shoulders of giants. Secondly, my interest in these questions is not merely academic, but also practical, as I hope to make clear in Part II.

   Let me say at the outset that on one fundamental point of the controversy I am convincedly Molinist. That is, I reject, as logically incoherent, the notion of a grace so powerful – yet so restrained! – that it quite literally predetermines our free response.  Whether this rejection was endorsed by most theologians of Molina’s day, this seems to have happened since.

 

   Having conceded this major point to the Jesuits I am, however, disposed to glean all that I can from the other schools of thought, particularly regarding their exaltation of the supremacy of grace. The first reason for this is the a priori unlikelihood of so many learned, holy men being completely wrong in everything they say on the subject. In the second place, and on a more personal note, my experience is that the further one studies theology, and more importantly the longer one tries, however feebly, to lead a spiritual life, the more thoroughly one becomes imbued with the sentiment that, in the words of St Thérèse of Lisieux, Doctor of the Church, ‘Tout est grâce’, or, as we read in the prophet Isaiah (26:12, Douay Rheims version, as for subsequent Scriptural citations) ‘Thou hast wrought all our works’. 

   Now from the exaltation of grace back to the point on which we have exalted freewill.  This point is upheld not merely by logic but also by at least two Doctors of the Church: St Robert Bellarmine SJ and St Francis de Sales. To be sure, those who controverted this assertion likewise appealed to Doctors of the Church, but with the crucial difference that these Doctors went to their eternal reward before the late 16^th – early 17^th century disputes on grace, and therefore were not able, barring private revelation, to corroborate either the accuracy with which views were ascribed to them, or their perseverance in these views till death (cf. St Augustine’s unfinished work Retractationes, in which he corrects his writings here and there). Another factor to be borne in mind is that later Doctors can take earlier ones into account but not vice versa.

   One objection raised against the Molinist rejection of grace predetermining our free consent is that this makes it hard to explain God’s knowledge of the future. My reply is, firstly, that as pointed out by a notable writer on the subject, Joseph Pohle, all the various schools of thought with regard to grace and free will are forced to agree that here we are confronted with a great mystery. Secondly, even if predetermining grace could explain God’s knowledge of some future acts, it would not work for others, especially sins.

   Another objection against this Molinist assertion is that it introduces passivity into God Who is Pure Act, since He is now dependent for some of His knowledge on the decisions of His creatures. I reply that there is an ineluctable passivity about some knowledge, human or Divine. For example, God’s knowledge that twice two is four,  derives from the fact that twice two IS four, and not from any decision that He has taken, since this mathematical truth would have remained inviolate whether He took that decision or not.

   However, the theory of scientia media, conceived as knowledge of absolutes rather than probabilities or propensities, is, I believe, just as destructive of free will as is the Bañezian predetermining grace. Scientia media is God’s knowledge of propositions such as that found in Mt 11:21 and Lk 10:13 – that Tyre and Sidon would have repented had they been the scene of the miracles performed in Corozain and Bethsaida. For the performing of such miracles to bring about repentance infallibly it must determine the result, which is a contradiction since we are speaking of repentance – a free act.

   I aver, then, that God’s knowledge of such facts can be analysed somewhat as follows: The inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon were not so bad that they would have remained more inclined to evil than to good after such prodigies, but even then it would still have been possible, albeit somewhat or highly improbable, that they would resist grace.

   It is crucial to realize here that in proposing this analysis I am not introducing any limitation on God’s knowledge. In the ditty from The Wind in the Willows,

 

                        The clever men at Oxford

 

                                    Know all there is to be knowed

 

                        But none of them know half so much

 

                                    As intelligent Mr Toad.

 

God ‘knows all there is to be knowed’. It’s merely that regarding counterfactual propositions with a consequent stating a free action, there is nothing to be known beyond propensities which are non-determining and hence merely probabilistic. To think otherwise is to advance a mistaken application of the Law of the Excluded Middle. This logical law, which does indeed admit of no exceptions, merely states here that either it is the case that if those miracles had been wrought, Tyre and Sidon would have been converted, or it is not the case that this would have happened. But it is fallacious to argue from the latter disjunct to the conclusion that, had the miracles occurred, the inhabitants would not have been converted, ie remained impenitent.  [This point (which by the way is clearer when stated in modern symbolic logic than in ordinary English) is well made on p.160 of Garrigou-Lagrange’s Predestination; a work which I believe to be, on the whole, terribly mistaken.]

   For brevity we often make statements without including any indicator of probability, eg ‘It’ll rain’ when what we really mean is that rain is probable, very probable, or almost certain. The same point holds good when a counterfactual has a consequent stating a free action. For instance ‘Were you to send him a letter he would reply’ would not ordinarily be taken as a statement of more than probability. Otherwise, the person making the statement, if he comes to know you have indeed sent the letter, would just sit back, secure in the expectation that a reply will be forthcoming; whereas in fact he would probably not be averse to your sending up a quick spontaneous prayer for your letter to be so graced. (Especially as such graces have become far less frequent in our modern world of information-overload and consequent erosion of traditional courtesies!)

   I maintain, therefore, that Our Lord in speaking of the impenitent cities employed a literary form present in common speech, whereby the probabilistic nature of statements about free action is often not made explicit.

   Since we have now spent some time defending free will against different kinds of determinism, this is the occasion to strike another blow for grace.  While conceding to Molina the theoretical possibility that two may be equally helped by God; one rejecting grace, the other accepting it, I perhaps differ from him in having the gravest doubts as to whether this ever actually occurs. Could it be that, in the world as we have it, acceptance rather than rejection of grace is as a matter of fact always preceded by more grace being given, so we can say with St Thomas that ‘no one thing would be better than another if God did not will greater good for one than for another’ (Summa Ia q.20 a.3)?  To answer in the affirmative would seem better supported by the balance of theological opinion over the centuries.

 

 

Predestination

   Does this occur before or after foreseen merits?  Why not both?  It is before, in the sense that God wills before (logical, not temporal before) creating certain beings, and hence before they have any merits, to provide them with more help – even much more help – for the attaining either of Heaven itself or of a given level there. The most obvious example of this is the Blessed Virgin. However, predestination is also after foreseen merits in the sense that predestination to Heaven – rather than, say, to extra help for the attaining of Heaven - generally occurs only after God’s foreseeing the creature’s acceptance of grace.

 

The number of the elect

 

  This, it would seem, is an inscrutable mystery. As has been pointed out by other writers on the subject, there are decrees of God concerning which He does not wish us to pry. Nevertheless let us see if there is anything which, without presumption, we can say on the subject, whether with certainty or probability.

   Firstly we must vomit, as often as it is fed to us, the modern poison (though proposed by Origen) that the number of the elect is all human beings, past present and future. Regarding this hypothesis, see my article on Hell in the February 1999 issue of the American journal New Oxford Review; there is a similar piece in the 2 Nov. 2011 issue of The Record, the Catholic weekly for West Australia (google therecord). Part of these articles is a critique of the appalling book by Hans Urs von Balthasar, Dare we hope that all men be saved?; a question he dares to answer in the affirmative. He had already been demolished, with typical Germanic Gründlichkeit (thoroughness) by Gerhard Hermes in the journal Der Fels (‘The Rock’), Sept. 1984, 250-56, and Nov. 1984, 316-20, as well as by Heribert Schauf in another German periodical Theologisches no. 178 (1985), 6394-96. Readers with a command of German can check for themselves that by the time these authors are finished with von Balthasar’s ‘house of hope’, there is not one stone upon a stone.

   Indeed it is clear from both Scripture and Tradition that not only are some human beings damned, but that their number is legion. Furthermore there is an impressive list of Saints, many of them Doctors of the Church, who maintain that less than half the human race will attain to the Beatific Vision; as St Thomas puts it, pauciores sunt qui salvantur (I, q.23, art.7, ad 3).

   What of the contrary notion – that the number of the elect is greater than the number of the damned? Setting aside the terrible error of Origen, who by it lost all title to be reckoned as a Saint – let alone Father of the Church – the first few proponents of this view, to my knowledge, began in the 19^th century; moreover, though I stand ready to be instructed on this point, I am not aware of their ever having included even a single Saint, let alone Doctor of the Church. It would seem, therefore, that this view is much less probable. 

   We can also support this conclusion by an argument a priori. In the Gospels Our Lord warns us time and again that if we wish to saved we must make an effort, and, moreover, a persevering rather than a fitful one; whereas if we wish to be damned all we need do is go with the flow. Now in the nature of things people tend more towards the line of least resistance.  One would expect, therefore, that most would be lost. To suppose otherwise would require, for example, extraordinary Divine intervention on one’s deathbed; sufficient to outweigh both the increased demonic activity at that time and also the above-mentioned indolence; whereas St Alphonsus (like St Anthony Mary Claret: talis vita, finis ita) informs us that people generally die as they have lived (cf. eg his Sermons for the 9^th, 15^th and 22^nd Sundays after Pentecost).  In these sermons (as elsewhere in his writings) there is no joy for moderns with their optimism about the number of the elect: ‘Oh!  how few enter into that abode of bliss!’

     On this point, it would take us too long to go through the modern attempts, smacking to me of desperation, to escape the plain meaning of Our Lord’s words. All these wriggles can easily be shown up as special pleading, by means of what Einstein would have called a ‘thought-experiment’ (not that I accept his theory!). Imagine that Our Lord had said the opposite of what He did in fact say. That is, suppose He had said it was a broad way leading to life, and those who find it are many, whereas the road is narrow and the way hard, that leads to eternal death, and those who find it are few. Would we then have anyone arguing, against the obvious tenor of His words, that possibly/probably/certainly most are damned?  So we are not logical or consistent – we apply a different hermeneutic to Our Lord’s words, depending on whether they are pleasant or unpleasant.

   It is, on the other hand, perfectly logical that the modern optimism, or should I say presumption, concerning Heaven should coincide with a decline in such practices as the Nine First Fridays. If everyone, or almost everyone, will end up in Heaven anyway, then it is ‘no big deal’ that Our Lord, speaking with St Margaret Mary, makes us what is traditionally known as the Great Promise – that no one who receives Him in Communion  for nine consecutive First Fridays of the month will be lost.

 

Part II:  Practical applications

 

The Nine First Fridays

   As a priest I find it instructive to hear of the difficulties experienced in completing the Nine First Fridays – people can get to seven or eight and then, quite literally, all hell breaks loose – they fall ill; the car breaks down and so on and so  forth. That is why I always tell those who practise this devotion of the need for great discipline and determination – have somewhere to write down the date of each Communion as it is made; also have a backup plan, eg another Mass if the intended one becomes impossible for whatever reason. And although Communion is obviously better received within Mass wherever that is possible, technically the Promise refers not to the attending of Mass but to the receiving of Communion; thus it would be good to pre-arrange for Communion to be taken at home should one be too ill for Mass, so as not to break the sequence.  

   On the assumption that the Great Promise is genuine, and that one has justified belief in it, if one does in fact succeed in making the Nine First Fridays, and knows that one has done so, one can be confident of being saved. For although the Council of Trent issued a general anathema against those who are sure of their salvation (Decree on Justification, canon 16), it made an exception for those who have obtained this knowledge by private revelation, which is the case here. Indeed, the Nine First Fridays  is a practice commended to us by the  tradition of the Church, though not to the extent of requiring us to believe in the Great Promise made through St Margaret Mary; it happening seldom if ever that the full weight of Church authority is placed behind any private revelation however trustworthy.

   It would take us too far afield to detail all the objections to the Nine First Fridays, eg that we could then sin with impunity. Were the devotion undertaken with this intention that would of course make the Communions sacrilegious and therefore unavailing for holding Our Lord to His promise, whereas devoutly undertaken Communions are not a likely precursor of a later bent to sin, secure in the belief that one has to be saved. More probably, one who from devotion became hell-bent (itself not a very likely hypothesis) would shed belief in the Nine First Fridays, particularly since this revelation is not exactly at the heart of our Faith. Nevertheless, in the worst-case scenario of someone validly completing the devotion and, later, using that to lead a life of sin, we can be sure that, though the person will be saved, it will not be without plentiful opportunity to rue this  mocking of God, via a prolonged immersion in Purgatory-fire. See p.175 in Vol. I of Fatima in Lucia’s own words; Our Lady is asked by Lucia about Amélia, a friend of hers who died when she was probably in her high teens, to which Our Lady replies ‘she will be in Purgatory until the end of the world’.

   I have laid such stress upon the Nine First Fridays because it is something ascertainable as having been completed, whereas the more long-standing indications offered by theologians that one is among the elect are much less susceptible of precision. For example ‘devotion to the Blessed Virgin’ – exactly how much devotion must one have to be devoted “within the meaning of the Act”? And even if we knew, this – like the other signs traditionally given of being among the elect – was not offered by theologians as affording a conclusion of more than probability.

 

Doom and gloom?

 

   One who knows, whether via the Nine First Fridays or by some other special revelation, that he is among the elect, and who believes they constitute less than half the human race, is obviously immune from the charge that his is a gloomy doctrine.  Au contraire, the more difficult an exam, and consequently the fewer those who pass it, the gladder one will be to know one is among the few. The same analogy also scotches the argument sometimes brought forward, that Satan’s kingdom cannot be larger than Christ’s. If Satan’s kingdom is in fact larger, that is only because his conditions of entry are in general easier. Though here we must bear in mind the statement of St Thomas More: ‘Verily I believe many a man buys Hell with so much trouble that he might have Heaven for less than one half’. As the spiritual writers point out, the difficulty in following Our Lord is found especially at the start – making the decision to counter one’s passions and so forth – whereas the devil’s is a hard servitude not only  in the next life but  often, also, in this.

   Furthermore even if in fact less than half  the human race will attain to Heaven, the number of the elect could still be greater than the number of the damned once we add in  the angels, since tradition inclines towards believing that most of them passed their probation (cf. Apoc. 12:4 etc.). Also we do not know if God has created other rational beings, for example elsewhere in the universe, and if so whether most of them will reach the Beatific Vision.

   Additionally we must bear in mind that, as infallibly declared by Vatican I, the world was created for the glory of God. Once we have grasped this truth – difficult in our anthropocentric age – we can see that a world consisting of just one person, who is saved, gives God less glory ceteris paribus than a world consisting of one person who is saved and many others who are damned; the latter world glorifying God in every way the former does, and more, since the first world has no eternal monuments to God’s justice. And so, since God was perfectly entitled to create the first world rather than ours (the ‘best of all possible worlds’ being an impossible notion) He was entitled to create the second world also.

   Finally let it be noted that even if the number of human beings attaining the Beatific Vision is greater than 50% because of future goodness – say because of the Millennium; a theological concept which, over 2000 years, the Church has gradually inclined against – this would still be compatible with most being lost at present, and, as will be seen, it is the present with which we are primarily concerned.

   It does not require very acute powers of observation to see that God does not mean a great deal for most people, and yet, of course, He will have us love Him above all things – this is ‘the greatest and first commandment’. In this connection it is often objected that even if God does not loom large in the life of an individual, he may still “be a good person” and therefore, presumably, be en route to Heaven. This objection derives from a failure to distinguish between natural and supernatural goodness; only the latter availing for possession of eternal life. The Church teaches that even someone in mortal sin can still do some good things – that is, at a natural level (see, inter alia, the condemnation of the errors of Michael du Bay by Pope St Pius V). For instance, he may pay his bills. He may also, if he is a Catholic, perform acts of supernatural virtue, eg in exercising his Faith by seeking out a confessor. If however he dies before reaching one and without having elicited an act of perfect contrition, he goes to Hell.

 

   We often judge someone as ‘a nice person’ or otherwise because he or she is noteworthy for the possession or lack of natural virtues. Some are just naturally pleasanter than others. Nevertheless, some of these “nice guys” may be in mortal sin; contrariwise, some irascible, difficult characters may be in a state of grace. And of two people in the state of grace, the one most pleasing in the sight of Heaven is not necessarily the character we find most attractive, but the one making most effort for love of God (although this itself derives of course from His grace). One may be labouring hard to overcome his natural defects, while another, with fewer such to conquer, may not war against them so vigorously.

 

Our Lady’s messages to a phrenetic world

 

  It is interesting to see that the seemingly much greater frequency of Marian apparitions in the last 170 years has coincided with a vast increase in the rate of technological development – as if Our Lady wished to inoculate us in advance! Not that technology is wrong per se of course. Indeed it offers possibilities for giving more glory to God – if correctly used. The condition, however, does not seem to have been verified on the whole. This of course is what one would expect in a race showing no sign of being devoted to God in the generality of its members. Given such a race, it is in the devil’s interest to promote technological development, so as to speed up the pace of life and crowd God out. (For more details, see my article ’The Altar of Instant Communication’, in the above-mentioned weekly The Record, 4.4.12.  The article was actually written late in 2002; whence the reference to my being 4 years a priest, which is potentially confusing. Apart from that one point however, the paper edited my article skilfully.) Against this backdrop it is noteworthy that Our Lady evinces a preference for appearing to ‘backward’ people in ‘backward’ places. 

   The more technology progresses, the greater the sum of technical knowledge and hence ceteris paribus the faster our rate of technological progress, which in a race estranged from God results in an ever greater difficulty in averting one’s eyes from this kaleidoscope and entering within oneself. Given this slippery slope of ever sharper incline, it would seem our descent can be arrested only by an extraordinary intervention of the Immaculate Heart, to usher in Her Triumph as predicted in Fatima.

   This breathless, helter-skelter world of ours – where, for all our time-saving devices, no one seems to have any time - naturally impinges on the Church. When people are first touched – say in making the progression from Sunday to weekday Mass – they tend to rush about too much, especially if, as is generally the case, they lack a spiritual director. I remember pleading with a lady who had started to attend some weekday Masses that she fill in the gaps in that regard. She replied that it was impossible for her to attend Mass every day – in addition to working full-time, she was a wife, a mother, and involved in so many prayer-groups! I explained that prayer-groups, though admirable (I still recommend everyone to join one) are not to be compared with the Mass; thus if need be some of these activities, albeit spiritual, should be culled to make way for daily participation in the Supreme Sacrifice. I am pleased to announce that she and her husband, though both working full time, have now been attending daily Mass for years. As I write these lines, the husband, who will be on a cruise many months from now (she unfortunately cannot go) is busily accumulating Mass-credits for the 14 days he will be without Mass! Under no.917 in the current, 1983 Code of Canon Law, he is also entitled to receive Communion at any second Mass he attends.

 

   We see that Our Lady’s message in Her apparitions is ‘Penance Penance Penance’, not ‘Activity Activity Activity’. Not that She has anything against activity for the Lord, of course, but She wishes it to be well-regulated and built on a firm foundation of penance and prayer. In my experience of 14 years as a priest, this order is generally inverted by the devout. They charge about from one pious group to the next, without having first built up the foundation I mentioned, with the resulting risk of eventual ‘burnout’.

   To do as much penance and prayer as Our Lady is requesting I believe is not easy – that is why She wants it!  She knows it is more congenial for us to follow our own inclinations in the spiritual life. For instance, it would be much more agreeable to me if, rather than praying my daily Rosary, I spent the time in extra spiritual reading. At this point we need to remember the words of Our Lady of Fatima: ‘Pray; pray very much and make sacrifices for sinners, for many souls go to Hell because there is no one to pray and make sacrifice for them’.  Many – or even most, as we have been discussing. The more souls go to Hell, the greater the need for sacrifice, pre-eminently via penance and prayer.

 

The Five First Saturdays versus the Nine First Fridays

   Part of the Fatima message is of course the Five First Saturdays, which I promote as a means of reparation to the Immaculate Heart. Speaking for myself, however (I do not expect other priests to be clones of me in this), I promote the Nine First Fridays even more. The reason is that Our Lady’s promises, though magnificent, are that She will provide graces necessary for salvation. So it is technically possible (even if not very likely) that these graces should be provided – and rejected! Whereas Our Lord, with the Nine First Fridays, offers graces sufficient for salvation. It seems to me that the transition from ‘necessary’ to ‘sufficient’ is well worth the extra trouble in making a Novena of First Fridays rather than just five First Saturdays!

   The grace of what is known as final perseverance is promised by Our Lord to those who complete the Nine First Fridays, due to His ‘all-powerful’ Love. This form of expression must I believe be interpreted according to the correct account of grace (see Part I), and not as if a free decision to persevere in charity is quite literally the result of Omnipotent Fiat. Our Lord, of course, is not bound to express Himself in symbolic logic. He is perfectly free to use figures of speech present in ordinary language, and rhetorical exaggeration, as we see in Scripture, eg where He accounts the nations as ‘nothing’ (Is. 40:17).

    However, it seems inappropriate to use the expression He did, even rhetorically, if grace cannot be very powerful indeed – perhaps, using another figure of speech, we might classify it as ‘almost infallible’ – therefore susceptible, in theory, of non-fulfilment, but as things stand, infallibly foreseen by God as not failing of its effect in even a single case.

   The twin reality that grace can be this powerful, and that most of the human race is unlikely to reach Heaven, has implications for our dealings with others. A tutor will behave differently with students depending on the difficulty of the exam they face. If he has hopes that all, or most, will pass, he may spread his attentions fairly wide, hoping that even a little assistance to each one will prove sufficient for the pupil to pass. If on the other hand he believes that most will fail, he will concentrate his attentions more on the relative few he thinks may pass, not wishing to lose his labour on those who will probably fail anyway, and realizing that the difficulty of the exam may require more intensive effort on his part if a given individual is to pass. So too in the spiritual life – if we think it improbable that most of the human race will be saved, we will be more likely to concentrate our efforts on those who offer us more chance of success, hoping thereby to contribute towards providing a grace for them that is “almost infallible”.

   Another corollary of the account of grace provided in Part I is that we must not blame God, as some do, for not providing grace sufficient to cause a given individual’s conversion. For once we realize that grace to perform a free act can only ever be, at best, ‘almost infallible’, we see that however much God may provide grace, or increase it, there always remains the possibility that an individual will refuse the grace, and hence incur greater damnation. It’s just that, in the case of the Nine First Fridays for example, God foresees that, as a matter of fact, no one will refuse.

--------------------------------------------

 

Editor’s comment: Father David Watt and I discussed his excellent article in a recent telephone conversation, west coast (Father) to east coast (Editor), and we agreed on the importance of praying for the salvation of all souls as expressed in the Fatima Rosary prayer we both say:

 

O my Jesus, forgive us our sins.

Save us from the fires of hell,

lead all souls to heaven

especially those

in most need of thy mercy.

 

And I recalled the fact that, on the 13^th of June 1917, Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima promised salvation to those who embraced the devotion to her Immaculate Heart:

 

"Jesus wishes to establish devotion to my Immaculate Heart in the world. I promise salvation to those who embrace it."

In the original Portuguese
http://www.fatima.org/port/essentials/whatucando/otherdevotions/fatima.asp)

 

Jesus … ele quer estabelecer no mundo a devoção ao Meu Imaculado Coração. A quem a abraçar, prometo a salvação ….”

 

Can Children be Saints? Blessed Francisco and Jacinta Marto of Fatima



Taken from: http://www.kwl.com.au/httpdocs/Articals/Can%20Children%20be%20Saints.htm

Msgr. Peter Elliott

Description :Looking at the question of whether children can achieve heroic sanctity through the recently beatified Jacinta and Francisco Marto.

Can children be saints?

Whatever replies others may have given to this question, on May 13 2000, in Fatima, Portugal, Pope John Paul II beatified two children who died respectively at the ages of 11 and 10, Francisco and Jacinta Marto. Their cousin, Sister Lucia, a Carmelite nun aged 93, was present at the solemn Mass of beatification.

We know these children as the three visionaries of Fatima, the ones chosen by God to receive messages of hope and peace for humanity, divine appeals and warnings, even timely prophecies only revealed by the Church at the beginning of the Third Millennium. These calls for \"prayer and penance\" were given through the Blessed Virgin Mary herself. On May 13, 1917, the first apparition took place on the field known as the Cova da Iria. On this same day, May 13, 1981, an assassin's bullet struck the Pope who returned once again in gratitude to Fatima to beatify the children.

These are the two youngest persons ever to be beatified in the history of the Catholic Church, that is, apart from young martyrs. Yet, in a sense, theirs was a path of martyrdom. Both of them, in the last years of their short earthly lives suffered greatly in body and spirit and that is the point to begin in giving praise to God for their sanctity.

Their heroic practice of the virtues is surely the best place to begin. Without heroic virtue or martyrdom the process of beatification and canonization cannot succeed. These reflections in praise of the virtues of these two children are drawn from various recollections and memoirs of Lucia herself. The virtues of faith, hope and love shine through her vivid memories of the shepherd children of Fatima. Faith, hope and love…

FAITH

The courageous faith of Francisco emerged in prison, where the children were taken to terrify them, an attempt to force them to deny what they claimed to have seen. As Lucia tells us, the boy was prepared to die rather than deny what he had seen. In this he was exactly like the men and women who were the witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus, the people who saw the risen Lord, who could say with the convinced faith of Saint Peter, \"Lord, to whom else shall we go? You have the words of eternal life!\"

Likewise, through Lucia's memoirs we see how the childlike faith of Jacinta the little shepherdess was tried and tested during her final illness, when her small body was racked with the aching pains of the influenza, that was sweeping the world at that time, often incurable. Her realism was reflected in her reply when Lucia asked if she was feeling better. \"You know I am not getting better. I have such pains in my chest. But I don't say anything. I am suffering for the conversion of sinners.\" Her final illness fulfilled her spiritual thirst for making personal sacrifices for the conversion of sinners, a practice she developed as Our Lady had requested. Ultimately, as Our Lady had told her, this little child was to die alone, separated from her parents and friends in a hospital in Lisbon on February 20th 1920. That was the final cross for Jacinta. She felt it deeply and admitted that frankly to her cousin, but she feared not. She trusted in God and his Blessed Mother. Her practice of the virtue of faith was remarkable not only in its simplicity but in its realism.

Francisco shared this courageous sense of mortification and self abnegation with his younger sister. For example, Lucia recalled how they both felt abandoned in prison, and really believed they would be martyred, and yet here they offered even this abandonment as a sacrifice for sinners and for the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XV. Note their consciousness of the Vicar of Christ at that moment of fear and stress. This indicates a sense of the wider Church, which rapidly grew in their lives, going beyond the limitations of their culture and narrow experience of life in a small community in a remote place in a humble land. Faith in Jesus Christ means faith in his Church, fidelity to all her teachings. Their courageous experience in prison also reveals the single-mindedness, the purity of heart, the candid faith of children that Jesus presented as the model of all faith.

They both grew rapidly in the practice of prayer, the essential language and dialogue of faith. Francisco's prayer life developed an ascetical quality, a portent of the kind of adult faith already emerging in this young man. Had he lived longer, no doubt he would have found his vocation in a contemplative life, as did his cousin Lucia. He preferred to pray by himself, to \"console Our Lord \" as he put it. His mortification helped tame the boisterous side of his personality, revealing a spiritual maturity well beyond his years, and this is quite at variance with the developmental theories of some educationalists of the last century.

HOPE

The second theological virtue given by the Holy Spirit is hope. In spite of the pressures they endured, these children, like all true saints, had a sense of joy about them. This too has to be taken into account in any process of beatification. The Church does not beatify gloomy people because a lack of joy may well indicate a weakness in living out the virtue of hope.

Jacinta loved to dance, although she gave this up as a sacrifice for sinners. She rejoiced in the beauty of creation, especially collecting wild flowers. There is a quietness and stillness about her joy. Francisco, on the other hand, was more open and outgoing than his sister; social, friendly and smiling boy, according to Lucia. Both children retained a sense of humour throughout the final years of their lives. It was tempered by the burdens placed upon them but seems to have bubbled up in healthy reaction to the somewhat ludicrous behaviour of some of the faithful who fussed over them.

Joy never left them amidst all the trials that came with the responsibility Our Lady had placed on them. When their time for leaving this world drew near, they did not fear death. They accepted what Our Lady had predicted for each of them - imminent death. But they looked forward to heaven with inner joy because they both trusted in her Immaculate Heart. With this motherly heart, Mary never abandons her children, a truth we all need to learn again and again. Knowing this, Francisco and Jacinta lived the virtue of hope in a spirit of joyful trust in whatever God willed for the future.

LOVE

We have reflected on their faith and hope. Now we have enter the golden realm of third and greatest virtue, charity, love - caritas, agape. How well they learnt how to cultivate this sublime virtue in the best school - the school of Mary's Immaculate Heart, the temple of love that can never be separated from the blazing furnace of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Love points to the Eucharist, \"summit and source\" of all grace in the Church. Devotion to the Eucharist is essential in the life of any saint. Lucia bears witness to these children's love of the Eucharist, \"the Hidden Jesus\" as both Jacinta and Francisco called our Lord ever present in the most Blessed Sacrament. Both of them loved to visit the Blessed Sacrament in churches, and both felt the pain of not being able to do this during their final illnesses. Their practice of the love of God found its focus in their devotion to \"the Hidden Jesus\" in the sacrament of his love.

It was a time when the intentions of Pope Saint Pius X had not yet been fulfilled everywhere. In that part of Portugal, Children were at least ten years old before they received their First Communion. So both Francisco and Jacinta valued Holy Communion deeply, approaching the Eucharist with reverent preparation and thanksgiving. Both of the children received the Eucharist as penitents. It is particularly moving to read Lucia's account of how Francisco prepared for his death on April 4, 1919. His last confession and Communion were uppermost in his mind. The sacraments of Jesus' pardon and union with us were his main concern. He knew he was preparing for the great and final journey.

Both of the children took sin seriously. Their innocence and purity was not naïve or bland. There was much spiritual courage involved in their own struggle to maintain fidelity to God's will under adverse circumstances. Those circumstances were not merely the hostility they encountered in the early phase of the apparitions, but something more insidious and enticing for a child, the great attention they attracted, which included attempts to spoil them, or to make them into little celebrities, and this is also recorded by Lucia. They seemed to see through this, to perceive the temptations involved, and by grace they rose above the choice of creatures and chose the love of God.

The virtue of love included the love of others. With their different temperaments, Francisco and Jacinta always showed a sense of charity towards others, of concern for other people's needs. This is an essential factor in discerning the sanctity of candidates for beatification. Both children responded to requests for prayer from people in need. Their deeper lives of prayer and sense of union with God did not cut them off from others. Indeed they attracted people, at first curious to see the little visionaries, but then able to see that in themselves these were extraordinary children. Their love of God was thus filled in an outgoing and generous love of others. The supreme infused virtue, charity, love, greatest gift of the Holy Spirit

It therefore comes as no surprise that the holiness of Francisco and Jacinta is described by Lucia as almost tangible. This is borne out in what Lucia recorded. These are the coments of some local women about her cousins: \"It's a mystery one cannot fathom! They are children just like any others. They don't say anything to us and yet in their presence one feels something one cannot explain and that makes them different from all the rest. \" Likewise: \"We've just been talking to Jacinta and Francisco; when with them we feel that there is something supernatural about them.\"

In the light of such testimony, we know that these children are not being beatified just because they saw Our Lady. An apparition does not cause holiness. We know from other instances, that contact with heaven is not necessarily an automatic cause of personal sanctity. The children of Fatima responded to the messages Mary brought us all. They did not merely pass these messages on as instruments. They were the first to respond to a divine call to arms, to the spiritual combat called for in an age of revolution, when the golden chain of the holy rosary must be raised against tyranny, persecution and increasing moral corruption. The children of Fatima were not merely channels, but willing agents who cooperated with divine grace, spiritually mature youing people who, with heroic fortitude, allowed grace to change their lives in the space of three or four years.

As Lucia describes their warm and natural relations with parents and other relatives, we also see the children of Fatima emerge clearly as saints of the family. In these times we need strong Christian families built on holy marriages. May Blessed Jacinta and Blessed Francisco intercede for all our families, and especially that children will grow to be like them, in lives of faith, self sacrifice, charity and holiness.

So we return to the question with which we began. Can children be saints? Through an act of her chief Pastor and Teacher on earth, the Catholic Church replies \"yes!\"

© Published by permission of Msgr. Peter Elliott 2001

Why Our Lady appeared on 13 day of the month at Fatima

According to Catholic Daily, at:

http://www.catholicdaily.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=606
....

Why Our Lady appeared on 13 day of the month at Fatima

Was it because She wanted to free us from the superstitious thinking about thirteen as a day of “bad luck”? We know the reason may be deeper – biblical reference to great woman - Princes Esther, who is considered by biblical scholars as a figure of Our Lady Mary. This great woman saved Jewish people from extinction on that mysterious day - 13 day of the month. interceding for them before the king asking Jewish people for prayer and fasting: And the king's scribes were called in the first month Nisan, on the thirteenth day of the same month […]and the letters, sealed with his ring, were sent by the king's messengers to all provinces, to kill and destroy all the Jews, both young and old, little children, and women, in one day, that is, on the thirteenth of the twelfth month, which is called Adar, and to make a spoil of their goods. And again Esther sent to Mardochai in these words: Go, and gather together all the Jews whom thou shalt find in Susan, and pray ye for me. Neither eat nor drink for three days and three nights Queen Esther also, fearing the danger that was at hand, had recourse to the Lord. And when she had laid away her royal apparel, she put on garments suitable for weeping and mourning And the king gave orders to them, to speak to the Jews in every city, and to command them to gather themselves together, and to stand for their lives. And one day of revenge was appointed through all the provinces, to wit, the thirteenth of the twelfth month Adar. So on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which as we have said above is called Adar, when all the Jews were designed to be massacred, and their enemies were greedy after their blood, the case being altered, the Jews began to have the upper hand, and to revenge themselves of their adversaries. (The Book of Esther) Esther means star. Our Lady at Fatima had a little star on the bottom of her mantle…