Page 2, 2nd April 1954

2nd April 1954

Page 2

Page 2, 2nd April 1954 — Conversion: A Supreme Sacrifice
Close

Report an error

Noticed an error on this page?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it.

Tags

Locations: Pooha, Boston

Share


Related articles

Aim At A Council Of Union

Page 5 from 10th August 1962

"let All Christians Add Their Prayers"

Page 3 from 23rd May 1941

Conversion Of England

Page 2 from 5th April 1940

Conversion Of England

Page 2 from 29th March 1940

Catholicism Today

Page 2 from 2nd December 1949

Conversion: A Supreme Sacrifice

SIR,-Much has appeared in your columns and elsewhere recently on the subject of Christian reunion. but I cannot help feeling that many of our non-Catholic friends who so ardently desire it have missed the principal cause that can bring it about. A supreme sacrifice is necessary on the part of the individual which entails a complete surrender to the terms laid down by the Church. When we are spiritually and intellectually convinced that the Catholic Church alone is the true Church of Christ, we have no other honest alternative than to make unreservedly all the sacrifices necessary, no matter how painful or severe they may be. remembering always that God is no man's debtor.
Speaking as an ex-dissident but valid priest, no one realises more painfully than the writer how severe these sacrifices can be. Yet much as I value the sacred office I once exercised, with the Faith that is now mine, I would rather be a simple Catholic layman than the highest dignitary of a schismatic or heretical body.
Christ in effect calls us like the rich young man of the gospel to surrender ours most cherished possessions in order to take up our cross and follow Him. But, alas, like that young man, many of us lack the strength to make the supreme sacrifice, but rather we want the Church to accept us On our own terms. The way of reunion is the way of the Prodigal Son. "Reunited"
Ignoring St. George
SIR,-G. A. Brine contrasts the enthusiasm of Catholics in this country for celebrations on St. Patrick's Day with their seeming lack of interest in the feast of the Patron Saint of England.
There is a probable explanation of the former in the One Per Cent, Sample of the 1951 census returns. Among the 48,840,700 persons in Great Britain on Census Day, 1951, there were 721,900 who were born in Ireland; 188,100 in Northern Ireland (probably mostly Catholics seeking jobs in tolerant England); 527,100 in the Irish Republic; and 6,100 in "Ireland (part not stated)."
Those Irish-born persons in Great Britain on that day hardly qualify for Mr. Brine's description "Those who so frantically search out a piece of shamrock on St. Patrick's Day. even though their last Irish ancestor probably died 200 years ago. . . ."
The number gains more significance when compared with the Catholic Directory's estimated Catholic population of Great Britain of 31 millions, i.e., 1 in 7 may be regarded as having been born in Ireland.
Whilst saying all this, I ant holding no special brief for St. Patrick. Born in Wales, I wear a daffodil and have leek soup on March 1, brandish a luscious sprig of shamrock on the 17th, though my father was born in Boston, Mass., U.S.A.. and my mother in Pooha, India (three of my grandparents were Kellys before marriage), and a rose on April 23. St. Andrew on his day needs no support from me; he is in the vociferous care of the 572,000 persons (in England on Census Day, 1951) who were born in Scotland.
Over and above all this, I must say with blushes that I am a little uncertain who is the Patron Saint of England. There are some who tell me that St. George is the Lesser of the Patron Saints of England, and that it is Our Lady who tops the list. If this be true, Catholics, whether born in Ireland, Wales, Scotland or the Isles of Man and Tonga, are the most patriotic of all citizens in this Realm, for they do her honour many times a year. Because of this, may they please be excused a little bit of a change on March 17 and a certain amount of lassitude on April 23?
Charles I. Kelly




blog comments powered by Disqus