By Henry Aloysius Barry
Resistance to the truth constitutes what we might call the first of these sins. This is committed in a variety of degrees, but, on general principles, by one who hates the truth is maliciously opposed to it, forcibly withdraws his soul from obeisance to it, malignantly throws barriers in its way, stifles all protests of the internal monitor, pours cold water on the natural or faith-enlarged flame of conscience.
The Holy Ghost is the spirit of truth, and, in this way, to antagonize conscience and faith, reason and revelation is to strictly oppose the Third Person. The basic principle of this repugnance is a pure aversion for the truth, which, in the depths of one's heart, one knows to be truth. Most guilty, however, in this matter is the man who, in spite of this internal conviction of the truth, proceeds to "teach" the contrary. "But there were also false prophets among the people even as there shall be among you, lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition and deny the Lord, Who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction." (II. Peter, i, 1.) "As James and Mambres resisted Moses so these also resist the truth, men corrupt in mind, reprobate concerning the faith." How offensive and how dreadful must such a person be to the Holy Ghost, Whose work of enlightenment the professor in the propaganda of evil is paid, and labors, to defeat. To have in one's moral system a fatal disease is at any time lamentable enough, but for one so afflicted to rush out and scamper in the midst of one's fellow-men with the design of having them contiract the disease, enormously augments the former disorder or disease if kept as it were in quarantine.—"Some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error and doctrines of devils." (I. Timothy, iv, 1.) St. Paul calls such men "heretics, condemned by their judgment." ( Tit. iii, 10, 11.)
Second only to this positive "teaching" of error is that antagonism to the known truth which consists in one's standing in the way of its progress, contracting or negativing its action and heaping reproach and ridicule upon it, doing what one unfortunately may to dissuade another from embracing it. We find this sin committed by Elymas when he strove to deter Sergius Paulus from embracing the faith. Thus "Saul, otherwise Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, looking upon him said, "O full of all guile and all of deceit, son of the devil, enemy of all justice, thou ceasest not to pervert the right ways of the Lord." (Acts, xiii, 9, 10.)
To be prompted by any sort of hatred toward virtue, denying the virtues of another and, for a greater reason, speaking ill of another's virtues comes within the circle of this degree, for virtues are the fruits of truth. Instances of this sort of thing are not wanting in any age.
Heretical pulpiteers, for example, and a press anti-catholic in tone set invariably against us— except where it injects a superficial item to hoodwink us, thus hypocritically to pretend a breadth of spirit which it really lacks— studiously refrain from saying anything that would call attention or be conducive, to the unveiling of the beauties of our faith and the glorious results of it in the lives of its heroes. Where these glories cannot be denied because of their glaring existence the "Church" as a cause is disembowelled, and, in this way effects are admitted whilst the real cause is evaded. An example of this —the influence of the Catholic religion on Art, that is to say, the love which it teaches and inspires in men being the motive power of Art is really admitted to come from Christianity and to be impressed by her upon artists and, yet, men admitting this at the same time take pains to disavow that this inspiration of Art comes through the patronage of "churches," "orders" or "communities "—mark the poisonous distinction! Any calumny whispered against our priesthood, our monks and nuns, is seized upon with such avidity that the "child of the devil" is visibly portrayed in the impishness of resultant glee.
Resistance to the truth constitutes what we might call the first of these sins. This is committed in a variety of degrees, but, on general principles, by one who hates the truth is maliciously opposed to it, forcibly withdraws his soul from obeisance to it, malignantly throws barriers in its way, stifles all protests of the internal monitor, pours cold water on the natural or faith-enlarged flame of conscience.
The Holy Ghost is the spirit of truth, and, in this way, to antagonize conscience and faith, reason and revelation is to strictly oppose the Third Person. The basic principle of this repugnance is a pure aversion for the truth, which, in the depths of one's heart, one knows to be truth. Most guilty, however, in this matter is the man who, in spite of this internal conviction of the truth, proceeds to "teach" the contrary. "But there were also false prophets among the people even as there shall be among you, lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition and deny the Lord, Who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction." (II. Peter, i, 1.) "As James and Mambres resisted Moses so these also resist the truth, men corrupt in mind, reprobate concerning the faith." How offensive and how dreadful must such a person be to the Holy Ghost, Whose work of enlightenment the professor in the propaganda of evil is paid, and labors, to defeat. To have in one's moral system a fatal disease is at any time lamentable enough, but for one so afflicted to rush out and scamper in the midst of one's fellow-men with the design of having them contiract the disease, enormously augments the former disorder or disease if kept as it were in quarantine.—"Some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error and doctrines of devils." (I. Timothy, iv, 1.) St. Paul calls such men "heretics, condemned by their judgment." ( Tit. iii, 10, 11.)
Second only to this positive "teaching" of error is that antagonism to the known truth which consists in one's standing in the way of its progress, contracting or negativing its action and heaping reproach and ridicule upon it, doing what one unfortunately may to dissuade another from embracing it. We find this sin committed by Elymas when he strove to deter Sergius Paulus from embracing the faith. Thus "Saul, otherwise Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, looking upon him said, "O full of all guile and all of deceit, son of the devil, enemy of all justice, thou ceasest not to pervert the right ways of the Lord." (Acts, xiii, 9, 10.)
To be prompted by any sort of hatred toward virtue, denying the virtues of another and, for a greater reason, speaking ill of another's virtues comes within the circle of this degree, for virtues are the fruits of truth. Instances of this sort of thing are not wanting in any age.
Heretical pulpiteers, for example, and a press anti-catholic in tone set invariably against us— except where it injects a superficial item to hoodwink us, thus hypocritically to pretend a breadth of spirit which it really lacks— studiously refrain from saying anything that would call attention or be conducive, to the unveiling of the beauties of our faith and the glorious results of it in the lives of its heroes. Where these glories cannot be denied because of their glaring existence the "Church" as a cause is disembowelled, and, in this way effects are admitted whilst the real cause is evaded. An example of this —the influence of the Catholic religion on Art, that is to say, the love which it teaches and inspires in men being the motive power of Art is really admitted to come from Christianity and to be impressed by her upon artists and, yet, men admitting this at the same time take pains to disavow that this inspiration of Art comes through the patronage of "churches," "orders" or "communities "—mark the poisonous distinction! Any calumny whispered against our priesthood, our monks and nuns, is seized upon with such avidity that the "child of the devil" is visibly portrayed in the impishness of resultant glee.
