"to desire the end is to desire the means to the end"

"Benoît-Dominique de La Soujeole offers a helpful distinction between a sacrament of desire and desiring a sacrament, though I modify his definition of each.  The sacrament of desire is usually understood as an explicit desire for a sacrament (voto) with no interior obstacles from receiving the sacrament, but with some exterior obstacle preventing the person from actually having or receiving the sacrament. . . .

     "Desiring a sacrament (desiderium), on the other hand, entails explicitly wanting a sacrament but not being properly disposed to receive the res of the sacrament.  Both the sacrament of desire and desiring a sacrament involve an explicit desire or wish for the sacrament.  They differ, however, inasmuch as the latter, the desire for a sacrament, involves some obstacle (obex) to receiving the res of the sacrament. . . .

     "We must be clear about this:  not all desiring may be fulfilled. . . .  Desire, in and of itself, is not the necessary [(sufficient?)] pre-condition for attaining an object. . . . While one may wish or desire to go to Holy Communion at some particular Mass, or even wish for the Sacrament from afar (as when not present at Mass), without the proper dispositions to be able to enjoy union with Christ and the Church, the desire amounts to not much more than wistful thinking.  It is an inherently frustrated desire.  One might say it is not a real desire, for to desire the end is to desire the means to the end. . . .  To desire Holy Communion rightly, to make a true spiritual communion, entails being able to make such a communion."

     Paul Jerome Keller, O.P., "Is spiritual communion for everyone?," Nova et vetera (English edition) 12, no. 3 (2014):  643-645 (631-655).

"an admirable entry in that compilation of legendary excellence—and a historic publishing event as well—the Dictionnaire de Spiritualité"

     John Joseph Williams, "Accessibility to Eucharistic graces through spiritual communion:  a backward glance at a study of 1966," Pro ecclesia 17, no. 4 (Fall 2008):  388 (387-395), on the entry "Communion spirituelle," by Louis Marie Fernand de Bazelaire de Rupierre.

Pseudo-Luther?

"He is a bad tree and cannot produce good fruit; a dunghill, and can only exhale foul odors. He is so thoroughly corrupted that it is absolutely impossible for him to produce good actions. Sin is his nature; he cannot help committing it."

     Martin Luther, supposedly, though, having expended quite a bit of effort, I doubt it.  The closest we've been able to get so far is that reference to "Werke Wittenberg edition vol III page 518".  Yet that, along with the searchable Past Masters edition of the first 54 volumes of the American edition edited by Pelikan and the searchable edition of the Weimarer Ausgabe (Luthers Werke), as searched (non-exhaustively) by my colleague Robert Smith, of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, not to mention Google, the Hathi Trust Digital Library, and so forth, has so far not panned out, as I'll detail here when I get the time.

Pseudo-Luther?

     "The woman’s will, as God says, shall be subject to the man, and he shall be master (Gen. iii. 16); that is, the woman shall not live according to her free-will, as it would have been had Eve not sinned, for then she had ruled equally with Adam, the man, as his colleague.  Now, however, that she has sinned and seduced the man, she has lost the governaunce; and must neither begin nor complete anything without the man; where he is, there she must be, and bend before him as before her master, whom she shall fear, and to whom she shall be subject and obedient."

1888:  Karl Pearson, "A sketch of the sex-relations in primitive and mediæval Germany," The ethic of freethought:  a selection of essays and letters (London:  T. Fisher Unwin, 1888), 425.  A more or less hostile witness?  "This paper was written some time ago," but maybe not then published.  I have not yet found Pearson's source (if he didn't do the "translation" himself).  Note that he does not actually name Martin Luther.  Rather, he attributes these words to the "chief hero" of the Reformation, which destroyed "the cloister life".

     That's the best I've been able to do so far, as I do not have access to the database Luthers Werke.
     Meanwhile, Jeanne Powers, of the Bristol Public Library (VA/TN), wrote the editors of Luther on women:  a sourcebook (Cambridge University Press, 2003)—which, along with the Past Masters database Luther's Works, I had searched—and received from Dr. Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks, Distinguished Professor Emerita of History, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, the following comments, which I have been given permission to reproduce:

Luther said various things about women's obedience, but I can't remember anything quite like this. If the 1888 work was in English, that means it was a translation done very shortly after the Weimar edition, the authoritative German and Latin edition, began to be published. . . .  So . . . if it is a real Luther quotation, it was taken from an earlier German [or Latin] edition, or from an earlier English translation. But citation standards in 1888 were not what they are today. Finding the source is probably impossible, and it may very well be a paraphrase, or something some author wished Luther had said. 

I would advise whoever set [Jeanne Powers] on the task of finding this, that if she/he wants what Luther said about obedience, [the] better [idea] would be to go to writings that we know for sure to be Luther's. Susan's and my book of Luther's writings on women (Luther on Women: A Sourcebook) has several of them, with complete citations. These are all translations from the Weimar edition, or selections from Luther's Works, the mid-20th century U.S. edition that is generally regarded as authoritative for those who don't read German. (All the translations there were made from the Weimar.) Luther's Works has the complete treatises on marriage. And it's indexed. 

. . . my suspicion is that [the quote is] fabricated. 

. . . I've done some sleuthing on my own about Karl Pearson, as well as looked more closely at the book from which this comes. A brilliant mathematician, free-thinker, and women's right advocate, but also a eugenicist. Based on the footnotes in earlier sections of this essay, he read Luther in German and Latin, but it's not clear what edition he was using. (Or not clear from these pages.)  So this is most likely his translation, but who knows where it comes from? This essay was written at a time when German and English social scientists were postulating that there was "primitive matriarchy" (J.J.Bachofen is the most influential thinker on this; Engels picked it up from him), an idea which this essay repeats. 

I think Pearson has some good advice in the essay itself, when he says on the first page that he doesn't have time to present all the facts for what he is arguing, and that until he can he asks the reader to 'treat this paper as one of fanciful suggestion.'

     My thanks to Jeanne Powers of the Bristol Public Library (VA/TN) for the diversion.

"There is ultimately no 'non-integralist' position."

"Political philosophy may be its own science with its own principles, as scholastics like to say, but these principles rest on the often unstated conclusions of 'higher' and more fundamental sciences. Contrary to the conceits of liberals and Marxists alike, political philosophy is never really first philosophy. It presupposes natural philosophy, metaphysics, and ultimately a theology or atheology, whose assumptions will in turn inform the juridical order. In this respect, there is ultimately no 'non-integralist' position. One wearies of repeating this point to liberals who take refuge in a distinction between liberal practices and institutions and liberal ideology—a distinction that perfectly expresses liberal ideology. It is as if institutions just happened and were not the embodiment of human purposes and did not presuppose judgments about the nature and meaning of human existence. The claim that political order exists principally to protect natural rights presumes contestable metaphysical and theological assumptions which are no less operative for being denied, as critics of liberalism have shown time and again. To neglect the speculative horizon for liberalism is simply to assume the theology of the secular without argument. In the light of the Christian mystique, liberalism appears as the political form of a Christianity that has lost its faith and doesn’t even know it."

     Michael Hanby, "For and against integralism," First things no. 301 (March 2020):  47.

"I shall avoid places and persons where my presence is not needed in order not to become contaminated and thus perchance infect and pollute others, and so cause their death as a result of my negligence."

"This is said as an admonition and encouragement against fear and a disgraceful flight to which the devil would tempt us so that we would disregard God’s command in our dealings with our neighbor and so we would fall into sin on the left hand.
     "Others sin on the right hand. They are much too rash and reckless, tempting God and disregarding everything which might counteract death and the plague. They disdain the use of medicines; they do not avoid places and persons infected by the plague, but lightheartedly make sport of it and wish to prove how independent they are. They say that it is God’s punishment; if he wants to protect them he can do so without medicines or our carefulness. This is not trusting God but tempting him. God has created medicines and provided us with intelligence to guard and take good care of the body so that we can live in good health.
     "If one makes no use of intelligence or medicine when he could do so without detriment to his neighbor, such a person injures his body and must beware lest he become a suicide in God’s eyes. By the same reasoning a person might forego eating and drinking, clothing and shelter, and boldly proclaim his faith that if God wanted to preserve him from starvation and cold, he could do so without food and clothing. Actually that would be suicide. It is even more shameful for a person to pay no heed to his own body and to fail to protect it against the plague the best he is able, and then to infect and poison others who might have remained alive if he had taken care of his body as he should have. He is thus responsible before God for his neighbor’s death and is a murderer many times over. Indeed, such people behave as though a house were burning in the city and nobody were trying to put the fire out. Instead they give leeway to the flames so that the whole city is consumed, saying that if God so willed, he could save the city without water to quench the fire.
     "No, my dear friends, that is no good. Use medicine; take potions which can help you; fumigate house, yard, and street; shun persons and places wherever your neighbor does not need your presence or has recovered, and act like a man who wants to help put out the burning city. What else is the epidemic but a fire which instead of consuming wood and straw devours life and body? You ought to think this way: 'Very well, by God’s decree the enemy has sent us poison and deadly offal. Therefore I shall ask God mercifully to protect us. Then I shall fumigate, help purify the air, administer medicine, and take it. I shall avoid places and persons where my presence is not needed in order not to become contaminated and thus perchance infect and pollute others, and so cause their death as a result of my negligence. If God should wish to take me, he will surely find me and I have done what he has expected of me and so I am not responsible for either my own death or the death of others. If my neighbor needs me, however, I shall not avoid place or person but will go freely,' as stated above. See, this is such a God-fearing faith because it is neither brash nor foolhardy and does not tempt God."

     Martin Luther, "Whether one may flee from a deadly plague" (Open letter to John Hess, November 1527), trans. Carl J. Schindler, LW 43, Devotional writings II (Philadelphia:  Fortress Press, 1968), 131-132.  Cf. LCC 18, Luther:  Letters of spiritual counsel, trans. Theodore J. Tappert (Philadelphia:  The Westminster Press, 1955), 241-242.  =WA 23, 363-367 (Drucke).  p. 132:

If the people in a city were to show themselves bold in their faith when a neighbor’s need so demands, and cautious when no emergency exists, and if everyone would help ward off contagion as best he can, then the death toll would indeed be moderate. But if some are too panicky and desert their neighbors in their plight, and if some are so foolish as not to take precautions but aggravate the contagion, then the devil has a heyday and many will die.

Dr. Larry Chapp on Dorothy Day

"many of [the many Catholic Worker houses and farms still in existence] really no longer identify as Catholic in any meaningful way. They continue to invoke the legacy of Dorothy, but in a very theologically attenuated form. Her work for 'social justice' is viewed as something separate from her unfortunate Catholicism, which is precisely why I eschew the use of the term 'social justice' as a descriptor for her life and work, since it is now a term that has been co-opted by secularized Leftists and used as code for an antinomian individualism, especially in matters of human sexuality.
     "As a Catholic Worker I encounter other Catholic Workers from time to time and inevitably the topic of Day’s Catholicism comes up in conversation. And more often than not, the morally and theologically conservative nature of her Catholicism is dismissed as merely the result of her inculturation into the form of Catholicism that was dominant at that time. 'But,' so the narrative continues, 'if she were alive today she would be more liberal and progressive in her theology.' Thus does her Catholicism get mentioned but only to the extent that it can be quickly domesticated through careful transposition into the safe bromides of modern Leftist piety. But Dorothy Day is in good company on that score since they make the same domesticating move with regard to Christ himself."

     Larry Chapp, reviewing Terrence C. Wright, Dorothy Day:  an introduction to her life and thought (San Francisco:  Ignatius Press, 2018), Catholic World Report, 17 March 2020.