Deluding Themselves
Unto the Grave
Revolutionaries live in a
world of their own creation. Posing themselves as the secular saviors
of the world, revolutionaries claim to possess a “vision”
and a “plan” to improve the lot of man here on earth. When
their plans, usually conceived and implemented and maintained in blood
at by the brute force of the state once power has been seized, fail
to improve the lot of man here on earth, then the revolutionaries simply
say that the lot of man has indeed improved. Things are better because
they say they have made them better by their revolutionary schemes and
programs. And anyone who dares to state that reality is otherwise must
be dismissed by the use of slogans, disinformation, or summarily wiped
off the face of the earth by means of execution. The history of the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was replete with examples of this.
The Red Chinese continue to do so in our own day, as does Fidel Castro
in the political prison known as Cuba.
Indeed, the Soviet leadership assembled every year atop the Kremlin
Wall on May Day to review the troops and to assure the enslaved masses
that their appartchiks were in control of the plan to further the revolution.
In 1973, shortly after the Pepsi Cola company had received a contract
from the Soviet regime to sell its product within the fifteen republics
of the Soviet Union, an advertisement appeared on the back page of Section
1 of The New York Times that contained a photograph of the aging Soviet
leadership atop the Kremlin Wall. The advertisement simply read: The
Pepsi Generation. Many Westerners then deluded themselves into thinking
that “capitalism” would undermine the Soviet economy, just
as many Westerners now delude themselves into thinking that “capitalism”
is democratizing Red China. Even though the Soviet Union is no longer
and formal Bolshevism is no longer the governing ideology, the Russian
Federated Republic and many of the formal republics of the Soviet Union
are indeed run in pretty much the same manner as they were before the
end of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991. After all, who is Vladmir
Putin? The former head of the KGB, that’s all. Oh, yes, both communist
revolutionaries and their capitalist enablers have shown an infinite
capacity for deluding themselves to the grave.
Sadly, though, the revolutionaries who unleashed an unprecedented wave
of novelty in the Church over forty years ago continue to issue statements
congratulating themselves for how well their novelties have worked to
improve the Church Militant here on earth. We have seen this repeatedly
with respect to statements made about the wonderful “enrichment”
that has been enjoyed by the “People of God” as a result
of the Novus Ordo Missae. We have seen this repeatedly with respect
to statements made about the “fruits” of ecumenism. We have
seen this repeatedly with respect to one theological and liturgical
novelty after another. Never mind that these statements fly in the face
of all empirical evidence to the contrary and are made to justify novelties
that have undermined the Holy Faith. No, the statements just keep coming.
The latest involves statements rom Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect
of the Congregation for the Clergy, and His Holiness, Pope John Paul
II. A Zenit report of February 4, 2004, contained the following reflection
from Cardinal Ratzinger:
“ ‘In the 19th century, in fact, the opinion had spread
that religion belonged to the subjective and private sphere, and that
it should limit its influence to these realms," he writes. "Precisely
because religion was relegated to the subjective sphere, it could not
be presented as the determinant force for the great course of history.
Once the working sessions of the Council ended, it had to be made clear
again that the Christian faith encompasses the whole of existence, it
is the central pivot of history and time, and is not destined to limit
its realm of influence’ to the subjective, the cardinal adds.
He continues: ‘Christianity tried -- at least from the point of
view of the Catholic Church -- to come out of the ghetto in which it
was enclosed since the 19th century, and to be fully involved again
in the world.’”
The Holy Father, as if to underscore Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments,
called on February 23, 2004, for there to be an “adequate separation
of Church and State. Again, to Zenit:
“John Paul II advocated an adequate separation of church and state
so that citizens, regardless of their religion, can make their contribution
to society.
“The
Pope explained this on Saturday in his address to Osman Durak, Turkey's
new ambassador to the Holy See, when the envoy presented his credentials.
“The Holy Father began by saying that ‘the rule of law and
equality of rights are essential traits for any modern society that
truly seeks to safeguard and promote the common good.’
“ ‘In
fulfilling this task, the clear distinction between the civil and religious
spheres allows each of these sectors to exercise its proper responsibilities
effectively, with mutual respect and in complete freedom of conscience,’
he explained.
“ ‘In a pluralistic society the secularity of the state
allows for communication between the different spiritual dimensions
and the nation,’ the Pope added. ‘The church and the state,
therefore, are not rivals but partners: In healthy dialogue with each
other they can encourage integral human development and social harmony.’”
Here we go again. The entire pre-1958 patrimony of the Church concerning
the nature of her relationship with the state is being flushed down
the memory hole. The secular state, one of the principal evils of modernity,
is hailed by the Vicar of Christ as a protection of religious freedom
and
freedom of conscience.
As Cardinal Ratiznger’s comments came first chronologically, they
will be dealt with first in this article.
The quotes of Cardinal
Ratzinger taken from the Zenit report prove that he is trying to imply,
however obscurely, that the popes of the past had kept Catholics in
a ghetto by forcing an unnecessary confrontation with the currents of
the modern world. This absurd premise ignores entirely, perhaps deliberately,
the root source of the problems of modernity: Protestantism. The fact
that many that Catholics succumbed to the ethos of secularism and materialism
and various political ideologies in the Nineteenth Century is attributable
as one of the long-term manifestations of the evil effects of the overthrow
of the Social Reign of Christ King begun by Martin Luther, expedited
by Freemasonry and their various anti-Catholic allies, and brought to
a conclusion by the work of the American and French Revolutionaries
and their successors throughout the world. The popes of the past, unlike
our more recent pontiffs, saw it as their duty to confront error with
the fullness of Divine Revelation. Not so churchmen like Cardinal Ratzinger
and Pope John Paul II.
Father Denis
Fahey covered the problems of modernity so very well in his The
Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World. Father Fahey quotes
Luther as saying: “Assuredly, a prince may be a Christian, but
it is not as Christian that he ought to rule.” This is a complete
and total contradiction of the concept of civil governance that characterized,
although never perfectly and never without problems and conflicts, much
of the Middle Ages. Civil rulers, such as St. Louis IX, King of France,
understood that they had been chosen in God’s Providence to exercise
governing authority over their subjects. St. Louis IX, for example,
understood that he could lose his soul if he did not administer justice
according to the mind of Christ Himself and did not recognize that his
own civil authority could be circumscribed by the Church herself in
the exercise of her duties to enforce the Social Reign of Christ the
King. Luther rejected all of that. As Father Fahey relates:
"The organization of the Europe of the thirteenth century furnishes
us with one concrete realization of the Divine Plan. It is hardly necessary
to add that there were then to be seen defects in the working of the
Divine Plan, due to the character of fallen man, as well as to an imperfect
mastery of physical nature. Yet, withal, the formal principle of ordered
social organization in the world, the supremacy of the Mystical Body,
was grasped and, in the main, accepted. The Lutheran revolt, prepared
by the cult of pagan antiquity at the Renaissance, and by the favour
enjoyed by the Nominalist philosophical theories, led to the rupture
of that order."
Although Christendom was not without its faults, it differed from modernity
in three essential respects: first, there was, as has been noted, a
recognition of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ as exercised by Holy
Mother Church. Second, the average person understood who he was in light
of the Incarnation and the Redemption, being ever conscious to live
in the shadow of the Cross. Third, as a result of the first two, the
average person knew that the problems of the world were caused by Original
and actual sins, and are thus ameliorated only by the daily conversion
of souls in cooperate with the grace they received in the sacraments
administered by Holy Mother Church. Martin Luther was to reject all
of this, causing consequences he did not foresee but for which he is
nevertheless responsible.
Father Fahey:
"The
great cardinal principle of Protestantism is that every man attains
salvation by entering into an immediate relation with Christ, with the
aid of that interior faith by which he believes that, though his sins
persist, they are no longer imputed to him, thanks to the merits of
our Lord Jesus Christ. All men are thus priests for themselves and carry
out the work of their justification by treating directly and individually
with God. The Life of Grace, being nothing else than the external favour
of God, remains outside of us and we continue, in fact, in spite of
Lutheran faith in Christ, corrupt and sinful. Each human being enters
into an isolated relation with our Lord, and there is no transforming
life all are called to share. Luther never understood the meaning of
faith informed by sanctifying grace and charity. Accordingly, the one
visible Church and the Mystical Body is done away with, as well as the
priesthood and the sacrifice of the Mystical Body, the Holy Sacrifice
of the Mass. The only purpose of preaching and such ceremonies were
retained by Protestants was to stir up the individual's faith."
As influential as Niccolo Machiavelli was becoming among many European
leaders in the early Sixteenth Century, his amorality could not have
triumphed had it not been for the Protestant Revolt. Many princes of
what were then the independent German kingdoms and of Scandinavia and
the Low Countries embraced Lutheranism precisely because it enabled
them to be free of the "yoke" of the Roman pontiffs. They
could be free to rule as they wanted without having to fear a public
reprimand from a national primate or from the Sovereign Pontiff himself.
This is what would lead to the rise of absolutism and the modern totalitarian
state, populated as it is by all manner of professional criminals known
as careerist politicians.
The Lutheran Revolt against the visible, hierarchical church is nothing
other than an exercise in religious anarchism. In essence, Luther was
saying that a Christian does not need a visible authority to direct
him in his path to Heaven, which is assured to begin with by his individual
profession of faith in Jesus Christ as his personal savior. As the religious
indifferentism engendered by the different sects that developed in the
Protestant world within a century of 1517 had its own internal logic
of decay, it would only be a matter of time that the religious anarchism
of Martin Luther would lead to a social anarchism that rejected entirely
any concept of religion in popular culture and national life, no less
admitting that there could be a true Faith to bind all peoples in all
circumstances at all times until the end of the world. Lutheranism leads
by its own warped illogic and internal contradictions to statism.
Father Fahey:
"Hence
the True Church of Christ, according to the Protestant view, is noting
else than the assembly of those who, on account of the confidence interiorly
conceived of the remission of their sins, have the justice of God imputed
to them by God and are accordingly predestined to eternal life. And
this Church, known to God alone, is the unique Church of the promises
of indefectibility, to which our Lord Jesus Christ promised His assistance
to the consummation of the world. Since, however, true believers, instructed
by the Holy Ghost, can manifest their faith exteriorly, can communicate
their impressions and feelings to other and may employ the symbols of
the Sacraments to stir up their faith, they give rise to a visible church
which, nevertheless, is not the Church instituted by Christ. Membership
of this Church is not necessary for salvation, and it may assume different
forms according to different circumstances. The true invisible Church
of Christ is always hidden, unseen in the multitude.
"Protestantism, therefore, substituted for the corporate organization
of society, imbued with the spirit of the Mystical Body and reconciling
the claims of personality and individuality in man, a merely isolated
relation with our Divine Lord. This revolt of human individual against
order on the supernatural level, this uprise of individualism, with
its inevitable chaotic self-seeking, had dire consequences both in regard
to ecclesiastical organization and in the realms of politics and economics.
Let us take these in turn.
"The
tide of revolt which broke away from the Catholic Church had the immediate
effect of increasing the power of princes and rulers in Protestant countries.
The Anabaptists and the peasants in Germany protested in the name of
'evangelical liberty,' but they were crushed. We behold the uprise of
national churches, each of which organizes its own particular form of
religion, mixture of supernatural and natural elements, as a department
of State. The orthodox Church in Russia was also a department of State
and as such exposed to the same evils. National life was thus withdrawn
from ordered subjection to the Divine Plan and the distinction laid
down by our Divine Lord Himself, between the things that are God's and
the things that are Caesar's, utterly abolished. Given the principle
of private judgment or of individual relation with Christ, it was inevitable
that the right of every individual to arrange his own form of religion
should cause the pendulum to swing from a Caesarinism supreme in Church
and State to other concrete expressions of 'evangelical liberty.' One
current leads to the direction of indefinite multiplication of sects.
Pushed to its ultimate conclusion, this would, this would give rise
to as many churches as there are individuals, that is, there would not
be any church at all. As this is too opposed to man's social nature,
small groups tend to coalesce. The second current tends to the creation
of what may be termed broad or multitudinist churches. The exigencies
of the national churches are attenuated until they are no longer a burden
to anybody. The Church of England is an example of this. As decay in
the belief of the Divinity of Jesus continues to increase, the tendency
will be to model church organization according to the political theories
in favour at the moment. The democratic form of society will be extolled
and a 'Reunion of Christendom,' for example, will be aimed at, along
the lines of the League of Nations. An increasing number of poor bewildered
units will, of course, cease to bother about any ecclesiastical organization
at all."
The destruction of the order intended by Our Lord in His Mystical Body,
the Church, not only gave rise to the triumph of statism over time.
It also paved the way for Freemasonry, formed exactly two hundred years
after Martin Luther posted his ninety-five theses to the church door
in Wittenberg, to start the process of the deification of man, an essential
ingredient of the man-centered State.
Father Fahey:
"One
consequence of the doctrine of private judgment must here be expressed,
as it is of special importance for the explanation of the spread of
Masonry. This theory attuned men's minds to the deification of man,
which is, the doctrine underlying Masonic symbolism. . . . The autonomous
man, who decides on his own authority what he will accept of the Gospel
God Himself came to deliver to us, is already well on the way to self-deification.
"The first [political] result was an enormous increase in the power
of the Temporal Rulers, in fact a rebirth of the pagan regime of Imperial
Rome. The Spiritual Kingship of Christ, participated in by the Pope
and the Bishops of the Catholic Church being no longer acknowledged,
authority over spiritual affairs passed to Temporal Rulers. They were
thus, in Protestant countries, supposed to share not only in His Temporal
Kingship of Christ the King, but also in His spiritual Kingship. As
there was no Infallible Guardian of order above the Temporal Rulers,
the way was paved for the abuses of State Absolutism. The Protestant
oligarchy who ruled England with undisputed sway, from Charles the Second's
time on, and who treated Ireland to the Penal Laws, may be cited, along
with that cynical scoundrel, Frederick of Prussia, as typical examples
of such rulers. Catholic monarchs, like Louis XIV of France and Joseph
II of Austria, by their absolutist tendencies and pretensions to govern
the Catholic Church show the influence of the neighboring Protestant
countries. Gallicanism and Josephism are merely a revival of Roman paganism."
Indeed. As I have noted on many occasions, it is likely that the conditions
that bred the American Revolution might never have existed if King Henry
VIII had not broken from Rome. The rise of absolutism in England is
the result of the English Revolt, which is also, obviously, responsible
for many of the economic problems in the world. The modern State - and
its influence upon Catholics of the left and the right - is thus born,
so corrupting the State that a lot of well-meaning people believe it
is beyond repair.
Religious indifferentism was one of the chief consequences of the Protestant
Revolt. If no one is the Pope, then everyone is the Pope. It is a short
step from there to assert that religion itself is but a mere matter
of opinion, and that it is actually best for a State to be neutral with
respect to all matters pertaining to private belief. This is cited even
by Catholic apologists for the Constitution of the United States as
one of this country's principal strengths. After all, these apologists
contend, it is impossible to roll back the clock to the Middle Ages.
This country was founded in the framework of religious and cultural
pluralism. The Constitution provides an opportunity for all ideas to
flourish in the marketplace of ideas, giving flesh to James Madison's
expectations in The Federalist (Numbers Ten and Fifty-one)
that there would be no one "opinion" to unite men of disparate
backgrounds.
Thus, the Constitution is exalted for its ability to force competing
opinions to debate with one another in the policy making process, providing
the possibility, although not a guarantee, of preventing the tyranny
of the majority. As the late Dr. Martin Diamond and Dr. Daniel Elazar
noted in their careers, the complexity of the Constitution is designed
to permit all "opinions" a chance to be heard in the policy-making
process. No one is guaranteed to have their way in that process; he
is only guaranteed a say in it. Such an effort is premised upon the
belief the Incarnation and the Redemptive Act of the God-Man on the
wood of the Holy Cross can be ignored in the context of the foundation
and operation of the State. The modern democratic republic, founded
in the acceptance and promotion of religious indifferentism and cultural
pluralism, has proven itself to be deleterious to even the private beliefs
of Catholics concerning the infallible nature of Revealed Truth. After
all, if everything is negotiable in the public realm, then why can't
matters of "Church teaching" be open to discussion and debate,
which is precisely the situation that Catholics found themselves faced
with in this country in the late Nineteenth Century, and precisely why
Pope Leo XIII warned about the effects of an culture hostile to the
Faith on Catholics in Testem Benevolentiae on January 22, 1899.
Thus Cardinal Ratzinger fails to identify the root cause of the problems
that the popes of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries
wrote to correct. He implies that their efforts “ghettoized’‘
Catholics. This is a common affliction of revolutionaries, men who want
to claim for themselves an undeserved credit for remedying problems
that actually have gotten worse under their watch. Cardinal Ratzinger
recklessly implies that Vatican II was the first to involve Catholics
with the world, which rejects the notion that the popes of the past
sought to involve Catholics in the world as Catholics in order to convert
the world. By claiming undeserved credit for Vatican II, which actually
enshrines the errors of modernity, Cardinal Ratzinger pours down the
Orwellian memory hole the work of the popes of the late Nineteenth and
early Twentieth centuries that sought to meet the de-Catholicization
of the world head on by insisting on the reunion of Church and State
in the happy concord that existed in the Middle Ages.
Pope John
Paul II’s own comments are completely–and I mean completely–at
odds with Pope Leo XIII’s Immortale Dei. It was in that
encyclical letter on the Christian Constitution of States, issued by
Pope Leo in 1885, that we find a clear and cogent summary of the authentic
patrimony of the Church’s teaching about her relationship with
the state. Pope Leo XIII noted that the problems of modernity had their
source in the pagan aspects of the Renaissance and in the Protestant
Revolt. He contrasted the Middle Ages with the false foundations of
modernity and described modernity’s disastrous consequences:
“There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy
of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian
wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals
of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society.
Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly
in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favor of princes
and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were
happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices.
The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all
expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown,
witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted
out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies. Christian Europe has
subdued barbarous nations, and changed them from a savage to a civilized
condition, from superstition to true worship. It victoriously rolled
back the tide of Mohammedan conquest; retained the headship of civilization;
stood forth in the front rank as the leader and teacher of all, in every
branch of national culture; bestowed on the world the gift of true and
many-sided liberty; and most wisely founded very numerous institutions
for the solace of human suffering. And if we inquire how it was able
to bring about so altered a condition of things, the answer is -- beyond
all question, in large measure, through religion, under whose auspices
so many great undertakings were set on foot, through whose aid they
were brought to completion.
“A similar state of things would certainly have continued had
the agreement of the two powers been lasting. More important results
even might have been justly looked for, had obedience waited upon the
authority, teaching, and counsels of the Church, and had this submission
been specially marked by greater and more unswerving loyalty. For that
should be regarded in the light of an ever-changeless law which Ivo
of Chartres wrote to Pope Paschal II: ‘When kingdom and priesthood
are at one, in complete accord, the world is well ruled, and the Church
flourishes, and brings forth abundant fruit. But when they are at variance,
not only smaller interests prosper not, but even things of greatest
moment fall into deplorable decay.’
“But
that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused
in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian
religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy,
whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as
from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled
license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century,
were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation
of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown,
but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but
even the natural law.
“Amongst these principles the main one lays down that as all men
are alike by race and nature, so in like manner all are equal in the
control of their life; that each one is so far his own master as to
be in no sense under the rule of any other individual; that each is
free to think on every subject just as he may choose, and to do whatever
he may like to do; that no man has any right to rule over other men.
In a society grounded upon such maxims all government is nothing more
nor less than the will of the people, and the people, being under the
power of itself alone, is alone its own ruler. It does choose, nevertheless,
some to whose charge it may commit itself, but in such wise that it
makes over to them not the right so much as the business of governing,
to be exercised, however, in its name.
“The authority of God is passed over in silence, just as if there
were no God; or as if He cared nothing for human society; or as if men,
whether in their individual capacity or bound together in social relations,
owed nothing to God; or as if there could be a government of which the
whole origin and power and authority did not reside in God Himself.
Thus, as is evident, a State becomes nothing but a multitude which is
its own master and ruler. And since the people is declared to contain
within itself the spring-head of all rights and of all power, it follows
that the State does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty toward
God. Moreover. it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession
of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the
only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show
to any form of religion special favor; but, on the contrary, is bound
to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be
disturbed by any particular form of religious belief.
And it is
a part of this theory that all questions that concern religion are to
be referred to private judgment; that every one is to be free to follow
whatever religion he prefers, or none at all if he disapprove of all.
From this the following consequences logically flow: that the judgment
of each one's conscience is independent of all law; that the most unrestrained
opinions may be openly expressed as to the practice or omission of divine
worship; and that every one has unbounded license to think whatever
he chooses and to publish abroad whatever he thinks.
“ Now, when the State rests on foundations like those just named
-- and for the time being they are greatly in favor -- it readily appears
into what and how unrightful a position the Church is driven. For, when
the management of public business is in harmony with doctrines of such
a kind, the Catholic religion is allowed a standing in civil society
equal only, or inferior, to societies alien from it; no regard is paid
to the laws of the Church, and she who, by the order and commission
of Jesus Christ, has the duty of teaching all nations, finds herself
forbidden to take any part in the instruction of the people. With reference
to matters that are of twofold jurisdiction, they who administer the
civil power lay down the law at their own will, and in matters that
appertain to religion defiantly put aside the most sacred decrees of
the Church. They claim jurisdiction over the marriages of Catholics,
even over the bond as well as the unity and the indissolubility of matrimony.
They lay hands on the goods of the clergy, contending that the Church
cannot possess property. Lastly, they treat the Church with such arrogance
that, rejecting entirely her title to the nature and rights of a perfect
society, they hold that she differs in no respect from other societies
in the State, and for this reason possesses no right nor any legal power
of action, save that which she holds by the concession and favor of
the government. If in any State the Church retains her own agreement
publicly entered into by the two powers, men forthwith begin to cry
out that matters affecting the Church must be separated from those of
the State.”
Pope Leo XIII
went on to decry religious indifferentism as one of the linchpins of
the modern state:
"To hold,
therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between
forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most
clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory
and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may
differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God
must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd
conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving
dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all
be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.”
Do Pope John
Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger agree or disagree with Pope Leo XIII?
Or, as is demonstrated by the authors of the General Instruction
to the Roman Missal in their arrogant dismissal of the Council
of Trent as having been a “captive” of the controversies
of its day, do they believe “we are beyond” Pope Leo’s
insights now?
One final
passage from Immortale Dei shows how clearly Pope Leo XIII
saw the dangers posed to the souls of individual Catholics and to the
common good in society posed by the modern state:
“So,
too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one
likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which
society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head
and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence
should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of
goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one
and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the
mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after
what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must
fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever,
therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought
temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor
and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven,
whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against
the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion
and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the
practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from
life, from laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society
is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished
can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable
is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy
of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher
of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity
the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent
reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked
deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to
reason, even though they be not carried out in action.”
To exclude
the Church founded by Our Lord from the organic documents and civil
life of any government is a “grave and fatal error.” This
statement is either true or false. What do the Holy Father and Cardinal
Ratzinger believe?
Pope Leo XIII exhorted Catholics to defend the Faith in public life
in Sapientiae Christianae, issued in 1890:
“The
chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly
the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power.
For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so
hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it
possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error.
So soon as Catholic truth is apprehended by a simple and unprejudiced
soul, reason yields assent. Now, faith, as a virtue, is a great boon
of divine grace and goodness; nevertheless, the objects themselves to
which faith is to be applied are scarcely known in any other way than
through the hearing. ‘How shall they believe Him of whom they
have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? Faith then
cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.’ Since,
then, faith is necessary for salvation, it follows that the word of
Christ must be preached. The office, indeed, of preaching, that is,
of teaching, lies by divine right in the province of the pastors, namely,
of the bishops whom ‘the Holy Spirit has placed to rule the Church
of God.' It belongs, above all, to the Roman Pontiff, vicar of Jesus
Christ, established as head of the universal Church, teacher of all
that pertains to morals and faith.
“No one, however, must entertain the notion that private individuals
are prevented from taking some active part in this duty of teaching,
especially those on whom God has bestowed gifts of mind with the strong
wish of rendering themselves useful. These, so often as circumstances
demand, may take upon themselves, not, indeed, the office of the pastor,
but the task of communicating to others what they have themselves received,
becoming, as it were, living echoes of their masters in the faith. Such
co-operation on the part of the laity has seemed to the Fathers of the
Vatican Council so opportune and fruitful of good that they thought
well to invite it. ‘All faithful Christians, but those chiefly
who are in a prominent position, or engaged in teaching, we entreat,
by the compassion of Jesus Christ, and enjoin by the authority of the
same God and Savior, that they bring aid to ward off and eliminate these
errors from holy Church, and contribute their zealous help in spreading
abroad the light of undefiled faith.’ Let each one, therefore,
bear in mind that he both can and should, so far as may be, preach the
Catholic faith by the authority of his example, and by open and constant
profession of the obligations it imposes. In respect, consequently,
to the duties that bind us to God and the Church, it should be borne
earnestly in mind that in propagating Christian truth and warding off
errors the zeal of the laity should, as far as possible, be brought
actively into play.”
How can Cardinal
Ratzinger say with a straight face that the Second Vatican Council,
which made accommodations with the spirit of the world, spoke to Catholics
with the authority and directness of Pope Leo XIII in Sapientiae
Christianae? How can the Holy Father ignore totally the patrimony
of his pre-1958 predecessors?
As Pope Leo
XIII neared the end of his pontificate, he wrote an encyclical letter,
Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, on the importance of Our Lord
to all men in all nations:
“As with individuals, so with nations. These, too, must necessarily
tend to ruin if they go astray from "The Way." The Son of
God, the Creator and Redeemer of mankind, is King and Lord of the earth,
and holds supreme dominion over men, both individually and collectively.
‘And He gave Him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples,
tribes, and tongues shall serve Him’ (Daniel vii., 14). ‘I
am appointed King by Him . . . I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession’
(Psalm ii., 6, 8). Therefore the law of Christ ought to prevail in human
society and be the guide and teacher of public as well as of private
life. Since this is so by divine decree, and no man may with impunity
contravene it, it is an evil thing for the common weal wherever Christianity
does not hold the place that belongs to it. When Jesus Christ is absent,
human reason fails, being bereft of its chief protection and light,
and the very end is lost sight of, for which, under God's providence,
human society has been built up. This end is the obtaining by the members
of society of natural good through the aid of civil unity, though always
in harmony with the perfect and eternal good which is above nature.
But when men's minds are clouded, both rulers and ruled go astray, for
they have no safe line to follow nor end to aim at.”
Pope Saint
Pius X noted the Modernist tendency to reject the past and to embrace
novelty out of both pride and curiosity in Pascendi Domenici Gregis,
issued on September 8, 1907:
“The error of Protestantism made the first step on this path;
that of Modernism makes the second; atheism makes the next. To penetrate
still deeper into the meaning of Modernism and to find a suitable remedy
for so deep a sore, it behooves Us, Venerable Brethren, to investigate
the causes which have engendered it and which foster its growth. That
the proximate and immediate cause consists in an error of the mind cannot
be open to doubt. We recognize that the remote causes may be reduced
to two: curiosity and pride. Curiosity by itself, if not prudently regulated,
suffices to account for all errors. Such is the opinion of Our predecessor,
Gregory XVI, who wrote: ‘A lamentable spectacle is that presented
by the aberrations of human reason when it yields to the spirit of novelty,
when against the warning of the Apostle it seeks to know beyond what
it is meant to know, and when relying too much on itself it thinks it
can find the truth outside the Catholic Church wherein truth is found
without the slightest shadow of error.’
"But
it is pride which exercises an incomparably greater sway over the soul
to blind it and lead it into error, and pride sits in Modernism as in
its own house, finding sustenance everywhere in its doctrines and lurking
in its every aspect. It is pride which fills Modernists with that self-assurance
by which they consider themselves and pose as the rule for all. It is
pride which puffs them up with that vainglory which allows them to regard
themselves as the sole possessors of knowledge, and makes them say,
elated and inflated with presumption, ‘We are not as the rest
of men,’ and which, lest they should seem as other men, leads
them to embrace and to devise novelties even of the most absurd kind.
It is pride which rouses in them the spirit of disobedience and causes
them to demand a compromise between authority and liberty. It is owing
to their pride that they seek to be the reformers of others while they
forget to reform themselves, and that they are found to be utterly wanting
in respect for authority, even for the supreme authority. Truly there
is no road which leads so directly and so quickly to Modernism as pride.
When a Catholic layman or a priest forgets the precept of the Christian
life which obliges us to renounce ourselves if we would follow Christ
and neglects to tear pride from his heart, then it is he who most of
all is a fully ripe subject for the errors of Modernism. For this reason,
Venerable Brethren, it will be your first duty to resist such victims
of pride, to employ them only in the lowest and obscurest offices. The
higher they try to rise, the lower let them be placed, so that the lowliness
of their position may limit their power of causing damage. Examine most
carefully your young clerics by yourselves and by the directors of your
seminaries, and when you find the spirit of pride among them reject
them without compunction from the priesthood. Would to God that this
had always been done with the vigilance and constancy which were required!”
Pope Saint
Pius X also denounced the Modernist view of the separation of Church
and State, describe with exquisite accuracy the effect this has upon
the Catholic as a citizen:
“Formerly it was possible to subordinate the temporal to the spiritual
and to speak of some questions as mixed, conceding to the Church the
position of queen and mistress in all such, because the Church was then
regarded as having been instituted immediately by God as the author
of the supernatural order. But this doctrine is today repudiated alike
by philosophers and historians. The state must, therefore, be separated
from the Church, and the Catholic from the citizen. Every Catholic,
from the fact that he is also a citizen, has the right and the duty
to work for the common good in the way he thinks best, without troubling
himself about the authority of the Church, without paying any heed to
its wishes, its counsels, its orders -- nay, even in spite of its rebukes.
For the Church to trace out and prescribe for the citizen any line of
action, on any pretext whatsoever, is to be guilty of an abuse of authority,
against which one is bound to protest with all one's might. Venerable
Brethren, the principles from which these doctrines spring have been
solemnly condemned by Our predecessor, Pius VI, in his Apostolic
Constitution Auctorem fidei.”
Pope Pius XI was unstinting in his scathing, almost mocking, criticism
of the inability of secular politics and secular world bodies to resolve
the problems within nations and among nations. In his first encyclical
letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, issued in 1922, he stated:
"All
nations, great and small, suffer acutely from the sad effects of the
late War. Neither can those nations which were neutral contend that
they have escaped altogether the tremendous sufferings of the War or
failed to experience its evil results almost equally with the actual
belligerents. These evil results grow in volume from day to day because
of the utter impossibility of finding anything like a safe remedy to
cure the ills of society, and this in spite of all the efforts of politicians
and statesmen whose work has come to naught if it has not unfortunately
tended to aggravate the very evils they tried to overcome. Conditions
have become increasingly worse because the fears of the people are being
constantly played upon by the ever-present menace of new wars, likely
to be more frightful and destructive than any which have preceded them.
Whence it is that the nations of today live in a state of armed peace
which is scarcely better than war itself, a condition which tends to
exhaust national finances, to waste the flower of youth, to muddy and
poison the very fountainheads of life, physical, intellectual, religious,
and moral.”
Do these conditions sound familiar? Judge for yourself. Pope Pius XI
went on to state that all secular efforts to secure peace in the world
are bound always to fail completely:
“Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for
to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and
the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring
about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ,
but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly
to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible
of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given
by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only
our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform
to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the
acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much
greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the
individual.
“When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their
activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates
of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus
Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only
can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution
of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences
in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction
has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost
negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect
those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations
one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as
successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in
harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession
of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that
in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed
as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations,
and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the
safe road. “There exists an institution able to safeguard the
sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every
nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the
highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles.
Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to
do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead
mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution
which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great
prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased
since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where
others assuredly will fail.
“It is apparent from these considerations that true peace, the
peace of Christ, is impossible unless we are willing and ready to accept
the fundamental principles of Christianity, unless we are willing to
observe the teachings and obey the law of Christ, both in public and
private life. If this were done, then society being placed at last on
a sound foundation, the Church would be able, in the exercise of its
divinely given ministry and by means of the teaching authority which
results therefrom, to protect all the rights of God over men and nations.”
Finally, Pope
Pius XI issued Quas Primas, which instituted the Feast of Universal
Kingship of Jesus Christ. Written in 1925, Quas Primas is a
direct rejoinder to Dignitatis Humanae. Quas Primas
is nothing other than a call for Catholics to hold up the banner of
Christ the King and to work zealously for the restoration of his social
kingship over men and their nations. So much for Cardinal Ratzinger’s
implying that nothing had been done prior to the Second Vatican Council.
To Pope Pius XI:
"The
empire of Christ over all nations was rejected. The right which the
Church has from Christ himself, to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern
peoples in all that pertains to their eternal salvation, that right
was denied. Then gradually the religion of Christ came to be likened
to false religions and to be placed ignominiously on the same level
with them. It was then put under the power of the state and tolerated
more or less at the whim of princes and rulers. Some men went even further,
and wished to set up in the place of God's religion a natural religion
consisting in some instinctive affection of the heart. There were even
some nations who thought they could dispense with God, and that their
religion should consist in impiety and the neglect of God. The rebellion
of individuals and states against the authority of Christ has produced
deplorable consequences. We lamented these in the Encyclical Ubi arcano;
we lament them today: the seeds of discord sown far and wide; those
bitter enmities and rivalries between nations, which still hinder so
much the cause of peace; that insatiable greed which is so often hidden
under a pretense of public spirit and patriotism, and gives rise to
so many private quarrels; a blind and immoderate selfishness, making
men seek nothing but their own comfort and advantage, and measure everything
by these; no peace in the home, because men have forgotten or neglect
their duty; the unity and stability of the family undermined; society
in a word, shaken to its foundations and on the way to ruin. We firmly
hope, however, that the feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future
will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving
Savior. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring
about this happy result. Many of these, however, have neither the station
in society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the
torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a
certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to engage
in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of the
Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were generally
to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under
the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they
would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter
and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights.
"Moreover,
the annual and universal celebration of the feast of the Kingship of
Christ will draw attention to the evils which anticlericalism has brought
upon society in drawing men away from Christ, and will also do much
to remedy them. While nations insult the beloved name of our Redeemer
by suppressing all mention of it in their conferences and parliaments,
we must all the more loudly proclaim his kingly dignity and power, all
the more universally affirm his rights. . . .
“Nations will be reminded by the annual celebration of this feast
that not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound
to give public honor and obedience to Christ. It will call to their
minds the thought of the last judgment, wherein Christ, who has been
cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most
severely avenge these insults; for his kingly dignity demands that the
State should take account of the commandments of God and of Christian
principles, both in making laws and in administering justice, and also
in providing for the young a sound moral education.
“The
faithful, moreover, by meditating upon these truths, will gain much
strength and courage, enabling them to form their lives after the true
Christian ideal. If to Christ our Lord is given all power in heaven
and on earth; if all men, purchased by his precious blood, are by a
new right subjected to his dominion; if this power embraces all men,
it must be clear that not one of our faculties is exempt from his empire.
He must reign in our minds, which should assent with perfect submission
and firm belief to revealed truths and to the doctrines of Christ. He
must reign in our wills, which should obey the laws and precepts of
God. He must reign in our hearts, which should spurn natural desires
and love God above all things, and cleave to him alone. He must reign
in our bodies and in our members, which should serve as instruments
for the interior sanctification of our souls, or to use the words of
the Apostle Paul, as instruments of justice unto God. If all these truths
are presented to the faithful for their consideration, they will prove
a powerful incentive to perfection. It is Our fervent desire, Venerable
Brethren, that those who are without the fold may seek after and accept
the sweet yoke of Christ, and that we, who by the mercy of God are of
the household of the faith, may bear that yoke, not as a burden but
with joy, with love, with devotion; that having lived our lives in accordance
with the laws of God's kingdom, we may receive full measure of good
fruit, and counted by Christ good and faithful servants, we may be rendered
partakers of eternal bliss and glory with him in his heavenly kingdom.”
No, the Second Vatican Council did not “discover” the problem
of Catholics having been coopted by the cultures in which they lived.
If anything, the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath worsened that
problem by the injection of various aspects of false cultures into the
context of the worship of God in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, thereby
making a mockery of God and His immutability. The popes of the past
did what they could to warn Catholics of the dangers they faced. No,
they did not do everything they could have. Not even Pope Pius XI consecrated
Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary after Our Lady’s words
to Sister Lucy in 1929 were made known. However, they at least recognized
the problems that existed and wanted the bishops to deal with them.
If by saying that Christianity came out of the “ghetto”
at the Second Vatican Council Cardinal Ratzinger means to imply that
the popes of the past had kept Christianity in the ghetto, then he is
guilty of a grave offense against the memory and the work of pontiffs
who sought to defend the Faith as it had been handed down to them over
the course of nearly two millennia. For by escaping from the “ghetto”
of the Nineteenth Century, the Church has been plunged into the gutters
of Modernism itself, which Pope John Paul II seems to have endorsed
quite heartily by referring to an “adequate separation of Church
and State.” There is no essential difference between the statements
of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger and the spirit of Protestantism
and Freemasonry concerning the relationship of Holy Mother Church to
the State. Indeed, the Holy Father is guilty of pridefully ignoring
the wisdom of his great and prophetic predecessors of the late Nineteenth
and early Twentieth Centuries, thus keeping the sheep of the flock entrusted
to his pastoral care unto eternity ignorant of the rights of Christ
the King and Mary our Queen.
Praying that
some Pope will actually consecrate Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate
Heart, we entrust ourselves entirely to her protection as the Ship of
Peter travels over waters made ever so much more rocky by the captain
and his crew.