From: richarra@gmail.com   
      
   On the Corruption of Nature and the Efficacy of Divine Grace [V]   
      
   O most blessed grace, that makes the poor in spirit rich in virtues,   
   and the richly blessed humble in heart! Come, descend on me! Fill me   
   with your comfort, (Ps 40:14) lest my soul faint from weariness and   
   dryness of mind I pray, Lord, that I may find favour in Thy sight, for   
   Thy grace is sufficient for me,(2 Cor. 12:9) even if I obtain none of   
   those things that nature desires. However often I am tempted and   
   troubled, I will fear no evil (Ps.23:4) so long as Thy grace remains   
   with me.   
   --Thomas à Kempis --Imitation of Christ Bk 3 Ch 55   
      
   <<>><<>><<>>   
   December 29th – St. Thomas Becket   
      
   In Catholic Morals, there is a principle: Nemo summus fit repente –   
   nothing very bad or very good happens suddenly. For a great evil to   
   occur, there should be a whole series of actions that precede and   
   prepare for it. This principle, which applies to the moral life of an   
   individual, is also true in the history of nations, civilizations and   
   cycles of culture. The life of St. Thomas Becket and the events that   
   occurred after his death illustrates well how a long preparation is   
   made for momentous historical events.   
      
   Such an event – undoubtedly one of the most sad and shameful episodes   
   of the History of the Church – took place in the 16th century when a   
   massive number of English Catholics changed from the Catholic Religion   
   to Protestantism. King Henry VIII wanted a divorce from Queen   
   Catherine of Aragon, and the Pope would not agree to it. In 1534, The   
   King broke with Rome and proclaimed himself the head of the Church in   
   England.   
      
   After his rupture with Rome became definitive, only a very small   
   number of Catholics remained faithful to the Church. Two of the most   
   illustrious were St. John Fisher, a Cardinal, and St. Thomas More, a   
   layman. But the great majority of Catholics scandalously and   
   shamefully switched religions. Entire monasteries and convents,   
   countless priests and nuns, whole institutions, universities, and   
   works of charity entered the new sect without any apparent remorse.   
   How can one explain a fact like that?   
      
   The English process that culminated with this separation from Rome   
   began in the 12th century with the fight between St. Thomas Becket and   
   King Henry II regarding the interference of the Crown in   
   ecclesiastical affairs. A dispute between Kings and Popes on this   
   topic already existed in that time. The Kings wanted the Catholic   
   English Hierarchy to obey them and accept their appointments to   
   ecclesiastical offices. The Popes, basing themselves on the divine   
   institution of the Church, defended the Church’s right to full   
   dominion over spiritual matters, in particular over Bishops and the   
   faithful.   
      
   The Pope has direct and immediate power over every Bishop and each one   
   of the faithful on earth. Therefore, also over the English Bishops.   
   The Pope’s power to choose and direct Bishops displeased a certain   
   English current of thinking that sustained the opposite. According to   
   it, the Pope should exercise only a weak and indirect authority over   
   the English Bishops, while the King should have a full and direct   
   power over them. Behind this question was a higher struggle of   
   principles at stake. The central question in the realm of principles,   
   rather than concrete cases was this: Should the temporal or spiritual   
   sphere have the greater power? Should the temporal sphere obey the   
   spiritual, or vice-verse?   
      
   In the absolute order of things, those who defended the King’s rights   
   over the English Bishops were sustaining that earthly and temporal   
   things have more importance than religious matters, and the latter   
   should be an instrument for the realization of the former. For this   
   party, the end of the life of man is not heaven, but life on this   
   earth. Therefore, the representative of the State and temporal   
   interests should have supremacy over the Church. In final analysis,   
   for those who took this position, religion would be nothing more than   
   a useful myth to keep order among the people. It would not be a   
   revealed, objective, and absolute ensemble of truths.   
      
   On the other hand, those who believed in the Church’s supremacy   
   supported the principle affirming that things of this life exist for   
   eternal life. It is true that the State has to deal with temporal   
   matters. But it is also true that the State is meant to help the   
   Church accomplish her mission. Therefore, in ecclesiastical matters,   
   the Church has the full right and entire power to govern herself.   
   Further, should sin be involved in a temporal affair, the Church has   
   the right to intervene to halt its advance. In such a case, the Church   
   has power over the State. More clearly affirmed, the State does not   
   have the right to promulgate laws and establish institutions that are   
   against the law of Christ. This notion of the supremacy of the State   
   over the Church that was adopted early on by English Kings, as well as   
   by Kings of other countries, was designated by the Church as a grave   
   error: Regalism. It is a revolutionary position with the same root as   
   the modern errors of Laicism and Materialism.   
      
   In the 12th century, St. Thomas Becket clashed with King Henry II   
   because St. Thomas sustained that the Pope and English Bishops could   
   not accept the jurisdiction of the King over them. St. Thomas Becket   
   was the Archbishop of Canterbury, the first see of England. He was,   
   therefore, the kingdom’s most important religious authority. He also   
   was a brilliant man who had been chancellor of England before he was   
   made Archbishop. These characteristics help us understand the enormous   
   influence he had.   
      
   His strong opposition to the King’s position greatly embarrassed Henry   
   II, who exiled him for some considerable time. He returned to England,   
   however, and continued to attack the erroneous policy of Henry II.   
   Soon after his return, four agents of the King violated the sanctuary   
   of Canterbury Cathedral and murdered St. Thomas Becket at the altar on   
   December 29, 1170.   
      
   What were the consequences of this act? A large part of the English   
   people took the side of St. Thomas Becket and became indignant with   
   the King. A cult grew up immediately and people flocked on pilgrimages   
   to the site. It reached the point that the King felt the need to make   
   public penance before the sepulcher of St. Thomas Becket and ask   
   forgiveness of God for what had happened. But it is also true that a   
   good part of the leading classes – the clergy, high nobles,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)