Mua4, T)U£XA)L<S-





Misunderstanding The Church

by

Rt. Rev. Msgr. Duane G. Hunt
Vicar General of the Diocese of Salt Lake

delivered in the Catholic Hour
produced hy the National Council of Catholic Men, with
he cooperation of the National Broadcasting Company

and its associated stations.

(On Sundays from June 7 to July 5, 1936)

I. Devotion to Mary

^1* Faith and Reason

III. Finding Religious Truth

IV. The Church—An Unerring Guide

V. The Vicar of Christ

National Council of Catholic Men
Producer of the Catholic Hour

1312 Massachusetts Avenue

Washington, D. C.

Printed and distributed by Our Sunday Visitor

Huntington Indiana



Imprimatur:

-!-JOHN FRANCIS NOLL, D. D.,

Rishop of Fort Wayne

DeaMed



DEVOTION TO MARY
Address delivered on June 7, 1936

The Catholic religion has many appeals to the
human soul. There is the appeal of authority, for
instance. There is the appeal of infallibility. There
IS the appeal of unity, and of universality.
These are factors of strength, and they malrp the
Catholic Church a bulwark against the forces of
destruction. But were these to sum up the Catholic
religion it would appear one-sided. Human
nature needs something besides authority, power,
strength. It needs kindness, gentleness, love, and
beauty. We have emotions as well as intellects

;
we

have sentiments as well as wills. We have a sense
of beauty as well as a sense of logic. This gentler
side of human nature is touched by the Church with
a ministry of kindness

; with a ministry of beauty

;

with a ministry of sympathy; with the gentle caress
of a mother.

I am quite well aware that to many listeners
the Catholic devotion to Mary, the Mother of our
Lord, appars strange and perhaps even objection-
able. This is so only because it is not understood.
When understood, it is most attractive and inviting.

Nothing is more natural than the giving of honor
to great persons. We Americans honor Washington,
Jefferson, Lincoln, and other great men of our coun-
try’s history; and we do so for excellent reasons.
We honor Washington, for instance, because of the
service which he rendered our country, because of
his leadership, because of the principles with which
he identified his commanding personality. By hon-
oring him we teach the youth of the land to imitate



4 misunderstanding the church

his example. So we name cities for him,
dedicate

monuments and statues to him, and set aside
his

birthday each year as a national holiday.

In somewhat the same way we Catholics honor

the heroes of Christian history.
These are the

saints, the very close friends of God. We believe that

in honoring them we honor God Himself.
Moreover,

we preserve the principles with which they
identi-

fied their personalities, and we teach the young
peo-

ple of our Church to imitate their examples.
We be-

lieve that all of this is good for us, for
the Church,

and for the whole world.

Among all of the saints Mary comes first. By her

wholly unique position as the Mother of our Lord
she

stands first among all mere human beings. We may

well imagine God planning the redemption of the

race, planning to send His divine Son as the
Re-

deemer, planning that He should come to earth as an

infant and that Mary should be His mother. And

we may imagine, too, God’s pausing in this plan to

ask and wait for the very necessary consent of

Mary. So it was indeed an awful moment in the

history of the race when the angel announced to

Mary that God had chosen her to become the Mother

of the Lord and Saviour. The redemption of man-

kind waited for her answer : “Be it done unto me

according to thy word.”

Perfect cooperation with the will of God is the

outstanding mark of her character. It was reward-

ed with most extraordinary privileges. From before

her birth until after her death, from the Immaculate

Conception by which she was preserved free from

original sin to her Assumption into heaven, she was

the object of special manifestations of God’s favor.



DEVOTION TO MARY 5

Most important of all, she was the Virgin Mother of

our Lord, Christ, her son, was the Son of God. He

was not the Son of any man. By and through the

infinite power of the Holy Ghost, Mary, a Virgin,

conceived and gave birth to a Son. Incidentally, the

fact of the Virgin birth is taught most clearly in the

Bible, not merely in the prophecies of the Old Testa-

ment, but in the narratives of the New Testament,

and in the Apostles’ Creed.

Out of such facts has grown the Catholic devo-

tion to Mary, proper, normal, and inevitable. We

name cities and colleges for her; we erect statues,

churches and basilicas; we paint pictures; write

poetry; compose music; dedicate shrines; all in her

honor. We set aside different days throughout the

year as holy days especially dedicated to her. And

we name children for her: (certainly no name is

more common among Christian people than the

name of Mary). In addition to this, we pray to her,

asking her to present our prayers to God.

A criticism is sometimes urged that it is wrong
to pray to Mary. The criticism arises out of a mis-

understanding of prayer. The word “prayer” may

refer, as a matter of course, to the adoration and

worship of God; it may refer to giving thanks to

God for His infinite blessings
;
it may refer to a peti-

tion for the forgiveness of sins. Such prayers, in-

volving as they do the worship of God, can be direct-

ed to Him only. But the word “prayer” may refer

also to the petition of one human being to an-

other. You may have heard such requests often.

They are heard in the non-Catholics churches as

well as in the Catholic Church. Lay persons very

frequently say to one another: “I wish you would



6 MISUNDERSTANDING THE CHURCH

say some prayers for me;” or ‘‘I need your pray-

ers;” or "‘please pray for me”. In so doing they

surely are not attributing to each other any power

that is more than human. Such petitions imply

honor and respect; they imply that the prayers of

one person may be more deserving than the prayers

of another; but that is all. They certainly do not

confuse God with man.

Back of such prayers is very good authority in

the Bible. St. Paul, in writing to the Romans, uses

these words : “Now I beseech you, brethren, for the

Lord Jesus Christ’s sake. . . that you strive to-

gether with me in your prayers to God for me.” To

the Thessalonians he writes these simple words:

“Brethren, pray for us.” And in the letter to the

Hebrew he makes the same request. There are other

indications in the Bible which show that the Apos-

tles of Christ endorsed such prayers. Now, if it is

proper for us to ask a friend on earth to pray for

us, why can we not do the same after he has left this

world and gone to heaven? This would seem to be

particularly true in the case of those Christians who

have shown by their lives that they were especially

close to God.

In our prayers to Mary we ask her to pray for

us. Note, if you will, the last phrase of the “Hail

Mary”, the prayer which is so frequently said:

“‘pray for us. . . now and at the hour of our death.”

This is typical of all prayers addressed to Mary.

That God Himself has approved this devotion

to Mary is indicated in the events narrated in the

Bible. It was with no ordinary words that the angel

of God spoke to Mary when he announced the

coming of the Saviour: “Hail, full of grace!



DEVOTION TO MARY 7

The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among wo-

men.” Let it be remembered that these words are

written in St. Luke’s Gospel, and are a part of the

inspired and sacred Scriptures. And notice
;
Mary is

described as full of grace; she is informed that the

Lord is with her, and that she is blessed among wo-

men. In the same chapter it is recorded that St. Eli-

zabeth, the mother of St. John the Baptist, addres-

sed to Mary these extraordinary words : “Blessed art

thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy

womb. Whence is this to me that the Mother of my
Lord should come to me?”

More remarkable still is the prophecy which

Mary herself spoke: “From henceforth all genera-

tions shall call me blessed.” Surely, in light of this
declaration, it is not merely permissable for us to

pay honor and devotion to Mary, it is our duty to do

so. If I say that we Catholics feel a singular respon-
sibility in this respect I do not indulge in any criti-

cism. I appreciate that if many Christians are ne-
glectful of the claims of Mary, it is not through a

positive intention of being disrespectful
;
it is rather

because the facts and the reasons have not been

sufficiently impressed upon their minds. We Catho-
lics, however, should demonstrate to our neighbors

that the devotion to Mary is a blessing to us and to
the whole world. Our lives can be eloquent testi-
mony to this fact.

I now call your attention to some of the benefits
which come from the devotion to Mary

;
first of all,

to the natural benefits. As you grasp at once, there
is excellent psychology back of the devotion. We all
tend toward our ideals. Unfortunately we may fall
far short of them, but we never go beyond them. No



8 MISUNDERSTANDING THE CHURCH

greater curse can be imagined for us than to have

low ideals; they would be as a millstone around our

necks against which we could not rise. On the

other hand, it is an immeasurable blessing to have

perfect ideals, to have before us those ideal lives

that have won the approbation of God Himself.

The Catholic Church, in holding Mary as an

ideal before her people, has fixed a goal

for perfect spiritual attainment. Mary is the ideal

of purity. Her mind, her heart, and her conscience

were always pure. It was her privilege to combine

in one person all of the idealism and all of the senti-

ments which we feel toward a pure and holy woman.

Mary centered in herself all of the sentiments and

idealism associated both with a pure virgin and a

saintly mother.

One of the greatest benefits from the devotion is

its influence upon the status of woman. In no other

respect is the change from paganism to Christianity

so marked as in the status of woman. Wherever

the Church has gone she has found woman more or

less degraded. She has found her in all stages of

inferiority to man. She has found her on the level

with slaves
;
as a hireling

;
as a menial servant. The

Church has transformed woman’s position, and she

has done so by virtue of the devotion to Mary.

Teach men to say prayers to the Mother of our Lord,

to idealize her as a virgin and mother, and you have

rooted out of their lives disrespect and dishonor for

other women.

The uplifting of woman could not have been ac-

complished by mere laws; it could not have been

done by the commands of any ruler or any parlia-

ment. As civilization develops it becomes more and



DEVOTION TO MARY 9

more clear that principles are not established in that

way. They come through impressions, through

idealism, through gentle persuasion
;
and that is the

way that the Church has lifted woman from a state

of subjection and made her a queen in the Christian

home.

From the devotion to Mary flow the greatest of

supernatural blessings. God is pleased to reward

those who honor Mary. He grants favors to us in

answer to petitions presented to Him by and
through her, a fact of which every Catholic is con-

scious. Such petitions are always rewarded by

God’s grace. Furthermore, to refer to tangible re-

sults, similar petitions are often rewarded by mir-

acles. The shrine at Lourdes in southern France,

for instance, of which you have all heard and which

is typical of many others, is the scene each year of
carefully tested and demonstrated miracles

;
all per-

formed in answer to prayer to Mary.

In closing I quote a few lines from a poem of
Longfellow. Though not a Catholic, he summed up
one phase of the devotion to Mary most admirably

:

“And even as children, who have much offended
A too indulgent father, in great shame,
Penitent, and yet not daring unattended
To go into his presence, at the gate
Speak with their sister, and confiding wait
Till she goes in before and intercedes;
So men, repenting of their evil deeds.
And yet not venturing rashly to draw near
With their requests an angry Father’s ear
Offer to her their prayers and their confession.
And she for them in Heaven makes intercession.”



10 MISUNDERSTANDING THE CHURCH

FAITH AND REASON

Address delivered June 14, 1936

Does the Christian religion, I ask, require you to

be unreasonable? In order to exercise your Chris-

tian faith is it necessary for you to lose your faculty

of thinking? In other words, is there a conflict be-

tween faith and reason?

The answers to these questions cannot be fully

developed or stated, of course, in a brief discourse

such as this must be. Too many different subjects

would have to be considered. If attention is limited

to one phase of the relationship of faith and reason,

a point of view may be indicated and a clear light

thrown on the problem. To this limited subject, I

invite your attention this afternoon.

The impression that Christianity is unreason-

able has done incalcuable harm. Being widespread

throughout our society it has drawn millions of per-

sons away from religion. Perhaps more than any

other one factor, it is responsible for the notable lack

of religion among college students, graduates, and

teachers. And the reason is clear. Once a thinking

person becomes convinced that the Christian relig-

ion is unreasonable he is sure to turn from it. God

has given each of us an intellect. He expects us to

think and reason and to form judgments. And unless

a proposition appears reasonable, whether it be

about religion or science or anything else, it cannot

be accepted. If Christian doctrines, then, can not

be presented in a reasonable way, if they can not

be supported by logic and evidence, they are sure to

be rejected by thinking persons.



FAITH AND REASON 11

It is very probable that some of you v^ho are

reading this article have lost your enthusiasm for

the Christian religion, an enthusiasm which you

once felt, as the result of being convinced that some

of the doctrines of Christianity were unreasonable.

If you are like so many others in our country, your

experience in religion has been somewhat as follows.

You were raised in a religious home by God-fearing

parents. In youth you were taken to Sunday school

and to church services
;
you were taught to pray and

to take part in religious devotions; for many years

you went to church faithfully. As you grew to ma-

turity, however, you came in contact with critical

and sceptical ideas. Teachers or books or both gave

you the impression that your beliefs in religion were

unreasonable and unscientific. Under such influences

you gradually pushed your former beliefs from your

life, assuring yourself as you did so that you were

being emancipated from some sort of mental bond-

age. By now you have come to accept the fiction

that religion, while good for children and for the

masses of the unthinking crowd, can have no hold

over the analytical and logical mind.

Since this is the process by which millions of the

American people have slipped away from the prac-

tice of religion it is only reasonable that I should be

interested in it. It is only reasonable that I should

do what I can to oppose it, as well as every other

process by which religion is undermined.

At this point it is evident that we are touching

upon a peculiar misunderstanding. Christian schol-

ars stand before the world and insist that the doc-

trines of Christianity are reasonable. And yet
others protest against these same doctrines as un-



12 MISUNDERSTANDING THE CHURCH

reasonable. What is the explanation? It is not that

the minds of one group function
differently from

the minds of the other. Logic is the same
with both

;

the principles of reason are the same.
There must

be something else. Evidently some
false pre-

mise has been accepted by one group or
the other, a

premise which leads to a false conclusion.

I have given considerable thought to this
prob-

lem. Over and over again I have wondered
why it

is that the same doctrines appear wholly reasonable

to some of us and wholly unreasonable to
others.

And while for such a wide divergence of opinion no

one factor is responsible, I think that I have
dis-

covered what is probably the most important factor.

It is the confusion between what is natural and what

is reasonable.

Let me illustrate. If a man comes to you and

offers to sell 5^ u a machine which produces perpet-

ual motion, you laugh at him. You say that such a

machine is unreasonable. And why? Because it is

contrary to nature ; it is unnatural. If some one tells

you that he saw water running up hill, you dismiss

the report as absurd. Why ? Because you know that

it is contrary to nature. From your chemistry you

know that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen.

If someone tells you that water can be made from

hydrogen alone, you know that the claim is absurd.

Again, it is contrary to nature and wholly unreason-

able.

These are illustrations of good reasoning about

nature. In the order of nature, what is natural is

reasonable
;
what is unnatural is unreasonable. Now

in our every day life, in business, in the school-room,

in the home, in recreation, we deal constantly with



FAITH AND REASON 13

the forces of nature. And we have come to test every

reported fact by the question: is it reasonable? But

when we ask if it is reasonable, what we really

mean to ask is if it is natural. In other words, we

are guilty of using the words “natural” and “reason-

able” as sjmonymous. And herein lies the mistake.

It is safe enough, obviously, to use them inter-

changeably when we limit ourselves to things in na-

ture
;
but such is not true when we lift our thoughts

to things above nature. And religion is above nature

;

it brings in the supernatural power of God. Con-

cerning religion, therefore, to regard natural and

reasonable as identical leads to error.

Let me illustrate. According to the powers of

nature, a man once dead cannot be brought back to
life again. And if someone reports such an event to

you, you refuse to believe. You judge either that the

man did not really die or that the reports of his
being alive again are false. Why? Because you
know that the resurrection of a dead man is con-
trary to nature. You say that it is impossible. And
your conclusion is perfectly sound so long as you

know that you are in the presence of natural forces

only. It breaks down, however, if Almighty God

should have decided to raise the dead man back to
life again. And as to the possibility of His doing so,
I need remind you merely that God is the creator of
life in the first place; there should be no question,

therefore, that He has the power to recreate or to
restore life.

This illustration brings us to one of the doctrines

of the Church which is often rejected. I refer, ob-

viously, to the resurrection of our Lord from the
dead. Without the slightest shadow of doubt His



14 MISUNDERSTANDING THE CHURCH

rGsurrcction was unnatural ; it could not havo bocr

produced by the powers of nature. But it does not

follow that it was unreasonable. Precisely to the

contrary ; there are excellent and commanding
reas-

ons for the resurrection. God wished to im-

press upon mankind that He could conquer death,

for one thing. He wished to teach us not to fear

death, for another. Moreover, He wished to prove

that Christ was a true teacher and was to be accept-

ed by all. In what better way could God accomplish

these purposes than by raising Christ from the dead?

You see what I mean, I am sure. The resurrection

of Christ, though wholly unnatural, was perfectly

reasonable.

This illustration, I believe, throws a significant

light upon the problem which we are considering.

Great masses of our people, because they regard na-

tural and reasonable as synonymous, have come

to reject as unreasonable every Christian doc-

trine that rises above nature. They close their minds

to everything supernatural. And in so doing, please

notice, they do the very thing which they themselves

condemn, they act unreasonably.

It is for this reason that they reject the virgin

birth of Christ. The virgin birth was unnatural, of

course; but it does not follow that it was unreason-

able. The fact is, when the purpose of God is un-

derstood, that the virgin birth of Christ was most

reasonable. Nothing could be more so.

It was for a similar reason that the Star of

Bethlehem was recently dismissed as a myth by a

distinguished astronomer of one of our great uni-

versities. He satisfied himself that in the order of

nature there could have been no such star. He reas-



FAITH AND REASON 15

oned that since such a star could not have been nat-

ural it was not possible. Do you not see that the

man himself was reasoning incorrectly? If God

wished to put a supernatural light in the sky to

announce the birth of His Son, why could He not

do so? Did He not create the earth and the

stars and all the heavens? Once the purpose of God

is understood, the special light known as the Star of

Bethlehem becomes most reasonable.

It is for a similar reason that our neighbors all

about us are more and more inclined to reject the in-

spiration of the Bible. They say that it is unreason-

able that God should inspire men to write. They

confuse unreasonable with unnatural. The inspira-

tion of the Bible was unnatural, of course; it was

above nature. It does not follow, however, that it

was unreasonable. In fact, when the purpose of the

Bible is understood, it appears most reasonable that

God should have inspired certain men to write its
pages.

It is for a similar reason that so many persons
these days reject the divinity of Christ. It is wholly

unreasonable, they say, that the Son of God should
have come to earth and taken a human nature; un-
reasonable, that Christ was divine as well as human,
God as well as man. But what do they mean by un-
reasonable? Examine their arguments and you will
see that they mean merely “unnatural”. The only
thing that they prove in all of their arguments is
that the union of the divine with a human nature
goes beyond the powers of nature. And that is a
conclusion that needs no proof. No one has ever
questioned it. But when the critics conclude that the
union of God and man in Christ is unreasonable they



16 MISUNDERSTANDING THE CHURCH

g’o beyond their premises. And in consequence they

are wholly wrong. What could be more reasonable

than that God should wish to redeem the human race

by the sufferings and death of His Son? What could

be more reasonable than that He should wish to

establish a religion and to select its officials? What

could be more reasonable than that He should wish

to teach men directly and most intimately the ways

of salvation? And how could such purposes be

attained more perfectly than by having His divine

Son assume a human nature, live among men, teach

them, and in the end die for them? As we ex-

amine the facts, we find that the divinity of Christ

appears most reasonable.

It is for a similar reason that the infallibility of

the Catholic Church is rejected. The accusation is

that infallibility is unreasonable. All that is meant

is that infallibility is unnatural. The latter is true,

of course. Infallibility is not possible with mere

human power. But it does not follow that infalli-

bility is unreasonable. If God established a Church

and commanded it to teach, if He guaranteed to all

men that it would not teach error, and if He prom-

ised to be with it all days, it is most reasonable that

by virtue of His supernatural power the Church is

made infallible. As you can see at once, such a con-

clusion is logically inevitable.

Now it goes without saying that we should not

accept every supernatural claim of every religion. To

do so would be just as unreasonable as the mistake I

have been discussing. For, as you know, the claims

of the various religions conflict one with the other

;

and truth cannot be inconsistent. We have the

right to challenge every religion and demand that



FAITH AND REASON 17

it present its proof. But that is a different story. All

that I am asking* is that we should not reject
religious doctrines merely because they rise

above nature. As a matter of fact, in religion
we should expect truths that rise above nature

; we
should welcome them. And when they are proved,
we should believe them. May I suggest, then, that
you apply this distinction to your problems of relig-

ion? You may be surprised to find how many of
them will be solved.



18 MISUNDERSTANDING THE
CHURCH

FINDING RELIGIOUS TRUTH
(Address delivered on June 21,

1936)

In these days of mental
unrest and uncertainty,

of change and disillusionment,
it is only reasonable

that men and women should look
about for some

solid philosophy of life to
hold on to. And millions

of them are doing so. They
are looking for some-

thing that they do not now have,
the lack of which

they feel more and more keenly.
Many of them, un-

fortunately however only a minority,
are intently

looking for the true religion.
They wish to estab-

lish a contact between themselves
and God; they

wish to be a part of His kingdom on
earth. Only by

so doing, they are coming to see,
will they learn the

truths which He has revealed ; only by
so doing will

they receive the supernatural
help which they need.

And so all about us there is a definite
search for

truth in religion.

In my discussion of this search, I wish to
make

some suggestions as to the method.
Obviously, if a

wrong method of inquiry is used the
results are not

likely to be satisfactory. If the
correct method is

used, however, the inquiry should
lead to the desired

goal. Generally speaking, there
are two methods,

two entirely different approaches.
One is for the

searcher for truth to find merely what
pleases and

appeals to him ; to measure truth by his
own opin-

ions and judgment. The other is for him
to find the

source of truth, the divinely appointed
teacher, and

to accept its teachings.

As an illustration, I ask you to consider a
parallel

inquiry in a non-religious field. Suppose
that some-



FINDING RELIGIOUS TRUTH 19

one should come to you, a stranger to our country
and to our institutions; let him be the much imag-
ined visitor from Mars. Suppose that he asks you to
direct him to the highest and greatest court of law
in the United States. Suppose that he informs you
that he has been looking for that court and has been
unable to find it. I ask you now to consider his diffi-
culties and, also, the advice which you give. In these
will be found, I believe, some helpful suggestions in
the search which we are considering this afternoon,
the search for truth in religion.

The stranger states his problem to you as fol-
lows : “It is the function of courts, my reason tells
me, to administer justice. The more perfectly this
is done the better is the court. It seems reasonable,
therefore, that that court which is most perfectiv
just in all of its dealings is the highest court. It is
the court which most certainly punishes the guilty
and releases the innocent, which most certainly
awards correct damages, and which most certainly
enforces all contract obligations. But how can I
find this court? Must I examine the records of all
cases held in all courts?’’

To this proposal you would reply : “My dear sir
you are undertaking an impossible task. You cannot
possibly find out which is the most just court. There
are courts in every city and in every county in this
country; thousands in all. You cannot examine each
case that comes and has come into each of these
courts.

Furthermore, how are you to know^ that the ver-
dict m each particular case is just or unjust? How
are you to know when a defendant is innocent or
guilty? If you try to determine the justice of every



20 MISUNDP]RSTANDING
THE CHURCH

verdict, you must know all of the
facts in all of the

cases better than the juries do.
You cannot possibly

do so. Very probably you cannot
get the facts in one

single case as well as the jury
does.

The stranger replies! “Well, then,
I presume

that I should examine the decisions
of the judges.

Judges are selected because of
their knowledge of

law. It is reasonable to presume,
therefore, that the

highest court in the land has the
most scholarly

judges. Their decisions, no doubt,
are superior to

all others. So I shall study the decisions
of all of the

judges in the country, and find those
which refiect

the greatest scholarship.”

Again, you would protest! “There are two
diffi-

culties with that proposal. First of all,
it is not

necessarily true that the best judges are in
the high-

est court. We may hope that they are ; but we can-

not be certain. It is easily possible
that the most

capable judges are in some of the lower courts.

“In the second place, how are you to know when

you find the best statements of law ? The teacher

who corrects examination papers must know more

than the pupils. So if you would sit in judgment

upon all of the judges, you yourself must know

more about the law than they do. And where did

you get such knowledge?”

At the conclusion of such discussions you would

finally say to the stranger: “You are approaching

your inquiry from the wrong direction. You will

never find the highest court by examining the courts

themselves, by analyzing what they do and how they

act. You must not start from yourself and trace

the line up to the court. You must start from the



1

FINDING RELIGIOUS TRUTH 21

other direction. Start from above and trace the line

down to the court.

“In the United States the people are the final

authority, save only the authority of Almighty God.

They have established their governments, a part of

the machinery of which are the courts of justice.

Among them are lower and higher courts, trial and

appellate courts, state and federal courts.

“Now the way for you to find the highest court is
to consult the intentions of the people of the coun-

try, as expressed in the various constitutions. You

will find that the constitution of each state pro-

vides for a supreme court, which is above all other

state courts. You will find, also, that the Constitu-

tion of the United States provides for a Supreme

Court, which is above all other federal courts and

above, also, the supreme courts of the states. This

is the court for which you are looking.

“The Supreme Court of the United States was
organized immediately after the adoption of the Fed-

eral Constitution, organized according to its pro-

visions. As the original Justices died one by one,
others were appointed to their places, so that it has
been a continuous body. At no time since the be-
ginning of our national existence have we been with-
out Supreme Court Justices. The Court now sitting
in Washington, therefore, by virtue of its appoint-
ment according to the Constitution, being the legal
successor of the original Court, is the Supreme
Court of this country.

“The Justices of this Court write the final legal
opinions for the whole country, not because they
may be the best students of law, but precisely be-
cause they are legally appointed to do that very



22 misunderstanding
THE CHURCH

thing Their decisions
are to be respected, not

be-

cause you may like them, but
because they are law

whether you like them or not.
In a word, this is the

highest Court because it
has been made so by the

American people.”

Now, ladies and gentlemen,
if in place of the

Supreme Court of the United
States is substituted

the true religion established
by God, you will under-

stand the application that
I make. The parallel be-

tween the Court and religion
is not perfect, of

course ; but is close
enough to permit the same type

of reasoning. Suppose, then,
that the stranger asks

you to direct him to the true
religion. He explains

that he believes in God; and
that he believes that

God has placed some religion in
the world for man s

guidance. He adds, however, that he
has been un-

able to find it.

‘T took for granted at first,” he
continues, “that

the true religion would be the
one that impressed

me most favorably. It would have the
finest people

for its members; it would have the
most scholarly

ministers and the most interesting
services. It

would be the religion that is most
charitable and

that does the most good. It would be
the religion

whose doctrines are the most reasonable.

“In looking for that religion, however,
I have

made no progress. As to membership, I find
good

and bad members in every religion. As to
interest-

ing services, I find that I like one feature
of one re-

ligion and a different feature of another. And as to

charity and general good, I cannot make any

estimate.

“And when I consider doctrines, I become even

more confused. I find that the spokesmen of a par-



FINDING RELIGIOUS TRUTH 23

ticular religion have plausible arguments for their

doctrines, and that the spokesmen of other religions

have plausible arguments for entirely different doc-

trines. I don’t know which to believe.

“Another thing that disturbs me is that my
neighbors do not agree with me. What some of
them like in a religion, I dislike

;
and vice versa. So

if they, following my example, look for the religion
that they like, there would have to be many different
religions. And I cannot believe that God has estab-
lished more than one religion.”

Very probably you would advise the stranger as
follows: “Your method of approach is at fault. You
have set up your own likes and dislikes as the criter-
ion of religion. You are trying to measure religion
by your tastes. And very possibly your tastes are
wrong. You may like the preaching in a particular
church, for instance; but that fact does not prove
that the preacher is telling you the truth.

“Furthermore, how can you weigh theological
doctrines? When you set yourself up as a judge
you must know from some unique source of informa-
tion which doctrines are true and which are false.
You have no such source of information. God has
not spoken to you in some special manner. He has
not appointed you to sit in judgment over the doc-
trines of the various religions of the world.

"The fundamental difficulty is that you have
started your inquiry from the wrong place. You are
trying to trace a line from yourself up to the true re-
ligion. You must reverse your procedure. Go
directly to God. Start with Him and find the relig-
ion which He established- From that the line down
to yourself is evident.



24 MISUNDERSTANDING THE CHURCH

^‘In the case of the Supreme Court you had to

look above, to the authority which created it. So
in

the case of religion ; you must look above, to the

source of authority, to God Himself. Even here you

will find conflicting claims, of course; you will find

each of the different religions pointing to God as its

author. And you will examine the evidence pre-

sented by each. Eventually, however, you will cen-

ter your attention upon Christianity, because of

the unique and solid evidence by which its divine

origin is proved. You will learn that God Himself,

Christ, our Lord, came on earth, that He took a hu-

man nature, and that He personally and directly

founded Christianity. You will learn that He form-

ed the Christian organization, selecting its officials,

that He explained to them the constitution which

they were to follow, and that He then sent them

forth to convert the whole world. You will learn

that He gave to the officials of the Christian organi-

zation all authority in matters of religion.

'‘As you inquire further, you will learn that

Christ commanded the officials of His Church to do

three things: to teach, govern, and sanctify, and

that they should do so in all later ages. To that

end, as you will learn, Christ commanded the first

officials to choose successors, who in turn would

choose other successors, and so on without break in

continuity until the end of time. The religion which

you seek, therefore, must be that one which nineteen

centuries ago Christ placed in the world. It must

be the one which has perpetuated and continued the

original organization.

“Such a Church today has the very authority

which Christ gave it in the beginning; authority.



FINDING RELIGIOUS TRUTH 25

therefore, to teach you and me, to govern us in re-

ligion, and to sanctify us. It may very readily be

that we dislike some of its officials ; we may not un-

derstand some of its doctrines. It may be that we

should like to change it in certain respects. But it is

clear that our opinions, and our likes and dislikes,

have nothing to do with the authority of the Church.

Precisely as our disapproval of the decisions of the

United States Supreme Court cannot make it a lower

court, so our disapproval of the Church cannot un-

make it the Church. The divine character of the

Church cannot be changed merely because men do

not accept it. Neither can the doctrines be changed

to please every passing opinion of every man. The

Church cannot adjust herself to us. It is for us to

adjust ourselves to the Church.”

The end of our inquiry, then, is this. We find
truth in the religion which God has established. We
accept its authority. We follow its directions; we
believe what it teaches. In its presence, we are

humble. We have faith; faith in God, faith in
Christ, and faith in His holy religion. And remem-

ber, my friends, it is by faith that we save our im-
mortal souls.



26 MISUNDERSTANDING THE CHURCH

THE CHURCH—AN UNERRING GUIDE
• (Address delivered on June 28, 1936)

If the Church may be referred to as an unerring

guide in matters of religion, as the title just an-

nounced indicates, it is only because she is able to

teach truth with finality and certainty. If for a .

moment she leads mankind in the wrong direction,

if in her doctrines there is a suggestion of error, she

is not the safe and dependable guide which we all

need. For in matters of religion, more so than in

anything else, we need and must have certainty.

The salvation of our immortal souls is at stake.

When we approach the spokesmen of religion,
therefore, and ask what we should do to be saved,

we cannot be put off with any doubtful advice, such

as this: “You should follow the program of my re-
ligion because it is probably the best.'' When we
ask what we are to believe, we are not satisfied to
hear: “You should believe the doctrines of my
church because I think that they are true." Nothing

of the kind will do. We must have truth, taught
with infallible certainty.

Such a conclusion will impress you as most reas-

onable, I am sure. And yet, as you no doubt know,
whenever the subject of infallibility in religion is

mentioned many persons begin to protest. They
seem to be afraid of it. They insist that infallibility

is not reasonable, that it is contrary to human ex-
perience and even impossible. You have heard such
protests, I am sure. Perhaps some of you have been
disturbed by them.

It is contended that in the life of each individual,



THE CHURCH—AN UNERRING GUIDE 27

as well as in the history of the human race, mistakes

are bound to occur. It is pointed out, for instance,

that the scientists of today discover many short-

comings in the scientific opinions of a few years ago.

And it is expected, as a matter of course, that some

of the mistakes of today will be discovered by the

scientists of a few years hence. It is claimed that

for intellectual progress the existence of mistakes

must be presumed. The Church’s claim of infallibil-

ity, therefore, is declared to be unreasonable.

This argument, which is so frequently heard and

which has done so much harm, is based on two mis-

conceptions. It presumes, first of all, that infalli-

bility is something quite unusual and extraordinary,

whereas, precisely the contrary is true. It pre-

sumes, secondly, that the acceptance of truth infal-

libly taught discourages further thinking; whereas,

again, the contrary is true.

When you stop to think about it, you will note

that we all accept many truths as infallible. Is it

not infallibly true that I am speaking and that you

are listening at this moment? Is it not infallibly

true that we lived yesterday? Do we not accept as

infallibly true that the world war was begun in

1914? Do we not accept as infallibly true that

Washington was our first president? There is no

need to multiply illustrations
;
you see what I mean,

I am sure.

Furthermore, to consider the second false as-

sumption, the acceptance of such truths, far from

being a hindrance, is a necessary aid to progress in

thinking. Suppose for a moment that we raise

doubts about having lived yesterday; suppose that

we act as if we had not lived. Try the experiment,



28 MISUNDERSTANDING THE CHURCH

if you wish
;
and soe the hopeless confusion that re-

sults. Suppose that we deny the reality of the world

war, as another instance. Think of all the facts

which would have to be ruled out of our lives. On

the other hand, if we act as reasonable persons, if

we accept the fact of the war as infallibly true, we

may then proceed to acquire further information.

We may study the causes of the war, its effects, and

its relation to other facts. That is the only way to

advance in knowledge; from one truth to another.

Why should it be different with religion? Per-

haps some one suggests that the doctrines of religion

are quite different from ordinary facts, from the

facts of history, for instance. Let us see about that.

What about the life and death of Christ? They are

historical facts. And what about His selecting His

Apostles and founding the Church? Historical

facts, also. What about the Virgin birth of our

Lord, His resurrection from the dead. His ascen-

sion into heaven, and the coming of the Holy Ghost?

These, also, are historical facts. To be sure, they

are supernatural, but they are none the less histori-

cal. And why should they not be declared to be in-

fallibly true?

There are other doctrines of the Church, of

course, which are more than merely historical; the

existence of God, for instance, the immorality of the

soul, and the existence of a future life of reward and

punishment. These are fundamental facts of life

and eternity, revealed by God and known to every

reasonable person. And why should they not be
taught as certainly and infallibly true? There are

still other truths, such as the Trinity, the Incarna-

tion, and the Eucharist, which are doctrines of



THE CHURCH—AN UNERRING GUIDE 29

Christian revelation. And they, too, are taught with

the guaranty of infallibility. But does it
seem

unreasonable that the Church is conscious of what

God has revealed to her? A truth of revelation is a

matter of fact. Why can it not be declared to be

certainly true?

And so far as intellectual progress is concerned,

the history of Christianity is a clear vindication.

The definitions of doctrine which have followed each

other through the course of nineteen centuries have

contributed to the world’s storehouse of truth, just

as have the discoveries of science. They differ from

the latter in that the discoveries of science have

usually corrected errors previously held. With the

definitions of doctrine, there has been no correction

of errors; there have been none to correct. Each

definition has merely stated clearly and explicitly

what previously had been taught obscurely or im-

plicitly. Being defined, however, with its truth in-

fallibly guaranteed, it has served to lead the Church

and the world to new fields of thought. Other truths

have been found to rest upon it and be related to it.

Every definition of doctrine for nineteen centuries

has thus been a stimulation to intellectual activity,

precisely as we should expect.

It is objected, however, that in defining doctrines

of religion no one can be infallible. Applied direct-

ly to the Church, for it is the Church alone that we

are concerned with, this objection may be and is

often stated as follows : All human beings are

liable to error: the Church is composed of human

beings
;
therefore, the Church is liable to error.

At first thought the argument sounds convincing.

It is true, naturally speaking, that all human beings



30 MISUNDERSTANDING THE CHURCH

are liable to error
;
it is true chat the Church is com-

posed of human beings. The conclusion that the

Church is liable to error, therefore, would seem to

follow. And yet it does not follow. The fallacy is

that the supernatural help of God is ignored. Hu-

man beings are liable to error if they depend solely

on human and natural power, if the help of God is

left out. But in religion the help of God must not

be left out; it cannot be. Obviously, then, it is not

true to say that all human beings are liable to error

;

some of them may be protected against error by the
supernatural help of God. And with such persons,
God would prevent human weakness from expres-
sing itself in what He wished them to teach.

Concerning the power of God to protect men
against error there really should be no doubt. Is

not God greater than His human creatures? Can He
not lead them, can He not instruct them, can He not
check them? When God inspired certain chosen
men to write the books of the holy Bible, He pro-
tected them against teaching false doctrines. Why,
then, can He not protect certain other men of today
against teaching false doctrines? I do not mean
that the present day protection against error is the

same thing as inspiration. I mean that for God it
is no more difficult

;
I mean that if the one was pos-

sible so is the other.

Granting, then, that infallibility is reasonable

and possible, it remains to be explained that, as a
matter of fact, the Church is infallible. To point
the way, I remind you that our divine Lord was in-
fallible. The Gospel as He taught it must have been
infallibly true

;
a fact which is recognized by all who

believe in Him. Furthermore, the Gospel as taught



THE CHURCH—AN UNERRING GUIDE
31

by His Apostles must have
been infallibly true; a

fact which is recognized by all
who believe in the

writings of the New Testament. But when
the same

infallibility is claimed for the Gospel
as preached a

century later, or nineteen centuries
later, doubts are

raised. But should there be doubts?
Does not the

latter infallibility follow from the
former?

These questions take us to the
intentions of

Christ. From the very nature of His
mission on

earth, it is evident that He was just as
much in-

terested in His followers of the
twentieth century

as in those of the first century ;
that he expected to

save men of all later centuries by identically
the

same truths by which He saved men in the
first cen-

tury. It would seem, therefore, that
He must have

made some provision that His Gospel
would be

taught infallibly throughout all ages, just
as it was

in the beginning.

And so it was that our Lord, in choosing His

Apostles, commanded them to choose successors,
who

in turn would choose other sucessors,
who genera-

tion after generation would be His official
agents to

teach the Gospel. He said to them: “Going, there-

fore, teach all nations;. . . Teaching them to ob-

serve all things that I have commanded you; and

behold I am with you all days, even to the consum-

mation of the world.”

Christ knew the weakness of the human mind;

He knew that without His help even His appointed

spokesmen would fall into error. Furthermore, He

knew that the world would not accept their teach-

ings unless He guaranteed them to be true. It was

for this reason that He announced publicly that He



32 MISUNDERSTANDING THE CHURCH

would be with His teachers all days, even to the

end.

On another occasion, to the same Apostles, He

made this promise : “And I will ask the Father, and

He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may

abide with you forever. The Spirit of Truth, . . .

He shall abide with you, and shall be in you.” “He

will teach you all things, and bring all things to

your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.”

Here is a definite promise that the Spirit of Truth

would be with the teachers of the Gospel at all times,

in order to instruct them so that they in turn would

be able to teach the world. If this is true are they

not infallible ?

On one other occasion, speaking to the chief of
the Apostles, Christ said: “Upon this rock I will

build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it.” We are not concerned here with
the meaning of the phrase, “upon this rock.” We
are concerned with Christ’s guaranty that the gates

of hell should not prevail against His Church. The

statement implies that the forces of evil would con-

stantly attack the Church and would try to lead it

into error. Our Lord had in mind all of the diffi-
culties to come throughout the many centuries of
Christianity, the schisms, the heresies, the religious

inventions of men, and every other agency of des-
truction. And He announced publicly and clearly
that none of these things would prevail against His
Church.

In defending her claim of infallibility, therefore,

the Catholic Church stands on the clear promises of
Christ. Believing that He is the divine Lord, be-
lieving that by His very nature He would infallibly



THE CHURCH—AN' UNERRING GUIDE 33

keep His promises, the Church is sure that He has

protected her against teaching error. She presents

her doctrines to the world as infallibly true, there-

fore, and trusts that through the compelling force

of logic, aided by the grace of God, all men in the

course of time will come to accept them.

It is clear to you, I hope, that the infallibility of

the Catholic Church does not mean that the popes

and bishops are perfect, or sinless. They are human

beings and, therefore, are imperfect, which fact no

one would be more quick to recognize than they

themselves. The infallibility of the Church does not

mean that the popes and bishops are infallible in

their judgment on business, politics, science, or

other non-religious subjects. On such subjects their

judgment depends on their training and intellectual

ability, as does the judgment of other men; and the

same is true of their private opinions about doc-

trines. Infallibility does not mean that the authori-

ties of the Church receive new revelation from God.

There has been no public reveJation since the time of

the Apostles.

Infallibility means that the Catholic Church

does not and cannot err when it teaches a doctrine

of faith or morals. It means that when the pope and

bishops, speaking officially as the teachers appointed

by God, announce a doctrine of faith or morals, such

an announcement is free from error; that it is cer-

tainly and unquestionably true; that from it are

excluded all the effects of human frailty, thanks to

the supernatural power of God. It is guaranteed to

be true by God Himself. And it is offered to us for

our salvation. As prudent and reasonable persons

we should accept it.



34 MISUNDERSTANDING THE CHURCH

VICAR OF CHRIST

(Address delivered on July 5, 1936)

One of the greatest advantages of the Catholic

Church is its unity. While it is world-Avide in ex-

tent, with officials and members in every country, it

is held together around one center. This center is

Rome; the head of the Church is the Pope.

That he is today, as was his predecessor in the

beginning, the acknowledged head of the universal

Church, calls for a supernatural explanation. It is

more than natural. In fact, it seems to be contrary

to nature. We know quite well how strong are the

inclinations of human nature to defy central author-

ity. Every empire set up by man has had to reckon

with the centrifugal force by which its provinces

have tended to break away; and every human em-

pire in the course of time has had to yield to such

pressure, and has had to concede to its provinces

more and more local government, and this in spite

of military power by which it might resist. The

urge to break away from the center of things seems

to be inevitable.

True in the realm of politics, it is true in the

realm of religion, also. Assume for a moment that

certain men, endowed with extraordinary qualities

of leadership, were able to set up a religion for the

whole world; assume that they were successful in

converting all mankind to it
;
assume, further, that at

first they were able to persuade all men to acknowl-

edge the authority of one ruler. Even so, they would

not be able for long to keep the organization to-

gether under this one head. The demand for local



VICAR OF CHRIST 35

control would quickly create problems. First one

episode and then another would arise to make the

people of the various provinces impatient with cen-

tral control. One by one the sections would break

away and set up their own governments.

With divisions in the organization, there would

soon be differences in belief. No matter how per-

fectly unified might be the beliefs in the beginning,

differences would surely follow the break from the

central government. For unity in belief depends,

in part at least, upon unity in organization. It de-

pends upon the adherence of all people to a central

authority competent to declare what is and what is

not the meaning of the faith.

As I said, with such a human organization, no

matter how perfectly formed it might be, disintegra-

tion into local and national groups would be inevi-

table. The formation of independent and separate

divisions would come in the natural course of events.

Yet this has not been the history of the Catholic

Church
;
and here is a fact which is most significant.

To be sure, the Church has not been free from

the pressure for separation. Over and over again

local groups, for one reason or another, have sought

to break from Rome and to establish their own re-

ligious sovereignty. And, as we know quite well, in

a number of cases they have succeeded at least in

setting up independent organizations, which in turn

have promptly broken up into smaller groups. As a

further result, confirming our reasoning of a mo-

ment ago, the groups once separated from Rome

have developed a great variety of religious doctrines.

But that is another story. What I wish to point out

is that in spite of such defections, in spite of all



36 MISUNDERSTANDING THE CHURCH

attempts to break up the Church into local and na-

tional parts, she has retained her unity. She re-

mains today, as she was at the beginning, universal,

extra-national, and unified. One in organization,

her people are one in religious beliefs.

Such unity is to be discussed only in the lan-

guage of religion. It is to be explained by reference

to the intentions and to the help of God. It is perti-

nent for us to ask, then, about the plan of Christ, the

author of Christianity. Did He provide for unity,

unity of government and unity of belief? If so,

what means did He choose ? Tnees and similar ques-

tions point out the path of inquiry.

Before answering let me ask what appears to be

reasonable. What do you think Christ would have

done? It seems only reasonable that He must

have identified His religion with an organization.

Otherwise, it could not have lived for even a few

years. No cause carries over from one generation

to the next without organization. And would not

our Lord have appointed a head, or a president, for

His Church? How could it have functioned without

a head? How well would a headless government

function, or a headless school system, or a headless

business organization? Is it not reasonable to think,

then, that Christ appointed some one official as the

head of His Church?

Such reasoning brings us to the facts, that is to

say, the facts of history. And we note at once that

in all of the New Testament accounts of Christ’s
dealings with His followers one man comes first, St.

Peter. There is no rival. In naming the Apos-

tles, St. Matthew writes very explicitly : ‘The first,

Simon who was called Peter after which he names



VICAR OF CHRIST 37

the others. The use of the word “first” is
signifi-

cant. It does not indicate a mere numerical
order

for, if so, St. Matthew would have continued with

the other Apostles as second, third, fourth,
etc.

But there was no second, and no third. There was

a first Apostle; there were the other eleven.

There are many incidents wherein St. Peter is

shown to be first among the Apostles. It was from

his ship that Christ preached to the crowd, standing

near the shore. It was to St. Peter, the fisher-

man, that Christ said : “Fear not : from henceforth

thou shalt catch men.” It was to St. Peter of all the

Apostles that Christ first appeared after His resur-

rection. It was for St. Peter that Christ especially

prayed
;
and it was St. Peter that Christ commanded

to confirm the others: “But I have prayed for thee

that thy faith fail not: And thou, being once con-

verted, confirm thy brethren.” Whenever anyone

spoke for the Apostles and in their name it was al-

ways St. Peter. It was St. Peter who said to Christ

:

“Behold we have left all things, and have followed

thee; what therefore shall we have?” When Christ

asked the twelve if they would leave Him because of

the doctrine of the Eucharist, it was St. Peter who

answered for the group: “Lord, to whom shall we

go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.”

Explicit proof of the primacy of St. Peter is

found in four statements. The first was after

Christ had inquired of the Apostles whom men

thought that He was. To their answer. He asked a

second question: “But whom do you say that I am?

Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ,

the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering,

said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona; be-



38 MISUNDERSTANDING THE CHURCH

cause flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but

my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee:

That thou art Peter ; and upon this rock I will build

my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail

against it.”

It may be asked to what Christ referred by the

word “rock”. It would seem that He referred to St.

Peter. The word “Peter” means rock; it is merely

the English spelling of the Latin word “rock”.

What Christ said to Peter was this: “You are a

rock;” and then in the hearing of the other Apostles

He added: “upon this rock I will build my church.”

The second statement follows immediately in the

discourse of Christ: “And I will give to thee the

keys of the kingdom of heaven.” The key is the

symbol of authority; it has always been so. It was

used in this way by the Jewish writers of the Old

Testament. For God to give the “keys of the king-

dom of heaven” to a man meant to give him supreme

authority. And it was precisely such authority that

Christ gave to St. Peter
;
he was to rule the kingdom

of God on earth.

The third statement, a part of the same dis-

course, is this : “And whatsoever thou shalt bind

upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and

whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be

loosed in heaven.” The phrase “to bind and to

loose” was a Jewish expression, one which Christ’s

hearers readily understood. For an official “to bind”

meant to declare that something was forbidden by

law; for an official “to loose” meant to declare that

something was permitted by law. The power, “to

bind and to loose”, when applied to Christ’s kingdom

on earth, meant the authority to make laws for the



VICAR OF CHRIST 39

Christian people and to interpret and apply these

laws. This power, Christ explicitly gave to St.

Peter.

The fourth statement was made on the occasion

of our Lord’s third appearance to the Apostles after

His resurrection. He singled out St. Peter for the

following conversation: “Simon son of John, lovest

thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea,

Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to

him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Si-

mon son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him;

Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith

to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him the third

time; Simon son of John, lovest thou me?. . . And

he said to him : Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou

knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my

sheep.”

It is unnecessary to point out to anyone who has

read the New Testament how often Christ used the

figure of the shepherd and the sheep. He referred

to Himself as a shepherd, to His followers as sheep,

and to the kingdom of God as a sheepfold. You thus

readily understand what Christ meant in his three-

fold command to St. Peter: “Feed my lambs;”

“Feed my lambs ;” “Feed my sheep.” He entrusted

to St. Peter the care of His entire flock, all of His

followers, all Christians. St. Peter’s authority thus

was not limited to a particular group or a particular

place. It was universal.

Further evidence of the primacy of St. Peter is

furnished by the life of the early Church, by the

testimony of the Apostles. They knew what Christ

had said. And they recognized St. Peter as their

head. Throughout the early years of Christianity



40 MISUNDERSTANDING THE CHURCH

and during the lifetime of the Apostles, the supreme

authority of St. Peter is attested in numerous events.

I do not discuss them, for they need no discussion. I

merely mention them. It was St. Peter, for in-

stance, who presided at the meetings of the Apostles.

It was he who announced that they should appoint a

successor to Judas. It was he who preached the first

sermon, on the great day of Pentecost. St. Peter

performed the first miracle. St. Peter was mirac-

ulously delivered from prison. St. Peter went be-

fore the civil magistrates to speak for and defend

the Christians who were arrested. St. Peter was

selected by Almighty God, in a special and mirac-

ulous manner, to receive into the Church the first

Gentile. At the first general Council of Christen-

dom, the Council of Jerusalem, St. Peter delivered

the important verdict. Such are the facts.

St. Peter went to Rome and there established his

See. He was succeeded in office, following his

martyrdom under Emperor Nero, by St. Linus, who

thus became the second Bishop of Rome. To the

latter was handed down the authority which had

been possessed by St. Peter, the authority placed in

the office by Christ Himself.

It is this latter fact that is to be noted in partic-

ular. Certain rights and powers pertain to the

office; and the man who is placed in the office, the

present Pope being the latest, acquires these rights

and powers. He is the head of the universal Church.

Bishops throughout the world are appointed by

him
;
the heads of religious orders are responsible to

him. And under them are the pastors and priests,

who come into close contact with the people.

The Pope is an extra-national figure. As the



VICAR OF CHRIST 41

ruler of the diminutive State of the Vatican City he

is the subject of no civil government. He is a for-

eigner to no one. He belongs as much to the people

of this country as to the people of any European

country.

The Pope is thus the spokesman for Catholic

people throughout the world. Whenever and where-

ever Catholics are persecuted for the faith, the Pope

comes to their defense. His advice is not always

followed unfortunately; we know only too well that

civil rulers who undertake to crush the Church only

snap back their defiance when the Pope protests.

Nevertheless, as they learn in time, he does exert an

influence. The Catholic people are encouraged when

the Pope speaks. They appreciate that there is some

one outside of their country, some one not subject to

their rulers, who is fighting for them. Their pa-

tience under injustice is thus strengthened and they

are more steadfast.

More than that, the Pope is called upon, by vir-

tue of his unique position, to be the spokesman for

all people who are everywhere interested in the

cause of righteousness. Not only for members of

the Catholic Church, but for all mankind, he speaks

;

not only purely Catholic interests, but the funda-

mental principles of morality which underlie all

human relationships, he defends. He leads in the

never-ending fight against sin. In whatever form it

comes, new or disguised as it may be, he exposes it

and declares it to be sin. At one time the besetting

sin of society may be slavery
;
at another it may be

intemperance; or it may be economic injustice, or

divorce, or birth control, or communism. Whatever

it is, the Pope condenms it and invites all men every-



42 MISUNDERSTANDING THE CHURCH

where to join with him in the crusade against it.

His leadership is thus a blessing to the world. And
it comes, as do all blessings, as a gift from our

divine Lord.



Hear and Help the Catholic Hour

Produced by the National Council of Catholic Men,
1312 Massachusetts Ave., N. W.,

Washington, D. C.

Presented by the National Broadcasting Company, and the
following associated stations:

Asheville, N. C. WWNG
Atlanta, Ga. WSB
Baltimore, Md. WFBR
Billings, Mont. KGHL
Birmingham, Ala. WAP|
Bismarck, N. D. KFYR
Boston, Mass. WEEI
Buffalo, N. Y. WBEN
Butte, Mont. KGIR
Cincinnati, Ohio WSAI
Charlotte, N. C. WSOC
Chicago, 111.

WMAQ or WCFL
Cleveland, Ohio WTAM
Columbia, S. C. WIS
Covington, Ky. WCKY
Dallas, Texas WFAA
Davenport, Iowa WOC
Dayton, Ohio WHIO
Des Moines, la. • WHO
Denver, Colo. KOA
Detroit, Mich. WWJ
Duluth-Superior WEBC
Fargo, N. D. WDAY
Fort Worth, Tex. WBAP
Greenville, S. C. WFBC
Hartford, Conn. WTIC
Hot Springs, Ark. KTHS
Houston, Tex. KPRC
Indianapolis, Ind. WIRE
Jackson, Miss. WJDX
Jacksonville, Fla. WJAX
Kansas City, Mo. WDAF

Louisville, Ky. WAVE
Los Angeles, Calif. KECA
Madison, Wis. WIBA
Memphis, Tenn. WMC
Miami, Fla. WIOD
Nashville, Tenn. WSM
New York, N. Y. WEAF
New Orleans, La. WSMB
Norfolk, Va. WTAR
Oklahoma City, Okla. WKY
Omaha, Neb. WOW
Philadelphia, Pa. KYW
Phoenix, Ariz. KTAR
Pittsburgh, Pa. WCAE
Portland, Me. WCSH
Portland, Ore. KGW
Providence, R. I. WJAR
Richmond, Va. WRVA
St. Louis, Mo. KSD
St. Paul, Minn. KSTP
Salt Lake City,

Utah KDYL
San Antonio, Tex. WOAI
San Francisco, Cal. KPO
Schenectady, N. Y. WGY
Schenectady, N. Y.

(Short Wave) WZXAF
Seattle, Wash. KOMO
Shreveport, La. KTBS
Spuokane, Wash. KHQ
Tampa, Fla. WFLA
Tulsa, Okla. KVOO
Washington, D. C. WRC
Worcester, Mass. WTAG

(Most of the^ stations present the Catholic Hour every
Sunday at six o’clock. New York Time [D. S. T. during
summer], though some of them suspend it periodi-

cally because of local commitments, etc.)

YOUR CONTRIBUTION TO THE CONTINUANCE OF
THESE WEEKLY BROADCASTS OF CATHOLIC

TRUTH IS NEEDED AND SOLICITED



CARDINAL HAYES STATES AIMS
OF THE CATHOLIC HOUR

(Extract from his address at the inaugural program in the

studio of the National Broadcasting Company, New York

City, March 2, 1930.)

Our congratulations and our gratitude are extended to the

National Council of Catholic Men and its officials, and to all

who, by their financial support, have made it possible to use

this offer of the National Broadcasting Company. The heavy

expense of managing and financing a weekly program, its

musical numbers, its speakers, the subsequent answering of

inquiries, must be met. . . .

This radio hour is for all the people of the United States.

To our fellow-citizens, in this word of dedication, we wish to

express a cordial greeting and, indeed, congratulations. For

this radio hour is one of service to America, which certainly

will listen in interestedly, and even sympathetically, I am

sure, to the voice of the ancient Church with its historic

background of all the centuries of the Christian era, and

with its own notable contribution to the discovery, explora-

tion, foundation and growth of our glorious country. . . .

Thus to voice before a vast public the Catholic Church is

no light task. Our prayers will be with those who have that

task in hand. We feel certain that it will have both the
good will and the good wishes of the great majority of our

countrymen. Surely, there is no true lover of our Country

who does not eagerly hope for a less worldly, a less material,

and a more spiritual standard among our people.

With good will, with kindness and with Christ-like sympa-

thy for all, this work is inaugurated. So may it continue.

So may it be fulfilled. This word of dedication voices, there-

fore, the hope that this radio hour may serve to make known,

to explain with the charity of Christ, our faith, which we

love even as we love Christ Himself. May it serve to make

better understood that faith as it really is—a light revealing
the pathway to heaven: a strength, and a power divine

through Christ: pardoning our sins, elevating, consecrating

our common every-day duties and joys, bringing not only

justice but gladness and peace to our searching and ques-

tioning hearts.



CATHOLIC HOUR RADIO ADDRESSES

IN PAMPHLET FORM

OUR SUNDAY VISITOR is the authorized printer and distributor
of addresses delivered in the Catholic Hour (produced by the

NATIONAD COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC MEN, 1312 M^sachusetts
Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C.) The addresses published to date,

all of which are still available, are listed below.
Others

will .be published as they are delivered.

“The Divine Romance,” by Rt. Rev. Msgr. Fulton J Sheen,
80

pages and cover. Single copy, 20c postpaid. In
quantities, $9.00

per 100.

“The Moral Order” and “Mary, the Mother of Jesus,

Dr. George Johnson, 64 pages and cover. Single copy, 15c
postpaid.

In Quantities, $6.00 per 100.

“A Trilogy on Prayer,” by Rev. Thomas F. 9 * nn
32 pages and cover. Single copy, 10c postpaid. In

quantities, $5.00

per 100.

“The Story of the Bible,” by Rev. Dr. Francis L. Keenan,
64

pages and cover. Single copy, 15c postpaid. In quantities, $
6.00

per 100.

“Four Religious Founders,” by Rev. Dr. Francis J. Connell,

C. SS. R., Rev. Benedict Bradley, O. S. B., Rev.
Thomas M.

Sehwertner, O. P., Rev. Sigmund Cratz, O. M. Cap., and Rev. M.

J. Ahern, S. J., 56 pages and cover. Single copy, 15c postpaid,
in

quantities, $6.00 per 100.

“The Philosophy of Catholic Education,” by Rev. Dr. Charles L.

O’Donnell, C. S. C., 32 pages and cover. Single copy, 10c postpaid.

In quantities, $5.00 per 100.

“Christianity and the Modern Mind,” by Rev. John A. Mc-

Clorey, S. J., 64 pages and cover. Single copy. 15c postpaid. In

quantities, $6.00 per 100.

“The Moral Law,” by Rev. James M. Gillis, C. S. P., 88 pa^es

and cover. Single copy, 25c postpaid. In quantities, $9.50 per 100.

“Christ and His Church,” by Rt. Rev. Msgr. Joseph M. Corri-

gan, 88 pages and cover. Single copy, 25c postpaid. In quantities,

$9.50 per 100.

“The Marks of the Church,” by Rev. Dr. John K. Cartwright,

48 pages and cover. Single copy, 15c postpaid. In quantities, $5.50

per 100.

“The Organization and Government of the Church,” by Rev.

Dr. Francis J. Connell, C. SS. R., 48 pages and cover. Single copy,

15c postpaid. In quantities, $5.50 per 100.

“Moral Factors in Economic Life,” by Rev. Dr. Francis J, Haas

arnd Rev. Dr. John A. Ryan, 32 pages and cover. Single copy, 10c

postpaid. In quantities, $5.00 per 100.

“Divine Helps for Man,” by Rev. Dr. Edward J. Walsh, C. M.,
104 pages and cover. Single copy, 30c postpaid. In quantities,

$11.00 per 100.

“The Parables,” by Rev. John A. McClorey, S. J., 128 pages

and cover. Single copy, 35c postpaid. In quantities, $12.00 per 100.

“Christianity's Contribution to Civilization,” by Rev. James

M. Gillis, C. S. P., 96 pages and cover. Single copy, 25c postpaid.

In quantities, $10.00 per 100.

“Manifestations of Christ,” by Rt. Rev. Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen,

123 pages and cover. Single copy, 35c postpaid. In quantities, $12.00

per 100.

“The Way of the Cross,” by Rt. Rev. Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen, 32
pages and cover (prayer book size). Single copy, 15c postpaid. In

quantities, $4.00 per 100.

“Christ Today,” by Very Rev. Dr. Ignatius Smith, O. P., 48

pages and cover. Single copy, 15c postpaid. In quantities, $5.50 per

100 .



by Rev. Dr. Edward Lodse Curran, 61

DefllOO^^*^
cover. Single copy, 20c postpaid. In quantities, $7.00

Congress," by His Eminence WlUlani
^ ^ An address rebroadcast from Dublin, 12 pagesand cover. Single copy, 10c postpaid. In quantities, 63.75 per Wo!

9
by Rev. Dr. Edgar Schmiedeler, O.

64.^’’ per^100
^ cover. Single copy, 10c postpaid. In quantities,

"Religion and Human Nature," by Rev. Dr. Joseph A Dalr
$5.50^flr 100.^

Single copy, 15c postpaid. In quanUtles!

.
^be Church and Some Outstanding Problems of the Dav

"

2^p t'
S. J., 72 pages and cover. Single copy,20c postpaid. In quantities. 68.00 per 100.

“Conflicting Standards," by Rev. James M. Glllis C S P so

pef^iof.”^
cover. Single copy, 20c postpaid. In quantities, 69.M

«5 >,

^be Conquered," by Rt. Rev. Msgr Fulton J

“The Seven Last Words," by Rt. Rev M«?er Pnltnn t

I^q^antmes. Itoo per^iof^ ^^c postpaid.

T4,
Victory and Love's Laws," by Rev Dr Georee

fn q?a°ntmfs, $5.50 plr'^too."
postpaid.

n ^°ify'''
by Very Rev. Dr. Ignatius Smith,

?6.0^”per^fo^
cover. Single copy, 15c postpaid. In quantities,

Q T
Redemption," by Rev. Dr. Ignatius W. Cox,

hundTe™"'-
I"

“This Mysterious Human Nature," by Rev. James M. Gillis, C.

$5.ro"p^lfo®®
postpaid. In quantities,

“The Eternal Galilean," by Rt. Rev. Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen 160

pefToO^^^
cover. Single copy, 50c postpaid. In quantities, $16.00

“The Queen of Seven Swords,” by Rt. Rev. Msgr. Fulton J
Sheen (prayer-book size), 32 pages and cover. Single copy 15c
postpaid. In quantities, $3.00 per 100.

“Vbe Catholic Teaching on Our Industrial System," by Rt
Rev. Msgr. John A. Ryan, 32 pages and cover. Single copy, 10c
postpaid. In quantities, $5.00 per 100.

“The Happiness of Faith," by Rev. Daniel A. Lord, S. J . 80
pages and cover. Single copy. 20c postpaid. In quantities, $9.00
p©r J-Uu.

« o'^b®
Salvation of Human Society," by Rev. Peter J. Bergen,

pages and cover. Single copy, 15c postpaid In
quantities, $5.50 per hundred.

xn

«
' by Rev. Vincent F. Kienberger, O.P., 48 pages and

cover. Single copy, 15o postpaid. In quantities, $5.50 per hundred.
“Catholic Education," by Rev. Dr. George Johnson 40

pef^hundred^^^^’
Single copy, 15c postpaid. In quantities, $5.50

.

“'’’b* Cburch and Her Missions," by Rt. Rev. Msgr William
^^^^$5

50 pjf
postpaid, ^n quanti-



"The Church and the Depression,” by Rev. James M. Gillis,
C.S.P., 80 pages and cover. Single copy, 20c postpaid. In quantities,
$9.00 per hundred.

"The Fullness of Christ,” by Rt. Rev. Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen,
176 pages and cover. Single copy, 60c postpaid. In quantites, $16.50
per 100.

"The Church and Modern Thought,” by Rev. James M. Gillis,
C. S. P., 80 pages and cover. Single copies, 20c postpaid. In quan-
tities $9.00 per 100.

“Misunderstood Truths,” by Rt. Rev. Msgr. Duane G. Hunt,
48 pages and cover, 15c postpaid. In quantities $5.50 per 100.

"The Judgment of God” and "The Sense of Duty,” by Rt. Rev.
M^r. William J. Kerby 16 pages and cover. Single copy, 10c post-
paid. In quantities $4.00 per 100.

"Christian Education,” by Rev. Dr. James A. Reeves. 32
pages and cover. Single copy, 10c postpaid. In quantities, $5.00
per 100.

"What Civilization Owes to the Church,” by Rt. Rev. William
Quinn, 64 pages and cover. Single copy, 15c postpaid. In quantities,
$6.00 per 100.

"If Not Christianity: What?” by Rev. James M. Gillis, C. S. P.,
96 pages and cover. Single copy, 25c postpaid. In quantities,

$10.00 per hundred.

"The Prodigal World,” by Rt. Rev. Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen, 140
pages and cover. Single copy, 50c postpaid. In quantities $16.00
per 100.

"The Coin of Our Tribute,” by Very Rev. Thomas F. Conlon, O. P.,

40 pages and cover. Single copy, 15c postpaid. In quantities, $5.50 per 100.

“Pope Pius XI,” by His Eminence Patrick Cardinal Hayes. An ad-
dress in honor of the 79th birthday of His Holiness. 16 pages and beautiful

4-color cover Single copy, 15c postpaid. In quantities, $6.25 per 100.

"Misunderstanding the Church,” by Rt. Rev. Msgr. Duane G. Hunt,

48 pages and cover, 15c postpaid. In quantities, $5.50 per 100.

Complete lot of 52 Pamphlets to one address for $6.35 postpaid

Address: OUR SUNDAY VISITOR, Huntington, Indiana